Is Evolution True? | Benzun's Perspective

[nautica]

One other comment.

As far as "Evolutionary theory" being FACT. It depends on your definition of evolution. If you keep it in its simplest biological form. "A change in allele frequency within a population over time"

Then Yes it is fact. But, the problem is that everyone has their own personal definition of evolution.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by nautica
One other comment.

As far as "Evolutionary theory" being FACT. It depends on your definition of evolution. If you keep it in its simplest biological form. "A change in allele frequency within a population over time"

Then Yes it is fact. But, the problem is that everyone has their own personal definition of evolution.

Nautica

I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

That is completely incorrect. Natural and sexual selection are only possible causes of evolution. They are by no means the only causes and should not be considered in the difinition.

How about genetic drift, migration, founder effect... These can also be causes of evolution.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

could you please read my comment more careful, I didnt say evolution is natural selection and sexual selection... that's way I said ...AND natural selection... not IS!

and by the way, the founder effect is an example of genetic draft, (which i mentioned before)

- which is concered with transmitting alleles, or not.

 

[agnostictheist]

If you said a change in the gene pool now that would of been ok

 

[nautica]

I said a change in allele frequency within a population - which the gene pool in that population consist.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

still doesn't excuess the fact that what u wrote above was a result of you not reading what i wrote.

and my statement still stands, even more so when you added this:

Natural and sexual selection are only possible causes of evolution. They are by no means the only causes and should not be considered in the difinition.

solution:

you don't have to have them soley to formulate a diffintion, hence the word AND.

the defintion I added brings the genetics, and studies of that nature, with those of darwins natural selection (and sexual), hence the modern evolutionary synthesis! - that's why I added to it

natural selection explians a system in HOW the change in the gene pool is done, and a very important ONE, in fact its importance is on par with genetic draft, and that's even more of a reason to add not omit the term! in the defintion! which you so claimed!

the point is while your defintion is correct at a very basic level, its not really explianing to much, in short I didnt so much disagree with it, but ADDED to it!

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

This is what you originally wrote. I have read it several times. Now you might want to take the time and reread it. Then maybe after you retype it, we can all understand what you were trying to say.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by nautica
This is what you originally wrote. I have read it several times. Now you might want to take the time and reread it. Then maybe after you retype it, we can all understand what you were trying to say.

Nautica

correct it was, and no where do I say Evolution IS natural selection.

I don't need to retype it, I tryed to explain it above.


(Has for my bad "writing structure" that's a result of my dyslexia.)

 

[nautica]

So, I guess I will never know what you were trying to say?

Nautica

 

[Descartes]

This is a great thread; indeed, one of the very few discourses on evolution that didn't lead to ad hominem attacks from those opposed.

Also, what are some good books for non-biologists that help elucidate some of the finer points of these arguments? Having an interest in so many things, I don't always have the time to keep up with all the discoveries of a given science.

 

[Bernardo]

Ambitwistor-
It's like how gravity is a fact in the sense that we know that things fall, but a particular description of how that happens (Newtonian gravity, general relativity, quantum gravity, etc.) is a theory [evolution], and may one day be replaced by another theory.

Are there any other theories out there in the science community?
I would be very interested to hear the 'cutting edge' thoughs on this topic.

 

[agnostictheist]

Has suggested by I fellow postee, talk origns is an excllent resource geared for all readers from very different backgounds!

was once part of the newsgroup learned alot.

also some good books of evolution, by "biologists": are:

the self gene
By Richard Dawkins

personaly I don't like dawkins and find him presassumptions and flat wrong one some points (not biology, rather his philosophical spim) but being a theist I would disagree with him in parts, however he very much worth a read.

ISBN 0-19-286092


-------------------------------------------------------------------

the second is by Simon Conway Morris

" The crucible of creation the burgess shale and the rise of animals"

ISBN 0-19-286202-2

and excellent writer, whom does produce a a very different and theist spin to evolution, those not always from his writings!

conway is the foremost scholar on the "cambrian explosion"

his main argument is "convergence"

 

[O Great One]

Ha Ha

Ya know...You guys really crack me up. If I was to walk with anyone of you guys into a store and walk up to a mannequin, I would not be able to convice you that it wasn't designed, yet your own body is about a billion times more complex and yet you believe that it wasn't designed. An animal with enough intellectual capacity that it can design clocks capable of being accurate to within one second every 20,000,000 years, capable of proving Fermat's Last Theorem, a theorem with an infinite number of equations each with an infinite number of possible solutions, capable of designing machines capable of discovering prime numbers 4 million digits long, playing chess better than 99.9% of the population, putting a man on the moon, doing billions of calculations in the blink of an eye. An animal that can discover its own genetic code and its own genome. An animal that can do that and yet its own genome is so complex it will be a long time before we fully understand it.
You guys are insane.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by O Great One
You guys are insane.

Was there an actual argument in that post, or did I just miss it? It seems like you're just saying "we're complicated, so we must have been designed by God." I don't think this is a very useful (or logically valid) argument. It's a non-sequitor.

- Warren

 

[Bernardo]

O Great one,
I don't think you read very much of this thread before jumping in with your assessment of the discussions here. This is not like a conversation where you can judge the content in a few minutes. Posts a few pages past are still 'current'. I have posted often on this thread and voiced my faith in a creator. While often met with debate, overall I feel an openness anong the frequenters here.

If you would have read you would see there are many views here all of them for the majority are respected. The only thing jumped on and unwelcome here is slamming the thoughts of others.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by O Great One
Ya know...You guys really crack me up. If I was to walk with anyone of you guys into a store and walk up to a mannequin, I would not be able to convice you that it wasn't designed, yet your own body is about a billion times more complex and yet you believe that it wasn't designed. An animal with enough intellectual capacity that it can design clocks capable of being accurate to within one second every 20,000,000 years, capable of proving Fermat's Last Theorem, a theorem with an infinite number of equations each with an infinite number of possible solutions, capable of designing machines capable of discovering prime numbers 4 million digits long, playing chess better than 99.9% of the population, putting a man on the moon, doing billions of calculations in the blink of an eye. An animal that can discover its own genetic code and its own genome. An animal that can do that and yet its own genome is so complex it will be a long time before we fully understand it.
You guys are insane.

OGO, do you not realize that you have actually defeated your own purpose here? If we are such intelligent animals, who have done (or can do) all of the things that you mention, and much more, then what makes you think we could all be so "mislead" on the subject of our own origin? Science has done so much, and yet you - while admiring some of its endeavors - act as though it would make a great leap of faith on one of the most important questions that humanity has ever asked. That's not giving us our full credit.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Bernardo
I have posted often on this thread and voiced my faith in a creator. While often met with debate, overall I feel an openness anong the frequenters here.

If you would have read you would see there are many views here all of them for the majority are respected. The only thing jumped on and unwelcome here is slamming the thoughts of others.

Glad to hear you say that, Bernardo. That's the goal...an open debate of ideas. This particular debate often gets heated as it touches on people's core beliefs, but we try to keep it civil overall. Bottom line is that the theory of evolution makes no statement for or against God. Some people say evolution operates on its own, others say God uses evolution to create. If O Great One wants to refute evolution completely, then fine...this is a science forum, so let's discuss the scientific evidence for/against that position.

 

[einsteinian77]

O great one, we haven't proven fermats last theorem. As I can recall it is unprovable.

My biology teacher told me that the theory prior to evolution was the theory that life forms could change just by will. Was that really the theory before evolution?

 

[Bernardo]

OK everyone,


O Great One is gone probably never to return. What we have here is a 'drive by posting' so let's agree his post was 'hasty' and articulated in a way that makes his opinions very hard to accept. Having done this let's leave him behind and continue the discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
My biology teacher told me that the theory prior to evolution was the theory that life forms could change just by will. Was that really the theory before evolution?

Actually, the theory before Darwinian evolution was called Lamarkian(sp?) evolution. It didn't really say that animals changed at will, so much as it said that any change that the environment produced in an individual could be passed to that individuals children (thus producing new species on a constant basis).

 

[einsteinian77]

How would these changes come about, according to the theory.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by O Great One
Ya know...You guys really crack me up. If I was to walk with anyone of you guys into a store and walk up to a mannequin, I would not be able to convice you that it wasn't designed, yet your own body is about a billion times more complex and yet you believe that it wasn't designed. An animal with enough intellectual capacity that it can design clocks capable of being accurate to within one second every 20,000,000 years, capable of proving Fermat's Last Theorem, a theorem with an infinite number of equations each with an infinite number of possible solutions, capable of designing machines capable of discovering prime numbers 4 million digits long, playing chess better than 99.9% of the population, putting a man on the moon, doing billions of calculations in the blink of an eye. An animal that can discover its own genetic code and its own genome. An animal that can do that and yet its own genome is so complex it will be a long time before we fully understand it.
You guys are insane.

We're not all that smart. Some of us continue to deny obvious proven facts because they conflict with our completely uninformed preconcieved superstitions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
How would these changes come about, according to the theory.

I really don't know. I guess they knew about mutation, but believed that this mutation was much more radical, over much less time...but I'm not sure on that.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
O great one, we haven't proven fermats last theorem. As I can recall it is unprovable.

Er.. we have. Though it was done by the brute force, computer based approach, and some mathematicians feel that it does not really constitute a proof.

playing chess better than 99.9% of the population

Doesn't this actually disprove any idea of a requirement for a higher designer? The folks who made the chess computer bearly could play chess at all - and so, this is an example of some property appearing from a place where it did not exist before. More advanced versions of game playing computers also utilise learning algorithms - evolutionary computing, basically - to beat human opponents.

 

[Bernardo]

fermats last theorem

I realize (by reading only - I am the anti-mathematician) the situation behind Fermats Theorem. A problem that has boggled the minds of great thinkers for such a long time, to now be solved gives me great hope.

No matter if computers solved it or not - mankind has the ability to discover and to solve. As a matter of fact you don't even drive a car now without a computer. What we need to do is continue to discuss and research and learn about this world we live in - as well as where it came from.

I do attribute our amazing ability to 'dig' for knowledge a God given gift. A gift that allows us to have awe and wonder over the universe no other creature enjoys.

But also a gift we can use to elevate ourselves inappropriately. We are 'in the image' of our creator. This means we have His qualities and one of them is a desire to create. Create art, buildings, good pizza and computers.

I would be very interested to hear other views on the evolution of man particularly. Why is there no other 'animal' on Earth approaching our intelligence? Why are we so far ahead of everything else?

 

[selfAdjoint]

First of all, Fermat's Theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles without using computers. It was the four color theorem that was proved using computers.

Then as far as humnan evolution is concerned, some species had to be first with intelligence and apparently it was us. You can see other animals, like baboons, evolving toward the early stages of intelligence. And don't give up on the other primates yet, either.

 

[Bernardo]

How about this idea?

Don't you think there come a time when 'there can only be one'. Everything pretty much has an equal footing at the cellular level, but as life gets more advanced domination occures. Evolution ends for all but the most advanced.

If humans ever discovered baboons roasting chestnuts over an open fire we'd wipe them out. So for everything else on Earth intelligence is a pointless endevour.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If humans ever discovered baboons roasting chestnuts over an open fire we'd wipe them out. So for everything else on Earth intelligence is a pointless endevour.

Gee, I hope we get beyond that. If not there is more likelihood that some species from elsewhere would come and wipe us out.

There are among present day humans some who so long for competitors/allies in intelligence that they persuade themselves they see it in space or in other animals where the evidence is extremely slight. Let us hope that the trend in intelligent species is for such to prevail.

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
First of all, Fermat's Theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles without using computers. It was the four color theorem that was proved using computers.

Then as far as humnan evolution is concerned, some species had to be first with intelligence and apparently it was us. You can see other animals, like baboons, evolving toward the early stages of intelligence. And don't give up on the other primates yet, either.

this sounds like "we" homo sapien sapiens had inteligence first, this is an error. also other apes and even primates in some ways have greater inteligence of sorts than humans. for example there memory span for remmbering squences of flashing lights is on averge better than ours.

 

[Phobos]

Neandertals had bigger brains than H. sapiens (1500 cc vs. 1350 cc) and we took care of them didn't we? Of course, brain mass alone does not corrolate directly to intelligence and it would seem that our Cro-Magnon ancestors had the tool-making and cultural edge on the Neandertals. I too hope with selfAdjoint that human culture has moved beyond such prejudice...but that does not seem to be the case based upon all the modern day racism, sexism, etc. going on.

agnostictheist - Correct that H. sapiens were not the first to have "high intelligence", but the genus Homo (of which there were several species) was the first to develop it to this degree. Of course, other critters are quite smart too, as you suggest.

Bernardo - Oh, I'm sure OGO is still there watching the discussion. He just doesn't tend to get involved in the line-by-line debates we all enjoy so much.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Phobos
Neandertals had bigger brains than H. sapiens (1500 cc vs. 1350 cc) and we took care of them didn't we? Of course, brain mass alone does not corrolate directly to intelligence and it would seem that our Cro-Magnon ancestors had the tool-making and cultural edge on the Neandertals.

But what is the comparison between the sizes of the respective neocortexes? Perhaps I should start a thread on this particular point, since it appears that the size of the neocortex, and not the size of the whole brain, is what is most relevant to intelligence.

 

[Nereid]

Mentat wrote: But what is the comparison between the sizes of the respective neocortexes? Perhaps I should start a thread on this particular point, since it appears that the size of the neocortex, and not the size of the whole brain, is what is most relevant to intelligence.

Are you thinking of elephants, dolphins, whales, ...?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Nereid
Are you thinking of elephants, dolphins, whales, ...?

I meant between Cromagnon man and the Neandertals. Neandertalensis had larger brains, but did they have larder neocortexes?

 

[Nereid]

A question not directly related to 'Is evolution true?':

To what extent is homo sap. the pinnacle of evolution? Not in the sense that evolution has a goal in mind, so to speak, but that incrementally evolution produces better, smarter, 'purer' creatures.

I've seen 'evolution' presented as a tree, with homo sap. on top; I've heard evolution described as producing a 'bush' rather than a 'tree'. What's the current thinking?

What goal does evolution have? Or is this question essentially meaningless?

 

[iansmith]

Originally posted by Mentat
But what is the comparison between the sizes of the respective neocortexes? Perhaps I should start a thread on this particular point, since it appears that the size of the neocortex, and not the size of the whole brain, is what is most relevant to intelligence.

Surface area is also important. Neandertal migth had a bigger brain but could have less surface area. Surface area is important because all your neurones are on top (the gray matter) of you brain not inside (the white matter). The folding is important because it allows for an increase in surface area without a excessive enlargement of the brain.

The prefontal cortex is also important.

Originally posted by Nereid
What goal does evolution have? Or is this question essentially meaningless?

That question is meaningless. Evolution does not have a mind. It goes with the flow.

 

[Loren Booda]

Evolution had a definite origin, but may not have a definite end?

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Nereid
To what extent is homo sap. the pinnacle of evolution? Not in the sense that evolution has a goal in mind, so to speak, but that incrementally evolution produces better, smarter, 'purer' creatures.

I've seen 'evolution' presented as a tree, with homo sap. on top; I've heard evolution described as producing a 'bush' rather than a 'tree'. What's the current thinking?

What goal does evolution have? Or is this question essentially meaningless?

The works of Gould went on and on about this. Check 'em out. Basically...
(1) there is no pinnicle...evolution is just change, not necessarily progress...and certainly not progress toward a pre-set goal as far as we can tell
(2) smarter/better/purer is relative to the ecosystem at a particular point in spacetime (e.g., a dominant species during an ice age may quickly go extinct once the world warms up a bit)
(3) and evolution is better diagrammed as a very twiggy bush (radiating variations in many directions, not all evenly "upwards" like in a tree...and certainly not like a linear ladder or chain)
(4) evolution has no final goal...it is genetic change and adaptation to ever-changing environments

 

[Nereid]

Thank you Phobos.

Bernardo, in what respects (if any) do you find Phobos' answer(s) unsatisfying?

OGO, what experimental or observational data is there which contradicts Phobos' four points?

 

[Mentat]

Nereid,
You reminded me of something that Gould once said, in an interview (though I think he was quoting Mark Twain, or somebody): "To say that humans are the purpose/end-result of evolution is like saying that the purpose of the Eiffel Tower was to put the last swab of paint on the top."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Evolution had a definite origin, but may not have a definite end?

I can't see that there is a definite origin to Evolution, but that can be taken for granted so as not to invoke Cosmological debate...as to a definite end, certainly not. Evolution has probably been slowed down a bit on this planet but it certainly has not stopped. We haven't existed long enough to see significant change (the entirety of Cromagnon existence could be played out 750,000 times over within the time that the Earth has existed altogether...a truly miniscule incriment of time), but it hasn't stopped (as observed even in humans themselves (see AG's (Shane's) article in Physicspost.com on "current human evolution")).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Evolution had a definite origin, but may not have a definite end?

I can't see that there is a definite origin to Evolution, but that can be taken for granted so as not to invoke Cosmological debate...as to a definite end, certainly not. Evolution has probably been slowed down a bit on this planet but it certainly has not stopped. We haven't existed long enough to see significant change (the entirety of Cromagnon existence could be played out 750,000 times over within the time that the Earth has existed altogether...a truly miniscule incriment of time), but it hasn't stopped (as observed even in humans themselves (see AG's (Shane's) article in Physicspost.com on "current human evolution")), and it can't stop (since, even if all species were to go extinct, the process of their extinction would be an evolution of sorts..."evolution" just means "change over time").

Now, I guess you could say that evolution on Earth will have stopped when there is no life left here...but then you still have the possibility of abiogenesis occurring again (however minute), and so this might never be the case.

 

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by Nereid
Bernardo, in what respects (if any) do you find Phobos' answer(s) unsatisfying?

OGO, what experimental or observational data is there which contradicts Phobos' four points?

The difficulties I have with his ideas are the 'belief system' they come from. Gould was an Atheistic Evolutionist - I am a Theistic Evolutionist or in more correct terms - a Progressive Creationist.

I look at the points listed above and don't see them as science - they are a 'statement of beliefs' about a science. I do agree that it’s impossible for evolution to work toward an end. Atheistic thought has it as a random progression – so no evolutionary path is possible just as Gould says - but that is only because evolution is a mindless tool. Like a hammer could not imagine the house it's being used to build. On examination of the house you could prove without a doubt that a hammer was used. Even reproduce its effects on smaller controlled pieces of wood.

I know there are other 'intelligent' animals out there who build nests, tie knots with vine, and communicate in a limited way but let's face it, we were surpassing their level 1.6 million years ago when Homo erectus came on the scene. I find this quite incredible that in 1.6 million years no other animal has even began to narrow the gap.

As far as OGO goes, look at Mentat's signature & that's how I feel.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Bernardo
The difficulties I have with his ideas are the 'belief system' they come from. Gould was an Atheistic Evolutionist - I am a Theistic Evolutionist or in more correct terms - a Progressive Creationist.

Did you happen to read Gould's analogy (about the Eiffel Tower)? Why do you see it as "progressive"? Also, btw, creationism doesn't allow for evolution (progressive or otherwise). I could explain why, but then the thread would probably be locked.

I know there are other 'intelligent' animals out there who build nests, tie knots with vine, and communicate in a limited way but let's face it, we were surpassing their level 1.6 million years ago when Homo erectus came on the scene. I find this quite incredible that in 1.6 million years no other animal has even began to narrow the gap.

Rephrase please.

As far as OGO goes, look at Mentat's signature & that's how I feel.

Good man! I was thinking about this thread when I changed signatures, but I didn't think anyone would notice.

 

[Nereid]

Brenardo: The difficulties I have with his ideas are the 'belief system' they come from. Gould was an Atheistic Evolutionist - I am a Theistic Evolutionist or in more correct terms - a Progressive Creationist.

Could you please expand on this? Surely it doesn't matter where the ideas come from - Phobos, Mentat, Gould, ... - it's what the ideas are.

Brenardo:I look at the points listed above and don't see them as science - they are a 'statement of beliefs' about a science.

This, IMHO, is getting closer to the heart of our debate.

You and I apply the scientific method to the study of stars, and we come up with a pretty fine theory of 'stellar evolution' (yes, that's what it's called). Although there may be some Christians who would challenge this theory (if they hold that the Earth is but ~4,000 years old, they have no choice), I would guess it's generally acceptable.

We apply the same tools to the study of living things, and all kinds of emotional energy starts to fly.

In what sense is Phobos' (Gould's?) list more of a 'statement of beliefs' about a science where an analogous list about stellar evolution (or physical chemistry, or thermodynamics, or ...) is not?

 

[einsteinian77]

Where do they come up with the number 6000 years when telling how old the Earth is. I don't recall the bible giving any age of the earth, though I haven't read the bible in about 9 years.

 

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by Nereid
In what sense is Phobos' (Gould's?) list more of a 'statement of beliefs' about a science where an analogous list about stellar evolution (or physical chemistry, or thermodynamics, or ...) is not?

This was the list.
(1) there is no pinnicle...evolution is just change, not necessarily progress...and certainly not progress toward a pre-set goal as far as we can tell
(2) smarter/better/purer is relative to the ecosystem at a particular point in spacetime (e.g., a dominant species during an ice age may quickly go extinct once the world warms up a bit)
(3) and evolution is better diagrammed as a very twiggy bush (radiating variations in many directions, not all evenly "upwards" like in a tree...and certainly not like a linear ladder or chain)
(4) evolution has no final goal...it is genetic change and adaptation to ever-changing environments

The science of stellar evolution has produced a timeline for us. To the best of our scientific knowledge the universe is X years old. It's been arrived at through study. Two scientists working on this same project can have different beliefs about this fact, one says there is no point to the universe it's just random and ever changing. The other says it has been brought about by God.

Gould's statements aren't scientific fact. They are how he believed things work.

As far as the biblical timeline goes - If you start at Adam and work your way to Christ you can determine the age since Adam - it's approx 6K old. This age of the Earth is a difficult position to defend, but honestly really is a minor point when the true reason for the scriptures is taken into account. As I wrote earlier in this thread the scriptures are written in the way the world looks to the common eye and are concerned not with scientific method but salvation. You also have to take into account the historical time period the various book were written and remember that the ancient near eastern mind did not think like a 21st century biologist. The unfortunate thing for this thread is that the creation account was not given to us to solve this debate. The account does not mention prehistoric life or where the other people came from when Cain was banished from his family. I can only shrug my shoulder and say, "I don't know." Honestly It's not a crisis for me.

Take a look in any library on the texts available on this or any other science. It simply isn't realistic to take any scientific view or discovery and throw out the bible because it isn't directly addressed by chapter and verse. There's just too much to know and honestly God isn't really concerned if we ever solve string theory or whatever. It's how we relate to Him that He cares about.

 

[Loren Booda]

Evolution may be seen as emulating the anentropic (ordered) component of the predominantly entropic (disordered) environment.

 

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Evolution may be seen as emulating the anentropic (ordered) component of the predominantly entropic (disordered) environment.

WHAT??!??

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Bernardo
It simply isn't realistic to take any scientific view or discovery and throw out the bible because it isn't directly addressed by chapter and verse. There's just too much to know and honestly God isn't really concerned if we ever solve string theory or whatever. It's how we relate to Him that He cares about.

Of course, its simply a matter of relevance. And you seem to know that:

As I wrote earlier in this thread the scriptures are written in the way the world looks to the common eye and are concerned not with scientific method but salvation. You also have to take into account the historical time period the various book were written and remember that the ancient near eastern mind did not think like a 21st century biologist.

Based on this, you must be able to conclude that what the Bible says simply isn't relevant to most scientific discussions. There really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts evolution simply because it doesn't say anything relevant to the issue.

It is very important to separate your science from your religion.