Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evangelisation 101: “A seed of doubt can take years to sprout and later produce good fruit…”
 
Joke? Uh, sure… why not? But do you know why there are still apes around? Obviously, they are an archaic bunch of beings.
 
notforgotten said:
If we came from apes, why are there still apes around?
Click to expand...
Answer: We didn’t come from apes. We came from a common ancestor from which us and the apes descended separately. That original ancestor does not appear to be around anymore. But even if it were, that is not an unusual outcome for evolution. There are plenty of examples of evolved species existing at the same time as their ancestor species. However they probably would not exist in the exact same ecosystem, because if they did, the better adapted species would have dominated the less adapted one. The situation can exist though when a population is separated by an accident of nature. Say for instance some birds get blown off course and settle on an isolated island. They might evolve to a new species and be very successful there while their original ancestor species is also doing quite well in its ecosystem on the mainland.
 
Since I have never laid eyes on Darwin, I view him as a “theory.”

Do not forget that theories do not define truth. They are opinions which are posited based on some relation to, content of, or in semblance of that seemingly undefinable “truth.” If there is no truth, then theories are not germane to the human experience.

History is littered with the carcasses of failed theories. Why is this one, with that huge, insurmountable “missing link” so faithfully believed by the faithless?

Wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
Joe1 said:
I’ve seen this topic go through 2 threads now, and no compromise has been reached or no side has successfully proven the other side wrong.
Click to expand...
What I observe is that many who reject evolution have so little understanding of the basics of what they reject. Questions like “how did the XYZ animal decide to evolve a …”.
 
Is this thread like the CAF Curmudgeons series? A kind of social club for random remarks and responses?

I can dig it!

😠🚬
 
We wouldn’t get such nice books like Ishmael without them.

They’re funny looking.

Planet of the Apes, a wonderful classic film, wouldn’t be without them.

I mean, why not have apes around?
 
Last edited:
notforgotten said:
If we came from apes, why are there still apes around?
Click to expand...
If (some) Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?

Yes, the question really is that stupid. I hope you intended it as a joke. If not, then it shows the level of argumentation that the anti-evolution crowd is reduced to.

rossum
 
I believe that Adam and Eve existed. There had to be a first couple, and the genetics show that there was a single Eve originally (no human has been found to have dna that has been inherited from someone other than a single female ancestor). I also want to mention about Mendel. Someone said that snow pea grafting isn’t evolution. What Mendel discovered was far more than just that. He was the first to propose natural selection. We have examples of natural selection today. See this link for an example.
An example of Europeans evolving can be seen in how we drink milk. In Europe, the peasants usually had a small plot of land to grow some potatoes and a cow or a few goats from which they ate dairy products (milk and cheese). As a result, humans learned to consume far more dairy than they used to. In the wild, very few adult mammals can tolerate much milk in their digestive system. We act like lactose intolerance is the aberration, when it’s the norm. In Asia, this was not the case, which is why in Japan, you will not see much milk or cheese in their cooking.
 
webmasterpdx said:
I believe that Adam and Eve existed. There had to be a first couple, and the genetics show that there was a single Eve originally (no human has been found to have dna that has been inherited from someone other than a single female ancestor).
Click to expand...
You have misunderstood the science here. All humans have mitochondrial DNA from one woman (and her mother, maternal grandmother etc.). That is why she is called “Mitochondrial Eve” or M-Eve. Nuclear DNA is inherited from both parents and shows that we are descended from a population of around 10,000 breeding pairs.

rossum
 
If you compare the genealogies in Matthew to the list of Kings you will see that there are gaps.
 
And the length of a generation is?

It really isn’t a question of adding up the dates in the Bible, you know - that would be a reasonably simple but ultimately tedious task … if only there were a continuous Biblical chronology from start to finish. But there isn’t - which is why Ussher came up with 4004BC and Bede came up with 3952BC. Both Ussher and Bede could add up; moreover Ussher was a very distinguished scholar and Bede was the most distinguished historian of his day.

You do know that dates from the Septuagint and the Vulgate differ by about 1500 years?

By the way I’m not what you called me: a Darwinist, although if I knew enough biology to be called one I would be proud. And evolutionary theory today is not “Darwinism”. Science moves on, you know. That’s the impressive thing about it. It just gets better and better.
 
Elf01 said:
If you compare the genealogies in Matthew to the list of Kings you will see that there are gaps.
Click to expand...
My favourite gaps are in Matthew 1:1:
“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”
Click to expand...
Abraham was David’s father, and David was Jesus’ father. Erm… Just a few gaps in there somewhere.

rossum
 
Kei said:
This…will this thread ever end? I find it difficult to believe any side will change their mind.
Click to expand...
Actually, it has helped me clarify my own ideas on the subject to read what others think. In an ancestor of this thread some years ago, Ed summed it up - “God is God”. We were created however He willed it to happen. I have a solid background in the sciences, pretty much always having taken evolution as fact, without a second thought. This has changed. The more people attempt to justify Darwin’s Theory, the more simplistic it reveals itself to be. It weaves together the remnants of the past into a story that is basically off the mark not only in what it believes to be the driving and shaping processes that are behind the diversity we observe, but in its understanding of what constitutes life itself. Especially, now that we are in Advent season, yearning to bring Christ ever more into our lives, that conceptual framework sounds like so much nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Not so fast. Plenty starting assumptions on this claim.

Science first claimed M Eve and Y Adam were separated by hundreds of thousands of years. Next, science said they were comtemporaries but did not know each other.

Next thing you know, science will claim they lived in the same village…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top