[_ Old Earth _] Does the evolution theory trump the Bible?

[Dave Slayer]

Does the evolution theory trump the Bible?

 

[lordkalvan]

Does the evolution theory trump the Bible?

What do you think? Why? What do you mean by 'trump'?

 

[Dave Slayer]

Does the evolution theory trump the Bible?

What do you think? Why? What do you mean by 'trump'?

Meaning is the evolution theory more accurate than the Bible? Is the theory superior to the Bible?

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote="Dave Slayer":14g209c6]Does the evolution theory trump the Bible?

What do you think? Why? What do you mean by 'trump'?

Meaning is the evolution theory more accurate than the Bible? Is the theory superior to the Bible?[/quote:14g209c6]
You need to define your terms more precisely. What do you mean by 'more accurate than' and 'superior to'? More accurate than and superior to what aspect of the Bible and in what context? Again, what do you think and why?

 

[Heidi]

Does the evolution theory trump the Bible?

Well considering that apes or other animals don't turn into people in reality, nor can they do so because they don't carry human DNA which is why they each reproduce themselves, and the flesh and bones of man decays back into dust when he dies, then the bible easily trumps the story of evolution.

In fact, the story of evolution is such a badly written story because Darwin couldn't eve describe his main characters that it cannot be brought to a conclusion because a story that didn't begin well can't end well either. And a badly written fiction story can't make a good true story.

So you can be rest assured that your descendants will be human, not a new species. :wink3

 

[lordkalvan]

Does the evolution theory trump the Bible?

Well considering that apes or other animals don't turn into people in reality...

Evolutionary theory does not posit that animals 'turn into' people. Again, individuals don't evolve into new species, populations do. You are falling into the trap of compartmentalization, or what Richard Dawkins calls the discontinuous mind.

...nor can they do so because they don't carry human DNA...

What is your definition of 'human DNA'? Why are so many of our chromosomes the same as chimpanzees? Why is so much of our DNA the same as chimpanzees?

...which is why they each reproduce themselves, and the flesh and bones of man decays back into dust when he dies, then the bible easily trumps the story of evolution.

You seem to think that reproduction is like cloning. It isn't. You are different from your parents, just as they are different from theirs, and so on. Combining genetic material results in variations in that material, most with neutral effect, some with positive effects and some with negative effects.

In fact, the story of evolution is such a badly written story because Darwin couldn't eve describe his main characters that it cannot be brought to a conclusion because a story that didn't begin well can't end well either. And a badly written fiction story can't make a good true story.

You seem to think that no research has been carried out into evolutionary theory since 1859.

So you can be rest assured that your descendants will be human, not a new species.

Which descendants?

 

[Heidi]

Evolutionary theory does not posit that animals 'turn into' people.

So it doesn't say that apes evolved into humans. Is that correct? Then what is the theory "evolution?" :gah Or have evolutionary scientists told so many different stories that no nobody knows what the theory of evolution is any more?

 

[lordkalvan]

Evolutionary theory does not posit that animals 'turn into' people.

So it doesn't say that apes evolved into humans. Is that correct? Then what is the theory "evolution?" Or have evolutionary scientists told so many different stories that no nobody knows what the theory of evolution is any more?

Thank you for your PM. I'm sorry that you regard strong criticism and robust debating techniques as personal attacks. I have no particular animosity towards you personally, although your opinions are a different matter.

Anyway, my comment (and many of the others that you have not chosen to reply to) arises from the understanding I have gathered from your posts that you seem to believe evolutionary theory supposes that evolution takes place in such a way that either two animals of Species A mate and produce an off-spring of Species B, or that one member of Species A mates with a member of Species B and produces hybrid offspring, Species AB, which mates with itself until one of the matings results in Species C. This understanding was reinforced by your use of the phrase 'turn into', especially in the context of apes and human beings.

First point (again) is that Homo sapiens sapiens is an ape, i.e. a member of the superfamily Hominoidea. So in this sense at least, apes do not evolve into people as people already are apes.

Second point is that although Homo sapiens sapiens' closest living relatives are chimpanzees (and bonobos) and gorillas, Homo sapiens sapiens did not evolve from these apes, but from a common ancestor that the three species share. Homo sapiens sapiens and chimpanzees (genus Pan) themselves evolved from a more recent common ancestor than the one both species share with gorillas. So in this sense, the genus Homo (of which we are the only surviving species, although there is some serious argument for reclassifying chimpanzees as in the genus Homo as well), is an ape that has taken a different evolutionary path from its distant brother/sister who evolved into the genus Pan.

So in the rather simplistic terms in which you have rephrased your point, Homo sapiens sapiens is indeed an ape that has taken a particular evolutionary path from other apes, both of which have descended from a common ancestor that can be classified as an ape, a member of the superfamily Hominoidae that separated from the monkeys of the Old World some 30 or so million years ago.

I hope this clarifies my argument and the differences I have taken with your statements.