Not evolve but devolve. For example Noah had on the ark a pair of horse type animals. These two contained combinations of dna that gave rise to all the different types of horse like animal we have today. This is not evolution as the animals are not becoming more advanced than the original but devolution as they have less potential than before. I'm not sure I've explained this very well there is a very good book called "true science agrees with the Bible" that has a chapter dedicated to explaining this. It is entirely plausible that all the different species we have today could have devolved from the number of animals that would have fitted in an ark of the dimensions given in the Bible. Whether or not you believe is up to you but I would suggest that if you look into it properly the evidence supports the Bible as a reliable historical record.
30 comments
No, Andchips, the example you gave is not an example of devolving, It's an example of evolution , since multiple animal species came out of single one. Although, one must wonder how did that happen, since there had to be inbreeding if there were only two units of any single animal kind.
true science agrees with the Bible
There is no such thing as "devolution" (outside of Digimon ). There is only evolution. In order to "devolve" a species you would have to archive the DNA of numerous specimens for a century or two, completely eradicate the modern descendants and release clones of the originals to fill the void. And even then it wouldn't truly be devolution so much as a manmade hard reset of the species.
--"I would suggest that if you look into it properly the evidence supports the Bible as a reliable historical record."
You've already shown that you'll suggest a lot of things that are total bullshit in lieu of cultivating even an elementary school level of understanding of the subject in question. It is therefore no surprise that you'd suggest as much as this.
Not evolution but devolution?
Since evolution is evolution regardless of direction, devolution is just another type of evolution.
"I'm not sure I've explained this very well there is a very good book called "true science agrees with the Bible" that has a chapter dedicated to explaining this"
Explaining this better only causes more intense pointing and laughing.
The Bible does not actually say any of this. It doesn't say species changed or devolved after the flood, and it doesn't mention DNA. Fundies change the meanings of words ("kind") and add ad-hoc, tortuous explanations to their absurd and contradictory book, and have the gall to call themselves literalists.
I agree you could fit a pair of Eohippus on an ark better, but they can't haul a dray, stomp lions, or run in the Kentucky Derby.
There's no such thing as devolution. That would require evolution to have a certain end goal in mind to step back from. Evolution simply means "change over time" so whether a species gets "better" (according to our narrow, subjective opinion of what that means) i.e. more intelligent, stronger, faster, etc. or "worse" i.e. slower, dumber, simpler, etc. that's all evolution. And as I alluded to in my parenthetical statement, what's "better" according to us doesn't necessarily translate into what actually helps the species survive. For example, to us having eyes is better than being blind yet, many species that moved into caves have lost their ancestral eyes and are thriving.
image
image
image
image
Sometimes being simpler is better. Sometimes being slower is better (just ask the sloths). But always, always, the change is driven by environmental pressures, not by any end goal and definitely not by some massive genetic bottleneck caused by being shoved onto a creaky old boat by a drunken shepherd 4000 years ago.
Noah's ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. His family, plus two of every animal and enough provisions for forty days couldn't fit in something that size.
Meh
Not really THAT fundie, wrong but I wouldn't call it exactly fundie.
At least he is trying, which is alot more to say than some other people that only looked at the picture of a chimp turning into a man (which is also wrong) only once and going "dat wrung, evilution is wrung, gawd did it"
There's no such thing as "devolution*." When living things change over time, that's evolution. But I don't think that two horse-type creatures could provide the vast and wide variety of horse-type animals we have today in just 6,000 years. Evolution rarely works that fast.
*Except for: image
You fucking dipshit. For the last fucking time: evolution is ANY change. Whether a species becomes more complex or less complex is irrelevant, only so long as those changes help it survive in its role and environment. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. You have only your willful ignorance to blame.
Oh, and I love the last bit:
@magikot:
"Noah's ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. His family, plus two of every animal and enough provisions for forty days couldn't fit in something that size."
The rain lasted 40 days and nights. The ark was bobbing around on water for about 400 days. Then when they left the ark it was mud as far as the eye could see.
So this ark thing fails even harder.
So 7000 or so pairs on the ark "devolved" into the estimated 8.7 *million* known species today (never mind those not yet classified and those that have gone extinct)? In just 4000 years?
Seriously?
Damn, that's not just evolution, that's HYPER-evolution.
How do you propose that has been done if "no new information has been added" and "mutations are never beneficial"?
If this devolution is occurring, one would expect all of life on earth to be nothing but slime and bacteria, and headed for complete extinction. Yet we don't see that. Why do you think that is?
"These two contained combinations of dna"
Look, Don Bluth is one of my favourite animators too, but watching his Sci-Fi film "Titan AE" too many times isn't healthy , you know!
Two corrections to be made:
1) there is a very good book called "true Scotsman agrees with the Bible"
2) if you look into it properly the evidence supports the Bible as a complete crock of shit.
I saw the documentary the story is about. Dr Finkel basically established that most of the OT stories, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, Even the story of Moses himself was lifted directly from earlier Babylonian stories. Very interesting.
His "Ark" was interesting enough but the one pictured was about as large as that design and materials could be realistically built.
This is an excellent example of someone who has HEARD of evolution, but has absolutely no concept of what it actually entails. The fact that people upvoted it, even on the Daily Mail, is terrifying. What is our education?
"Devolve" is a popular term, not a scientific term: ANY change in the genetic composition of a population over generations is evolution by definition.
Two individuals--be they horses or whatever--could not possibly contain all the possible combinations of DNA found in living populations today, as for many genes more than two unique alleles exist.
You haven't explained anything, either poorly or well. You've made statments which are demonstrably false and explain nothing.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
