How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

One issue is that the line between 'living' and 'non-living' is not as sharp as you seem to think. So you may well have something that is 'not alive', but still shows many of the properties of life.

I also see some other misunderstandings. For example, individuals do not mutate. So growing and mutating are not related. Mutations happen between one generation to the next. They are a change in genetics. Evolution also does not happen in individuals. So death of 'the flesh' is unrelated to evolution. By the time of death, any changes that would happen have already been passed to the next generation.

Please explain what are the properties of life. Let's start there in regards to evolution. Also, mutations insofar as the evolutionary changes must be considered so gradual that eventually something is no longer able to interbreed from which it originated, is that right? But let's go back to the dating process.

 

[YoursTrue]

One issue is that the line between 'living' and 'non-living' is not as sharp as you seem to think. So you may well have something that is 'not alive', but still shows many of the properties of life.

I also see some other misunderstandings. For example, individuals do not mutate. So growing and mutating are not related. Mutations happen between one generation to the next. They are a change in genetics. Evolution also does not happen in individuals. So death of 'the flesh' is unrelated to evolution. By the time of death, any changes that would happen have already been passed to the next generation.

Ok I don't want to get caught up outside the subject (dating process), but as far as mutations re the evolution process, that's a whole big subject, so let's stick with dating process for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

So it's safe to say your level of understanding biology and evolution is not equal to experts in their areas of science? If so I'm curious why your opinion has any value. Isn't it more straight forward to say you reject expertise and science because you prefer religious dogma instead?

I reject conjecture that is not in harmony with the Bible account. And part of that is bassed on my belief. For instance, Some believe the earth and everything in it was created in six 24-hour days. I do not believe that because it is clear, for one thing, that vegetation and animal life takes more than a few 24-hour days to flourish.
I do not reject sciece, however. The theory of evolution at this point in my investigation, is not only questionable, but as I look at it closer -- it is not making sense except that there is a theory that because things seem to look alike, somehow they came about by circumstances rather than divine guidance.

 

[F1fan]

I reject conjecture that is not in harmony with the Bible account.And part of that is bassed on my belief. For instance, Some believe the earth and everything in it was created in six 24-hour days. I do not believe that because it is clear, for one thing, that vegetation and animal life takes more than a few 24-hour days to flourish.
I do not reject sciece, however. The theory of evolution at this point in my investigation, is not only questionable, but as I look at it closer -- it is not making sense except that there is a theory that because things seem to look alike, somehow they came about by circumstances rather than divine guidance.

Actually you DO reject science because you don't accept the work done by experts in biology. You dismiss this work without any qualifications to do so. So you don't operate with any proper understanding of science. That's a liability, and means your opinions have no merit.

 

[Polymath257]

Was it you who mentioned about the 30,000 year old cave painting? If you have more information about that, please do let me know

There are a variety of cave paintings dated to 30,000 years ago and before. Some are dated to 43,000 years ago.

Let's focus on one set of cave paintings: those at Cauvet cave. this is a cave in the south of France:

The History and Archaeology of Chauvet Cave.

So the paintings are mostly made from red ochre and charcoal. The paintings themselves are well preserved and there are animal bones (including bones from 190 different individual cave bears), along with human bones, footprints, and a hearth.

The dates have been obtained by a variety of methods, including dates for the charcoal itself and the crust that has developed *over* the paintings. There are also dates for the bones (both human and animal) and the hearth (remains of things burned in the fire).

Is this a suitable example to work with?

Next, since the dates found are in the range 30,000 - 35, 000 years, to be consistent with your 6,000 year age for humans, these dates have to be wrong by a factor of 5. So, being wrong by a thousand years from the 30,000 years still does not make things consistent with the 6,000 year claim you have made. This means that the methods used have to not only be inaccurate, but very, very badly inaccurate to support your views.

Are we agreed so far?

 

[Polymath257]

I reject conjecture that is not in harmony with the Bible account.

Then you are already rejecting the methods of science. In science, you follow the evidence *no matter where it leads*. If the evidence is solid and goes against your favorite views, then so much for those views.

Now, we do have to distinguish between 'conjecture' and 'evidence'. Someone making up some plausible scenario is conjecture. But using known science to obtain results based on evidence collected is NOT conjecture.

In particular, if we understand the processes related to a certain dating method, we know when it works and when it fails because we have tested it thoroughly, then using that dating method correctly is NOT conjecture. it is evidence.

Can we agree?

 

[Polymath257]

Please explain what are the properties of life. Let's start there in regards to evolution. Also, mutations insofar as the evolutionary changes must be considered so gradual that eventually something is no longer able to interbreed from which it originated, is that right? But let's go back to the dating process.

Main properties of life:

1. Maintain a dynamic internal state in spite of changing environment
2. Growth
3. Metabolism
4. Reproduction
5. Movement

Viruses, for example, do not have a metabolism nor a dynamic internal state.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I reject conjecture that is not in harmony with the Bible account.

Why?

What I mean is, why do you accept every single thing the Bible clams, at face value, without any skepticism or demonstration of the veracity of the claims, while simultaneously rejecting the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence? That doesn't make sense to me. You have to actually reject demonstrable, observable evidence from multiple different scientific fields (including basic biology) in order to strictly adhere to Biblical claims.

And part of that is bassed on my belief. For instance, Some believe the earth and everything in it was created in six 24-hour days. I do not believe that because it is clear, for one thing, that vegetation and animal life takes more than a few 24-hour days to flourish.

Why do you have this belief?

I do not reject sciece, however.

But you do reject science when you reject evolution, as I've pointed out many times before. You reject the findings of biology, paleontology, genetics, comparative genomics, chemistry, geology, microbiology, biochemistry, botany, zoology, virology, just to name a few. You reject all of that, in favour of unverifiable Biblical claims.

The theory of evolution at this point in my investigation, is not only questionable, but as I look at it closer -- it is not making sense except that there is a theory that because things seem to look alike, somehow they came about by circumstances rather than divine guidance.

I'm sorry to say it doesn't appear that you've investigated anything or that you are even willing to learn about what evolution actually is. Why do I think this? Because you're still asking the same questions you've been asking since your very first post on this subject, and when evidence is presented to you, instead of reading and reflecting on it, you go off on a tangent and ignore it completely, only to come back and ask for the exact same evidence just a few days later. Evidence for that is right here in the very paragraph I'm responding to. You claim here that "because things seem to look alike" scientists just declare that evolution is a fact of reality, when you know full well there is much more evidence than that. You seem to have completely forgotten about genetics here, for starters.

And again, I must point out that there are plenty of religious people who accept evolution/the theory of evolution as valid science, with the understanding that the God they worship is intelligent enough to have created life to evolve, as all the evidence indicates.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually you DO reject science because you don't accept the work done by experts in biology. You dismiss this work without any qualifications to do so. So you don't operate with any proper understanding of science. That's a liability, and means your opinions have no merit.

Uh -- look -- let's be honest -- :"science" has made some mistakes. And some very hurtful ones. And I won't go into that now but I will say that parsing out genomes and looking at bones and then deciding sometimes where they belong and when, where and how they "evolved" from something to something including eventually another species, is true speculation. At least when "science" declares it is better to wear a mask to prevent the spread of covid19, it appears there is proof of the statistical kind to verify that thought. The same goes for the vaccine. Can you let me know the proof of the conjecture that life evolved from one or two celled structures to something larger, bigger in fantastically different form, shape and size, please? Thanks. P.S. - further, you think I ('we') should take the word of "experts"? It doesn't matter. While they can look at genomes and dna, there simply IS no proof that these things evolved from one form or species to another. At least so far (right?) it's not there...or if you think it is, go ahead and say it, show it, and show the proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why?

What I mean is, why do you accept every single thing the Bible clams, at face value, without any skepticism or demonstration of the veracity of the claims, while simultaneously rejecting the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence? That doesn't make sense to me. You have to actually reject demonstrable, observable evidence from multiple different scientific fields (including basic biology) in order to strictly adhere to Biblical claims.


Why do you have this belief?

There are things to be interpreted, or understood. Some things are symbolic and thus with proper understanding can be explained. Anything (similar to science) that cannot be explained now will eventually be straightened out.

But you do reject science when you reject evolution, as I've pointed out many times before. You reject the findings of biology, paleontology, genetics, comparative genomics, chemistry, geology, microbiology, biochemistry, botany, zoology, virology, just to name a few. You reject all of that, in favour of unverifiable Biblical claims.

The theory of evolution cannot be verified. No matter how many times you say it, it cannot be substantially verified. If you show that it is verified, please do say, and show. I do not reject the idea that rocks are eons old. Because it makes sense, and because a 'day' as described in Genesis does not always mean a 24-hour period. It means a marked period of time. And let's not go into what time means, same as I guess we can discuss what means alive or not alive.

 

[F1fan]

Uh -- look -- let's be honest -- :"science" has made some mistakes. And some very hurtful ones. And I won't go into that now but I will say that parsing out genomes and looking at bones and then deciding sometimes where they belong and when, where and how they "evolved" from something to something including eventually another species, is true speculation.

No it isn't. You are demonstrating how little you know. And all the educated people know you are ignorant of the topic of science to take your belief seriously. You can reject science for your personal whim, dogma, and laziness, but that isn't a valid position to debate well informed and educated people.

At least when "science" declares it is better to wear a mask to prevent the spread of covid19, it appears there is proof of the statistical kind to verify that thought. The same goes for the vaccine. Can you let me know the proof of the conjecture that life evolved from one or two celled structures to something larger, bigger in fantastically different form, shape and size, please? Thanks. P.S. - further, you think I ('we') should take the word of "experts"? It doesn't matter. While they can look at genomes and dna, there simply IS no proof that these things evolved from one form or species to another. At least so far (right?) it's not there...or if you think it is, go ahead and say it, show it, and show the proof.

You're now telling us you accept disinformation which is coming from immoral and unethical right wing sources. It's your choice, but again you only make yourself look foolish when engaging with well-informed and educated people. You don't even seem embarrassed about this, and you should really feel shame.

 

[Jose Fly]

there is a theory that because things seem to look alike, somehow they came about by circumstances rather than divine guidance.

There ya' go....all the days, months, and years countless people have spent explaining the science of evolutionary biology to you, and showing you piles of evidence......and the above is all you managed to take away from it.

That's both sad and hilarious.

 

[YoursTrue]

One issue is that the line between 'living' and 'non-living' is not as sharp as you seem to think. So you may well have something that is 'not alive', but still shows many of the properties of life.

I also see some other misunderstandings. For example, individuals do not mutate. So growing and mutating are not related. Mutations happen between one generation to the next. They are a change in genetics. Evolution also does not happen in individuals. So death of 'the flesh' is unrelated to evolution. By the time of death, any changes that would happen have already been passed to the next generation.

I realize that, and I do know that changes do occur from generation to generation. But that is not how I see Darwin's theory as exemplified from the supposition that these changes make for another species after a long period of time.

 

[YoursTrue]

No it isn't. You are demonstrating how little you know. And all the educated people know you are ignorant of the topic of science to take your belief seriously. You can reject science for your personal whim, dogma, and laziness, but that isn't a valid position to debate well informed and educated people.


You're now telling us you accept disinformation which is coming from immoral and unethical right wing sources. It's your choice, but again you only make yourself look foolish when engaging with well-informed and educated people. You don't even seem embarrassed about this, and you should really feel shame.

No, I don't feel shame. So -- have a nice day as we cope with the way things are.

 

[YoursTrue]

There ya' go....all the days, months, and years countless people have spent explaining the science of evolutionary biology to you, and showing you piles of evidence......and the above is all you managed to take away from it.

That's both sad and hilarious.

OK. As I said, I used to believe the ToE. I also used to be an atheist. But it's almost like some other accounts -- people either believed them or they didn't. So -- have a real nice day ahead. I hope the best for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

One issue is that the line between 'living' and 'non-living' is not as sharp as you seem to think. So you may well have something that is 'not alive', but still shows many of the properties of life.

I also see some other misunderstandings. For example, individuals do not mutate. So growing and mutating are not related. Mutations happen between one generation to the next. They are a change in genetics. Evolution also does not happen in individuals. So death of 'the flesh' is unrelated to evolution. By the time of death, any changes that would happen have already been passed to the next generation.

Still nothing about the cave painting and dating? In other words, you are going to allow the dating process by those telling you of the cave painting make up your mind for you, and you offer no understanding of your own. No insult intended, just saying what I see. I am amazed that I have seen links and information from those in the field, but no explanations with verification of real proof by so many. Well anyway, if anything has been proved to me, it's that.

 

[F1fan]

No, I don't feel shame. So -- have a nice day as we cope with the way things are.

The way things are is that many conservative Christians in the USA have allowed themselves to be duped, and they don't care. This level of irrationality is why we ended up with a president like trump, and a serious collapse of conservatism that threatens the future of America.

 

[YoursTrue]

The way things are is that many conservative Christians in the USA have allowed themselves to be duped, and they don't care. This level of irrationality is why we ended up with a president like trump, and a serious collapse of conservatism that threatens the future of America.

Of course, you bring up some interesting questions. But the point really is that while genes can be coded, bones can be deciphered (a bone was recently analyzed in a tunnel to be that of a calf) but other than a theory that a type (species) evolved eventually over a long period of time to something different so they cannot interbreed, there simply is no proof of this. Animals that look similar to one another but cannot interbreed is not proof of evolution. It's speculative at best. and because the discussion (argument?) keeps going round and round with no specifications of a substantial kind -- there is simply no evidence that any evolved as Darwin and other evolutionists may claim. I know, I know, that paleantologists may say that bones, craniums, etc., fit into a spectrum or branch, etc., and they BELIEVE these types evolved, again -- no proof of that conclusion. If there is a trial, let's say, and a video were taken of the events in question, and jurors were asked to decide IF the video showing the crime scene PROVED that the accused committed the crime, that would be rather substantial evidence, or proof, that the accused was guilty.

 

[F1fan]

Of course, you bring up some interesting questions. But the point really is that while genes can be coded, bones can be deciphered (a bone was recently analyzed in a tunnel to be that of a calf) but other than a theory that a type (species) evolved eventually over a long period of time to something different so they cannot interbreed, there simply is no proof of this. Animals that look similar to one another but cannot interbreed is not proof of evolution. It's speculative at best. and because the discussion (argument?) keeps going round and round with no specifications of a substantial kind -- there is simply no evidence that any evolved as Darwin and other evolutionists may claim. I know, I know, that paleantologists may say that bones, craniums, etc., fit into a spectrum or branch, etc., and they BELIEVE these types evolved, again -- no proof of that conclusion. If there is a trial, let's say, and a video were taken of the events in question, and jurors were asked to decide IF the video showing the crime scene PROVED that the accused committed the crime, that would be rather substantial evidence, or proof, that the accused was guilty.

The problem is you're not a biologist. You have no expertise. You're repeating some rather odd things that I suspect you read from bogus sources. So when you take time to write all this it's not going to be accepted since you have contempt for science and experts, and it's not credible.

Educated people take the word of biologists about evolution. They are experts in their fields of science and are the authority. They show their work. We defer to what they report. Not creationists. Not lay people on the internet.

So by all means continue your posts riddled with errors and poor thinking and we will explain why you are wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. As I said, I used to believe the ToE. I also used to be an atheist. But it's almost like some other accounts -- people either believed them or they didn't. So -- have a real nice day ahead. I hope the best for you.

Considering the things you post about evolution, science and biology, I cannot image what it is you believed or think you believed. There is not a lot in what you post regarding science that makes much sense.