Evidence for Evolution - Artificial Selection

Introduction

Once upon a time I was a creationist indoctrinated to believe that not only was evolution in conflict with Christianity but that the whole thing was a grand hoax. I was taught that a conspiracy of scientists and godless men in power to keep our true spiritual nature a secret to 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness'. What I didn't understand was that not only was evolution a well-established fact backed by evidence but that in our everyday experience we come in contact with simple evidences for evolution that we all take for granted.

In this hub I want to talk about one such piece of evidence and explain why denial of evolution makes absolutely no sense in light of the facts not just within biology but of human history as well.

Creationist Ray Comfort famously tried to say the banana was evidence of God creating plants to be edible for us without realizing that the banana has been changed drastically by humans to become the bananas we have today
Creationist Ray Comfort famously tried to say the banana was evidence of God creating plants to be edible for us without realizing that the banana has been changed drastically by humans to become the bananas we have today
Source

What is Artificial Selection?

Artificial Selection, or selective breeding, is the process by which human beings drive evolution to their advantage by breeding plants and animals to have certain traits which we deem more desirable than others. In other words human beings choose which individuals of a species get to pass on their traits and which ones are left by the wayside leading to plants and animals that are the way they are due to intentional human interference. A common example is the various breeds of dog that human beings have helped to shape. The emergence of dog breeds has taken thousands of years going back to a time when human beings domesticated wolves.

Some creationists will argue that dogs don't count because they are still a subspecies of wolves however this is irrelevant, it's a red herring, because the principle by which dog breeds are derived could, given long enough, create completely different species that cannot interbreed. This is what creationists refer to as the microevolution-macroevolution divide however this divide simply does not exist and no creationist has ever given a mechanism, natural or otherwise, to explain the impossibility of macroevolution when microevolution is so readily apparent. Despite this some will still reject evolution despite the proof of it being in all the aisles at the grocery store.

What do I mean? Well virtually any plant or animal product you purchase at your local market has been edited by human beings over the last few millenia. Animal husbandry and agriculture have allowed us to selectively breed the animals and plants we use for food and alter them irrevocably. This is why there is a distinction between dairy cows and cows used mainly for meat. If creationists are so concerned with and disgusted by evolution they should stop going to the grocery store because all around them is the proof they pretend doesn't exist.

Source

Let's Get Corny

Corn is another vegetable that human beings have changed over the centuries. Originally bred by the Native Americans Corn, a form of grain, used to have only one inch cobs. Through artificial selection over the course of thousands of years Native Americans grew dozens of types of corn (or maize).

This means that every time a creationist bites into some delicious juicy corn on the cob they are biting into a piece of evidence for evolution. While hardcore believers might get away with denying the existence of transitional fossils it would be impossible and downright silly for them to deny the existence of transitional forms of corn and try to say that the corn they eat today is identical to the corn the natives originally cultivated.

Thus not only is evolution a scientific biological fact but it has also played a key role in the history and growth of human society. Without agriculture and raising livestock and the creation of specialized breeds for specific purposes civilizations would never have boomed in such a way and we would not be able to feed such massive populations. The basic fact of biological evolution is not in debate or controversial and the science behind the basic mechanisms of evolution is completely settled. There is no controversy for us to teach our children and no fight between creation and evolution, because creation has already lost to the facts.

Christians Against Dinosaurs are a small group of people who claim that dinosaurs never existed and are a lie made up by paleontologists... I'm not sure if its satire or not...
Christians Against Dinosaurs are a small group of people who claim that dinosaurs never existed and are a lie made up by paleontologists... I'm not sure if its satire or not... | Source

Evolution by Natural Selection

Many creationists will stupidly complain that artificial selection is not the same thing because it is guided by intelligence. They will argue that if anything artificial selection proves that God is the guiding force in the origin of species because God is an intelligent being like we are. So proving that evolution by intelligence exists isn't proof of evolution, creationists would claim. However they are missing the point entirely. If the natural mechanisms for evolution were not already in place artificial selection would not work.

By its very function artificial selection presupposes natural selection as human beings recreate the function of environmental pressures, predation, genetic isolation, and other factors in the way evolution works in the wild. If a human being can select for traits to get desired results than nature can select for traits quite randomly and get the sort of results we actually see in the natural world around us. Heredity is a big part of the way evolution works as are environmental pressures. If something in the natural environment of a species changes than those with traits that suit survival in that newly changed environment will pass on their traits and those unsuited will not have a chance to breed (at least not as often).

Whether it is guided by the hand of man or not is irrelevant, the mechanisms are there and are, at this point, undeniable. We have been studying evolution for more than a century but unwittingly we have been active participants in it for thousands and thousands of years.

Conclusion

There is no barrier between micro and macro evolution and similarly there is no big difference between artificial and natural selection both are functions of the same principles and the same biological mechanisms and both of them have an abundance of evidence supporting them. All it takes to recognize this is a willingness to do so and a middle school level understanding of biology.

I can understand the resistance to evolution, for I myself was convinced by a combination of indoctrination and self-deception that evolution just HAD TO BE wrong. But I assure those who do decide to question their beliefs that the rewards outweigh the risks and understanding yourself to be part of nature, of a great unbroken web of life, is just as rewarding as the myths of any religion.

There is nothing to fear from evolution and the evidence for it is everywhere.

More by this Author


Comments 99 comments

CatherineGiordano profile image

CatherineGiordano 19 months ago from Orlando Florida

You have done a great job explaining evolution and debunking creationism. I especially liked your last paragraph where you get almost poetic. Voted up++


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

As always, well written. I just do not understand the reluctance of people to agree with evolution. It's compatible with their god theory, so they don't even have to change that. What's the problem?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Thanks Austinstar. The problem is that for many fundamentalists they exalt the Bible above everything else, they don't just worship God they worship the Bible and take Genesis literally. So any fact that disagrees with the Bible MUST be wrong in their eyes.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Thank you very much for the kind words Catherine. It's very important that humans realize we're not above nature and don't have "dominion" over it as many creationists believe but that we are a part of nature and should treat other life and the planet with care.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

But evolution being a fact is compatible with Genesis. Genesis only says that "God did it". It doesn't say HOW god did it.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

You're right, there are ways to merge the two. Genesis says God commanded the Earth to bring forth life, some Christians I've known interpret that as God causing life to evolve naturally. But literalists would rather believe that God's verbal command magically caused organisms who spring up from the Earth.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

Yes, because magic rules and science drools, I suppose. I'm beginning to think it's more of a campaign against science than it is a campaign to defend god. Haters just gotta hate.

Science is easy to pick on because it's constantly being updated and the creationists are just too lazy to keep up.


Paladin_ profile image

Paladin_ 19 months ago from Michigan, USA

Unfortunately, many creationists stubbornly cling to the "microevolution/macroevolution" myth as a way of avoiding the obvious implications of observable and demonstrable artificial selection.

You know there's no essential difference between the two (aside from merely referring to different scales), and so do I. However, they've convinced themselves that the evolutionary process somehow magically stops at the border of whatever we happen to classify as a specific "species" at the moment.

They're unable (and even more unwilling) to step back and see the much longer and broader process that has continued for hundreds of millions of years. Thus, they can't recognize that "species" are mere snapshots in the grand, continuous epic film of life on this planet.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"Corn is another vegetable that human beings have changed over the centuries."

Really? Into what radically different vegetable has it been changed into?


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Paladin

"they can't recognize that "species" are mere snapshots in the grand, continuous epic film of life on this planet."

You're forgetting that there is no fossil evidence for such a "film" which is why PE had to be conjured up (which is nothing more than just a really bad euphemism for special creation by God).


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Into the corn we know today, did you not see the photo in my hub of how it has changed? That's a pretty radical difference.

Or are you being stupid and asking for me to produce a "CROCODUCK"? Because we both know that that's not how evolution works.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

But it's still corn. Had you showed the evolution of corn into, say, a potato you would have had something truly worth addressing. As it stands now, corn is always corn, dogs are always dogs, cats are always cats and the list goes on and on and on ...

It's plain to see, then, that different “kinds” of life forms cannot cross-fertilize. All those that can are of the same “kind”. For instance, you can have an abundant variety of flies but these still constitute the same “kind” because they can cross-fertilize. In this way, they’re all flies. However, a fly cannot cross-fertilize with a beetle, and so, these are not of the same “kind.” “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54)


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"But it's still corn. Had you showed the evolution of corn into, say, a potato you would have had something truly worth addressing."

Now come on Joe, you're smarter than this.

We both know that evolution does not work by something evolving into something completely fundamentally different, unless you are looking at it on the timescale of hundreds of millions of years (and even then not everything changes drastically). Evolution is usually gradual. Furthermore it makes no sense for the native americans to use artificial selection to turn corn into a fundamentally different vegetable when they were obviously eating corn back when it was small. Not only would they have lacked the time and knowledge to do such a thing but it wouldn't have made sense for them to do it. Given that corn was only changed over the course of a few thousand years I fail to see why we'd expect it to become something radically different.

" cats are always cats and the list goes on and on and on ..."

Except that they aren't, because cats are not all one species. Tigers are cats, but a house cat is also a cat, there are distinct but clearly related species. Just as human beings are related to apes, clearly. Our inter-relatedness is not in dispute either, the science is settled, genetics proves that we share a common ancestor with other extant apes. You seem to acknowledge that cats have at some point diverged into other species, many of them quite different (saber tooth cat for example) so I guess what I'm saying is congratulations for accepting evolution Joe!

"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty"

Darwin's discovered evolution 150+ years ago so you quote mining him makes little sense.

Not only have creationists never provided any evidence for a mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution, especially given the massive timescales that we know evolution had an opportunity to work within but they've also never explained WHY God would need such a mechanism in place. If God can engineer the system of microevolution to allow for amazing adaptations to develop why would he limit animals to remaining within the boundary of their "kind".

What creationists are doing here is grasping at straws because the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that they an no longer deny it in all its forms, so they put this arbitrary non-existent distinction in. It makes no sense for God to resort to magic (or divine power or whatever you care to call it) when you've just admitted he has a system in place for animals to diversify on their own.

So let me posit for you a way in which we can keep God in AND have evolution. Okay, let's say a God exists like the one you describe, he creates this massive Universe, let's it cool down, allows galaxies to form as he knew they would given all the cosmic fine-tuning he had to do. Almost ten billion years pass before God creates life on Earth, so how does he do it? Well he could summon things into existence, but he's already got lot's of matter and organic chemistry down there on Earth, the elements for life are already there... and of course they are because the Universe is fine-tuned to produce a certain amount of life-sustaining worlds. So God allows life to evolve naturally, maybe steps in every few million years for an extinction event, wipe the slate clean and see if he can get anything intelligent from the next batch that emerges and becomes dominant.

Now I seem to remember you saying that the Universe was likely teaming with life, at least I think that was you, correct me if I'm wrong here... So why is it SO important to retain creationism? Why not just incorporate evolution into your beliefs? If God has this vast Universal playground why is it so important for God to not have designed life to evolve on its own at various points in the Universe? Is your belief in supernatural creation the linchpin that holds up the house of cards of your faith?

It just seems pointless to deny the facts.


Paladin_ profile image

Paladin_ 19 months ago from Michigan, USA

"...You're forgetting that there is no fossil evidence for such a "film" which is why PE had to be conjured up (which is nothing more than just a really bad euphemism for special creation by God)..."

Of course there's fossil evidence, Joseph. The fossil record extends over hundreds of millions of years, and is filled with the transitional species that are part of the story of life -- quite a long movie, indeed!

As for what "PE" stands for, I'm afraid you'll have to enlighten me.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Paladin

Apologies. PE is the acronym for Punctuated Equilibrium, basically evolution that lurches forward in fits and starts. It's a concept that is really nothing more than a bad euphemism for special creation by God because the fossil record is so very disjointed.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"We both know that evolution does not work by something evolving into something completely fundamentally different"

Guess again:

The General Theory of Evolution is "The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."- Gerald Kerkut - ”Implications of Evolution" (Oxford: Pergamon) In other words, this: http://bit.ly/18b2Jxe http://bit.ly/12K0jnv

"unless you are looking at it on the timescale of hundreds of millions of years"

Now you're just making assumptions. You have no evidence to support this outlandish claim.

"Just as human beings are related to apes, clearly. Our inter-relatedness is not in dispute either, the science is settled, genetics proves that we share a common ancestor with other extant apes."

If apes and human beings are so homologous, as you insist, why is it they cannot cross-fertilize and produce offspring?

"Not only have creationists never provided any evidence for a mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution"

More like evolutionists refuse to see the evidence staring them in the face. The fact that chimpanzees, for instance, are so incredibly similar genetically to human beings yet cannot cross-fertilize invalidates assumptions of common descent between other genetically analogous life forms.

" why is it SO important to retain creationism? Why not just incorporate evolution into your beliefs?"

Because Christ Jesus asseverated that God created Adam and Eve directly. See Matthew 19:4.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

1) How do you know Jesus really said that?

2) If he did say it how do you know Jesus is telling the truth?

Now please understand number 2 is the important question here, because if Jesus is divine than his ability to deceive people would be unlimited. There is no way for a human to know that a God is telling the truth.

"You have no evidence to support this outlandish claim."

The fossil record. Genetic evidence. The fact that human beings, as complex as we are, are still made up of single individual cells. In fact if an all powerful God existed it could create humans any which way it wanted, why would it make them look and behave like apes (and share most of their DNA with apes) and be made up of single-cells working in unison rather than make it an indivisible whole wholly apart from his other creation? Makes no sense at all.

"If apes and human beings are so homologous, as you insist, why is it they cannot cross-fertilize and produce offspring?"

Because we're different species. We share a common ancestor. But you already know that. What is you explanation for why chimps look like us and share so much of our DNA? Was God just lazy and lacking creativity? If we were meant to be made in the image of God why then does God look like an ape?

"invalidates assumptions of common descent between other genetically analogous life forms."

No it doesn't, that's just stupid. Even you, I'm guessing, would admit that many bird species are related, yet that doesn't mean they can reproduce together. The same can be said with cats which you openly admitted were all the same kind, yet they cannot all be bred together because they are different species that have come from a common ancestor. You can't have it both ways, if microevolution is a reality so is macroevolution.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

1. Because it's corroborated by two independent historians. See Mark 10:6 & Matthew 19:4.

2. Because he was there. See John 1:2, 3, 10; Colossians 1:15,16

2.b. I know both Jesus and God are telling the truth because, as I explained to you before, both are good. See my rejoinder from 9 days ago: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Atheism-an...

3. "The fossil record."

I already proved with expert testimony that the fossil record DOES NOT support your case just two short days ago here: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Atheism-an...

4. "We share a common ancestor."

Prove it.

5. "Even you, I'm guessing, would admit that many bird species are related, yet that doesn't mean they can reproduce together"

If they can, at the very least, be artificially cross-fertilized that necessarily means that they are of the same kind.

6. "The same can be said with cats which you openly admitted were all the same kind, yet they cannot all be bred together"

How do you know they can't all be bred together? Don't tell me you've been running cross-fertilization experiments in your basement all these years :)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

Titen said, " If we were meant to be made in the image of God why then does God look like an ape?

A better question might be, Why do apes look very much like us (who allegedly look like god)? Apes should surely have looked very different from humans if "god" made them. But since we do share a common ancestor, we do look alike.

Also, "While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA." (from http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics).

And on another note that I am personally familiar with - Chimpanzee blood makes an excellent substitute for human blood if needed as Chimp blood is nearly identical with human blood.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Austin

As I'm sure you also know:

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans

- Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans

- 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans

- The fruit fly shares about 60% of its DNA with humans

- Approximately 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene

Does that mean you're part cat, cow, mouse, fruit fly and chicken?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

@Joe - Nope, It means that ALL life on earth shared a common ancestor!


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Austin

Prove it.


Link10103 profile image

Link10103 19 months ago

.....with the percentages you gave Joe i think you just proved it yourself.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Link

Since when are assumptions evidence of anything? There doesn't even exist an experiment to prove or negate your assumption.


Link10103 profile image

Link10103 19 months ago

Im seeing incredible irony as well as the willful ignorance of the facts you yourself just presented...but I am no authority on the subject so I can't really say much more without talking out of my ass.

I do have a question though. If it cannot be proven either way, why are you talking as if it just isn't true at all?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"as I explained to you before, both are good"

How do you know that they are good? Seems to me the only way to tell if someone is good is to judge them by their actions and the consequences those actions have. As you know when you look at God's actions according to the Bible, God is not good by any stretch of the imagination. Also you have admitted in the past that suffering might serve some higher purpose we cannot rule out. Arguably God allowing horrible unnecessary suffering is NOT a good thing, it is not benevolent on the surface, but you suggest there might be some greater reason God has. So by your own logic we could assume that every word out of Jesus' mouth was a lie but that those lies serve the greater good God has in mind somehow.

There simply is no way for a flawed mortal being to know with any degree of certainty that a god is telling the truth.

Also Matthew and Mark are not historians, for one thing we know that Matthew and Mark did not write the Gospels traditionally associated with them, even Christian scholars acknowledge that.

"Prove it."

I'm not a scientist, so this isn't my job. It also isn't my job to educate you, hard as I might try to get simple facts through to you. Go on Google Scholar and research evolution and genetics yourself.

"How do you know they can't all be bred together?"

I could ask you the same thing about humans and various ape species that are our closest living relatives. The ethics of scientists doing such experiments is highly questionable.

"expert testimony"

Is that when you quote mined all those people from some creationist website? No different than when historical revisionist wingnuts like David Barton pull quotes out of context, or out of thin air, to support their own religious agenda. The fossils speak for themselves Joe, that's why I differentiated them from historical written sources like the Gospels. The writers of a Gospel have bias, they are convinced that Jesus is divine and are writing stories about him, their agenda is religious in nature. But fossilized bones don't have a bias and in science biases are cancelled out by peer review and constant scrutiny from other scientists.

,


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

As the others have pointed out you've pretty much painted yourself into a corner.

There is no reason for a God to make human beings genetically similar to mice, unless that God created using evolution. Surely God, being all knowing, would have realized that when we became advanced enough to discover these amazing similarities that we would put two and two together and realize that life evolved naturally. So if we are designed by a God than God not only lacks creativity but is apparently an idiot for creating beings that appear to have evolved but using magic to do the creating.

If chimps and humans share so much DNA, than God and chimps must share DNA, chimps MUST also be made in God's image.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Link

Two reasons:

(1) Simians cannot be paired with humans to produce offspring

(2) Christ Jesus declared that God created Adam and Eve directly. See Matthew 19:4.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"There is no reason for a God to make human beings genetically similar to mice, unless that God created using evolution"

There simply is no way for a flawed mortal being to know with any degree of certainty precisely how God created all life. Even if he explained it to us in perfect detail we still wouldn't understand :)


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"I'm not a scientist, so this isn't my job."

At the very least you should prove it to yourself, no?

"God is not good by any stretch of the imagination"

Why? Because he punished ungodly, evil peoples with death? Can you prove it is wrong for evil people to be put to death?

"Matthew and Mark are not historians"

Then why are their writings historically accurate?

"I could ask you the same thing about humans and various ape species that are our closest living relatives."

You've never heard of bestiality? Really?

"The fossils speak for themselves"

And they say Creation, not gradual evolution. Why deny the evidence?

"If chimps and humans share so much DNA, than God and chimps must share DNA, chimps MUST also be made in God's image."

Now you're just being silly, lol :)

First off God is a spiritual being so we don't resemble God in any physical sense. We do resemble him, though, in that man was produced with moral attributes like those of All Loving God , particularly , love as well as justice . ( Cf. Col 3 :10 . ) He enjoys the benefits of powers and wisdom above those of mere beasts , which means he can value the things that God takes pleasure in and values , like for example beauty as well as the arts , speaking , reasoning , and similar processes of the mind and heart which animal species are simply incapable of . More importantly , man is capable of spirituality , of discovering and having a direct connection with his Creator . ( 1 Cor 2 :11-16 ; Heb 12 :9 )


Link10103 profile image

Link10103 19 months ago

And as Titen pointed out with the cats earlier Joe, a sabertooth tiger is still a cat although it probably wouldnt be able to breed with my tuxedo cat at home since they are so different. Does that mean one of them isn't a cat?

Again, im no authority on this but it sounds like you're just grasping at straws at this point


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

Link, JOP is constantly trying to prove that the bible is the unerring, literal truth of God, written in God's own hand (even though it was written by many different people over many different eras with only a bronze age level of intelligence).

If God can't do a better job of creating this universe, then he has less intelligence than anyone who plays Sim City.

Yes, there are historical references in the bible. That is no different than the historical references in any book or novel. New York City is a REAL historical place, but Spiderman doesn't live or exist there even though the comic books paint that picture.

Jerusalem, Bethlehem and other historical cities of the bible are REAL historical places, but Jesus didn't live there either. He's nothing but a myth, like Spiderman.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Austin

"Jerusalem, Bethlehem and other historical cities of the bible are REAL historical places, but Jesus didn't live there either."

Prove it.

"He's nothing but a myth, like Spiderman."

Prove it.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Link

"a sabertooth tiger is still a cat although it probably wouldn't be able to breed with my tuxedo cat at home since they are so different."

Interesting claim. Where's your evidence?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

Joe - Really? I feel sorry for you, not having a life at all. I have already proven these things to myself and it's impossible to shove the truth down your throat without you vomiting it right back up because it disagrees with you. Perhaps you will find your proof when you die.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Austin

Argumentum ad hominem. Try again.


Link10103 profile image

Link10103 19 months ago

Im confused which part you are asking about Jo. Is it a sabertooth being a cat? Or that it probably wouldn't be able to produce offspring from a domesticated tuxedo cat that it has almost nothing in common with other than "catness", because i could have sworn Titen went over that with you already.

And how does me saying it "probably wouldn't be able to" make it a claim, especially since i stated twice im not an expert on the subject? I did quick google it though and saw people saying it was impossible, highly unlikely, or that their offspring would be sterile.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Link

"i stated twice im not an expert on the subject"

Never mind :)


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"Even if he explained it to us in perfect detail we still wouldn't understand"

That would be God's fault, not our own. It would be his failure to make our minds able to comprehend the way he created life.

"Then why are their writings historically accurate?"

Were they? I am not aware of any legitimate historians or scholars who believe the Gospels are historically reliable. Even most Christians scholars readily admit that there are errors as well as events and sayings of Jesus that never happened. For one thing Mark and Matthew do not always agree with each other. As I understand it the community of Biblical scholarship is quite divided as to just how extensive an actual historical profile of Jesus we can draw from the canonical Gospels and it is only those with the bias of an Evangelical faith position that seem to assert we can prove the miracles happened.

"At the very least you should prove it to yourself, no?"

Joe you know I used to be a creationist. Evolution was something I was brainwashed to reject and something I employed a great deal of self-deception to avoid learning about. Even after I left Christianity behind I was still apprehensive about looking into evolution or accepting it. However when I finally crossed that hurdle and looked at the evidence I found it to be very strong, enough to convince any reasonable person on an honest hunt for the truth.

"Can you prove it is wrong for evil people to be put to death?"

We both know that not everyone put to death in the Bible is evil, not by a long shot. I'm not going to discuss Biblical morality with you however, that discussion between us is over as it just makes you look crazy. Believe it or not Joe I do care about whether or not you are treated fairly in these discussions and it would be unfair for me to drag you into another online shouting match where you pretend God telling Moses slave owners can beat their slaves to near death is just a "regulation of labor practices".

"First off God is a spiritual being so we don't resemble God in any physical sense."

This view is in NO WAY scriptural. The Bible is quite clear that God looks more or less human. Even when it is quite fanciful about the various angelic beasts and elders around his throne it describes God as a humanoid King seated upon that throne. God walks and talks with Adam and Eve, has at least one face to face conversation with Abraham and appears to John in Revelation among other visions. Now unless God's appearance in these visions is a deception on his part the Bible suggests that God indeed looks human.

The difference between mankind and other animals, particularly our close relatives, are slight. Yes its true we can appreciate art, mathematics and build skyscrapers but keep in mind that human beings have been on this planet for over 100,000 years and only about 10,000 of those years was anything resembling civilization accomplished. If you were to posit that human beings evolved naturally and then were edited by a God 10-20,000 years ago to give us a nudge toward civilization you might have a point (and you'd be dangerously close to proposing the sort of stuff Ancient Astronaut theorists talk about). However human beings lived for a very long time in a non-civilized state without complex written language, without agriculture, without any of the trappings you believe set us so far apart from the other animals.


Link10103 profile image

Link10103 19 months ago

Mmm, conveniently cop out after being corrected on one point and called out on another.

Jo...why must you adhere to the typical religionist behavior...sigh


Stargrrl 19 months ago

So how did humans figure out how to engineer everything? Who taught them how to make corn into what it is today, and how to change animals like dogs into what they are today? Who told them this information? Have you done an intense study of the history of evolution--seriously?


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Link

Cop out? You're the one who admitted he isn't sufficiently proficient in the subject he's debating and, as a result, can't defend it properly.

Time to tap out and let someone else take your place :)


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

Except that the historicity of the Bible has been validated time and again. Over the years, skeptics have challenged— and continue to challenge— the Bible’s accuracy regarding the names of people, events and places it mentions. Time and again, though, evidence has shown such skepticism to be unwarranted. The Bible record, as such, is wholly factual.

For example, at one time scholars doubted the existence of Assyrian King Sargon, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1. However, in the 1840’s, archaeologists began unearthing the palace of this king. Now, Sargon is one of the best-known Assyrian kings.

Critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered Jesus’death. (Matthew 27:1, 22-24) But in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate’s name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel.

Before 1993, there was no extra-biblical evidence to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David” and “king of Israel.”

Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible’s account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that “Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible,” states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.

There were many rulers on the world stage during the 16 centuries that the Bible was being written. When the Bible refers to a ruler, it always uses the proper title. For example, it correctly refers to Herod Antipas as “district ruler” and Gallio as “proconsul.” (Luke 3:1; Acts 18:12) Ezra 5:6 refers to Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province “beyond the River,” the Euphrates River. A coin produced in the fourth century B.C.E. contains a similar description, identifying the Persian governor Mazaeus as ruler of the province “Beyond the River.”

Regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible, the October 25, 1999, issue of U.S.News & World Report said: “In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments— corroborating key portions of the stories of Israel’s patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus.” While faith in the Bible does not hinge on archaeological discoveries, such historical accuracy is what you would expect of a book inspired by God.

Even more staggering, however, is the fact that there’s more historical evidence for the death and resurrection of Christ than there is for evolution. In fact, any denial of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection is comparable to denying the US declared its independence in 1776 or that Columbus landed in America in 1492.

In his book "The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus", Michael Licona provides a list of scholars who attest to the historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection which includes Brodeur, Collins, Conzelman, Fee, Gundry, Harris, Hayes, Hèring, Hurtado, Johnson, Kistemaker, Lockwood, Martin, Segal, Snyder, Thiselton, Witherington, and Wright.

Concordantly, British scholar N. T. Wright states, "As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” (N. T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today (September 13, 1993)), p. 26.

Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”(Gerd L¸demann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.)

These are just a minute sampling from the massive throng of scholars whose research attests the historicity of Christ’s resurrection - http://amzn.to/13MQiTE http://bit.ly/18UraA6

Prominently, in his book, “Justifying Historical Descriptions”, historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” passes all these tests:

1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The statement: “God raised Jesus from the dead” doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as an actual, historical resurrection.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Star

So how did humans figure out how to engineer everything?

Trial and error.

Who taught them how to make corn into what it is today?

Trial and error.

And how to change animals like dogs into what they are today?

You lost me here. What have dogs been changed into. Please don't say crocoducks :)

Who told them this information?

They learned it.

Have you done an intense study of the history of evolution--seriously?

Yup. It's the reason why I believe it to be pure myth :)


Stargrrl 19 months ago

Joe, I enjoyed reading your comments. Very interesting. I've learned something new. Way to go!

Titen says dogs came from people messing around with wolf genes.

I really feel that someone had to have told humans how to cultivate the food. I don't believe that they would have figured it out themselves.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Here's a Google Scholar search for scholarly and academic articles about the evolution of corn:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Evoluti...

I'm not a scientist, so I have only limited information on how artificial selection works. Basically though you have the original small corn but certain corn plants would still produce slightly larger cobs, so they would breed the ones with larger cobs or sweeter cobs and not breed the plants that turned out with small or bad tasting cobs. So they are selecting for the traits they want to see and over time this pressure causes the corn to evolve.


Stargrrl 19 months ago

Interesting, Titen. But even if humans learned how to create the kinds of corn they wanted, I don't see how animals would change drastically over time, on their own. I believe that many animals were created and then went extinct, and many are similar to each other in a lot of ways.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"We both know that not everyone put to death in the Bible is evil"

Actually every single person God was forced to execute was evil or were going to grow up to, inevitably, become evil.

"Believe it or not Joe I do care about whether or not you are treated fairly in these discussions and it would be unfair for me to drag you into another online shouting match"

First, I never shout (If I use CAPS it's only because Hub pages, for some unfathomable reason, doesn't let us bold or italicize text). Second, while I appreciate the sentiment it's unwarranted. I'm a big boy and nothing you or anyone else here has said is new to me (which is why I can rely so deftly on past arguments and lines of reasoning).

"This view is in NO WAY scriptural. "

See Exodus 33:20; 2 Corinthians 3:17 and John 4:24.

"The difference between mankind and other animals, particularly our close relatives, are slight."

Slight? Try abysmal. There is no beast with a capacity even remotely similar to man's.

"However human beings lived for a very long time in a non-civilized state without complex written language, without agriculture, without any of the trappings you believe set us so far apart from the other animals."

Your evidence?


Link10103 profile image

Link10103 19 months ago

Defend against...what exactly? You didn't ask me anything i needed to defend against that hasn't already been addressed.

So yes, a cop out. Im impressed you did it back to back on two diffetent topics. Truly a master Jo.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Star

"I really feel that someone had to have told humans how to cultivate the food. I don't believe that they would have figured it out themselves."

And they didn't. Adam, the world's very first gardener, was taught by his Creator how to cultivate the land. See Genesis 1:29.


Stargrrl 19 months ago

Right, Joe, that is exactly what I was trying to get at.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Star

"Joe, I enjoyed reading your comments. Very interesting. I've learned something new. Way to go!"

Thank you. Let the light shine :)


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Link

"Defend against...what exactly?"

Did you forget already? You claimed Saber Tooth Tigers and domestic cats cannot be interbred. All I asked you for was evidence but you flew into a tizzy :)


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"Michael Licona"

Seen several debates between him and Richard Carrier as well as Bart Ehrman, he get's creamed every time, the man's arguments are a bad joke. In fact I plan to include them in a follow-up to my hub about the Resurrection and the Empty Tomb. Even though I am not a mythicist like Richard Carrier he still manages to destroy Licona both times he debated him.

The historicity of certain Biblical names and places does not prove any of its miracle claims are true and indeed cannot prove such a thing. As someone above me already mentioned Spider-Man comics mention real people and real places but do not attest to the historicity of Spider-Man actually existing. This is because we know that people do not gain super-powers from radio-active spider bites and we know that Spider-Man is a fictional character in an in-depth pantheon of other fictional characters that all possess a central canonical mythology. We know these same things for the Biblical God.

As for Jesus most historians do think he was based on a real person but that does nothing to cement miracle claims as anything other than legendary addition to the man's life.

"Even more staggering, however, is the fact that there’s more historical evidence for the death and resurrection of Christ than there is for evolution"

We've been through this, evolution is not a matter for historians it is a matter for biologists and paleontologists, for reasons already discussed. It is part of life sciences and the genetic evidence alone proves it.

1) As explained in my hub about the Empty Tomb any magical, ridiculous or paranormal explanation automatically has a great deal of explanatory scope.

The idea that aliens who had deceived Mary and impregnated her with an alien human hybrid capable of performing miracles and had deceived Jesus into thinking they were God has massive explanatory scope and explanatory power. It explains ALL of Jesus' life. It also does this without requiring the supernatural as the aliens could possess technology that primitive people believed was miraculous.

A miracle can never be more plausible, by its very nature it is the least plausible thing that can occur. Jesus was certainly not unique in the claim of having some divine power or insight. This point also works only if we assume the Gospels portray accurate reliable historical events, which scholars know is not the case, hence why there is still so much debate on what the historical Jesus was actually like.

Number four is the most bullshit of them all, its the one where Mike Licona loses all his debates full stop, because Ad Hoc means without adding unnecessary assumptions, here are just a few assumptions we need to establish that God made Jesus rise from the dead:

A God of some kind exists.

This God knows of Jesus.

That God is powerful enough to raise Jesus.

That God has sufficient reason or cause to raise Jesus.

That Jesus could not have risen without said God.

And please note that even IF apologists could establish all of these ad hoc assumptions we still wouldn't have evidence that Jesus himself was divine or that he was part of a Trinity.

So in his debate Mike presents those four points, Explanatory Scope, Explanatory Power, Plausibility, Not Ad Hoc, and the Resurrection passes only the first two.

In order to keep from derailing the comments too much I'll ask you to post your response to this on my hub about the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Empty-


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Animals change by natural selection.

Here's a basic example:

Let's say you have a bird species that is adapted to a warm wet climate, well the climate of their habitat changes and suddenly it is colder. Let's also say there are individuals in this population of animals that have slightly thicker feathers that might protect them from the cold better. So those with the thicker feathers have a better chance of surviving to pass on their genes, while those with thin feathers wouldn't survive to reproduce as often. So eventually down the line as the climate changes more and more the bird species changes more and more. Let's say they prey upon fish in their wet environment, those that manage to duck down deeper beneath the water eat more and thus survive more often than those who don't. So you can see that we might get penguins out of something like this, a bird that can swim underwater and is adapted to the cold and wet.

This is what is meant by survival of the fittest.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"inevitably, become evil."

Are there things which are inevitable? Doesn't that contradict God's omnipotence?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Don't forget to tell her about the time God paraded the animals before Adam and a "suitable helper" could not be found so God finally gave in and made Adam a mate by creating Eve. The Bible and it's funny bestiality jokes, hilarious.


Stargrrl 19 months ago

Yeah, I get what you are saying by survival of the fittest, but I just don't know if I buy it.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

You can do all the research you want, I recommend it actually, evolution by natural selection is a fact, its the cornerstone of all life sciences and one of the strongest and most well vetted discoveries ever made. And as I pointed out in this hub artificial selection is part of the evidence that natural selection works.


Paladin_ profile image

Paladin_ 19 months ago from Michigan, USA

As much as I'd like to remain engaged in this discussion, it's clear to me that it's going to be near impossible. There are simply too many other discussions going on, and by the time I have a chance to return to my particular conversation thread, things have long since moved on.

For example, there have been more than FORTY comments made here since my last appearance, and I'd spend the rest of the night just trying to catch up with what's been discussed (although I see Joseph's up to his old habit of copying and pasting comments to which I've already replied long ago, in other hubs).

So, reluctantly, I'm afraid I'm going to beg everyone's pardon and take my leave. Carry on!


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"Doesn't that contradict God's omnipotence?"

How so?

"The idea that aliens who had deceived Mary and impregnated her with an alien human hybrid capable of performing miracles and had deceived Jesus into thinking they were God has massive explanatory scope and explanatory power. It explains ALL of Jesus' life. "

Does it explain why he had to die so that we can have forgiveness of our sins?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"How so?"

In order for something to be inevitable that means nothing could stop it from happening. But God if he is all powerful can prevent anything from happening no matter what. So even if something seems inevitable if an all powerful God exists than it was simply allowed to happen as part of God's will. This is partially why the problem of suffering is such an insoluble problem. For the children God kills to be inevitably pure evil doesn't make any sense, because God can easily remove that evil element or simply go back in time and make it so those children are never born rather than having Israelite soldiers brutally butcher them and their families in a blatant ethnic cleansing.

"Does it explain why he had to die so that we can have forgiveness of our sins?"

No, but it does explain why Jesus might have THOUGHT he was dying for people's sins, if the aliens had deceived him into thinking such things or if he had misinterpreted the contact he had with aliens as being contact with the God of the Jewish scriptures that he was raised to believe in.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"So even if something seems inevitable if an all powerful God exists than it was simply allowed to happen as part of God's will."

Not necessarily. You're forgetting about Free Will and that God respects ours. For instance, he continues to allow you to choose to believe the error that he does not exist. If he didn't respect your Free Will he would have struck you dead a long, long time ago for your effrontery.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

God respects the Free Will of people that are pure evil? So much so that he'd rather see them destroyed than violate their free will for a split second to remove their desire to do evil?

Than he is neither competent or omnibenevolent.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

Stop it. You're not pure evil :)


Besarien profile image

Besarien 19 months ago

Why is it only extreme Christians (never Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, or Native Americans or anyone else with creation myths) who want to pit science against religion? I am a Christian and can not answer this.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

@Bes

Christ taught that we were created by God (Matthew 19:4). Anyone or anything that contradicts this fundamental teaching is Antichrist.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

Besarien - Obviously, according to JOP, God did not create Scientists, he only created Christians. That is why all non-Christians are anti-Christ.

But intelligent Christians will note that their God DID create scientists, and perhaps even God himself is a scientist.

If you understand that science is a TOOL, not a PERSON, you can easily figure these things out.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"You know there's no essential difference between the two (aside from merely referring to different scales), "

So if I spill a drop of water on my kitchen floor it's a flood?

It suffer a paper cut I am mortally wounded?

Everything in life is differentiated by 'scale.' Even your concept of evolution. Live with it. :)


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

" Let's also say there are individuals in this population of animals that have slightly thicker feathers that might protect them from the cold better. So those with the thicker feathers have a better chance of surviving to pass on their genes,"

Sorry, but this statement belies your misunderstanding of creationism. No one argues Survival of the Fittest. What you're confused over is the fact that all the birds had genes to grow thicker feathers. The birds that survived enjoyed dominant thicker-feather genes. The other birds died out because those genes were not expressed.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Your analogies don't fit. Micro and macroevolution are the same thing, microevolutuonary changes simply add up over time to look macroevolutionary.

For your analogy to fit we'd have to look at a flood slowed down so that each drop took, let's say, a minute, to emerge. But when looked at over millions of years the flood appears on its massive actual scale. Because the scale that's being adjusted here is not quantity of changes but time.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Darwin's discovered evolution 150+ years ago so you quote mining him makes little sense."

He observed and documented how dominant and recessive genes work in determining beak size, which was cool, but doesn't prove that a bird came from anything else but another bird.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Your analogies don't fit. Micro and macroevolution are the same thing, microevolutuonary changes simply add up over time to look macroevolutionary."

They fit precisely. And you just agreed with me. You used microevolution and macroevolution -- you used two different terms.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"For your analogy to fit we'd have to look at a flood slowed down so that each drop took, let's say, a minute, to emerge. But when looked at over millions of years the flood appears on its massive actual scale. Because the scale that's being adjusted here is not quantity of changes but time."

A flood is comprised of droplets. We can't call a droplet a flood. We can call a flood a conglomeration of droplets. We need different terms, ergo macroevolution and microevolution.

What you're missing is that creationists agree with you on microevolution: genetic drift, copying errors, gene expression. You have common ground but you won't embrace it.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

This statement has nothing to do with creationism. It's a basic explanation of how natural selection works and how it can lead to evolutionary changes.

"but doesn't prove that a bird came from anything else but another bird."

No shit. I never said Darwin discovered that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

"You used microevolution and macroevolution -- you used two different terms."

Yeah, to explain to people how they're the same thing observed over different time frames. It's the observation that the small incremental changes organisms go through are what add up to the final result of an organism that is quite different from its ancestor species.

"We need different terms, ergo macroevolution and microevolution."

What is your point? What in the hell are you even trying to say? I was trying to explain to creationists that if they accept the small incremental changes than they must also accept the sum result of those changes after long periods of time (macroevolution). The two are not different phenomenon, they are evolution looked at on different scales. To accept one and deny the other is just plain stupid.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"microevolutuonary changes simply add up over time to look macroevolutionary."

Prove it.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

I'm not a scientist Joe. You can Google Speciation if you like but I'm not gonna sit here and hold your hand, especially when you reject everything I say anyway with your patented catch phrases "Try again" and 'Prove it' ensuring that our discussions go in circles with me explaining very simple things to you over and over again and you denying it.

Small incremental changes + time = the sum of those incremental changes... the logic is not hard to follow...


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"Small incremental changes + time = the sum of those incremental changes... the logic is not hard to follow..."

Since when is logic evidence?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

I didn't say it was.

I said you can look up the actual evidence yourself.

My point is that even without the scientific evidence the whole thing is pretty common sense logic. If enough small changes happen over a long period of time the species that emerges is going to be different from its ancestors.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"The two are not different phenomenon, they are evolution looked at on different scales. To accept one and deny the other is just plain stupid."

Again, you don't really understand the points you argue.

If I take a bite from a hamburger every day for a month, have I eaten a meal? Of course not. What if I eat a bite every day for a million years?

No matter how much you want to believe it, all those bites don't add up to a meal. You can't equate one to the other. I would eventually starve to death, but by your logic I would OK because infinite bites add up to infinite meals.

It's the same micro and macro-evolution. We agree on the micro part but you are confused in your assumption that micro can add up to macro.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Small incremental changes + time = the sum of those incremental changes... the logic is not hard to follow..."

I agree with Joseph O Polanco : prove it.

And we know you can't. We also know you won't even try because you have reduced your argument to "go look it up."


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"Of course not. What if I eat a bite every day for a million years?"

So you're saying that evolution must add up to more than the sum of its parts? I don't understand what you're arguing for here, it makes no sense.

The point is that whether we look at evolution over large time scales or small the mechanisms, natural selection, mutations, etc, are the same. The result of the incremental changes is that they compound, they add up, until the end result is different. The process is the same whether we look at it over a short period of time or a long one.

The end result in your analogy is that you've eaten a meal but of course in order for it to be a meal you must eat it in a timely fashion. But evolution doesn't work that way.

"I would eventually starve to death, but by your logic I would OK because infinite bites add up to infinite meals."

What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about evolution, not what you had for lunch, your analogy is horrendously stupid.

"but you are confused in your assumption that micro can add up to macro."

It's not an assumption, speciation has been observed in the laboratory and in nature as has the relation of all living things to all other living things. Genetics proves that if we go back far enough everything has common ancestry. But I'm sure you'll move the goalposts and claim nothing is good enough to show macroevolution.

It's a very simple idea too. Let's say you get one small change per generation. One million generations later we have a species that has one million differences from its ancestor species. Of course actual evolution is more complex but you mean to tell me that millions of differences wouldn't be considerable enough to give us something like birds from dinosaurs?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Believe it or not I have better things to do than research and write paragraph after paragraph about the evidence for evolution only to have Joe ignore it as he has in numerous discussions with myself and others. It is not my job to convince someone who has no intention of engaging in an intellectually honest exploration of the ideas at hand.

Neither is it your job to pretend you can convince me I'm wrong when you see me in much the same way.

Rather this hub is intended for people who deny evolution because a lack a basic understanding of it as I once did when I was a sixteen year old who thought dinosaurs still lived in the African jungle and that evolution was a conspiracy. It is not for obstinate set in their ways creationist crusaders.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"So you're saying that evolution must add up to more than the sum of its parts? I don't understand what you're arguing for here, it makes no sense."

No, you are. You can't point to a single documented case of micro-evolution that led to your definition of macro-evolution. You can't show us one instance where information was gained as a result of a micro-evolutionary step. You are the one arguing that the sum is greater than the parts.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"The end result in your analogy is that you've eaten a meal but of course in order for it to be a meal you must eat it in a timely fashion. But evolution doesn't work that way."

By your logic it absolutely does work that way. By your logic each micro-evolutionary step must add up to a new species. The sum of the little steps must add up to something greater than the individual steps.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

" It is not my job to convince someone who has no intention of engaging in an intellectually honest exploration of the ideas at hand."

Let me know when you plan to become intellectually honest. I've been publishing here for 5 years -- it's easy to find me. I would welcome your intellectual honesty.


Stargrrl 19 months ago

"I was a sixteen year old who thought dinosaurs still lived in the African jungle and that evolution was a conspiracy."

That is too funny. Were you really taught that? I question the group of Christians you grew up with. Perhaps they were misinformed--as it sounds from this comment (and others you have posted) that you may have been taught the wrong things. Perhaps that has gotten you so jaded. Have you considered talking to other denominations?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"It's a very simple idea too. Let's say you get one small change per generation. One million generations later we have a species that has one million differences from its ancestor species."

OK. I'm with you. But, I am different from my mother and father in numerous ways: have I evolved? No, I am just expressing traits that were not expressed in them. We both have those traits: no new information was created when I was born. You don't understand the difference.

When Darwin observed his finches he saw that beak plans changed based on the available food. He incorrectly assumed that 'evolutionary pressures' created new beak plans. He did not understand that the gene to express the beak plans were there all along in all the finches.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"By your logic each micro-evolutionary step must add up to a new species."

And they do, speciation has been observed, its a scientific fact.

"The sum of the little steps must add up to something greater than the individual steps."

No. I never said this or anything like it. The steps that creationists pretend are greater than the sum of the parts, when you take it apart and look at it, turn out to be exactly the sum of the parts. Take the bullshit argument Michael Behe made about the bacterial flagellum being irreducibly complex, turns out when you take apart the system each piece made functional sense as it was added through small incremental steps.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Well my Father was a Young Earth creationist but when I was 16 I got my first computer and discovered creationist websites. At the time I was really into cryptozoology, which is stuff like Big Foot, Loch Ness, etc. There is a certain cross-over point with creationism and cryptozoology that I became fascinated with.

I wasn't directly taught it but I was too naive to realize that creationist websites could be filled with lies. I used to spout off the party lines about how carbon dating was bogus and the fossil record didn't prove anything and yada yada, all without knowing anything about evolution. I devoured everything I could find about the Nephilim, Atlantis, dinosaurs and man co-existing, all sorts of weird shit.

The alleged dinosaur is known as Mokele Mbembe, basically a folk tale among native peoples that white explorers corrupted into a dinosaur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"and they do, speciation has been observed, it's a scientific fact."

Fine. A little dog is too small to mate with a big dog. I guess that's speciation.

I'm curious why you think speciation is consistent with your theory of evolution: if a tiger could mate with a turtle they would have much more diversity and a much greater change for survival. That's counter to 'survival of the fittest.' Speciation seems to be an impediment.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"I wasn't directly taught it but I was too naïve to realize that creationist websites could be filled with lies."

Have you read about Haeckel's Embryos? Have you researched the Peppered Moths and how that research was falsified?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Haeckel's Embryos were corrected with actual photographs of embryos. It's ancient history now and says nothing about evolutionary theory as a whole. And you can bet that every creationist website talks about it still.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"If enough small changes happen over a long period of time the species that emerges is going to be different from its ancestors."

You assume. Or do you just take it on fait? :)


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Have you ever seen the fossil evidence for Whale evolution from land animals Joe? Something tells me you'd look at something like that and dismiss it out of hand.

I was once much the same way. You may be surprised to know that I was afraid to look into evolution even after I'd lost my faith years ago. The indoctrination I'd received was so thick that I was nervous when I went to look at the evidence, I didn't want to accept evolution. I scoured the internet, from Talk Origins, to Google Scholar reading actual scientific articles, to reading what the creationists of today have to say and the counters to what they have to say.

There is no faith required to accept evolution just an honest appraisal of the evidence, in fact in science faith of that sort is neither necessary or allowed.

As I've said there's also no reason to deny it, even if there is a God evolution would just be the study of how he created.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 19 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Have you ever seen the fossil evidence for Whale evolution from land animals Joe? Something tells me you'd look at something like that and dismiss it out of hand."

There isn't any. None. Zip. Zero.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"There isn't any. None. Zip. Zero."

Why don't you stick your fingers in your ears and hum to yourself Nicomp? You seem intent on not adding anything of substance to this conversation but bad analogies and childish shit like this. Again I have no intention of holding anyone's hand here, this hub is about Artificial selection and the basic evidence that evolution exists which is all around us. If you want to go on with your life accepting most of what evolution entails but reject the idea that it means all life evolved from a common ancestor fine. It's not my job to convince completely incredulous creationist crusaders.


Interested Party 11 months ago

The incorrect use of "than" when presenting an intelligent argument is just sad. You needed the word "then". I enjoyed the article though.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 11 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Can't catch every typo unfortunately.

I also tend to misuse affect and effect.

I fail to see how a minor grammatical error at all effects the soundness of the information in the article... or should that be affects? Who cares?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working