The Barbarian

It's been observed between jackals and tigers in S. Asia. Golden jackals hang out near tigers and feed off their leavings. They will occasionally make a tiger aware of a prey animal nearby. Most tigers tolerate the jackals. I suspect humans were able to more quickly figure out the benefits of such interactions. It's true that dogs have evolved the "sad eyes" face that humans find appealing, and research has shown that they know what they are doing to us: In a study published June 17 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers looked at the evolution of "puppy dog eyes" — the signature, eyebrows-raised look of sadness that any dog can employ to escape virtually any consequence — and found that the expression finds its source in a powerful eye muscle that seems to have evolved specifically to mimic human emotions. [Like Dog, Like Owner: What Breed Says About Personality] In a small survey of dogs and wolves, the researchers found that the muscle is "uniformly present" in modern dogs, but conspicuously absent in their wild cousins. The ability to make this hangdog expression, which closely resembles the look of confused sadness oft worn by human babies, "may trigger a nurturing response" in humans who behold it, the authors wrote, and could therefore be an evolutionary advantage to doggos. https://www.livescience.com/65738-how-dogs-evolved-sad-eyes.html Previous studies have demonstrated that dogs can read and respond to human facial expressions—and even synchronize their emotions to match. “Dogs are watching us very closely—some of this is based on our gaze and body language, but also on the sounds we make and the scents we give off,” Monique Udell, an animal behaviorist and associate professor of animal sciences at Oregon State University in Corvallis, told National Geographic in 2021. https://www.popsci.com/animals/dog-domestication-wolves-evolution-puppy-eyes/ Dog Gazes Hijack the Brain’s Maternal Bonding System When a dog looks into your eyes, it’s bonding with you in the same way babies bond with their human moms https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dog-gazes-hijack-brains-maternal-bonding-system-180955019/

Some sources: The invaders: how humans and their dogs drove Neanderthals to extinction https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674975415 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=18cf09365e40f4db789eace578819609f0ccf96d Behaviorally, humans are the most canid-like of primates. And dogs are the most primate-like of canids. We've changed, perhaps as much as they have. A band of humans and dogs cooperating in hunting are the predators from hell. Together, they have everything. Imagine two proto-canids considering these new arrivals. "Sure, they're slow, and they can't track to save their lives. But did you see last week? They took down a mammoth. We need to get in on that."

Evolution is a fact, because it's an observed phenomenon. Common descent of life on Earth is a conclusion based on the facts that even informed YECs admit is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Scientists make a distinction between facts like evolution and conclusions based on facts, like common descent. Some YECs claim otherwise; it's that sort of disingenuous nonsense that has led many believers to view young Earth creationism with a great deal of suspicion.

This seems to conflate final causes with efficient causes. The efficient causes of evolution are well-understood and easily observed. The final cause is outside the reach of science, being God (IMO).

Well, let's test that opinion. How do you measure complexity? For example, how would you decide whether a shark is more or less complex than a turtle? Full disclosure; biological complexity calculations make my head hurt, but I'd be willing to discuss yours, or alternately explore a relatively simple case. What would you like to do? Biological information is more applicable to evolution, because it focuses on populations. As you probably know, evolution happens to populations, not individuals. The good thing about that is, information is somewhat less difficult to calculate. Again, how should we go forward with this?

I really didn't think much about this when I first read it. Since the opening lines of Genesis show us the triune nature of God, the Word is not Hebrew. It's the Son.

They just don't want to call it "evolution." Darwin defined it as "descent with modification." Today, it's defined as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." And that's what we observe. AIG is trying to blur the lines between common descent and evolution. For the obvious reasons. They've had to retreat to admitting the fact of speciation, of new species and genera (and sometimes families) evolving over time. They just want to cancel the original meaning to maintain their position.

The point is that you can't make Genesis and your revision of it compatible. I don't think you're lying; you're so indoctrinated that you refuse to look at facts. But adding your new interpretations is a revision. You're merely assuming things untrue. As you learned ancient Jewish and Christian theologians wrote that Genesis was not a literal account. I've given you examples. Why deny something everyone has seen here? So do Christians. You just don't approve of the way He did it. Why not just accept it His way?

Evolution is a directly observed natural phenomenon. Just as you confuse Genesis with YEC, you've confused adaptation with evolution. Since you forgot again... Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Adaption is a response by an organism to environment. Not all adaptation is evolution, and not all evolution is adaptation. Getting a suntan is adaptation, but not evolution. A new neutral mutation is evolution but not adaptation. Tibetans evolving the EPAS1 mutation to survive at high altitudes is evolution and adaptation. Write it down this time, so you don't forget again. It's constantly observed. No point in denial. Would you like me to show you some more examples? That is evolution. You can actually get a genetic breakdown of breed which is the change in allele frequencies. If it did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's not what evolutionary theory says. Can you actually make a post without saying anything untrue?

The point is that you can't make Genesis and your revision of it compatible. Evolution, as you know, is an observed fact. So your revision is clearly incompatible with God and His creation. Christians who reject the Bible aren’t “Christ like,” because Christ actually believed the Bible. Why won't you?

It's a directly observed natural phenomenon. Why not just let God decide how it should be? You are promoting false doctrine. That distances you from Him.

An informal survey of major Christian organizations and denominations in the United States, based mostly on publicly available statements, indicates that in fact most Christians, as represented by their governing bodies, view evolution as being compatible with their faith You aren't going to hell for being a YEC; it's an error, not a heresy. It's not orthodoxy, but it's not something that affects your salvation. Only if you make an idol of it, and insist that one must believe it to be saved, does it put your salvation at risk. You call yourself a Christian, for example. But you don't act much like it. Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way.

Since the text itself tells us that it's not a literal six days, there's no contradiction at all between God's word and His creation. Why not just accept it as it is, without creationist additions?

We see evolution happening in all populations. No point in denial. Did you forget what evolution is, again? Descent with modification, or a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. We see that constantly. You've confused evolution with common descent. Let's see what a knowledgeable and honest YE creationist has to say about the evidence for that... Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumedancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf As you learned, evolution is consistent with God's word. Christians disagree with you. You're welcome to believe what you like, but it's not orthodox Christian belief. An informal survey of major Christian organizations and denominations in the United States, based mostly on publicly available statements, indicates that in fact most Christians, as represented by their governing bodies, view evolution as being compatible with their faith. Although on a worldwide basis this is largely a result of the high number (estimated at 1.2 billion) of adherents to Catholicism, even in the United States, where Protestants outnumber Catholics and where anti-evolution sentiment runs high, there is more acceptance than non-acceptance of evolution among Christians, based on statements from their organizing bodies or spokespersons. Protestant groups are divided on the issue, with more “mainstream” denominations (e.g., Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian) accepting evolutionary biology as being compatible with their faith, and more fundamentalist or Pentecostal groups denying compatibility or rejecting evolution. Relevant statements from denominations or organizations both pro and con are included. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0221-5 Not surprisingly, there's nothing therein that denies evolution. You just added some things to make it more acceptable to you. If you believe God, you wouldn't be making those additions.

We see it happening in all populations. You might as well say that gravity will never be proven. I think you've forgotten again, what biological evolution is. Can you tell us what it is? No, that's wrong too. God could easily use nature to make our bodies. In fact, He says the earth brought forth living things as He intended. Of course, evolution is not about the organization of the universe, and Darwin's great discovery was that evolution is not random. "People are usually down on things they aren't up on." Everett Dirkson IDer Michael Denton would disagree. God is not required for teleology. Nor is evolution inconsistent with God's creation. It is His creation, after all. Otherwise it wouldn't exist for us to observe. As you learned, evolution is consistent with God's word. It's just inconsistent with the revisions of some YECs. Not all of them, but most of them.