How do you define evolution?

[rational experiences]

Man!

You really don’t know just how absurd and ignorant you are sounding.

I am not a biologist, and my studies of biology (in classroom environments) are limited to Year 9 high school and a bit of 1st year college about types of wood that might be used in construction (civil engineering course), eg properties of woods, strengths and weaknesses, seasoned or unseasoned timbers etc, and study of types of soils.

In high school during the 1980s (Year 9), a bit about basic genetics was cover, but not Evolution. If I chosen biology route instead of physics route, they may have taught some Evolution in Year 11 & Year 12 biology.

I didn’t learn about Evolution until 2003 and onward, during my free times.

But even with my limited education in biology, I can see the errors in your claim, and they ridiculously absurd.

You seemed incapable of being educated, and worse of all, you refused to learn from your mistakes.

There are no morphing in Evolution.

Where did you get such absurdity?

Morphing is like Genesis 2:7, where God created man from dust from the ground.

It is not possible for such changes to occur, where lifeless dust can instantly morph into a living adult human male. That’s unnatural, and could never happen in nature.

God. In what terms is God expressed by humans in creation sciences?

The heavens gases which gave them ideas how to convert first God O stone mass as various minerals chemicals as dusts. Into gas forms.

So if you quote gods gases changed a dust and it became man. What type of man?

A human man?
An animal man by chemistry or an image of man in its gases!

Human stated sciences are about self and self has to be living as said human to infer a commentary.

If science says I can copy what states creation has expressed.

What state already existed in gods gases from sun to earth via conversions?

A huge nuclear reacting earth heavens event that began and ended created the sun state to record any object. Visions recording recorded and transmitting existed.

Existed without any human presence first.

What the man first theist thought about then caused. Want to copy. I only want to be just an image. Surely I will be spirit released.

Now if men in science theorising claim their son man life seems and is inferred as higher and more important than his natural father baby human son.....you should think upon the subject.

God topics to sacrificed man and man baby as a subject.
Scientific status.

My mother's memory said our fathers brother was manifested first without any female. A small brotherhood of men.

Introduced science wanting to return into the eternal.

So animal spirits came out first when the atmospheric mass changed by dust. His life converted. Then our natural father manifested from eternal direct.

Rationally you would say the very first man in water life now only exists as a recorded image. Water taken. As he added water mass into cloud formation.

Animals then lived in his natural place.

Then our natural human mother came to be with father.

Why spiritual men said I cursed my first man self it became an animal.

What I was taught.

We can never be any dust converted as men have been converting earths dusts for a long time as science.

You would quote image of man became with clouds due to a ground dust reaction of first mens science.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am quite sure you have heard of this line being before, when someone is breaking off a relationship with another:

"It's not you, it me..." ​

Well, YOU cannot use this line.

The problem is definitely YOU.

First I must say that I laughed out loud even though I was by myself reading that comment

 

[YoursTrue]

Nor is a man's sperm like a human baby.

You got that straight.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am quite sure you have heard of this line being before, when someone is breaking off a relationship with another:

"It's not you, it me..." ​

Well, YOU cannot use this line.

The problem is definitely YOU.

The reason why Evolution don't make sense to you, is because you have never taken time to understand Evolution.

Not true. You say, "Evolution don't make sense" to me? It 'don't'? Is English your first language, btw, or perhaps that was just a mistake. It happens, we all make mistakes.
So despite similarity of some genes but difference of numbers, it is conjecture as to descendancy along with the fact that no studies prove movement from one distinct form to another. None. You may believe that landrovers evolved from fish but no experiment whatsoever sustains that belief. If you have information otherwise about showing that fish evolved, using experimental methods, please do provide. Thank you

 

[We Never Know]

It can only rain a relatively small amount. Hurricanes can dump a lot of water because they are often picking it up at the same time. This will not work on a global scale and even hurricanes are nowhere hear as strong as the mythical rain of Noah.

So where did it come from? Where did it go to? Why isn't there any evidence of it at all?

Hurricanes don't necessarily pick up water.
Moisture that feeds the hurricane's clouds occurs purely from evaporation. That's why they don't rain down salt water.

 

[Astrophile]

No. But what I am saying is that, from what I read, dna inclusion or recognition in human ancestors can be undetectable the further back one goes as far as family lineage or descent.

That does not change the fact that we must have had ancestors that lived during the time before there were any human beings, that biologists since the time of Linnaeus have understood that our closest affinities are with the primates, and specifically with the great apes, and that our DNA is most similar to that of chimpanzees and gorillas, and therefore that it is most probable that our pre-human ancestors were primates, and specifically apes.

Even if you reject this hypothesis, your rejection does not change the fact that we are are descended from mammalian ancestors that were not human. So what order of mammals do you think that we are descended from? Do you think that it is more likely that our ancestors of, say, 20 million years ago were rodents or hoofed mammals or bats, or even whales?

 

[Astrophile]

You may believe that landrovers evolved from fish but no experiment whatsoever sustains that belief.

Do you imagine that anybody believes that land-rovers evolved from fish, or that there is any experimental evidence that land-rovers are living organisms that are capable of evolution?

 

[rational experiences]

Human origin life memory recorded with heavens holy God.

Then men of science irradiated life occult dust nuclear satanisms.

God was not to blame science was. God gas spirit however changed was the advice.

Fallout attack. Man's life changed.

Genesis DNA left life mutated.

The mutation eventually by natural selection increased by healthy water returned oxygenation. Mutation was rid of in humans mutant life.

Human memory quotes as gods heavens gas spirit returned we healed evolved as a human life body via natural selection by God. Healthy cells mass grown returned by heaven conditions ousted sick cells.

Natural science status of biology.

Once humans looked ape like as a healthy human doing all God comparing. So suggests to self I am talking on behalf of natural God about humans.

Evolution as a human with God removing human mutation ape like real. As a past life science caused inheritance. Only ever a human with God.

Why science natural with God states human healing was evolution with God evolving it's heavens in the same circumstance.

Why the teaching said a human was with God depending on heavenly holiness to live.

Pretty basic advice.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes but environment needs to be mentioned as well.

Come to think of it, I know that time has passed by since you first answered, but why would you say environment needs to be mentioned in that brief definition? How would you define evolution? And, would you say it's a theory, or fact/truth?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you imagine that anybody believes that land-rovers evolved from fish, or that there is any experimental evidence that land-rovers are living organisms that are capable of evolution?

I do believe that evolutionists believe that fish evolved to humans, do you agree that evolutionists believe that fish evolved to humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought dishonesty was considered a "sin" by your religion? You've been here long enough to know what a straw man fallacy is, right? Shame on you.

Uh, nope! As been established here innumerable times before, the theory of evolution and the concept of God are not mutually exclusive, nor are literal interpretations of creation myths prerequisite for belief in God. Sowwy!

Not sure if you offered a brief explanation as to what you believe is the theory of evolution.

 

[exchemist]

Come to think of it, I know that time has passed by since you first answered, but why would you say environment needs to be mentioned in that brief definition? How would you define evolution? And, would you say it's a theory, or fact/truth?

The theory of evolution, i.e. as applied to all living organisms, is, er, a theory, obviously.

But we also observe instances of evolution happening, as a phenomenon, and, being observations, these are fact. A good example of this is the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, commonly known as "covid".

 

[Windwalker]

Come to think of it, I know that time has passed by since you first answered, but why would you say environment needs to be mentioned in that brief definition?

Wasn't addressed to me, but I'll jump in. The environmental conditions is what drives evolution. Evolution is about adaptation for survival. If the environment changes, we need to change (evolve) in order to survive under the new conditions. Think of it in terms of pressure that drives changes.

Think of it like the onset of winter. We adapt by putting on warmer clothes. It's just that when it comes to natural evolution, that takes a lot longer than just driving down to J.C. Penney's to buy a new down jacket. We have to grow that jacket, from the cells out, so to speak. If we can't, then we either move elsewhere, or die if we can't adapt by either moving or growing thick furs.

How would you define evolution?

The process of change over time, typically from the less complex to the more complex. Atoms to molecules, molecules to cells, cells to bodies, etc.

And, would you say it's a theory, or fact/truth?

It's both. A "theory" in science is not an opinion or guessing, like we might use that word in everyday speach. A scientific theory is better understood as a "model", that explains the data. The data are facts. The model explains the data, or the facts.

The fact is we see change over time. The fact is we see transitional forms from species to species. The model, or scientific theory, is an explanation of how that change we observe as matters of fact, happens.

Theories in science are based upon substantial foundations of information, and are not mere 'hypothesis' or educated guesses. They most certainly are not just 'opinions' as no better than Joe behind the checkout counter at the local hardware store might have on the matter.

"It's just a theory", is not a valid thing to say when speaking about a scientific theory. It is a Theory, with a stamp of established approval of expertise on it, as a model explaining how the facts of evolution actually occur.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do believe that evolutionists believe that fish evolved to humans, do you agree that evolutionists believe that fish evolved to humans?

What is an evolutionist? What do you mean by believe? Are you asking if humans directly evolved from fish? One day guppies? The next day truck drivers?

Would you consider your understanding of science, biology, theory and the theory of evolution to be well grounded? Can you provide evidence to support the validity of your knowledge? I see straw men that show otherwise. I accept that you believe things. But from your writing here, what you believe appears to be grounded in personal bias and not on facts.

 

[exchemist]

I do believe that evolutionists believe that fish evolved to humans, do you agree that evolutionists believe that fish evolved to humans?

You mean biologists, I presume.

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean biologists, I presume.

I'll rephrase.
Is there a belief among scientists who believe in evolution that fish evolved to become humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

Wasn't addressed to me, but I'll jump in. The environmental conditions is what drives evolution. Evolution is about adaptation for survival. If the environment changes, we need to change (evolve) in order to survive under the new conditions. Think of it in terms of pressure that drives changes.

Think of it like the onset of winter. We adapt by putting on warmer clothes. It's just that when it comes to natural evolution, that takes a lot longer than just driving down to J.C. Penney's to buy a new down jacket. We have to grow that jacket, from the cells out, so to speak. If we can't, then we either move elsewhere, or die if we can't adapt by either moving or growing thick furs.


The process of change over time, typically from the less complex to the more complex. Atoms to molecules, molecules to cells, cells to bodies, etc.


It's both. A "theory" in science is not an opinion or guessing, like we might use that word in everyday speach. A scientific theory is better understood as a "model", that explains the data. The data are facts. The model explains the data, or the facts.

The fact is we see change over time. The fact is we see transitional forms from species to species. The model, or scientific theory, is an explanation of how that change we observe as matters of fact, happens.

Theories in science are based upon substantial foundations of information, and are not mere 'hypothesis' or educated guesses. They most certainly are not just 'opinions' as no better than Joe behind the checkout counter at the local hardware store might have on the matter.

"It's just a theory", is not a valid thing to say when speaking about a scientific theory. It is a Theory, with a stamp of established approval of expertise on it, as a model explaining how the facts of evolution actually occur.

I'll try to stick to the topic and questions, so thank you for your answer. Since you did say that environment plays a vital part in evolution, what environmental factors were there when the first cell(s) evolved into more cells?

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean biologists, I presume.

Just to be sure, I checked the definition of evolutionist. One dictionary says this defining evolutionist... "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection."

 

[YoursTrue]

The theory of evolution, i.e. as applied to all living organisms, is, er, a theory, obviously.

But we also observe instances of evolution happening, as a phenomenon, and, being observations, these are fact. A good example of this is the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, commonly known as "covid".

It's always a virus.

 

[YoursTrue]

The theory of evolution, i.e. as applied to all living organisms, is, er, a theory, obviously.

But we also observe instances of evolution happening, as a phenomenon, and, being observations, these are fact. A good example of this is the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, commonly known as "covid".

Frankly, if it weren't a theory in general, we'd see humans evolving to a more advanced organism if I can use the word advance, chimpanzees evolving, and so forth. Including viruses which stay viruses.