• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do you define evolution?

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What are you saying then? Please explain your opinion and its basis.
I was thinking about that, and yes, it's my thought. I have not read of any studies that might declare this, but - since it seems that the descriptive data is that it's survival of the fittest, OR -- "natural selection," how is it selected, who selects it? Use of language here could be a problem. For instance, do the organisms select their adaptation? By environment or simply by survival with the mutations into an environment ore conducive to their form? Or rather evolved form? Until, of course, they evolve so much they can't interbreed with former relatives, is that so? Because -- (I'm guessing here) -- the former relatives have died out? Or were too far away somehow, floated away maybe?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
And this trend continues yes?
Let's say it does, but (I'm not an expert) just how far must one look for ancestral relatives due to dna? How close does the dna have to be to show the specimen (fossil or flesh) is a relative?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
A characteristic of how life forms evolve.
Let me put it this way: there is, according to scientists, similar dna in bonobos, gorillas, and humans. So although you are expert in geology, is it?, would you happen to know why humans and gorillas can't interbreed?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I was thinking about that, and yes, it's my thought. I have not read of any studies that might declare this, but - since it seems that the descriptive data is that it's survival of the fittest, OR -- "natural selection," how is it selected, who selects it? Use of language here could be a problem. For instance, do the organisms select their adaptation? By environment or simply by survival with the mutations into an environment ore conducive to their form? Or rather evolved form? Until, of course, they evolve so much they can't interbreed with former relatives, is that so? Because -- (I'm guessing here) -- the former relatives have died out? Or were too far away somehow, floated away maybe?
The environment selects. If an artic hare is suddenly thrust into a tropical jungle, do you think that its traits make it suitable for surviving and reproducing in that environment? There is no conscious selection. No selection clearinghouse where some entity is making a choice on who survives or who has the most offspring.

The environment is the sum total of internal and external conditions and the living and nonliving components (biotic and abiotic). Your internal organs are environments and parts of an environment. The desert and all the conditions that comprise deserts are a particular external environment. The weather. Predators. Parasites. Pathogens. Competition within a species and between different species. Rocks. Different soils. Mountains. All of that and more are the environment that organism live with or die with. The environment is not just the weather, which is what people often associate it with when discussing the environment.

Organisms do not select the adaptation. If a mutation provides for a even a slight advantage in a particular environment, that may be enough to ratchet up fitness. Biological fitness is basically the number of viable offspring that an organism has. If it has more than other members of its population and its offspring have more, then those organisms have a greater chance of perpetuating their genes within that population in a particular environment.

At some point, a population may undergo enough genetic and phenotypic changes that they can no longer interbreed with related populations from the same ancestry. There is no set point of changes required or established timeframe for this, though it normally occurs over 10's or 100's of thousands to millions of years. It depends on the stability of the environment among many other factors. Two populations separated by some natural barrier like an increasingly impassable river or canyon can evolve independently into new and separate species.

The ancestral population (distant relatives) can die out, but it does not have to. The theory of evolution doesn't stipulate that an ancestral population must cease to exist. Again, extinction would depend on numerous factors of the environment. In a species with a very large range, say millions of square miles, changes in a small part of the range can occur, while the rest of the range remains stable. Those members of the former population in that small portion of range that changed would be under different environmental selection. If the change reverts to the previous conditions, any selection would eventually be erased, but if it does not revert or changes further, then selection would drive change in that part of the population toward speciation.

It is a lot to take in and consider. Many events occurring over large geographies and vast spans of time. With corroborating evidence found in many disparate fields of study. That is why those of us that have had training in biology, made our careers in studying that evidence, become frustrated when people persistently claim there is no evidence or that it is a matter of interpretation without ever offering a valid counter interpretation that does not involve subjective belief that has no evidence to sustain it.

If you look at the fossil record, both at individual fossils or in groups across time and space, the theory explains what we see and tests can be run to accept or reject hypotheses. Ultimately the theory itself is constantly tested. The same can be done with the geological evidence. The morphological evidence of extant organisms. The genetics of extant organisms. And so on across many fields. To date, all of this evidence supports the theory.

The theory is not consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis or with any other creation story that is known. What it does not do is say that there is or is not God. For me personally, that means that we do not really understand Genesis and should view it allegorically rather than literally. Taking that position does not eliminate God and is honest.
 

Friend of Mara

Active Member
Looking back at your post here, let me ask you a question in ref to evolution, and the theory of. There is no mention of God being involved in the situation, is there? I mean it appears to be a godless type of theory, as if God were not involved in any sort of activity regarding the various forms of life on the earth,.How do you see it? Does the theory offer any possibility that God is involved in the 'making,' (or evolving) from beginning to current times? Or is it just by nature (however that's explained) that living forms came about? That is one question I have about the theory, including the so-called evidence of the theory in reference to fossils and dna, basically the entire theory.
God does not have evidence in the theory but believers are allowed to speculate on how much a deity may be involved. I don't have a problem for example with a believer in god to feel that the nature of the universe is crafted and made my a creator and was made in a way that would create life as we know it today. The theory of evolution only studies the processes that take place. Its possible a god made these processes but we don't know if a god made it. So for as far as science is concerned it is just an explanation as viewed in empiricism.

Issues arise when people who are believers reject the observations or make claims in direct opposition of the observations. An example is the young earth worldview. It is, unfortunately for those that believe it, false.
Let's say it does, but (I'm not an expert) just how far must one look for ancestral relatives due to dna? How close does the dna have to be to show the specimen (fossil or flesh) is a relative?
Given what we know about DNA is that nearly all forms of life (if not all) are related. The closer the matches in the DNA the more closely related. Very closely related might be direct descendants. Further down the line we can tell if they come from a common ancestor X years ago which is how we can find where your genealogy comes from in ancestry tests. 98.8 percent identical DNA shows that a species is very closely related and was split only a few million years ago.

There are other forms of evidence other than DNA but DNA is most likely the strongest.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Let me put it this way: there is, according to scientists, similar dna in bonobos, gorillas, and humans. So although you are expert in geology, is it?, would you happen to know why humans and gorillas can't interbreed?
We really don't have anything in common and they are difficult to date. The whole poo throwing thing is just...a deal breaker for serious relationships. And it is hard to find a good looking one if that is important to you.

Seriously, I do not know the specific barriers preventing interbreeding. There is roughly 95% overall similarity between the genomes of humans and other apes with something like 99% similarity in coding DNA between humans and chimps and 98% between humans and gorillas. That small difference is significant and there are no known examples of hybridization. The Russians apparently tried about 100 years ago and failed. There is a difference in chromosome number, with humans having one fewer in number due to a fusion event in our past that did not occur in other apes.

I have never really looked into it, vertebrate and hominid biology are not my specialty, but I don't know of any physical barrier that comes immediately to mind. Behavioral differences, human cultural mores, appearance, genetics, possibly biochemical and physiological differences as well as differences in immune systems may be the barriers involved.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Looking back at your post here, let me ask you a question in ref to evolution, and the theory of. There is no mention of God being involved in the situation, is there? I mean it appears to be a godless type of theory, as if God were not involved in any sort of activity regarding the various forms of life on the earth,.How do you see it? Does the theory offer any possibility that God is involved in the 'making,' (or evolving) from beginning to current times? Or is it just by nature (however that's explained) that living forms came about? That is one question I have about the theory, including the so-called evidence of the theory in reference to fossils and dna, basically the entire theory.

This has been described to you before. The possibility of the eXistence of God? Science remains neutral to whether God exists or not. There is no mention of God, nor any other religious beliefs, the sciences of evolution as well as ALL sciences, because science only deals only with 'objective verifiable evidence' of the nature of our physical existence. Scientists come from many diverse religious beliefs and non-beliefs, and their science is independent of the beliefs.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Two humans thinking. One type says they know it all. The other just accepts natural human life.

Who is right?

If you don't just accept then why don't you just accept self presence is the answer?

I know I am. Human. I know I have two parents who had sex. I know they die.. I know the very first humans died.

The theme I know says that before my human life conscious expression a knowing status formed me.

Science therefore owns that agreement as humans with their selves. Claiming when I wasn't actually a human somehow conscious advice about its pre existing states told me.

And want to argue about human thought as basic belief. Somehow I was told even when I never existed.

So biology said a monkey living conscious shows no scientific wisdom whatsoever.

Therefore a human has to profess hence God is a man theist. Theorising God status via self human.
Human who told self by presence and wisdom I have dominion.

Hence you have to exist Human to be able to claim dominion.

Basic advice for any human.

If you don't exist as a human in the life of a monkey then you are not present.

So where are you?

The answer I am the theist.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Looking back at your post here, let me ask you a question in ref to evolution, and the theory of. There is no mention of God being involved in the situation, is there? I mean it appears to be a godless type of theory, as if God were not involved in any sort of activity regarding the various forms of life on the earth,.How do you see it? Does the theory offer any possibility that God is involved in the 'making,' (or evolving) from beginning to current times? Or is it just by nature (however that's explained) that living forms came about? That is one question I have about the theory, including the so-called evidence of the theory in reference to fossils and dna, basically the entire theory.

This is an old bofus dishonest Fundi Christian argument and meaningless. A terrible unethical ignorant misrepresentation of the scientific concept of theories and hypothesis. The sciences supporting evolution use the same scientific methodology as the sciences of medicine and the technology of computers.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Yes about amazing things like tadpoles, but tadpoles grow up to be frogs. :) And plus, tadpoles come from frogs. Insofar as science knows, right? And I DO mean know, not conjecture, that frogs come from something else. Yes, we KNOW tadpoles come from frogs. We also KNOW they develop to be frogs. You want to say this is evidence (I can't use the word prove, because 'evidently' I'm not supposed to use the word 'proof' in science) of evolution? (I don't think so, apparently you do. But I don't.) Thanks for the post, though.
Your response to what I said is clear evidence of your dishonesty. It's obvious that you read what I said and decided to strawman it. Where did I say that tadpoles are evidence for the Theory of Evolution? Although the frog was meant as more of a joke while at the same time, it was an example of what you asked for.

"..a transition in real life establishing a permanent change from something like a fish to land walkers."

Once the tadpole has completely changed from its fish like appearance into a land walker we recognize as a frog, that change is permanent. That individual frog cannot change back into the fish like form we called, "tadpole." That fits exactly within the parameters of what you said above. And even if you didn't get it, you still avoided the second part, which talks about the Theory of Evolution.

So basically, you read some information and didn't quite understand what it means. Then, without even doing more investigations/research and/or ask questions for clarification, you went ahead and made your own incorrect conclusion by cherry picking bits and pieces of information and based it around your religious beliefs. This proves that you're being dishonest and is willingly being ignorant so it doesn't directly conflict with your religious beliefs.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
We really don't have anything in common and they are difficult to date. The whole poo throwing thing is just...a deal breaker for serious relationships. And it is hard to find a good looking one if that is important to you.

Seriously, I do not know the specific barriers preventing interbreeding. There is roughly 95% overall similarity between the genomes of humans and other apes with something like 99% similarity in coding DNA between humans and chimps and 98% between humans and gorillas. That small difference is significant and there are no known examples of hybridization. The Russians apparently tried about 100 years ago and failed. There is a difference in chromosome number, with humans having one fewer in number due to a fusion event in our past that did not occur in other apes.

I have never really looked into it, vertebrate and hominid biology are not my specialty, but I don't know of any physical barrier that comes immediately to mind. Behavioral differences, human cultural mores, appearance, genetics, possibly biochemical and physiological differences as well as differences in immune systems may be the barriers involved.

You never know how much you have in common until at least your first date. An the whole poo throwing is only with the ones in captivity. You are going to have to go for one of the wild ones for a serious relationship, not that I have tried. You would have to wonder from @YoursTrue question about interbreeding humans and gorillas if this is a serious religious stance that is accepted in her beliefs. Otherwise why even ask the question. Maybe the idea came from watching planet of the apes?
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I was thinking about that, and yes, it's my thought. I have not read of any studies that might declare this, but - since it seems that the descriptive data is that it's survival of the fittest, OR -- "natural selection," how is it selected, who selects it? Use of language here could be a problem. For instance, do the organisms select their adaptation? By environment or simply by survival with the mutations into an environment ore conducive to their form? Or rather evolved form? Until, of course, they evolve so much they can't interbreed with former relatives, is that so? Because -- (I'm guessing here) -- the former relatives have died out? Or were too far away somehow, floated away maybe?

As for natural selection this could not be clearer. Anything that causes and organism to die and not reproduce that is a part of the natural world. There is no intentional selection going on until you get to humans who select for the strangest features. Human breading of animals shows how plastic the genetics of phenotypic expression is. Thus you have this

th


or this
maltese-u3.jpg


As for interbreeding there are examples of birds that could interbreed by do not secondary to behavioral differences.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
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.
Video evidence of genes changing and making different forms that cannot interbreed such as fishes and frogs or platypuses are not available.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You never know how much you have in common until at least your first date. An the whole poo throwing is only with the ones in captivity. You are going to have to go for one of the wild ones for a serious relationship, not that I have tried. You would have to wonder from @YoursTrue question about interbreeding humans and gorillas if this is a serious religious stance that is accepted in her beliefs. Otherwise why even ask the question. Maybe the idea came from watching planet of the apes?
That is correct. There is no proof, no evidence of the real kind such as genes changing that shows emergence into different animals claimed to have evolved somewhere, such as...the unknown common ancestor to humans, gorillas, nobody, and that good stuff.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
As for natural selection this could not be clearer. Anything that causes and organism to die and not reproduce that is a part of the natural world. There is no intentional selection going on until you get to humans who select for the strangest features. Human breading of animals shows how plastic the genetics of phenotypic expression is. Thus you have this

th


or this
maltese-u3.jpg


As for interbreeding there are examples of birds that could interbreed by do not secondary to behavioral differences.
I believe they stay birds, right? We could go on with this but the level is such that no one, anywhere, has proven, demonstrated, shown, evidenced with reality of the absolute kind (demonstrating change such as fish to tetrapods or anything else). If someone sets a building on fire that's reality. It didn't just happen by chance or selective innate ability. Anyway, bye for now.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This has been described to you before. The possibility of the eXistence of God? Science remains neutral to whether God exists or not. There is no mention of God, nor any other religious beliefs, the sciences of evolution as well as ALL sciences, because science only deals only with 'objective verifiable evidence' of the nature of our physical existence. Scientists come from many diverse religious beliefs and non-beliefs, and their science is independent of the beliefs.
Can't science do any collaborative research on evidence or figuring if there's evidence or not as to God's existing? What do you think, believe, or surmise about that? Just taking a neutral stand on that? How come? Either the theory of evolution is true or it's not true. Either God exists or He doesn't. Why a scientist who believes in evolution would believe in God is a question that a "scientist," or person of logic should be able to answer. Surely someone should be able to distinctly surmise, as he does with godless, mindless evolutionary theory, whether there is a vastly superior, intelligent creative force with unlimited ability.
 
Last edited:

night912

Well-Known Member
I believe they stay birds, right?
But according to the bible, birds have different kinds. So that's one kind, changing into another kind.

We could go on with this but the level is such that no one, anywhere, has proven, demonstrated, shown, evidenced with reality of the absolute kind (demonstrating change such as fish to tetrapods or anything else).
Ignoring the evidence doesn't mean that those evidence doesn't exist.

If someone sets a building on fire that's reality. It didn't just happen by chance or selective innate ability. Anyway, bye for now.

Correct. A building catching on fire because someone accidentally knocked over a lit candle onto some flammable substances and without realizing it, that person walked away. Moments later, the fire spread throughout the whole building, causing the building to be set on fire.

If someone accidentally bumped a lit candle without realizing it and just walked away, it's by chance that a building can catch on fire or not. There was no intent to set the building on fire from that particular person, but it wasn't by chance that the building eventually got set on fire. The environment determined whether or not the building got set on fire. If the environment consisted of there being a bucket of water under where the candle fell and extinguished the flame, no fire would have spread throughout the building, therefore, the building wouldn't have been set on fire. Evolution works in the same way.

See how you again, looked at something and weren't willing to look at the information objectively and just wanted to the conclusion to fit your narrative.

Accurate and right example, you just had an incorrect conclusion. Again, proving your willful ignorance.

Right?

Yes.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This is an old bofus dishonest Fundi Christian argument and meaningless. A terrible unethical ignorant misrepresentation of the scientific concept of theories and hypothesis. The sciences supporting evolution use the same scientific methodology as the sciences of medicine and the technology of computers.
Let me get on to something else for a moment, even though you certainly don't want to explore that area at to whether or not God exists, so I wonder about the cell, something you might have a scientific opinion about. Would you say that the cell is considered the basic unit of life?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
But according to the bible, birds have different kinds. So that's one kind, changing into another kind.


Ignoring the evidence doesn't mean that those evidence doesn't exist.



Correct. A building catching on fire because someone accidentally knocked over a lit candle onto some flammable substances and without realizing it, that person walked away. Moments later, the fire spread throughout the whole building, causing the building to be set on fire.

If someone accidentally bumped a lit candle without realizing it and just walked away, it's by chance that a building can catch on fire or not. There was no intent to set the building on fire from that particular person, but it wasn't by chance that the building eventually got set on fire. The environment determined whether or not the building got set on fire. If the environment consisted of there being a bucket of water under where the candle fell and extinguished the flame, no fire would have spread throughout the building, therefore, the building wouldn't have been set on fire. Evolution works in the same way.

See how you again, looked at something and weren't willing to look at the information objectively and just wanted to the conclusion to fit your narrative.

Accurate and right example, you just had an incorrect conclusion. Again, proving your willful ignorance.

Right?

Yes.

If I have an incorrect conclusion, given enough significant 'proof,' yes I know there's no proof in science, but anyway -- I am certainly willing to change my mind. -) Nevertheless, if you want to keep arguing that the building was made by human hands as if it burnt down from a fire as if that's evolving -- um -- count me out from the example. Thanks anyway. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You never know how much you have in common until at least your first date. An the whole poo throwing is only with the ones in captivity. You are going to have to go for one of the wild ones for a serious relationship, not that I have tried. You would have to wonder from @YoursTrue question about interbreeding humans and gorillas if this is a serious religious stance that is accepted in her beliefs. Otherwise why even ask the question. Maybe the idea came from watching planet of the apes?
Why, is there or is there not some lost enough proclaimed common link transitioning via natural evolutionary circumstances from whatever it was to something like humans?
 
Top