this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
682 points (100.0% liked)

196

16459 readers
1715 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As an evolutionary biologist I promise you that this makes way more sense in your head than it makes in actual reality. This is not how evolution works.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well it’s a theory on divinity not evolution

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My point is that it makes no sense in the framework of reality and that you might as well go with the literal story of Adam and Eve or whatever mythology you want, because throwing Neanderthals into the mix does fuck all in terms of making anything believable. It’s literally as scientifically justified as the Norse creation myth about a giant cow licking salty ice to uncover the gods.

[–] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The question was how it could possibly co-exist, an answer was proffered, and you felt offended by the thought and a need to squash it from existence? Meanwhile, how certain are you of any reality? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If someone asks how the sun works and the answer proffered is midgets in fire retardant outfits running a big engine, it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss it with predjudice.

[–] remotedev@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I'm ready to join this religion

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a wild hypothesis on divinity, not the law of evolution.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If they are to both exist in reality they must be congruent.

[–] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not claiming this is evolution. Far from it, that would happen on a much longer timescale and not affect only 2 individuals. You're focusing on the wrong aspect of my theory.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, on what aspect of your theory should I focus? There is no support for a sudden transition to “intelligence.” It’s literally all continuous to the point that people are studying the learned and taught moral rules among chimpanzee and baboon populations.

[–] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The aspect where I posit how they have bellybuttons.

I never claimed they gained intelligence, only they they became differentiated from the wider population. What amount of differentiation is not specified.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They literally didn’t become differentiated in the way you’re postulating. It’s a continuum. That’s my point.

I’ve taught this course.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A course on God's evolutionary bellybutton install on Adam and Eve? Tell me more

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I will give you the cliff notes version. There’s a thing called an umbilical cord. It’s used to provide nutrients and has been used as a mode of nutrient supply in placental mammals throughout evolutionary time.

The problem is that people who start with the conclusion (“god made people special”) get all fouled up when they have to walk through increasingly convoluted thinking to make their presuppositions line up with reality. Belly buttons are only a problem is you start from the idea of some weird mythology. Otherwise, they’re just expected and fully explained. It’s really not a matter for a course, but if you’re interested in a freshman level text on biology I could probably recommend one.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I'll be honest man I was being retorical with that question, but this was a good reply anyway so I'll upvote