This is one of those posts where ultimately I agree with OP, evolution is real and we certainly saw it with the COVID-19 pandemic in case anyone was still in doubt. Still, OP is an edge lord and gives this instance a bad look when they post edge lord stuff like this.
Yup. This kind of thing gives a bad name to atheists and is one of the reasons I don't like to bring it up often. We should be more respectful and set a good example, not stoop to the shit-slinging level.
At a certain point, we need to just put it on the table. You can believe in a vengeful sky daddy if you want to, but it’s not real and your faery tale beliefs don’t get to dictate how I and my family live our lives.
It really is important to make this obviously and even painfully clear.
I give zero fucks what your Bible or your sky daddy is telling you to believe.
evolution is real and we certainly saw it with the COVID-19 pandemic in case anyone was still in doubt
Did we? Are you referring to the people who didn't wear masks? Because they certainly killed people, but mostly not themselves as 99% of those critically susceptible to it wore a damn mask.
She wasn't teaching the science of biology at that point. She was teaching her own thoughts and feelings and should have been removed from her position.
My highschool World Religions teacher told us "he followed one of the religions he was going to teach, but would not tell us which one". Big respect for that, teaching us objectively what was out there.
There's a compelling case that the reason there's a 'secret' explanation for the sower parable in the Synoptics is because the original parable was actually about evolutionary thinking.
While a lot of people think evolutionary theory was a more modern concept, the following are all from a book published in the Roman empire 50 years before Jesus was allegedly born:
Especially since this world is the product of Nature, the happenstance Of the seeds of things colliding into each other by pure chance In every possible way, no aim in view, at random, blind, Till sooner or later certain atoms suddenly combined So that they lay the warp to weave the cloth of mighty things: Of earth, of sea, of sky, of all the species of living beings.
Lucretius De Rerum Natura book 2 lines 1058-1063
I cannot hold The race of mortal beings was lowered on a rope of gold To the fields down from the lofty heavens, nor that mortals came From the sea, nor from the waves that smash the rocks. It's from the same Earth that feeds them from her body now that they were born.
book 2 lines 1153-1157
Sometimes children take after their grandparents instead, Or great-grandparents, bringing back the features of the dead. This is since parents carry elemental seeds inside – Many and various, mingled many ways – their bodies hide Seeds that are handed, parent to child, all down the family tree. Venus draws features from these out of her shifting lottery – Bringing back an ancestor’s look or voice or hair. Indeed These characteristics are just as much the result of certain seed As are our faces, limbs and bodies. Females can arise From the paternal seed, just as the male offspring, likewise, Can be created from the mother’s flesh. For to comprise A child requires a doubled seed – from father and from mother. And if the child resembles one more closely than the other, That parent gave the greater share – which you can plainly see Whichever gender – male or female – that the child may be.
book 4 lines 1217-1232
For obviously the primary particles did not scheme to fit Themselves each in their proper order by their cunning wit. Nor did they strike a deal amongst themselves exactly how Each should move. Rather, for time infinite up to now Myriad primary particles moving in many directions, whether Driven by blows, or their own weight, were wont to come together Every which way and experiment with every permutation And everything that they could fashion by their combination, And as a result, the particles, spread out over a vast Span of time, by trying each movement and combination, at last Suddenly hit upon the combinations that can be
The building blocks of greater things, the earth, the sky, the sea, And all the generations of living beings.
book 5 lines 419-431
In the beginning, there were many freaks. Earth undertook Experiments - bizarrely put together, weird of look Hermaphrodites, partaking of both sexes, but neither; some Bereft of feet, or orphaned of their hands, and others dumb, Being devoid of mouth; and others yet, with no eyes, blind. Some had their limbs stuck to the body, tightly in a bind, And couldn't do anything, or move, and so could not evade Harm, or forage for bare necessities. And the Earth made Other kinds of monsters too, but in vain, since with each, Nature frowned upon their growth; they were not able to reach The flowering of adulthood, nor find food on which to feed, Nor be joined in the act of Venus.
For all creatures need Many different things, we realize, to multiply And to forge out the links of generations: a supply Of food, first, and a means for the engendering seed to flow Throughout the body and out of the lax limbs; and also so The female and the male can mate, a means they can employ In order to impart and to receive their mutual joy.
Then, many kinds of creatures must have vanished with no trace Because they could not reproduce or hammer out their race. For any beast you look upon that drinks life-giving air, Has either wits, or bravery, or fleetness of foot to spare, Ensuring its survival from its genesis to now.
book 5 lines 837-859
Lucretius, writing in Latin, didn't have the Greek word atomos ('indivisible') to use to describe the building blocks of matter, so he used 'seeds' instead.
What does this have to do with Jesus's parables? There's only one alternative recorded explanation for the sower parable from antiquity, which is the following:
For the ends, he says, are the seeds scattered from the unportrayable one upon the world, through which the whole cosmical system is completed; for through these also it began to exist. And this, he says, is what has been declared: "The sower went forth to sow. And some fell by the wayside, and was trodden down; and some on the rocky places, and sprang up," he says, "and on account of its having no depth (of soil), it withered and died; and some," he says, "fell on fair and good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty fold."
Pseudo-Hippolytus Refutations 5.3
Not only does the description of seeds scattered that caused the cosmos to exist parallel Lucretius, in book 4 lines 1269-1273 Lucretius even described failed biological reproduction as "By doing this, she turns the furrow away from the straight and true Path of the ploughshare, and the seed falls by the wayside too."
Their interpretation of the mustard seed parable is also quite similar to Lucretius's seeds.
That which is, he says, nothing, and which consists of nothing, inasmuch as it is indivisible — (I mean) a point — will become through its own reflective power a certain incomprehensible magnitude. This, he says, is the kingdom of heaven, the grain of mustard seed [...]
Refutations 5.4
This group was following a text called the Gospel of Thomas which has other overlaps with Lucretius from the discussion of souls that depend on bodies, entertaining spirit arising from flesh and the greater wonder compared to the opposite, and discussing the idea the cosmos was like a body that was dead (Lucretius described the cosmos as like a body that would one day die, and the Gospel of Thomas is largely structured around the idea of an over-realized eschatology, thus in it the cosmos body is already dead).
In that text, it's actually very interesting to look at what the sower parable is located next to given the above:
Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
And he said, "The human being is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"
Jesus said, "Look, the sower went out [...]
Gospel of Thomas sayings 7-9
So we have a saying about how no matter who ate whom, becoming human was the inevitable result. Then a saying comparing the human being to a large fish selected from small fish, and then a saying about how only the seed that survived to reproduce multipled.
And the only group recorded following this text offers up the only non-canonical explanation for the parable as referring to seeds scattered at the dawn of existence by which everything that exists was formed. Seeds elsewhere described as indivisible parts making up all things using the specific language of the author who wrote about indivisible seeds making up all things and causing the cosmos to exist - 50 years before Jesus was even born.
Which starts to fill in the picture as to why the sower parable is the only parable in the earliest gospel (Mark) to be given an alleged secret explanation, at odds with things like John 18:20's "I said nothing in secret" or Papias describing the parables of a lost sayings work as being left up to each person to interpret as best they could.
Why was a public parable about randomly thrown seeds so dangerous it needed a canonical secret explanation? Could it be because it was about a topic that would have been extremely sacrilegious to conservative Judaism endorsing the belief in intelligent design?
TL;DR: There's quite a bit of irony in looking at how a canonical tradition which may have been trying to "correct the record" 2,000 years ago away from evolutionary thinking endorsed by the original historical figure is today being used to try to deny the legitimacy of evolutionary thinking two millennia later.
I may read through that later to see if it's covered but I want to remind everyone there a difference between evolution and evolution by natural selection. I often hear Muslim scholars says Islam is so smart because it talks about evolution, but it's not evolution by natural selection.
Lucretius was definitely talking about evolution from natural selection (especially look at the last one from book 5 about the intermediate freaks where only what survived to reproduce continued to exist), including what was nearly a Mendelian picture of trait inheritance from each parent.
As for whether that picture of things was being conveyed by a historical Jesus, it really depends on how one interprets the broader context of the sower parable regarding what survived multiplying (i.e. is canon more accurate or the Naassenes).
But I'd strongly suggest at least reading through the first part of my comment of the De Rerum Natura quotes. Your mind will be blown (when I was first researching this material I had to keep checking it wasn't a hoax or overly forgiving modern translation, as it was strikingly at odds with the accuracy of what I thought was capable of being theorized in antiquity).
What is the difference? Evolution as a word can mean a few things but the concept of evolution from a biological perspective is the same as natural selection. There is no difference. Natural selection is the theory by which we explain observed biological evolution.
They're myths, right? They can be entertaining, and they once served a function. They can even serve a function today; most of the evils perpetrated by religion were attributable to organized religion.
We no longer depend on meat, hunting, gathering, or religion, for our society. They're vestiges. I think "bullshit" is a bit excessive.
Hey, OP! Are we allowed to debate some of these problems with the theory, or am I obliged to believe it anyway? These are my top twenty doubts and I'd appreciate if you could resolve some of them for me.
Empirical problems:
Horizontal Gene Transfer upsets the conceptual "tree of life", i.e. if genetics are not exclusively hereditary then it is impossible to determine a last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
Lack of a viable mechanism for producing the complex and specific information required to render the genetic code functional.
Failure of the fossil record to find support for Darwinian evolution (punctuated equilibrium, Cambrian explosion, etc).
Rampant examples of convergent evolution indicate extreme improbability.
Epigenetics cannot be reduced to a mechanism, certainly not natural selection.
"Phenotypic Plasticity" - the correlation between genotypes and phenotypes are no longer 1:1.
Beneficial mutations are impossibly rare. In almost all cases, mutations are degenerative, as demonstrated by Richard Lenski's bacteria experiment and Molly Burke's fruit fly experiment - both published in Nature.
Philosophical problems:
Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" illustrates that the combination of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have evolved reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable. This has prompted many ambitious thinkers to suggest that consciousness is an illusion.
Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (art, music, religion, introspection, homosexuality, etc.)
Evolution as a necessary secular creation myth is ejected from the realm of objective science and is now highly politicized.
Determinism - as implied by evolution theory - is dangerously irrational and hypocritical.
Democracy is founded on a metaphysical claim which contradicts the tenets of evolution, i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...".
Quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory.
Evolution cannot be rationally explained without recourse to vitalist rhetoric, i.e. the "selfish gene".
All too frequently, critique of evolution theory is dismissed by appealing to vox populi, a disengenuous logical fallacy, or...
Esotericism - the claim that only a certified expert is qualified to critique the theory, but every layman is obliged accept the theory.
An evolution research experiment cannot be performed except by design.
Some of these "Philosophical" points are flat out bullshit
Homosexuality isn't only present in human behavior and there are plenty of explanations, both on an evolutionary and behavioral standpoints, as to why. My favorite is the Gay Uncle Theory.
Who gives a shit? Science is by definition politicized and also by definition it expells myths for obvious reasons
Why? Substantiate that claim
That is not what democracy is founded on. In democracy all men have equal rights and have the same power to vote and be elected. Even in the US when Locke wrote that people disagreed with it, mostly because they liked owning slaves.
6-7 Substanciate that claim.
Skill issue. You can just as easily disprove it with facts.
Anyone is allowed to challenge and contribute to our understanding of the world. Just be prepared to have your claims be rigorously tested.
Bullshit. It has been observed in natural populations since before we even understood it.
Thank you for taking time to address some of my issues. I really appreciate the discourse because it helps me to see what I'm missing and to refine my understanding.
Philosophical problems are more nebulous and difficult than empirical ones, but still important IMO, so long as we presume to be rational creatures.
I consider this a dangerous notion because it undermines human judicial systems which naturally assume that a person made a choice to act contrary to law. Persons who plead insanity in criminal cases are given lighter sentences for the very reason that they are considered unable to control their actions. It would be absolutely disastrous if that became the norm.
As for the hypocrisy, the fact that determinism can not be rationally affirmed is the greatest problem of determinism.
Consider that you think that determinism is true. This would imply that you think that determinism is true not because you have rationally freely chosen determinism after careful argumentation; but simply because you were determined to do so. But if so, what is the reason why anyone should hold to determinism? What is the point in trying to convince anyone else of determinism their beliefs about the truth of determinism have already been determined?
The fact that we have to make choices which determine what random outcome we observe is a problem for any attempt to prove that the universe, or even the self, is deterministic. It throws into question the whole notion of everything having an existing state, upon which determinism is predicated.
I don't have time to reply to all of your counter arguments right now, but I would like to ask what you think about democracy. The "equal rights" that you speak of are not empirical, but metaphysical. We're certainly not equal to each other in terms of body size and shape and economic status and hereditary traits and intelligence and ability or any other metric. So on what grounds can we claim equal rights? It seems to me that evolution theory is wholly incongruent with this system of government...
Tree of life is just a way we organize all living things to make things easier for us. And HGT happens only with prokaryotes and certain animals. It really makes things more complicated in some parts of tree of life but that isn't weird, there will always be some thing that we can't fully explain. Just because HGT makes things more complicated doesn't mean that evolution isn't true.
What are you even talking about here?
Please explain how fossil record fails to prove evolution.
Improbability of what? If two organisms live in same or similar environment it isn't odd if they have similar adaptations to same or similar environment even if they aren't closely related. And even if they have similar adaptations that doesn't mean they are same. Wings of bats, birds and insects are all totally different.
Please explain what is wrong with abiogenesis.
Be more specific.
Give at least one example. Who gave inaccurate prediction and for what specific thing?
If you meant that there are no mechanisms for epigenetics than that's just wrong, there are many of them.
I don't know anything about this topic so I can't comment on it.
This is a lie. Most mutations are neutral. And don't ignore the fact that mutation can become beneficial with changes in environment.
I read more about this argument and it is stupid. What if certain information is neutral in terms of evolution? Us knowing about evolution isn't beneficial for survival but it isn't harmful either. Same goes for creationism, belief in it isn't beneficial nor harmful from evolutionary standpoint. And don't forget that evolutionary processes don't always lead to beneficial changes.
Those things are similar to neutral mutations. Again, evolution doesn't always lead to beneficial changes.
Everything is politicized, it doesn't have anything to do with truth.
How? Please explain.
Democracy doesn't have anything to do with evolution or any natural science.
Please explain.
Please explain.
Explain how.
Everyone can critique it but if someone doesn't know anything about the subject, their critique isn't relevant.
Many of evolutionists blame those who are against or suspicious about evolution with zealotry but when they come up with real arguments and questions, you become the zealots. You fucking hypocrites
Because it's a gish gallop of mostly thin or discredited arguments, with the strongest at the top to make it look more impressive than it is.
And even the strongest are piss poor and largely discredited by actual science.
"My list of reasons is long" doesn't make any one of those reasons less shoddy than it already is. "I have used scientific words" doesn't hold water either.