It’s time for another Google Docs exposition, this one fairly extensive:
I suspect the regulars will savour this one with particular relish. 
8 Likes
I’ll take mine with a side of horseradish, thanks? Relish gives me a rash around my arm pits.
The next time anyone suggests the mind is not an emergent property of a physical brain, but a manifestation of inexplicable magic, this citation will definitely be used.
1 Like
Biological and evolutionary ethics stem from a spiritual outlook. God stays consistent in His character. Biology never changes it just mixes with others to create mixed species. But the nature itself never changes and God consistently maintains nature.
1 Like
You are preaching champ, and you have yet to define or evidence spirituality, so the claim remains meaningless.
Though atheism is higher among scientists generally, it is almost universal among elite biologists, this suggests your claim is nonsense.
That is demonstrably false, as there is overwhelming objective evidence that all living things have evolved slowly overtime, there is accepted scientific theory explaining and evidencing this fact.
You putting and proclaiming our personal opinion as facts. I am going according to tests and facts of science. I was taught at school biology. Was also taught about nature. Nothing suggests that evolution is true. Miracles cannot be performed without God. We breathe oxygen to survive, but the fact that trees exchange gases with us, shows God is true. Because God uses nature to sustain us. Which is my point.
Either use the reply or the quote function so we know who you’re talking to, and what about. That said this is beyond irony from you.
Then you will know it is a scientific fact that all living things have evolved. Also that there is a longstanding accepted scientific theory, which is supported by overwhelming objective evidence
Nonsense.
Circular reasoning fallacy, no evidence miracles or any deity though.
Nope, trees and plants evolved first, we evolved to breathe the oxygen they provided, nothing in evolution requires a deity, or evidences one. Again it would be a bizarre contradiction for biology to contain any evidence for any deity, while atheism is almost universal among elite biologists, either way your claims are not evidence, and many here are demonstrably wrong.
This is another unevidenced claim. Nature sustains us because we evolved as part of it, that’s called natural selection.
What began and started natural selection to you. I would say God or a supreme being. Trees do not evolve, there are different kinds of trees but you cannot prove trees evolve. Christianity has biologists too. One evidence is we were made from dust. We are 99% water the rest is dust. That is actually proven. Plants do not evolve either. They change in certain weather conditions do they have never evolved. You cannot prove that.
That’s horseshit. Utter horseshit.
1 Like
Then please evidence this claim.
Wrong again…
“200 million years ago: Evidence of the first ginkgo trees. 150 million years ago: Evidence of the first pine trees. 125 million year ago: Angiosperms began to evolve, meaning we see the first flowers on earth! Angiosperms are plants that grow flowers and hold their seeds in a protective “ovary,” aka fruit.”
That’s not evidence it is a claim, and it is also laughably wrong, and a circular reasoning fallacy. We were not “made” at all, since it is an objective fact we evolved. Humans have only existed in their current form for around 200k years, we are a relatively young species in evolutionary terms.
Yes they do, and yes they have.
Check out the link in my citation above, here is another one then…
*" The evolution of plants has resulted in a wide range of complexity, from the earliest algal mats of unicellular archaeplastids evolved through endosymbiosis, through multicellular marine and freshwater green algae, to spore-bearing terrestrial bryophytes, lycopods and ferns, and eventually to the complex seed-bearing gymnosperms and angiosperms (flowering plants) of today. While many of the earliest groups continue to thrive, as exemplified by red and green algae in marine environments, more recently derived groups have displaced previously ecologically dominant ones; for example, the ascendance of flowering plants over gymnosperms in terrestrial environments.[1]: 498
There is evidence that cyanobacteria and multicellular thalloid eukaryotes lived in freshwater communities on land as early as 1 billion years ago,[2] and that communities of complex, multicellular photosynthesizing organisms existed on land in the late Precambrian, around 850 million years ago."*
Complete and utter bollocks. Neither you nor any other mythology fanboy, has provided an atom of genuine evidence for your cartoon magic man.
Go and pollute someone else’s thread.
Bare faced lie and blatant projectuon to boot.
Bollocks. You’re engaging in blatant preaching, and peddling manifest lies.
And THIS is possibly your most blatant bare faced lie of all to date.
Over 1½ million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence for evolution. This includes successful direct experimental test and verification of evolutionary postulates, and replication of speciation events in the laboratory.
Indeed, I’m aware of successful direct experimental tests of evolution that can be performed in a high school laboratory. Such as Diane Dodd’s generation of an incipient speciation event in Drosophila pseudoobscura, Mavárez et al’s replication of a speciation event in Heliconius butterflies, and Ole Seehausen’s direct experimental test of sexual selection in Cichlid fishes.
Indeed, the last of those three examples is one that YOU YOURSELF can conduct in your own home, if you exert the effort required to maintain two fish tanks containing some Lake Victoria Cichlid fishes, specifically members of the Pundamilla nyererei species complex.
Don’t lie to people who have genuinely studied biology.
Your cartoon magic man is bad fiction. Now shove your unwanted sanctimonious panhandling where the sun doesn’t shine.
Bullshit.
Organisms that produce oxygen via photosynthesis existed for nearly 3 billion years before humans existed. Furthermore, numerous peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that these organisms were tne product of testable natural processes, not magic poofing by an imaginary cartoon magic man from a sad little Bronze Age mythology scribbled by piss-stained goat herders.
You don’t have a point, all you have is blind assertions, preachy bollocks and outright lies.
Natural selection began the moment some replicators were more efficient than others. The experiments conducted in this vein are numerous.
Reality, on the other hand, says testable natural processes launched natural selection.
Liar.
Oh wait, care to explain why there were NO land dwelling plants in the Precambrian? And why there were NO vascular plants until around the mid Devonian?
Plus, the first true trees didn’t appear until the Carboniferous, and were gymnosperms reproducing via cones. Angiosperm trees reproducing via flowers didn’t appear until the early Cretaceous.
The scientific data tells us they evolved, data from both palaeontology and molecular phylogeny.
Infantile bullshit.
The 5% of our bodies not comprised of water is made from well understood organic molecules, not dust.
Wete you homeschooled by mentally subnormal parents?
Bullshit. Your assertions are made up shit.
Liar. Oh wait, the Botanical, Gardens at Kew reported the appearance of a completely new plant species in 1928, which was named Primula kewensis. Which differs from related Primula species by being hexaploid.
Your lies are pathetic even by the low standards we’ve come to expect from ignorant mythology fanboys.
2 Likes
You’re forgetting that mushrooms eat our shit and then we eat mushrooms. Another clear miracle.
Since that process can be explained by natural and scientific processes, it would be the antithesis of a miracle.
1 Like
Damn. I think my sarcasm transmitter is broken.
(I was kidding)
2 Likes
We have evolution of new species in recorded history.
In 1754, a volcanic eruption in the Phillipines closed off a salt water bay, and it turned into a fresh water lake over time, called Lake Taal.
There was a salt water sea snake that was trapped, and gradually evolved–with the lake–into a new, fresh water ‘sea’ snake called Hydrophis semperi.
This snake is reproductively isolated from other sea snakes, and its anatomy is different enough to justify calling it a different species.
Nor was this the only salt water animal that this happened to. Lake Taal is also the only place in the world that has fresh water sardines, which the locals call tawilis.
2 Likes
Actually, if memory serves, past marine introgressions into the African Rift Lakes also resulted in some species of freshwater sardines. Let me double check that for a moment …
Aha, Lake Tanganyika has its own species of freshwater sardine,
Limnothrissa miodon. The ancestors thereof were marine Clupeids (herring like fishes) that entered West African waters around the Congo Basin 25 to 30 million years ago. The ancestral sardines in question underwent evolutionary radiation and speciation following their transplantation, amd some moved through the Congo Basin network of rivers eastward to Lake Tanganyika.
Other relevant species are Microthrissa royauxi, the Congo River Sprat, and Potamothrissa acutirostris, also resident in the Congo Basin, along with Congothrissa gossei. These fishes are members of the Family Dorosomatidae, SubFamily Pellonulinae, and a scientific paper covering their origin, radiation and molecular phylogeny is this one:
Marine Incursion: The Freshwater Herring of Lake Tanganyika Are the Product of a Marine Invasion into West Africa by Anthony B. Wilson, Guy G. Teugels and Axel Meyer, PLoS One, [b]3(4):[b] e1979 (23rd April 2008) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001979 [Full paper a free download from the journal here]
From the paper:
The authors cover the early questions raised by the odd fauna of Lake Tanganyika thus:
But of course, later on in the paper, the authors supply the answer:
The authors contine with:
The authors continue with:
As both the full text and PDF download link for the paper have already been provided above, I’ll let the diligent head off and enjoy the contents in full.
It’s interesting to note that at least one Genus of Lake Tanganyika Cichlid is known as “Sardine Cichlids”, namely Cyprichromis, members of which are popular aquarium fishes among aquarists specialising in Rift Lake Cichlids, and appears to have convergently evolved to resemble the open water sardines.
Isn’t it instructive, just from the above, just how much factual wonder the obstinately closed minded mythology fanboys are missing out on?
1 Like
No I got that, but sure as eggs some apologist won’t, so I thought I’d point it out. Lots of people, even myself on occasion use the the word miracle or miraculous as a metaphor, for something that seems to be highly unlikely or unusual, I’ve seen visiting apologists leap on these.
Meanwhile, a little bit more on the “Sardine Cichlids” of Lake Tanganyika, which unlike the Dorosomatine sardines, radiated from freshwater Cichlid ancestors.
A brief introduction can be found here, and the five known species are:
Cyprichromis leptosoma
Cyprichromis coloratus
Cyprichromis microlepidotus
Cyprichromis pavo
Cyprichromis zonatus
Here’s some photos of a couple of these fishes, starting with Cyprichromis leptosoma:
This page features a nice photo of Cyprichromis microlepidotus
And here is Cyprichromis coloratus:
And here’s a small photo of Cyprichromis zonatus :
FishBase provides a means of learning more about these fishes here.
Like the true sardines, they’re open water schooling fish that feed upon zooplankton.
Though these fishes have a body morphology resembling that of true sardines, the long dorsal fin with a considerable hard fin ray count is, of course, a Perciform feature that is never seen in Clupeids or fishes phylogenetically close thereto
In addition, while the true sardines simply spawn in open water, deposit huge numbers of eggs and then leave those eggs to their own devices, the Cyprichromis species provide parental care. The females scoop up the eggs into their mouths immediately after fertilisation, and nurture the eggs as maternal mouthbrooders, in common with numerous other Tanganyikan Cichlids.
Once again, more wonders that the obstinately closed minded mythology fanboys are missing out on.
Indeed, the mythology fanboys are either incapable of, or ignore for duplicitous apologetic purposes, the distinction between events we regard as spectacular or possessing some other brand of significance, which are invariably found upon deeper investigation to be grounded in testable natural processes, and genuine miracles, involving acts of supernatural magic for which there is precisely zero evidence.
Apparently the basic fact that EVERY assertion about the purported “necessity” of their imaginary cartoon magic man, has been tossed into the bin by subsequent discovery of testable natural processes in operation, never penetrates the apologetic concrete of obstinacy with which mythology fanboys line their cranial cases.
1 Like
Yet the science of biology and evolution does not evidence any such thing exists or is even possible, and nothing in biology or species evolution requires any such thing to explain it. What’s more, adding an unevidenced deity, from an archaic superstition has no explanatory powers whatsoever, and thus adds nothing, so the bare claim you’re making also violates Occam’s razor.
1 Like