does the Bible teach Evolution?

[monoxide_child]

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/nevermore/499858-answersingenesis-com-join-fight.html

 

[Dak]

Obviously not.

There is the potential for (and I believe there is) a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, but evolution was not in that gap.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I haven't actually read it, but I've heard the same story repeated over and over again, and it always says that God created everything, implying that the outcome was intentional. For evolution to take place, there would have to have been some degree of trial and error based selection process.

 

[hexwind]

I don't actually know a lot about evolution. But i want to ask you guys, has this theory been proven in practical way after this 150 years approximately of its appearance?

 

[razoredge]

Well its not written about in the Genesis I read. Much has been said about "lost books" but I dont recall anything regarding evolution being brought up in that talk either. Then one must ask... "who wrote these holy books anyhow and what were their intentions?" The bible I planed on reading cover to cover, pissed me off enough by the time I got slightly past the stories of Sodom and Gamora with its twilight zone/Speilberg/King approach I totally dismissed it, set it down and never looked back.

"Book of Jewish folklore" is what I call it. I respect it as a book of experienced guidelines and scenerios told through tales written by our elders but remove the sci-fi/dramatic element of this all powerful, selfish, invisible... creature of some sort

 

[TempleOfBlood]

The first chapter of Genesis could just as easily be figurative like Jesus's parables were or the book of Revelations was.

Keep in mind that the point of the story was to illustrate a larger truth and distill it into something simple that uneducated nomadic people could pass down easily. It wasn't supposed to describe every bit of scientific minutae that future scientists would uncover.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I don't actually know a lot about evolution. But i want to ask you guys, has this theory been proven

You clearly do not understand the relevance of the word "theory" in the scientific sense. When someone says "I have an idea for an explanation based upon an observation," that is a theory only in the most layman's sense of the word. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis, which is essentially an untested and therefore unproven idea. A hypothesis does not become a theory until it has undergone the rigors of the scientific process and not been disproven, either because objections were defeated by evidence, or because no evidence could be obtained to contradict the hypothetical statement.

However, even before an experiment is performed, a researcher generally has to apply for a research grant, unless he's so wealthy that he can fund everything himself, which is extremely unlikely. At this point, a research board consults a panel of experts in the field to criticize the proposed experiment, encouraging the researcher to make modifications that would control for more variables or in some other way improve the precision and accuracy of the data that is produced.

Following the experiment, the researcher accepts or rejects the hypothesis based upon the data obtained and sends in a preliminary publication to undergo a peer review process, in which the experimental process and researcher's interpretations of the data are scrutinized by other experts in the field to ensure that the conclusion represents an accurate interpretation of all data.

Following all of this, a hypothesis (if accepted in the experimental conclusion) becomes a scientific theory. However, because the scientific method recognizes that nothing can ever be definitively proven, the theory can be challenged at any time by any other researcher. If data can then be provided that sufficiently counter the statements of the original theory, then the theory is either defeated or modified to be consistent with all relevant, new data.

in practical way after this 150 years approximately of its appearance?

Evolution is of particular relevance in the case of modern pharmaceuticals, as nearly all diseases quickly mutate into different stains and often develop resistance or immunity against medications designed to eliminate them. This is possible, because of the vast rate at which microorganisms reproduce, along with the probability of mutations occuring. Within every generation, there will inevitably be mutations that occur for any number of reasons. Genetic materials may be copied incorrectly or incompletely, the process may be disrupted, genes may be broken and copied into an incorrect location, or invasive organisms may even insert parts of their own genetic structure into the cell, altering it permanently.

The vast majority of mutations in any organism are of course maladaptive causing a disadvantage, or make no difference what-so-ever and are simply passed on as junk DNA. Later mutations in junk DNA may have similar effects as mutations in DNA with a purpose. However, rarely a mutation will be adaptive, causing the organism to have an advantage, either in its ability to reproduce, or in its ability to adapt to its environment, which is the case with diseases developing resistance against medications. The fact that adaptive mutations are rare is precisely why the process of evolution requires thousands of generations before speciation can occur.

The very same process also occurs on a larger scale in multi-cellular organisms, just at a much slower rate because we can't reproduce nearly as quickly, or produce nearly as many offspring. Simple examples of multi-cellular organisms evolving in this way would be weeds and parasites producing new generations that are increasingly more resistant to herbicides and pesticides.

 

[hexwind]

You clearly do not understand the relevance of the word "theory" in the scientific sense. When someone says "I have an idea for an explanation based upon an observation," that is a theory only in the most layman's sense of the word. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis, which is essentially an untested and therefore unproven idea. A hypothesis does not become a theory until it has undergone the rigors of the scientific process and not been disproven, either because objections were defeated by evidence, or because no evidence could be obtained to contradict the hypothetical statement.

However, even before an experiment is performed, a researcher generally has to apply for a research grant, unless he's so wealthy that he can fund everything himself, which is extremely unlikely. At this point, a research board consults a panel of experts in the field to criticize the proposed experiment, encouraging the researcher to make modifications that would control for more variables or in some other way improve the precision and accuracy of the data that is produced.

Following the experiment, the researcher accepts or rejects the hypothesis based upon the data obtained and sends in a preliminary publication to undergo a peer review process, in which the experimental process and researcher's interpretations of the data are scrutinized by other experts in the field to ensure that the conclusion represents an accurate interpretation of all data.

Following all of this, a hypothesis (if accepted in the experimental conclusion) becomes a scientific theory. However, because the scientific method recognizes that nothing can ever be definitively proven, the theory can be challenged at any time by any other researcher. If data can then be provided that sufficiently counter the statements of the original theory, then the theory is either defeated or modified to be consistent with all relevant, new data.

Evolution is of particular relevance in the case of modern pharmaceuticals, as nearly all diseases quickly mutate into different stains and often develop resistance or immunity against medications designed to eliminate them. This is possible, because of the vast rate at which microorganisms reproduce, along with the probability of mutations occuring. Within every generation, there will inevitably be mutations that occur for any number of reasons. Genetic materials may be copied incorrectly or incompletely, the process may be disrupted, genes may be broken and copied into an incorrect location, or invasive organisms may even insert parts of their own genetic structure into the cell, altering it permanently.

The vast majority of mutations in any organism are of course maladaptive causing a disadvantage, or make no difference what-so-ever and are simply passed on as junk DNA. Later mutations in junk DNA may have similar effects as mutations in DNA with a purpose. However, rarely a mutation will be adaptive, causing the organism to have an advantage, either in its ability to reproduce, or in its ability to adapt to its environment, which is the case with diseases developing resistance against medications. The fact that adaptive mutations are rare is precisely why the process of evolution requires thousands of generations before speciation can occur.

The very same process also occurs on a larger scale in multi-cellular organisms, just at a much slower rate because we can't reproduce nearly as quickly, or produce nearly as many offspring. Simple examples of multi-cellular organisms evolving in this way would be weeds and parasites producing new generations that are increasingly more resistant to herbicides and pesticides.

Thank you for the explanation. I think it takes a long time dedicated to learning such thing and making my own mind.

 

[Resonator]

Mike: It also helps, if I may take the trial and error thing here, to make an ass of yourself and love every minute of it

But yeah. If you eat fruit, you will be nourished by said fruit. You see a sign, and interpret, you have eaten. You will know the outcome of said digestion with defecation.

Such is evolution! People are hungry, and eating makes a progression possible.

 

[monoxide_child]

You clearly do not understand the relevance of the word "theory" in the scientific sense. When someone says "I have an idea for an explanation based upon an observation," that is a theory only in the most layman's sense of the word. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis, which is essentially an untested and therefore unproven idea. A hypothesis does not become a theory until it has undergone the rigors of the scientific process and not been disproven, either because objections were defeated by evidence, or because no evidence could be obtained to contradict the hypothetical statement.

However, even before an experiment is performed, a researcher generally has to apply for a research grant, unless he's so wealthy that he can fund everything himself, which is extremely unlikely. At this point, a research board consults a panel of experts in the field to criticize the proposed experiment, encouraging the researcher to make modifications that would control for more variables or in some other way improve the precision and accuracy of the data that is produced.

Following the experiment, the researcher accepts or rejects the hypothesis based upon the data obtained and sends in a preliminary publication to undergo a peer review process, in which the experimental process and researcher's interpretations of the data are scrutinized by other experts in the field to ensure that the conclusion represents an accurate interpretation of all data.

Following all of this, a hypothesis (if accepted in the experimental conclusion) becomes a scientific theory. However, because the scientific method recognizes that nothing can ever be definitively proven, the theory can be challenged at any time by any other researcher. If data can then be provided that sufficiently counter the statements of the original theory, then the theory is either defeated or modified to be consistent with all relevant, new data.

Evolution is of particular relevance in the case of modern pharmaceuticals, as nearly all diseases quickly mutate into different stains and often develop resistance or immunity against medications designed to eliminate them. This is possible, because of the vast rate at which microorganisms reproduce, along with the probability of mutations occuring. Within every generation, there will inevitably be mutations that occur for any number of reasons. Genetic materials may be copied incorrectly or incompletely, the process may be disrupted, genes may be broken and copied into an incorrect location, or invasive organisms may even insert parts of their own genetic structure into the cell, altering it permanently.

The vast majority of mutations in any organism are of course maladaptive causing a disadvantage, or make no difference what-so-ever and are simply passed on as junk DNA. Later mutations in junk DNA may have similar effects as mutations in DNA with a purpose. However, rarely a mutation will be adaptive, causing the organism to have an advantage, either in its ability to reproduce, or in its ability to adapt to its environment, which is the case with diseases developing resistance against medications. The fact that adaptive mutations are rare is precisely why the process of evolution requires thousands of generations before speciation can occur.

The very same process also occurs on a larger scale in multi-cellular organisms, just at a much slower rate because we can't reproduce nearly as quickly, or produce nearly as many offspring. Simple examples of multi-cellular organisms evolving in this way would be weeds and parasites producing new generations that are increasingly more resistant to herbicides and pesticides.

i knew all this already, and i just thought it was "common knowledge" thanks for posting it for those people that didn't stay awake in school

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I used to think it was common knowledge too, but between the few forums that I post on and some people that I've met in person, that apparently isn't the case. I have to explain this far more offen that I would like to admit

 

[razoredge]

i knew all this already, and i just thought it was "common knowledge" thanks for posting it for those people that didn't stay awake in school

& BMWG, one thing you need to accept in life is that not everyone is into the same thing as another, therefore what one person retains compared to another will vary in degree as well as topic or subject. Or that a person on a board like this may be from another part of the world that has different priorities in what they teach. OR in the case like someone such as myself who has been out of school for 34 years, long ago forgot such details or in this case processes and their technical terms, that they may not have gave a damn about in the first place.

Everyone has different values they place emphasis on. This one of "science" obviously Blackmetalwhiteguys "cup of tea"

Thanks for the explaination.... which I will forget again in less than a year.......

BTW - you would make a good teacher BMWG, you have good touch for explaining things (unless that was copy and paste) and hopefully if you did go into teraching would not be one of those teachers whos most valuable degree seems to be one of putting people "to sleep in school". Which is a shit attitude monoxide one of ignorant arrogance.

 

[razoredge]

I used to think it was common knowledge too, but between the few forums that I post on and some people that I've met in person, that apparently isn't the case. I have to explain this far more offen that I would like to admit

Much like I feel when I explain to people about the forest, renewable resources, types and value of different trees and wood grain and proper way to "weed the garden"... but like you I enjoy what I'm into.

 

[hexwind]

I used to think it was common knowledge too, but between the few forums that I post on and some people that I've met in person, that apparently isn't the case. I have to explain this far more offen that I would like to admit

Apparently you were referring to me yeah?
Well.. in Senior high school I studied Computer science, which excludes the Biology subject becoz there is no enough time to study such thing which is unnecessary i think. Plus, I didn't have time to check some extra information that didn't have any thing to do with Computing or my studying in general, apart from this year, I had an academic year off to learn other stuff in life and expand my knowledge before i go to College next September.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

& BMWG, one thing you need to accept in life is that not everyone is into the same thing as another, therefore what one person retains compared to another will vary in degree as well as topic or subject. Or that a person on a board like this may be from another part of the world that has different priorities in what they teach. OR in the case like someone such as myself who has been out of school for 34 years, long ago forgot such details or in this case processes and their technical terms, that they may not have gave a damn about in the first place.

Everyone has different values they place emphasis on. This one of "science" obviously Blackmetalwhiteguys "cup of tea"

Um... FUCK YOU

Thanks for the explaination.... which I will forget again in less than a year.......

You probably won't, because I'll likely end up making the same post repeated for as long as I'm here

BTW - you would make a good teacher BMWG, you have good touch for explaining things (unless that was copy and paste) and hopefully if you did go into teraching would not be one of those teachers whos most valuable degree seems to be one of putting people "to sleep in school". Which is a shit attitude monoxide one of ignorant arrogance.

Thanks, I actually plan to go back to grad school to get my Master's in education.

Apparently you were referring to me yeah?
Well.. in Senior high school I studied Computer science, which excludes the Biology subject becoz there is no enough time to study such thing which is unnecessary i think. Plus, I didn't have time to check some extra information that didn't have any thing to do with Computing or my studying in general, apart from this year, I had an academic year off to learn other stuff in life and expand my knowledge before i go to College next September.

Don't worry, I wasn't talking about you, or anyone specific. I understand that there are people who don't have experience or exposure to the subject, but I do hear the "evolution is only a theory" argument quite a bit, even from other college students who have no excuse, because a minimum of two science classes is a mandatory part of every curriculum, regardless of major.

I hope you're having a good time on your year off, and good luck next year in college

 

[hexwind]

^ this is the best year of my life, I learned a lot of things, a new idea about Evolution theory that you have just explained is included , I'm seeing the world from different perspective now.

 

[razoredge]

Um... FUCK YOU

Originally Posted by razoredge
& BMWG, one thing you need to accept in life is that not everyone is into the same thing as another, therefore what one person retains compared to another will vary in degree as well as topic or subject. Or that a person on a board like this may be from another part of the world that has different priorities in what they teach. OR in the case like someone such as myself who has been out of school for 34 years, long ago forgot such details or in this case processes and their technical terms, that they may not have gave a damn about in the first place.

Everyone has different values they place emphasis on. This one of "science" obviously Blackmetalwhiteguys "cup of tea"

I have heard said the truth can be painful, only reason I can think of for your reaction to this simple honest explaination

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I guess the sarcasm was lost on you.

 

[razoredge]

I guess the sarcasm was lost on you.

Ok, somehow seemed you were offended. It was mostly directed at Mono anyhow as they seemed to want to use the whole thing to insult someones education value or retention. Amusing considering much of what has been written by Monoxide in various posts. No matter, it was just meant as food for thought and understanding rather than anything offensive.

 

[monoxide_child]

I used to think it was common knowledge too, but between the few forums that I post on and some people that I've met in person, that apparently isn't the case. I have to explain this far more offen that I would like to admit

i have similar problems
when i talk to people, i will frequently say a sentence where i've casually, flippantly say a word that the other person doesn't understand, when the person gets confused, sometimes it really does take a minute for me to figure out exactly which thing i've said that they don't understand, it's really annoying