Evolution And The Theory Of Games Puns

I read this book in my 6th grade social studies class. I loved it so much and think about it frequently but have no idea what it’s called.

It introduces the sea ape evolution theory, but it’s YA. The main characters are the modern girl who does archeology with her dad or something? And then also the parallel narrative has the main character of a young sea ape girl who’s “tribe” is migrating to land out of the sea.

Thanks! I really hope we can find it I’ve been looking for years!

Pat Robertson even referred to abortion once as "slaughtering unborn babies". Whaaaat?

Could god not create the world through evolution, I think if the belief in God and believing in the theory of evolution at the same time can help make sense of things that don’t make sense in both beliefs

Edit: this is my first post here, and much to my surprise, I did not have all the answers, and you guys seem to have done this a million times before, you guys have something to say to everything and I do believe that you guys have won

Atheists: 1

Me: 0

This is sort of a part II to my last post specifically addressing a recent set of posts here about how to get more people to believe in YEC, first from a YEC proponent and then later from an atheist who self identified as here to help.

The post by the YEC seemed to decry the fact that we were losing ground and our scientists were in the minority. The post by the atheist suggested that we stay away from scientific justification altogether and if we venture there avoid it unless we have what this person identified as a scientific basis.

###The issue

And I think both these posts fall into the trap of assuming that creationism and YEC are contradicted by modern science. We're both starting at the same place and the same assumption. Atheists assume that scientific theories like Darwinism, radiometric dating etc. contradict a young earth and creationism and claim to thus reject creationism, young earth and god.

Creationists seem to accept that scientific theories like Darwinism and radiometric dating contradict creationism, a young earth and God and thus argue against these things. The problem from my perspective is we're starting from the same place and the same base assumptions that the atheists are starting from and take them for granted. I think if we start examining these assumptions, things start falling apart.

##Philosophical not Scientific Problem

What I realized from reading the posts, and from reading a lot of the posts on r/debateevolution is the problem for YEC is not a scientific conundrum. Let me emphasize that. Science does not contradict creationism. Science does not contradict a young Earth. The problem is not even that most science, or established science, or academia contradicts a young earth view. The problem is that most of us don't know what we are talking about when we talk about science or scientific truth or what counts as valid knowledge.

So to give an example - when an atheist naturalist says that "Darwinian evolution is true and thus intelligent design is false" that sounds like a scientific claim. It's not, it's an epistemological claim, it is a claim about what is true and what counts as valid knowledge.

To demonstrate this, let's ask a few questions about this claim: Is the fact that something is a scientific theory enough to make it valid knowledge that is irrational to reject. Are we irrational if we don't believe in dark matter for example? What about those reputable scientists that reject dark mat

The double standard at its finest.

Generally, a career maker for a scientist is to discover or disprove some scientific concept. Pasteur had disproving spontaneous generation and introducing vaccination. Lemaitre had disproving steady state theory and introducing the big bang theory. Lavosier and Fulhame aided in disproving phlogiston theory. This could mean anything from fame, to saving someones life (wrong things backfire) to monetary reward (Nobel Prize).

With that in mind (assuming the theories in question are incorrect), given the overwhelming percentage of biologists acknowadge the validity of evolution, and arguably even more physicists acknowladge the validity of the speed of light, planetary formation, etc, why do you think there isnt more scientifically based dissent?

In the past few 3-5 years I quickly became aware of the Metal Gear Series and other works by Hideo Kojima, and fell in love with the stories and characters. So when Death Stranding came out, I knew I had to play it, and I loved it. I finished it within a week or so when it came out, but just today I got around to finally watching a Youtuber I like play it, and I had a thought afterwards leading to me to realize even more how this shows how Kojima evolved as a writer, or specifically, the message he wants to send has evolved. Now there are several obvious comparisons and callbacks/references to his previous stories, but I'm going to mostly being focusing on the characters, with 1 or 2 events near the end of the game, so I'm giving this a spoiler warning tag, and another fair warning of story spoilers for Metal Gear 1-2 and Metal Gear Solid 1-4

Sam has the best personality traits of the previous 3 main characters you play in Metal Gear. Or specifically, the most meaningful traits of Solid Snake, and Big Boss

We started with Solid Snake, who is a soldier who knows no other way to be, to act, or to help people, other then killing other people. He believes killing bad people is for the greater good, or at least, needs himself to believe that, and him protecting his country, and the world, is the only thing he can do with his skills. By the end of Metal Gear Solid 1, he learned he can change, and there is more to life then a job, or a greater good, that he can be stronger person and find meaning in people, maybe even meaning in love. He knows the world is flawed, its governments are flawed, but its people are not, and they will find a way eventually. Eventually however, this just continues as warfare evolves to levels never seen before. Nothing has changed and he is tired and dying by the end of Metal Gear Solid 4, and will trust that him stepping away might be for the best, that him staying involved keeps up the idea that might makes right, which what his mentor, or his brother thought.

His mentor and father figure/clone father Big Boss, was raised to by his mentor/mother figure to be stronger then anyone else, to defeat those who stand in your way, and the end goal is for the greater good of the goddamn United Sates of AMERICA, so it's for the greater good of the world. He was taught by her that the end justifies the means and sometimes sacrifice is required for the greater good. At the end of Metal Gear Solid 3, Big Boss is forced to kill her, for her to s

So, in Manichaeism it’s believed that the physical (material) universe came into existence when the prince of darkness invaded the realm of light, creating the physical world as a battleground.

We live in 2020, and science has a quite a bit of evidence to proof that evolution is true, now this doesn’t clash with Manichean teachings since there’s no year or date on which the physical world came into existence, so this could’ve happened millions of years ago, maybe even billions (unless the concept of time is different, or doesn’t even exist in the spiritual world).

You could even go as far as saying that the event from the first alinea caused the big bang, but I’d hesitate to do so, since I don’t know all that much about the big bang theory

To preface: I am but a humble high school biology student, but have done my best to understand the (many, many) processes of biology at a level appropriate to my course. The aforementioned course is an AP course (Advanced Placement, for those outside North America), and as such I have a deeper understanding than your typical Bio student, which I hope to utilise to make my point here. Also, this post presumes that the reader has a preexisting knowledge of biology and knows the definition of many words specific to biology, but if any reader does not, I would be happy to provide a definition/brief synopsis of a process.

I have studied life in order of gradually increasing complexity, begging at the molecules essential to life and progressing up to the organisation of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. All of it fundamentally supports the idea of evolution, but one thing I found especially interesting was endosymbiont theory.

Endosymbiont theory states that mitochondria and chloroplasts and other plastids came about as a result of a larger cell engulfing a smaller one--capable of aerobic cellular respiration--that managed to avoid digestion and proved as an asset to the larger cell. Here is a graphic that explains it quite well.

The proof for this theory abounds:

1. New mitochondria and plastids form through binary fission in a manner very similar to prokaryotes. Here is a graphic showing the difference between binary fission and mitosis (meiosis is included as well, a process that is entirely absent in prokaryotes)
2. If you remove the mitochondria and/or plastids from a cell, the cell is unable to replace them, strongly suggesting that they do not originate from the cell itself.
3. Mitochondrial and plastid ribosomes are more similar to the ribosomes (the organelles that make protein using mRNA transcripts) of bacteria than the ribosomes of the cells that contain them [source]
4. Some mitochondria and plastids contain circular DNA that closely resembles bacterial DNA in structure [source] *~~(this source also shows why organelle genomes are much smaller than what their historical, free-living counterparts would have been, due to lateral DNA transfer o

Natural selection dictates that organisms that adapt to their environment are more likely to survive, however through House of X/Powers of X we see that even when the mutants adapt to their environment, the outcome stays the same and they still go extinct.

The theory of evolution by natural selection indicates that we evolved from other, more primitive life.

This directly contradicts the origin story in the bible where Adam and Eve are the first humans and sin against Yahweh, original sin.

Original sin is a cornerstone to the Christianity. If you accept the science, why are you still a Christian?