Science and the Bible

[7H3]

Oh, whoops. I meant to say the Book of Genesis, not the Bible. And how did I end up hitting 2 instead of 1? Guess I got too caught up in the moment... -_-

The publication of Ziusudra and the Book of Genesis is nearly over 1000 years apart. Ziusudra was written in 17th century BC while the Book of Genesis, which contains Noah's Ark, was first written in 500 BC. I should probably fix this on my other comment.

Was watching a movie just a while ago, which I note to say I'm not ignoring the other post... (will respond later)

the difference in written form is a difference of 1 to 5 hundred years not 1k years. Furthermore, Hebraic culture was passed down verbally as the preferred method over written for quite a while and still has a part in jewish culture today. That is to say while Moses may have written the pentateuch b/t 16/12k BC the story of Noah would have been passed down from generation to generation prior to the time Moses started to transcribe the oral history. I'm not sure how many generations passed from Shem (son of Noah) to Abraham or from Abraham to Moses to calculate off hand, but I do imagine it does predate any written word.

Even still 1700 BC and 1200 BC are guesses at best for either written form of the story. Neither of which negates the other as being the preeminent authority on a flood of global magnitude because all things being the same if one was true and the other wasn't it doesn't mean either being written first means it was the first version told.

[Legend]

Oh, whoops. I meant to say the Book of Genesis, not the Bible. And how did I end up hitting 2 instead of 1? Guess I got too caught up in the moment... -_-

The publication of Ziusudra and the Book of Genesis is nearly over 1000 years apart. Ziusudra was written in 17th century BC while the Book of Genesis, which contains Noah's Ark, was first written in 500 BC. I should probably fix this on my other comment.

I thought you might have made a typo  

Also my dates were literally the first things that popped up on google. If Genesis is 500 BC and not what I posted, sounds good to me  

[7H3]

Okay, I'll bite. Calling the Epic of Gilgamesh as an incomplete story is very intellectually dishonest. Ziusudra, which was the source material, existed in 17th century BC. The source material existed over 1000 years before the Book of Genesis was written. The flood never happened because there is no archaeological evidence for it. Also, Bill Nye came up with a really good counterargument regarding kangaroo fossils during his debate with Ken Ham.

Your perspective on evolution and its sub-categories are horribly incorrect. Evolution has five major components which include natural selection and selective mating. The whole gist of evolution is the change of allele frequencies in populations or introduction to new genes, for these changes to be large enough to create new species via reproductive isolation. There are many isolation mechanisms, both pre- and post-zygotic. These include incompatibility of naughtiness cells, behavioral differences, geological barriers, hybrid infertility, and so forth. Do note that this process takes millions of years for most multicellular organisms. We can see it in person on organisms with really short generations, hence why bacteria and insects are often used as an example for evolution. You said that natural selection and selective mating are not true evolution. They're not types of evolution; they're components of it.

I, along with many others, personally do not use the terms microevolution and macroevolution because the definition of the latter term is fuzzy. "Changes that lead to a new species", the last part is where the definition has a problem because the definition of a species is widely debated among the scientific community. Ring species are perfect examples that demonstrate the fuzziness.

A loose interpretation of evolution lends itself well to misinformation. Natural selection and breeding are not evolutionary facts, but occurrences in and of themselves without any sort of evolution occurring.

The layman's interpretation / understanding of evolution is that man EVOLVED from a monkey archetype ancestor while factually there is no record of species changing species or life beginning from nothing to something more complex than a single protein.

evolutionary theory was expanded to encompass things that may or may not have anything to do with evolution to try and prove evolution as a factual or even scientific endeavor. Winning the lotto is more likely happenstance than evolution, yet many scientists rush to utilize any new discovery as something pertaining to the study of evolutionary science. I find this utterly ridiculous as a true study of science would rush to find the truth of a discovery rather than rush to push it off as an endorsement of a systematic belief that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

The concept of darwinian evolution is not the leading thought on evolution currently. Micro evolution is utilized to describe real science to proliferate the grander idea of evolution which is not true or provable by scientific measures. However, to lighten the burden of proof we label things as evolution even though it is not. A baby becoming an adult is not evolution though it fits the common accepted description of evolution.

If we choose to define evolution as a change from species to a completely different species there is no evidence or proof of this happening ever throughout history. However if we utilize it to describe the change of a species over time within its own species it is completely true. The latter however does not mean that the other is possible or provable at all by scientific metrics. Natural selection does not change dna but favors the dna that proliferates.

[Legend]

@7H3

I'm a programmer and as such have spent some time with genetic algorithms and other similar techniques. If you are not familiar, these simulate natural selection in order to produce high quality real world results. A very simple example can be found here: BoxCar2D

A generation of 20 car shapes are randomly generated. They then attempt the track and are scored by distance traveled. The ones that make it farthest then have the highest genetic effect on the next generation. The first generation will hardly work, the 10th will start looking like some sweet cars, and the 100th gen are super optimized and travel super fast and far.

In more complicated applications of genetic algorithms, they are used for the creation of artificial intelligence. Each generation randomly tweaks the brain, and they are scored based off ability to perform tasks. Drive cars, recognize faces, play retro games, etc. The results end up being extremely efficient and develop complex abilities.

It even works with animal like simulations, like in this video and this free game.


Do you believe evolution works in computers and simulations, but not with living organisms?

[the-pi-guy]

Evolution does not discuss nothing to something.  

1.)
Mutations occur quite often, some are great, some are bad, many are not noticeable.  Great isn't always great, but in some circumstances this can give an advantage over the other animals in that species.  

Imagine a brown bear that due to a mutation is white furred.  
In the woody areas, this is bad.  White is very noticeable.  So the white ones can't get food as easily or they get eaten easily when they are little.  
In the polar areas, this is great.  White is very difficult to see.  So the white ones have an advantage over the brown ones, and they are more likely to be able to pass those white furred genes onto their offspring.  And maybe it has 2 white brown bear children and 1 brown bear child.  The same thing occurs where the 2 white bears are able to pass on their genes.  

2.)
Now those child white bears are the same species as its parent.  It's still mostly genetically a brown bear.  It can still breed with other brown bears no problem.  And there's little difference.  

3.)
Genetics is way more complicated than just, "this is a black bear."
Let's say A and B are species.  
It's not as simple, as parent is A, kid is A, their kid is A.  
Or this is B, so it's never been A.

We share genetics with everything.  
It's this gigantic monster of a setup.   (At this point I'm going to simplify it)  
It's more like, if you share 75% with everything else of a species, you can be classified as the same species.  

Animal A has ABABABCD
Animal A1 has ABABABCC

Animal A29 has BABBABABC
Animal A30 has BABBABABD  

A(N) is the same species as A(N+1), but A(1) is different from lim n-> infinity A(n)

[7H3]

Do you believe evolution works in computers and simulations, but not with living organisms?

Do I believe that we can program anything even though it has no relevance to actual life...?

best of the best of the gene pool is still swimming in the same gene pool...

gotta love marketing: redefine evolution as any change = fact = evolution is fact...
regardless of the lack of evidence that any species changed into any other species...

[Legend]

Do I believe that we can program anything even though it has no relevance to actual life...?

best of the best of the gene pool is still swimming in the same gene pool...

gotta love marketing: redefine evolution as any change = fact = evolution is fact...
regardless of the lack of evidence that any species changed into any other species...

Huh?

Nothing you posted goes against genetic algorithms...

Some programs do split to different gene pools. But why does that matter? Split gene pools is a by product, not a cause.

[the-pi-guy]

Do I believe that we can program anything even though it has no relevance to actual life...?

best of the best of the gene pool is still swimming in the same gene pool...

gotta love marketing: redefine evolution as any change = fact = evolution is fact...
regardless of the lack of evidence that any species changed into any other species...

@underlined
Bananas share 50% of their DNA with humans and 95% with chimpanzees.

@bold
It's not that simple.  
It's not a monkey giving birth to a human, its a long slow process.  

[Aura7541]

A loose interpretation of evolution lends itself well to misinformation. Natural selection and breeding are not evolutionary facts, but occurrences in and of themselves without any sort of evolution occurring.

The layman's interpretation / understanding of evolution is that man EVOLVED from a monkey archetype ancestor while factually there is no record of species changing species or life beginning from nothing to something more complex than a single protein.

evolutionary theory was expanded to encompass things that may or may not have anything to do with evolution to try and prove evolution as a factual or even scientific endeavor. Winning the lotto is more likely happenstance than evolution, yet many scientists rush to utilize any new discovery as something pertaining to the study of evolutionary science. I find this utterly ridiculous as a true study of science would rush to find the truth of a discovery rather than rush to push it off as an endorsement of a systematic belief that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

The concept of darwinian evolution is not the leading thought on evolution currently. Micro evolution is utilized to describe real science to proliferate the grander idea of evolution which is not true or provable by scientific measures. However, to lighten the burden of proof we label things as evolution even though it is not. A baby becoming an adult is not evolution though it fits the common accepted description of evolution.

If we choose to define evolution as a change from species to a completely different species there is no evidence or proof of this happening ever throughout history. However if we utilize it to describe the change of a species over time within its own species it is completely true. The latter however does not mean that the other is possible or provable at all by scientific metrics. Natural selection does not change dna but favors the dna that proliferates.

@First paragraph: Again, you're making things up. There is no loose interpretation of evolution. Yours is, though, to the point that it's very incorrect. See industrial melanism as an example for natural selection. I think I already told you to look this up.

@Second paragraph: Evolution is a process that takes millions of years. The formation of a new species takes lots and lots of genetic changes to the point that two populations of a common ancestor cannot interbreed. Stop with the "nothing to something" nonsense.

@Third paragraph: Yeah, let's claim that parts of the evolutionary theory has nothing to do with evolution, when the whole premise of it is to elucidate how evolution works. What in the world are you talking about? You're just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. And you do not understand the "true nature" of science. Do you even know how the peer review process works? It's a slow and rigorous process contrary to your claim that scientists "rush to utilize any new discovery".

@Fourth paragraph: Citation needed. Darwinian evolution was the start of the takeoff of evolutionary theory. Scientists have been expanding upon it with new discoveries and more advanced technology (e.g. PCR, bootstrapping, scan electron microscopy, etc.). There are many things we have not discovered and we continue to build upon the available knowledge.

@Fifth paragraph: Citation needed. What you're defining is a subcategory of evolution, a term that I and many other scientists do not use for various reasons, mine being that it's too fuzzy. Seriously, have you actually read my previous comment (through its entirety)? Evolution is defined as the change of heritable traits among populations over several generations. Some people like to subcategorize evolution into micro- and macro-evolution.

There is proof of speciation thanks to fossil records (see transitional fossils). Speciation has also been observed in person, whether it be in nature or in the lab. See Diane Dodd's experiment with Drosophila, as an example. There are instances where new plant species arise due to incidental genome replication, leading to polyploidy. Because of this, tetraploids cannot mate with diploids as their gametes won't contain the same number of chromosomes. There are different mechanisms for speciation like allopatric, sympatric, and parapatric. Some species arise from geographical barriers. Others through occupying a new niche. I also suggest reading this, that is if you're actually going to read it from an objective standpoint...

[Aura7541]

Was watching a movie just a while ago, which I note to say I'm not ignoring the other post... (will respond later)

the difference in written form is a difference of 1 to 5 hundred years not 1k years. Furthermore, Hebraic culture was passed down verbally as the preferred method over written for quite a while and still has a part in jewish culture today. That is to say while Moses may have written the pentateuch b/t 16/12k BC the story of Noah would have been passed down from generation to generation prior to the time Moses started to transcribe the oral history. I'm not sure how many generations passed from Shem (son of Noah) to Abraham or from Abraham to Moses to calculate off hand, but I do imagine it does predate any written word.

Even still 1700 BC and 1200 BC are guesses at best for either written form of the story. Neither of which negates the other as being the preeminent authority on a flood of global magnitude because all things being the same if one was true and the other wasn't it doesn't mean either being written first means it was the first version told.

Book of Genesis was written around 500 BC. The Torah did not contain Noah's Ark. Half-life dating gives us a really good idea of how old the Ziusudra tablet was. We also cannot dismiss the fact that there may be older editions of the story. Not to mention, Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh were also published about 1000 years before the Book the Genesis. Noah's Ark is essentially a ripoff of a ripoff of a ripoff.

And to reiterate, there has been no evidence, whether it be geological or archaeological, of a worldwide flood.

[Max King of the Wild]

The Bible is no different from any other fictional story, with the exception that it's an anthology since there are multiple authors. The amount of inconsistencies, whether they be scientific or non-scientific, is quite a lot.

One of the most obvious inaccuracies in the Bible is its support of geocentricism, which Galileo ultimately debunked.

That video is bad... The comment of court of law was cringe worthy.

Eyewitness Misidentification — The Innocence Project

Research illustrates that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. In eyewitness identifications, witness memory is impacted by a variety of factors that occur from the time of the crime onwards, and their memories can be easily contaminated.

[Dr. Pezus]

I can't believe there are still people that don't understand that evolution is not "just a theory".  

"While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe."
Text : Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist

[Aura7541]

That video is bad... The comment of court of law was cringe worthy.

Eyewitness Misidentification — The Innocence Project

Research illustrates that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. In eyewitness identifications, witness memory is impacted by a variety of factors that occur from the time of the crime onwards, and their memories can be easily contaminated.

And research illustrates that it's important to proofread. You'd think someone would actually try to fix these inconsistencies, but nope...

Say what you like about the video. However, it does save you the trouble of finding the verses that contradict each other.

I can't believe there are still people that don't understand that evolution is not "just a theory".

People just look at the word, "theory", but do not look at the context.

[Gooch_Suplex_Hold]

Clicking this thread was a bad idea.

[Dr. Pezus]