How do you define evolution?

[Friend of Mara]

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))

Have you ever talked with a scientist on the subject? I find it hard to believe you went through evidences and found it inconclusive or at worst at odds with what we have observed. Can you give an example of something that seems counter to the evidence at hand? We have observed evolution in fast evolving species before.

Do you trust DNA ancestry tests? Or DNA paternal tests? If not please explain why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But this is not evolution because -- humans remain humans.

For the bazzilionth time:

IF HUMANS WOULD PRODUCE NON-HUMANS, THEN EVOLUTION THEORY WOULD BE FALSIFIED.

When will this finally sink in? I can't even count the amount of times you made this extremely silly and ignorant mistake. Why do you insist on being so wrong all the time about this?

Evolution means different things to different people.

It only means ONE thing in the biological sciences though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have a graduate degree and taught anthropology for 30 years, including physical anthropology, so don't be so arrogant as to try and tell me "how science works".

Technically, "divine creation" is not even a scientific hypothesis but it can be a personal one, and that's all fine & dandy as far as that goes because we simply don't have all the answers in science. We do not know how the first life started, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever know for certain. If you cannot understand this, then you're the one "arguing from ignorance".

Does the fact that we might never know for certain how life originated on earth some 4 billion years ago, mean that people then can just make stuff up and call it a "supernatural miracle"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Testing?? Of evolution theory?

Yes. In a multitude of ways.
In essence, every single newly sequenced genome is a test of evolution.
Every act of reproduction is a test of evolution.
Every new fossil found is a test of evolution.
Every agricultural or breeding program is a test of evolution.

Each and every one of these is a test of theory, because each and every one of these could potentially falsify it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, not true. We certainly can learn about biology. But again -- there is a gap in evidence of the real kind. Real meaning a show of real-life forms from one species to another.

Let Me Google That

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do, over the course of many generations.

If you would understand the basics of the science you are so hellbend on arguing against, you'ld realize this and wouldn't have to make such ignorant statements.

Why do you insist on being wrong about the biological sciences?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Not "another type".
Rather: a "sub type".

Canines don't evolve into felines.
Canines produce more canines (and subspecies thereof - which will remain canines).

 

[metis]

Does the fact that we might never know for certain how life originated on earth some 4 billion years ago, mean that people then can just make stuff up and call it a "supernatural miracle"?

People will generally do what they believe is right, thus I have no control over their minds nor their actions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People will generally do what they believe is right, thus I have no control over their minds nor their actions.

Sounds like a dodge to me.

 

[metis]

Sounds like a dodge to me.

I really don't know what you're talking about. What am I supposedly dodging?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not "another type".
Rather: a "sub type".

Canines don't evolve into felines.
Canines produce more canines (and subspecies thereof - which will remain canines).

ok....here's the problem I have with evolution: cats and lions do not mate. Something got lost in the making, shall we say, or mating, or evolution process. It just isn't there. The in-betweens got lost? Yes, speculation is discussed among scientists, but -- again - there is no real, substantial proof of this philosophical logic. So what that means: it makes more sense for me to believe that God made/allowed these types, subspecies, subtypes, to occur (however HE did it and however a scientist categorizes it). Then these 'members' of the same family cannot interbreed. How it happened, how did God do it? I do not know, but -- it also is clear to me (now) that evolution is not the answer, because of these unanswered questions, and I am inclined to believe that life in the form of animals, came or comes from God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do, over the course of many generations.

If you would understand the basics of the science you are so hellbend on arguing against, you'ld realize this and wouldn't have to make such ignorant statements.

Why do you insist on being wrong about the biological sciences?

ok, let me put it this way: news has it that homosexuality is on the upswing of the evolutionary process. Have you read about this? So let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that is true about natural evolution. ? (Yes, my term, natural evolution. Because I doubt one would consider it natural selection, maybe some do consider it that way though, but then -- if the human race survives the current status of the future of the earth said to be coming by scientists -- then what?). I've noticed more and more people "coming out" these days. So now then what? lol, ok, I stop there for the time in reference to evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let Me Google That

let me know what you come up with. (Other than speculation, please. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

But life is necessary for evolution (according to the theory) to occur, isn't it? Life is passed on to something that has apparently and supposedly evolved, right? Evolution can't occur if the organism said to evolve has died before it reproduced anything, right? In other words, life is necessary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

let me know what you come up with. (Other than speculation, please. Thanks.

Here's what the first link was for me.

Speciation in real time (berkeley.edu)

Depending on how you use google, it might be the case that you are first served with a bunch of conspiracy / creationist links based on your browser history though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok, let me put it this way: news has it that homosexuality is on the upswing of the evolutionary process. Have you read about this? So let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that is true about natural evolution. ? (Yes, my term, natural evolution. Because I doubt one would consider it natural selection, maybe some do consider it that way though, but then -- if the human race survives the current status of the future of the earth said to be coming by scientists -- then what?). I've noticed more and more people "coming out" these days. So now then what? lol, ok, I stop there for the time in reference to evolution.

At least try to form a coherent thought before writing.

I have no idea what your question is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok....here's the problem I have with evolution: cats and lions do not mate

What's the problem with that?

Something got lost in the making, shall we say, or mating, or evolution process. It just isn't there. The in-betweens got lost? Yes, speculation is discussed among scientists, but -- again - there is no real, substantial proof of this philosophical logic.

Your ignorance is showing again.
It's not rocket science. In a nutshell:

Population A of ancestral felines.
The population splits in 2 (or more) groups. This can occur in a multitude of ways, like migration.
Now we have group A1 and group A2. They exist in genetic isolation from one another. As generations go by, they diverge more and more. At some point, they will have diverged so much to no longer being able to produce viable off spring and even later not able anymore to reproduce at all.

You might want to take a look at ring species. They are an excellent example of this.

So what that means: it makes more sense for me to believe that God made/allowed these types, subspecies, subtypes, to occur (however HE did it and however a scientist categorizes it). Then these 'members' of the same family cannot interbreed. How it happened, how did God do it? I do not know, but -- it also is clear to me (now) that evolution is not the answer, because of these unanswered questions, and I am inclined to believe that life in the form of animals, came or comes from God.

That doesn't follow at all and is nothing but an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

 

[shunyadragon]

ok....here's the problem I have with evolution: cats and lions do not mate. Something got lost in the making, shall we say, or mating, or evolution process. It just isn't there. The in-betweens got lost? Yes, speculation is discussed among scientists, but -- again - there is no real, substantial proof of this philosophical logic. So what that means: it makes more sense for me to believe that God made/allowed these types, subspecies, subtypes, to occur (however HE did it and however a scientist categorizes it). Then these 'members' of the same family cannot interbreed. How it happened, how did God do it? I do not know, but -- it also is clear to me (now) that evolution is not the answer, because of these unanswered questions, and I am inclined to believe that life in the form of animals, came or comes from God.

The problem continues that you make statements about science with a total lack of knowledge of science, and a religious agenda to justify your misinformation. After making many statements on the misinformation of science you invoke religious assertions.

Evolution and the diversification of species takes over periods of millions of years closely related species can interbreed to a degree, but because evolutionary isolation they do not produce natural wild populations that are adapted to survive.

The The genus Felidae has more than a thousand species of cats. Closely related cats in the evolutionary history can interbreed to a degree. The more isolated the species is either distance, barrier or habitat through evolution the less likely they can interbred. Larger closely related cats can potentially interbred, but this in nature is unlikely, Likewise some smaller cat species can interbred, but not naturally in nature, because of isolation. They have thousands of fossils of a diverse number of cat species spanning hundreds of thousands of years into the past showing the evolution of cats and intermediaries in their evolution.

By the way, despite your intentional ignorance, there are incidents of inbreeding between domestic cats and larger Felidae species as referenced in the following.

The following article deals with interbreeding of cat species: Felid hybrid - Wikipedia

 

[night912]

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.

Well, the entity we call deer, does choose the qualities. Two bucks fight it out to see who is going to get to mate with the doe so that their qualities can get passed down to the next generation. Conscious thought process.

I like reading fictions by Lewis Carroll too, but when it comes to learning about biology, I don't use fictions as the source material. This is why I don't feel like Alice whenever I look at the Theory of Evolution. You should do the same.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, the entity we call deer, does choose the qualities. Two bucks fight it out to see who is going to get to mate with the doe so that their qualities can get passed down to the next generation. Conscious thought process.

I like reading fictions by Lewis Carroll too, but when it comes to learning about biology, I don't use fictions as the source material. This is why I don't feel like Alice whenever I look at the Theory of Evolution. You should do the same.

I do believe that genes can pass on certain characteristics of a personality. I also believe ideas can affect the brain, or thinking process, and may also affect the inner workings of our dna. I don't KNOW this from proof yet, but I think it's possible.