How do you define evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, the chemical reactions in testtubes as if if proves evolution since things may have emerged different from the beginning of the insertion of the chemicals. And that is where we may possibly part insofar as accepting the postulates go. I have, however, appreciated your kindness in coping with my viewpoint.

I have no idea what you mean here.

Well, thinking about that again -- sometimes the evidence can be quite convincing. Yet wrong conclusions were sometimes drawn because -- the actual 'real' evidence wasn't there. Such as cameras filming the before, during, and after the act in continuing time. So again, thank you for your most pleasant type conversation.

Video evidence is often not available and even when available is not always complete or clear. Video is evidence, but it is not the omniscience you demand. Think about what you know and how you know it. You don't have video for most of it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

@YoursTrue, does it bother you that the trend is towards acceptance of evolution (in the USA, that is - there is much greater acceptance in similarly advanced countries), and that it seems to be the more right-wing who are resisting?

Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans

As of 2019, 34% of conservative Republicans accepted evolution compared to 83% of liberal Democrats.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue, does it bother you that the trend is towards acceptance of evolution (in the USA, that is - there is much greater acceptance in similarly advanced countries), and that it seems to be the more right-wing who are resisting?

Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans

As of 2019, 34% of conservative Republicans accepted evolution compared to 83% of liberal Democrats.

No, it doesn't bother me at all, because I believe what the Bible says, and I also believe that many would not believe what the Bible says, even if, let's say, they go to church, get on their knees and pray to Jesus, Mary, or whoever they choose.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no idea what you mean here.

Video evidence is often not available and even when available is not always complete or clear. Video is evidence, but it is not the omniscience you demand. Think about what you know and how you know it. You don't have video for most of it.

uh huh...

 

[YoursTrue]

Life happening and evolution are not the same thing. How is it that you cannot understand that? How many people have explained it to you and yet, you just refuse to get it?

So evolution doesn't happen because whatever evolves is said to be alive? It obviously can't evolve if it's dead, can it? According to the theory, of course. Can it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Contemporary science does not propose that evolution happened by chance.



You were not there anywhere beyond your miniscule life span. You were not there when the Bible was written.

That is correct. The Bible has far more meaning for me than the so=called law-theory of the process of evolution as the reason you and I are here.
And so you say about chance. The expression is, I suppose, is natural selection? I suppose you think the various entities think what they will pass on to their offspring? I mean, the entities (like fish?) think about which qualities they will pass on when evolving, such as to platypuses or whatever they are supposed to get to? I mean like they have conscious selection and say, "OK, let's continue with this trait, so some of us can wander on land," is that what you think it means? (And not, of course, by chance happening...but by conscious thought process?) I used to love reading Lewis Carroll -- curioser and curioser, as it goes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not a premise. A conclusion. Do you understand the difference?



And the bones are evidence that living things have changed, right?

You decided not to go forward with learning about dating. Do you want to go to the next step?



I have no idea what you are talking about here.



And, if you continue testing and observing and *trying to show where things go wrong*, your views will change to become more in line with reality.

You don't need cameras to know what happened in the past. if you did, then you would have to reject the Bible as authoritative since all it is is printed words on a page. Maybe you should have half as much skepticism towards it as you do towards the fossil record?

No, because the more I investigate the reasoning behind the theory of evolution the less valid it becomes in my mind. Why? Because it never happened as described. Why? Because as I said, and of course, with which you disagree, there is no valid substance for the genetic changes causing a differing form, making eventually one type incapable of reproducing with its forebearers. You can help me here with the proper language describing it, but I think you get the point. It isn't there except in the minds of believers of evolution. I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true, is the word of God, is a faithful document of the people worshipping God and writing their experiences and knowledge down. They didn't have microscopes then, and I can't account for every word written, but contrasting the two bases -- evolution vs. God's word the Bible, I will choose the Bible. I thank you all for getting me to this point. Amen. (Thank you, Polymath. (really))

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So evolution doesn't happen because whatever evolves is said to be alive? It obviously can't evolve if it's dead, can it? According to the theory, of course. Can it?

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Evolution works on biological replicators that are alive (or as much as can be in the case of viruses). Where you have come to the conclusion that I stated or implied that the theory works on dead organism, I haven't faintest clue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So evolution doesn't happen because whatever evolves is said to be alive? It obviously can't evolve if it's dead, can it? According to the theory, of course. Can it?

Perhaps your post is the result of your confusing evolution with the origin of life. The theory of evolution is not a theory on the origin of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

uh huh...

Then why do you keep demanding video that you know doesn't exist?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it doesn't bother me at all, because I believe what the Bible says, and I also believe that many would not believe what the Bible says, even if, let's say, they go to church, get on their knees and pray to Jesus, Mary, or whoever they choose.

The Bible doesn't say anything about computers or electricity. Do you not believe those exist?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is correct. The Bible has far more meaning for me than the so=called law-theory of the process of evolution as the reason you and I are here.
And so you say about chance. The expression is, I suppose, is natural selection? I suppose you think the various entities think what they will pass on to their offspring? I mean, the entities (like fish?) think about which qualities they will pass on when evolving, such as to platypuses or whatever they are supposed to get to? I mean like they have conscious selection and say, "OK, let's continue with this trait, so some of us can wander on land," is that what you think it means? (And not, of course, by chance happening...but by conscious thought process?) I used to love reading Lewis Carroll -- curioser and curioser, as it goes.

The Bible has meaning to me too. That I have a mind and senses has meaning to me as well. I cannot imagine that God wanted me to have those gifts and not use them to better understand the world. Unlike you, when I see conflicting evidence, I do not just ignore it and pretend it is not real, while claiming to fully understand the Bible. To me, it means that the interpretation of Genesis I learned as a child was not the definitive interpretation and we humans do not fully understand it as some seem to claim.

Unfortunately, God did not leave any evidence of His actions behind for us to find. Why that is so? I have no idea. Perhaps it is because He did not want robots, but wanted us to use His gifts to learn and understand on our own. What I believe and what I can demonstrate to others are two different things. That limits me to just the evidence and logical, reasonable conclusions in my pursuit of and discussion of science. God must not want it any other way.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is correct. The Bible has far more meaning for me than the so=called law-theory of the process of evolution as the reason you and I are here.
And so you say about chance. The expression is, I suppose, is natural selection? I suppose you think the various entities think what they will pass on to their offspring? I mean, the entities (like fish?) think about which qualities they will pass on when evolving, such as to platypuses or whatever they are supposed to get to? I mean like they have conscious selection and say, "OK, let's continue with this trait, so some of us can wander on land," is that what you think it means? (And not, of course, by chance happening...but by conscious thought process?) I used to love reading Lewis Carroll -- curioser and curioser, as it goes.

Nothing above reflects what I think. It is apparent you prefer Lewis Carroll fiction over science.

 

[Polymath257]

So evolution doesn't happen because whatever evolves is said to be alive? It obviously can't evolve if it's dead, can it? According to the theory, of course. Can it?

Populations evolve, not individuals. And those populations are of living individuals.

All populations have mutations and variants. Those variations are what allows evolution to happen through adaptation to the environment. As the environment changes, so does the population.

And yes, eventually you get a population that cannot breed with the old population. This has been seen in the real world. But you still consider the resulting species to be the same 'kind'.

But that is where the fossil record comes in, showing that the changes that happen over very ling periods of time add up and leads to large scale changes. But it is the same mechanism all the way through.

No, because the more I investigate the reasoning behind the theory of evolution the less valid it becomes in my mind. Why? Because it never happened as described. Why? Because as I said, and of course, with which you disagree, there is no valid substance for the genetic changes causing a differing form, making eventually one type incapable of reproducing with its forebearers.

Except that this has actually been observed in real time. Populations change enough that they cannot reproduce with the old population.

You can help me here with the proper language describing it, but I think you get the point. It isn't there except in the minds of believers of evolution. I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true, is the word of God, is a faithful document of the people worshipping God and writing their experiences and knowledge down. They didn't have microscopes then, and I can't account for every word written, but contrasting the two bases -- evolution vs. God's word the Bible, I will choose the Bible. I thank you all for getting me to this point. Amen. (Thank you, Polymath. (really))

Well, if you reject all the evidence against it, that would be a conclusion to reach.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis and evolution is not a choose over the 'idea' that God created the heavens and the earth. It is possibly the way God created life on earth.

The problem with Genesis it is ancient mythical view of creation without science.

It doesn't go into details, that's true. It doesn't talk about genes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Populations evolve, not individuals. And those populations are of living individuals.

All populations have mutations and variants. Those variations are what allows evolution to happen through adaptation to the environment. As the environment changes, so does the population.

And yes, eventually you get a population that cannot breed with the old population. This has been seen in the real world. But you still consider the resulting species to be the same 'kind'.

But that is where the fossil record comes in, showing that the changes that happen over very ling periods of time add up and leads to large scale changes. But it is the same mechanism all the way through.


Except that this has actually been observed in real time. Populations change enough that they cannot reproduce with the old population.



Well, if you reject all the evidence against it, that would be a conclusion to reach.

Populations have to start somewhere and according to the theory, eventually evolve into another type of population.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing above reflects what I think. It is apparent you prefer Lewis Carroll fiction over science.

You don't think it gets curioser and curioser? All that aside, you're trained as a geologist. I've been looking at the science of plate tectonics. I'm sure you're aware of that, right?

 

[Polymath257]

Populations have to start somewhere and according to the theory, eventually evolve into another type of population.

They *can* evolve into another species, yes.

Once again, evolution is not about origins of life. It is about how living populations change over time.

Even if some deity formed the first life, the evidence for evolution after that is solid.

 

[shunyadragon]

You don't think it gets curioser and curioser? All that aside, you're trained as a geologist. I've been looking at the science of plate tectonics. I'm sure you're aware of that, right?

Very much aware of plate techtonics, and It is predictable clock of the history of the earth through continental plate development and movement. The first evidence of primitive life is found when the oldest evidence of oceans around the regions of mid ocean spreading zones when continents began to form.

 

[metis]

They *can* evolve into another species, yes.

Once again, evolution is not about origins of life. It is about how living populations change over time.

Even if some deity formed the first life, the evidence for evolution after that is solid.

Yes. Since I taught an intro to anthro course, one of the things I ran across over and over again were students who were told that one cannot believe in evolution and God, so one must choose one or the other. Thus, I had to address this right away near the beginning of the course.