The myth of evolution

[Willum]

Theists use myth an awful lot:

They have myths about talking snakes and magic DNA altering, evil bestowing fruit, and so on.

But they also use myth offensively, as in the case of evolution.

They say that since fish eggs don't hatch out men, or ape mommys don't give birth to human children, that evolution is false.

But anyone who does not need Original Sin in their playbook knows that that is not what evolution claims.

(As in write this, if they believed their myth of evolution was true, they would have to believe men and fish could interbreed or man an ape - but I digress.)

So we have what evolution is according to the REST of the world: The promotion of inheritable traits among generations

Vs

The myth of evolution, what Judaists and Christians maintain: That just about anything can evolve into anything else.

The point of discussion is, how do Judeo-Christians maintain their MYTH of evolution, in order to maintain their myth of creation (and sin)?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 28 by Eloi]

And still trying desperately to go back the original topic...
Why do so many Christians invent a myth as silly as their own: Evolution being monkeys giving birth to men, or whatever, to contrast it with magic sky wizards creating everything?

If they understood actual evolution, there would be nothing to disagree with.

Therefore, they have motive to not study evolution, yet believe generic claims like the ones you have mentioned previously (and I have heard claimed by Christians as well and heard in my own church back in the day).

They also like to call it a religion and claim it is faith based. This we have experience here just recently.

What we see most though is the myth of evolution they invent where evolution fails at explaining how life originated.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Willum]

I don't know why you don't think it fails to explain this. Once life became viable and capable of evolution, it should "explode" to fill natural niches.

Anyone that believes in evolutionary theology has to believe the above, but this is impossible.

Again Wallace,

“There is, however, a problem. Those genes that control early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so�

This is an established fact. Now if people want to wish reality is not what it is and believe in fairy tales, I cannot do anything about that everyone is free to believe how they wish. Until some mechanism is discovered how genes that can control very early development which control basic body plans are not always "extremely disadvantageous" evolution is nothing but a made up theology.

This problem is not lost on scientist who are willing to think critically about the problems of evolution.

I'm currious, can you describe a mechanism that better explains the animals we see in both the fossil record and on earth currently?

It would be super cool if your explanation was not complaining about evolution. That way we could compare your mechanism against the TOE and we can avoid any possible TOE myths being introduced.

Thanks!

[Still small]

Theists use myth an awful lot:

They say that since fish eggs don't hatch out men, or ape mommys don't give birth to human children, that evolution is false.

You make this claim in your OP and a few later posts. Can you please give me a link to a paper where this specific claim is made? Or is it just an exaggerated claim (straw man) on your part for your argument’s sake?

Have a good day!
Still small

[Willum]

[Replying to post 72 by Still small]

Of course not.
No serious Journal will publish the specious beliefs of unthinking religious people.

But if you have not encountered the phenomenon, you are being insincere.
I mean I was exposed to it in church, and rightly thought it was stupid to believe monkeys could give birth to men.

[Red Wolf]

Scientists have calculated that 95% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. If God made all the animals one has to wonder why he allowed so many creatures of his creation to go extinct? It makes no sense. But if you consider Evolution, survival of the fittest, it makes sense that species that could not adapt to world changes, were replaced by new species that were more fit to survive. Stronger species replaced unfit species in various life niches on our planet.

[Still small]

Scientists have calculated that 95% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. If God made all the animals one has to wonder why he allowed so many creatures of his creation to go extinct? It makes no sense. But if you consider Evolution, survival of the fittest, it makes sense that species that could not adapt to world changes, were replaced by new species that were more fit to survive. Stronger species replaced unfit species in various life niches on our planet.

The usual figure quoted is “99% of all species� but whether 95% or 99%, on what facts are they, the ‘scientists’, basing their calculations? As raised and queried (but not properly addressed) in the “KINDS and ADAPTATIONS� thread -
“If the current number of species is 8.7 million which supposedly constitutes only 1% of all species that have ever existed, that would require that (approx.) 861.3 million species have become extinct. What evidence do you [or the scientists to which you refer, Red Wolf] have to show that 861.3 million species ever existed? It is certainly not in the fossil record? What evidence is there of these supposed 861.3 million different species? What is the evidence for this figure? Or is it just extrapolation according to the a priori of ToE?�

Have a good day!
Still small

[Diagoras]

What evidence is there of these supposed 861.3 million different species? What is the evidence for this figure? Or is it just extrapolation according to the a priori of ToE?

The “99.9% of all species that have ever existed are extinct� claim does appear to be an extrapolation, but not one calculated exactly the same way you’ve done it.

From what I’ve found, the calculation assumes an average species lasts somewhere between 1 - 10 million years, and notes that complex life (i.e. eukarya, with a cell nucleus - not just bacteria) were flourishing by one billion years ago at the latest. Therefore, what we see alive now (assuming each species is on average one million years old) represents a tiny faction of all life that ever existed.

Remember also that the fossil record is over-represented by vertebrates and hard-shelled marine animals, and that by far the greatest number of species are insects (approx. 80%), which don’t fossilise well at all. Neither do soft-bodied creatures such as worms and jellyfish.