Thoughts on Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think a lot of people misinterpret the creation story. It is clearly not a literal description of the creation of earth, animals, light, the heavenly bodies and man. It is symbolic; austere; abstract - ‘God sweeping over the water’ ‘a darkness over the surface,’ primordial bodies of water etc

There is also an argument that Gen 1.1 - 2.3 is from a later ‘P’(Priestly) source redacted at a later date. In fact different sources are clearly evident within the creation story - e.g. one mentions Eve was created from Adam’s rib another that she was created from dust. The fact that this was never considered a problem at the time when they were compiled indicates that the creation story was never intended to be taken literally.

The creation story has many similarities to other Eastern creation stories. There is also a great deal of similarity between the flood story and other Eastern flood stories - e.g. Gilgamesh. There actually was a flood at the right time - 2750 and 2900 BC - the Sumerian flood layer. The idea that mankind was killed off seems obviously symbolic to me as well. An earlier version is in the Gilgamesh and an even earlier Sumerian version has been found that confirms the destruction of the ‘cult centres:’

‘All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful,
Attacked as one,
At the same time, the flood sweeps over the cult-centers.
After, for seven days,
the flood sweeps over the cult centers.
After, for seven days and seven nights,
The flood had swept over the land,
And the huge boat had been tossed
About by the windstorms on the great waters,’

The Sumerian Noah was Ziusudra. None of this should be of any surprise to anyone who knows a bit about the period in question - the Jewish people do not begin until Abraham is chosen.[/quote]

You’re well versed in many things, SM, and for that I admire you.

However, you don’t have much of a clue with this post of yours. Do some research.

And your citing of similar creation and flood stories actually work against, not for, your point of view.[/quote]

You may well be right push. I’m no Bible scholar. I’m giving my opinion based on limited knowledge. Always happy to hear what other people think especially on these matters.

142

[quote]pushharder wrote:

And your citing of similar creation and flood stories actually work against, not for, your point of view.[/quote]

The point that I was making is that it should not be a surprise that the creation story does not have an exclusively Jewish origin because the Jewish people do not come into existence until after - when Abraham is chosen. And as I said, I’m just going on my limited understanding and welcome views from other people.

143

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]digitalairair wrote:

I already posted this but for some reason half of my posts don’t get through on here, so I’ll post it again.

I suspect that this is a troll post.

Most of the posters on T-Nation are reasonable, rational, intelligent and well educated adults who seem to less than interested in anything other than ‘truth’ ( suggested by the training out look and philosophy and approaches that are presented here).

So it seems to me to be a little bit of an insult to fellow posters here when somebody has to make a post asking the obvious:

EVOLUTION is a FACT. COLD BLOODED, EVIDENCE DRIVEN FACT.

The question should not be whether evolution, the physical mechanism itself is “junk science”,
but rather evolutionary psychology is.

If the body is evolved, then the same goes for the brain, and if the brain is just what the physical stuff in the brain does, then the mind has to have modules that are evolved too, to suit and solve certain evolutionary pressures and problems that faced our ancestors.

How much of our thinking is still “stuck” in the stone age ? (why we are pre-wired for sugar, why men cheat more often than women, and etc). And how much of that type of thinking is hurting us? How much discrepancy between our cavemen mindset and our modern mindset is too much of a gap for us to function properly?

Should one fall into the naturalistic fallacy? or is it OK to justify your behaviors once in a while because we were evolved and hard-wired for certain predispositions?

I would love to hear from some of you about those issues.

[/quote]

BTW, anyone want to take a stab at plausibly denying that evolution is a religious matter to this poster?

When you have to scream at the top of your lungs to make your point > "
EVOLUTION is a FACT. COLD BLOODED, EVIDENCE DRIVEN FACT," you are deep, deep, deep into your dogma.[/quote]

When I have to yell at someone because the Ipod he listens too drowns all other sound it is not me who is deliberately hard of hearing.

You are welcome. [/quote]

What?[/quote]

I see.

He no yelling because he dogmatic.

He yelling because you are.

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:

A minor clarification but you need to be aware of it what with your attention to detail.

There were no “Jewish” people per se until the Babylonian captivity and the word is most likely a derivative of the word “Judah” the name of the southern kingdom of Israel.

[/quote]

I know that. I actually hesitated to use the word Jew and was going to use the word Hebrew but was unsure. I meant the Hebrews become a distinct people with Abraham’s covenant - and that the beginning of the fulfillment of an Israelite state begins with Joshua’s conquests in Canaan.

I know Abraham was a descendant of Noah. But I thought that Judaism begins with him giving up the gods of his fathers. And that his descendants are the Jewish people whereas Noah’s descendants are all mankind.

‘The universalism that marked Gen. chapters 1-11 having now failed, the LORD begins anew, singling out one Mesopotamian - in no way distinguished from his peers as yet - and promising to make of him a great nation…In Second Temple and Rabbinic sources, various details he sometimes appears as the first monotheist, discovering the one true God even before God calls him.’

[quote]
Abraham’s grandson was Jacob whose name was changed to Israel later in his life. The chosen people were called Hebrews and or Israelites for generations upon generations until the Northern Kingdom disappeared under the Assyrian empire.[/quote]

I know. I’m studying the Deuteronomic history at the moment - I’m reading(with commentary) Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings and II Kings.

148

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

And your citing of similar creation and flood stories actually work against, not for, your point of view.[/quote]

The point that I was making is that it should not be a surprise that the creation story does not have an exclusively Jewish origin because the Jewish people do not come into existence until after - when Abraham is chosen. And as I said, I’m just going on my limited understanding and welcome views from other people.[/quote]

However, to continue, of course the creation story is not Jewish in origin, technically speaking, because as you say, the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish people did not form until Abe notwithstanding the fact that Moses, a direct descendant of Abraham, compiled the Pentateuch.

The question remains: where did Moses get his material? If one studies Genesis one will find several references to a “book of the generations” that was being kept LONG before Abraham or Moses were a twinkle in their daddy’s eyes. In other words there was a “scripture” that was being preserved and passed down through the ages most likely through Shem (and obviously his father, Noah). That book is even mentioned ante-Noah in Genesis.

Most likely the multiple creation and Flood stories were derived from THAT book which makes perfect sense. So my point is the other stories corroborate the biblical account; the biblical account doesn’t come from those stories. Make sense?

  • Do you see where the word “semitic” or “semite” comes from?[/quote]

Well that sounds very similar to what I was saying push.

149

[quote]RSGZ wrote:

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:

[quote]RSGZ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]RSGZ wrote:

I’m fairly certain it has been observed on certain bacteria before. That doesn’t prove evolution is real?[/quote]

At that level or “scale” if you will, of course it does.

It’s a no-brainer that it, adaptation, occurs or even as “limited” speciation.[/quote]

Yup, that’s what I was saying. Evolution has been observed, but it still hasn’t been proven in humans - so on that front, right now, there is as much chance that we evolved from something else as there is that we were created by something else.[/quote]

What do you mean “proven in humans”? How do you “prove” evolution within the scope of a singular species. Can you personally define evolution? You understand, of course, that intermediary species tend to die out, which is why I hope you won’t reply with some sort of missing link argument. [/quote]

Intermediary species die out, so then why can I not ask where their remains are?

I’m saying that I haven’t seen evidence where we’ve observed evolution in humans. But, the fact that it is observed at a micro levels, means that it certainly could/should exist at a larger scale with other species, such as us.[/quote]

You can ask where their remains are and allow me to answer: their remains are gone. If absolutely everything fossilized after death, don’t you think we’d be walking across a necropolis right now? The circumstances necessary for fossilization are actually uncommon. For example, we have less than ten tyrannosaurus rex fossils on record. Do you think only ten or less t-rex’s ever roamed the earth? Why don’t all humans fossilize? shouldn’t we be swimming in the bones of our ancestors?
To address your second point, I am going to try to say two things. First you haven’t “seen” evidence of evolution in humans because you haven’t been looking long enough. Nobody has. Evolution is the accumulation of changes on a micro level over millions and millions of years. It doesn’t happen within a handful of generations. A chimp didn’t one day give birth to a human. Because it happens on a micro level, in the frequency of genes within a population, in the mixed survival rates of microscopic replicators symbiotically acting as larger organisms, you simply are not going to see what you seem to think would qualify as “evidence” for evolution within the human species. X-men comics are fun, but Stan Lee took some liberties.

I don’t know if you and I really disagree that much. The reason I try to get things straight in this subject is that I regard it as the best explanation for life as we know it at this point, and as such I don’t want it perverted. Disproven, sure, if done properly, but not perverted.

154

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Judaism didn’t/couldn’t begin until the giving of the Law of Moses.

[/quote]

That’s another thing I came across. The enigma of how Abraham, Isaac and Jacob etc could’ve known the law before it was transmitted to Moses - or something along those lines. I don’t know the answer of course and I may have got things wrong.

Very interesting. I’m just trying to come to grips with some of the basic ideas at the moment though. Forgive my ignorance on the subject. I think some of the questions I have would better be answered by more Bible study.

155

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:

…To address your second point, I am going to try to say two things. First you haven’t “seen” evidence of evolution in humans because you haven’t been looking long enough. Nobody has. Evolution is the accumulation of changes on a micro level over millions and millions of years. It doesn’t happen within a handful of generations. A chimp didn’t one day give birth to a human. Because it happens on a micro level, in the frequency of genes within a population, in the mixed survival rates of microscopic replicators symbiotically acting as larger organisms, you simply are not going to see what you seem to think would qualify as “evidence” for evolution within the human species…[/quote]

That ^^ is the theory or better yet the hypothesis. The unobserved therefore untestable hypothesis. When folks forget this they forget their much vaunted “scientific method.” In fact they leave it far, far behind until it’s only a tiny speck in their rear view mirror.[/quote]

I agree with you concerning the misuse or lack of use of the scientific method, though this particular hypothesis is testable and has been tested, many times over. For instance (please forgive any mistakes I make in the details of this example - the point will be retained), after observing that for nearly every orchid there exists an insect which has evolved to pollinate it, it was hypothesized that for a particularly long orchid (I can’t remember the name), there would exist an insect with an extremely long feeding apparatus to fit. The insect was shortly after discovered. This is one example among many, and simply the first that came to my mind.

156

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]digitalairair wrote:

I already posted this but for some reason half of my posts don’t get through on here, so I’ll post it again.

I suspect that this is a troll post.

Most of the posters on T-Nation are reasonable, rational, intelligent and well educated adults who seem to less than interested in anything other than ‘truth’ ( suggested by the training out look and philosophy and approaches that are presented here).

So it seems to me to be a little bit of an insult to fellow posters here when somebody has to make a post asking the obvious:

EVOLUTION is a FACT. COLD BLOODED, EVIDENCE DRIVEN FACT.

The question should not be whether evolution, the physical mechanism itself is “junk science”,
but rather evolutionary psychology is.

If the body is evolved, then the same goes for the brain, and if the brain is just what the physical stuff in the brain does, then the mind has to have modules that are evolved too, to suit and solve certain evolutionary pressures and problems that faced our ancestors.

How much of our thinking is still “stuck” in the stone age ? (why we are pre-wired for sugar, why men cheat more often than women, and etc). And how much of that type of thinking is hurting us? How much discrepancy between our cavemen mindset and our modern mindset is too much of a gap for us to function properly?

Should one fall into the naturalistic fallacy? or is it OK to justify your behaviors once in a while because we were evolved and hard-wired for certain predispositions?

I would love to hear from some of you about those issues.

[/quote]

BTW, anyone want to take a stab at plausibly denying that evolution is a religious matter to this poster?

When you have to scream at the top of your lungs to make your point > "
EVOLUTION is a FACT. COLD BLOODED, EVIDENCE DRIVEN FACT," you are deep, deep, deep into your dogma.[/quote]

When I have to yell at someone because the Ipod he listens too drowns all other sound it is not me who is deliberately hard of hearing.

You are welcome. [/quote]

What?[/quote]

I see.

He no yelling because he dogmatic.

He yelling because you are. [/quote]

I quoted him. I never yelled. Get off the bottle, Joe.[/quote]

U slow, broh…

157

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

…In Second Temple and Rabbinic sources, various details he (Abraham) sometimes appears as the first monotheist, discovering the one true God even before God calls him.'…[/quote]

Nonsense. “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.” Gen. 6:8

[/quote]

Okay. But I’m not making that claim. I’m merely trying to explain my, perhaps flawed, reasoning and understanding. What seems clear to me is that the Jewish people and the rest of mankind are distinct and that the distinction, theologically begins with Abraham. The covenants of Abraham and his descendants were/are never/not intended to apply to anyone other than the Jewish people. And that if the Sabbath has been replaced as a celebration of the risen Christ is it not an essential requirement to observe that covenant as the Jews were/are required to keep their covenants?

158

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:

…To address your second point, I am going to try to say two things. First you haven’t “seen” evidence of evolution in humans because you haven’t been looking long enough. Nobody has. Evolution is the accumulation of changes on a micro level over millions and millions of years. It doesn’t happen within a handful of generations. A chimp didn’t one day give birth to a human. Because it happens on a micro level, in the frequency of genes within a population, in the mixed survival rates of microscopic replicators symbiotically acting as larger organisms, you simply are not going to see what you seem to think would qualify as “evidence” for evolution within the human species…[/quote]

That ^^ is the theory or better yet the hypothesis. The unobserved therefore untestable hypothesis. When folks forget this they forget their much vaunted “scientific method.” In fact they leave it far, far behind until it’s only a tiny speck in their rear view mirror.[/quote]

You don’t have to observe every detail of a phenomenon to draw sound scientific conclusions.

For instance:

Pluto was discovered ~80 years ago and based on Kepler’s laws of planetary motion we know it’s orbital period is 248 years. We haven’t observed one full orbit yet this is considered scientific fact.

159

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:

…To address your second point, I am going to try to say two things. First you haven’t “seen” evidence of evolution in humans because you haven’t been looking long enough. Nobody has. Evolution is the accumulation of changes on a micro level over millions and millions of years. It doesn’t happen within a handful of generations. A chimp didn’t one day give birth to a human. Because it happens on a micro level, in the frequency of genes within a population, in the mixed survival rates of microscopic replicators symbiotically acting as larger organisms, you simply are not going to see what you seem to think would qualify as “evidence” for evolution within the human species…[/quote]

That ^^ is the theory or better yet the hypothesis. The unobserved therefore untestable hypothesis. When folks forget this they forget their much vaunted “scientific method.” In fact they leave it far, far behind until it’s only a tiny speck in their rear view mirror.[/quote]

You don’t have to observe every detail of a phenomenon to draw sound scientific conclusions.

For instance:

Pluto’s was discovered ~80 years ago and based on Kepler’s laws of planetary motion we know it’s orbital period is 248 years. We haven’t observed one full orbit yet this is considered scientific fact.
[/quote]

Ring species…

I would like, totally post a link and such, but Push would not read due to priapic impairment.

Brain blood flow issues and concentration problems are the curse of the libidinously gifted.