Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[themirrorthief]

A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?

If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be. The same is true of offspring. When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.

As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them. Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.

The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.

Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?

No, and neither does anyone else who understands Evolution.

Apes and Men both descended from another, much earlier, common mammalian ancestor.

A genetic mutation created two separated genealogical lines, one led to humans, the other led to apes.

wow you must have been there when all this happened

 

[themirrorthief]

A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?

If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be. The same is true of offspring. When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.

As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them. Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.

The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.

get real, neanderthals are among us...I see them all the time

 

[themirrorthief]

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!

Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still t,oday, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.

We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.

We also know that organic molecule that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.

Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.

A third explanation might very well be currently beyond our understanding.

Evolution doesn't explain everything. Just as the 'laws' of gravity don't tell us anything about how gravity actually works. But, we can demonstrate gravity and we understand its effects, if not its workings, very well.

Evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth that fits the existing observations and evidence.

I love science it gave us great things like nuclear bombs, machine guns and fake tits

 

[Ringtone]

The following is what has never occurred to you, AFrench2:

Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution! Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for...

www.usmessageboard.com

Don't make a fool out of yourself thinking you understand evolution better than I because I actually grasp what the theory is based on. Naturalism is not true!

 

[fncceo]

A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?

If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be. The same is true of offspring. When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.

As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them. Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.

The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.

Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?

No, and neither does anyone else who understands Evolution.

Apes and Men both descended from another, much earlier, common mammalian ancestor.

A genetic mutation created two separated genealogical lines, one led to humans, the other led to apes.

wow you must have been there when all this happened

I was. It was consensual.

 

[Hollie]

The following is what has never occurred to you, AFrench2:

Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution! Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for...

www.usmessageboard.com

Don't make a fool out of yourself thinking you understand evolution better than I because I actually grasp what the theory is based on. Naturalism is not true!

I’m afraid you understand nothing of the theory.

 

[Ringtone]

Say, abu afak, did you give the following post a thumbs down because you didn't like the facts or because you don't believe the facts?

Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution! Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for...

www.usmessageboard.com

Prove me wrong. Got link?

 

[abu afak]

I Refuted you FOUR times on Page 8, and you had no answer.
Trying/TROLLING again REVEREND RINGTONE?
Still No answer just a fake challenge.
No meat.

So Darwin proved that naturalism is true, eh? When did he do that? Link?

Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.

Wiki:

Contents

• 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 1.1 Genetics
  • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Atavisms
  • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
  • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
  • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
  • 2.5 Vestigial structures
  • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
• 3 Evidence from paleontology
  • 3.1 Fossil record
  • 3.2 Limitations
  • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
• 4 Evidence from biogeography
  • 4.1 Continental distribution
  • 4.2 Island biogeography
  • 4.3 Ring species
  • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
• 5 Evidence from selection
  • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
  • 5.2 Invertebrates
  • 5.3 Microbes
  • 5.4 Plants and fungi
  • 5.5 Vertebrates
• 6 Evidence from speciation
  • 6.1 Fossils
  • 6.2 Invertebrates
  • 6.3 Plants
  • 6.4 Vertebrates
• 7 Evidence from coloration
  • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
  • 7.2 Camouflage
• 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 Sources
• 12 External links

 

[abu afak]

Once again:

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?

Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first Observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.

See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.


Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

`

 

[Dale Smith]

Once again:

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?

Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first Observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.

See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.


Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

`

Yeppers, Abu.......the big bang theory where a single cell amoeba rose out of the muck and mire and from it came all these plants, insects, animals and what we call "man and woman"........and you believe that intelligent design is far-fetched????????

How do you explain the skeletal remains of humans that had double rows of teeth and six fingers and six toes that have been dug up? You conveniently ignore that.........


(snicker)

 

[james bond]

Science is one vast, global conspiracy.

Atheist science has become that since the 1850s. Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before. One could disagree back then and be heard. Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!

Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.

We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.

Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins. In the first place, the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, in and of themselves, do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.

We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.

Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.

The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.

Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.

The usual gods of the gap pleading.

Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!

Science = Settled!

Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.

It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible

Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions

Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.

“It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.

I can't explain it, therefore evolution!

Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change. Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!

Did you know that single Cells are complex?

Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.

How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling boned aren’t as effective.

Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “General Theory of The Gawds Did It”?

It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.

The G-d of the Glops of Soup made the first cells! It is known!

If that’s what Benny Hinn told you, it must be true.

Who is Benny Hinn? You seem to assume a lot about what I know and how I know it, when did you study me? I must have missed that interview

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"

You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that

 

[fncceo]

the big bang theory where a single cell amoeba rose out of the muck and mire

The big bang came approximately 11 BILLION years before there was any muck or mire on Planet Earth. It was several BILLION years AFTER The Big Bang that there were enough elements in the universe to even create muck and mire.

 

[Hollie]

Science is one vast, global conspiracy.

Atheist science has become that since the 1850s. Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before. One could disagree back then and be heard. Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."

Religious fear and superstition has given way to knowledge and understanding since the 1850’s. When we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.

Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. You really do bang away at the “before the 1850’s” in an attempt to disparage science.

Unfortunately for the hyper-religious, it was about that time when the objective sciences, learning and exploration began to blossom.

I can understand that you lament the relative ignorance that defined the time centuries ago but I’m afraid that fear and superstition has been a victim of learning and enlightenment.

 

[Hollie]

Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"

You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that

ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.

 

[Mac-7]

Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.

HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018

""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist. That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.

Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
[....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
[.....]
If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.

What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?
[.....]
[.....]

How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution

For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins

www.smithsonianmag.com

What church does potts belong to?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"

You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that

ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.

Yet you believe that a bolt of lighting ignited the Primordial Soup (Praise be to the G-d of the Glops) and made a living cell, amiright?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"

You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that

ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.

Right! Exactly!!! There's your problem! "creationism is offensive to thinking humans"

You nailed it!

 

[Hollie]

Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"

You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that

ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.

Yet you believe that a bolt of lighting ignited the Primordial Soup (Praise be to the G-d of the Glops) and made a living cell, amiright?

You be either the gods magically created all of existence 6,000 years ago, right?