1. 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!

Featured True or not true about evolution...?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by YoursTrue, Jun 30, 2021.

  1. infrabenji

    infrabenji Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +219
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You are just fooling with this person, right lol? I’ve been trying to follow but I’ve been in and out. That’s hilarious. The argument from Kevin Sorbo. We see monkeys so evolution isn’t real lmao. Your killing it. Good on ya.
     
  2. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,274
    Ratings:
    +12,354
    Religion:
    Christian
    If a population of animals is divided by a barrier with different environments on either side of the barrier and a duration of 10 million years, would you expect that both populations would remain taxonomically static? Why?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. infrabenji

    infrabenji Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +219
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Oh snap you’re serious. I’m so sorry. I thought you were making a joke. My bad. Let me start over. What’s your education level? High school biology? College? Self taught? Kind of a personal question I know, but I want to see where you’re at so I know how to approach the conversation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,274
    Ratings:
    +12,354
    Religion:
    Christian
    Do you have to see every mile of the Tour de France to accept the winner at the end? If you see a 65 year old person, do you believe that they were never 1 or 11 or 17, just because an example at 1, 11, or 17 cannot be displayed?

    The in-betweens being lost is the same as not being there. That they are not found or found but not recognized does not mean they do not exist.

    Do you need a map at a resolution of 1:1 in order to find a location?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    8,033
    Ratings:
    +1,268
    Religion:
    Christian
    While I was an honor student with scholarships, that really doesn't matter much, does it? My educational focus was not in science, but I did well in those classes I took, mainly chemistry and biology. When I attended school, including college(s), I believed what they taught me about evolution. If I don't understand something you say, I'll ask. And what I prefer is that you explain, don't just give me a link to "explain." So now, the question of branches. Items (organisms) are placed there on the various branches, where are the 'proofs' or "evidences" of the in-between organisms? And more specifically, what happened to cause these distinct (other) organisms to come about? Not to be funny, but photographs and videos were not around then. If they were, and locked away in a vault that we could investigate, that would be a different story, wouldn't it? Then I'd have no quibble.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  6. infrabenji

    infrabenji Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +219
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Items (organisms) are placed there on the various branches, where are the 'proofs' or "evidences" of the in-between organisms? And more specifically, what happened to cause these distinct (other) organisms to come about?

    Firstly, thanks for your understanding. I hope you’re having a good day. Answering your second question should explain the first as well. I think both questions tie together nicely and are just a simple matter of misunderstanding the process of evolution.
    You see natural selection only acts on the population’s heritable traits: selecting for beneficial alleles (an allele is one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome) and thus increasing their frequency (the variant of a gene at a particular point in a population and is the fraction of all chromosomes in the population that carry that alternative gene) in the population, while selecting against deleterious alleles and thereby decreasing their frequency—a process that is adaptive. Natural selection does not act on individual alleles, but on entire organisms. An individual may carry a very beneficial genotype (the genetic constitution of an individual organism) with a resulting phenotype (the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment) that, for example, increases the ability to reproduce, but if that same individual also carries an allele that results in a fatal childhood disease, that fertility or reproductive phenotype will not be passed on to the next generation because the individual will not live to reach reproductive age. Natural selection acts at the level of the individual; it selects for individuals with greater contributions to the gene pool of the next generation, known as an organism’s evolutionary fitness. Fitness is often quantifiable and is measured by scientists in the field. However, it is not the absolute fitness of an individual that counts, but rather how it compares to the other organisms in the population. This concept called relative fitness allows researchers to determine which individuals are contributing additional offspring to the next generation, and therefore, how the population might evolve. There are several ways selection can affect population variation: stabilizing selection (a type of natural selection is which the population mean stabilizes on a particular non extreme trait value. This means that most common phenotype in the population is selected for and continues to dominate in future generations), directional selection (a trend in which an extreme phenotype is favored over other phenotypes, causing the allele frequency to change over time in the direction of that phenotype),
    diversifying selection (a mode in which extreme values for a trait are favored over intermediate values and can occur when environmental changes favor individuals on either end of the phenotypic spectrum), frequency-dependent selection (a process whereby the fitness of a phenotype or genotype increases as it becomes more common in a population), and sexual selection (natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics in individuals of the other sex). As natural selection influences the allele frequencies in a population, individuals can either become more or less genetically similar and the phenotypes displayed can become more similar or more disparate. So in short there are several different factors that effect genetics and as a result over time these mutations can make a group more or less genetically similar. So for instance genetic mutations occur and the now less genetically similar creatures may change slowly over time, slowly becoming less similar, and passing down genetic mutations and accruing new genetic mutations by either the mutation becoming more prevalent in the group or by environmental changes or sexual preference etc…until they are a new creature. We have found and do find transitional fossils all the time and we use evolutionary taxonomy to arrange and classify them using a combination of progenitor-descendant relationships (serial descent), degrees of evolutionary change, and their phylogenetic relationship (shared descent). I probably should have listed the definitions below instead of next to the words to make it easier to read but that would take forever on my phone and you seem like a smart guy. So I imagine it will be fine. Let me know if you need further clarification. Thanks.
     
    #86 infrabenji, Aug 2, 2021
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  7. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    11,407
    Ratings:
    +9,333
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That is not a proper definition of evolution.
    Evolution doesn't make species change into something "substantially different".
    Cats don't product dogs in evolution.
    Cats produce more cats and subspecies of cats.
    All descendends of cats, will be cats / felines / mammals / vertebrates / eukaryotes / ...


    Indeed. Did you think evolution said something else?

    No.

    Yep. Trees also. Don't forget the trees. :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    11,407
    Ratings:
    +9,333
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The evidence remains in the DNA.
    You carry with you the genes of your ancestors.
    Every individual does.

    With DNA, you can trace back your lineage. Far beyond your human ancestors.
    It does add up. Ridiculously well.
    Ignorance is not an excuse nor an argument.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    11,407
    Ratings:
    +9,333
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The best evidence is found in DNA.
    DNA allows for tracing ancestry and relationships.
    The tree of life is not just a drawing. It's a representation of real-world genetic data. A graph.
    Not unlike if you would build your own family tree going back dozens of generations.
    In fact, it's exactly like that.

    Only instead of going a back a few centuries, it goes back millions and millions of years.
    You carry within you the DNA of your ancestors.

    Mutation followed by selection.
    Repeat ad infinitum (until the branch goes extinct)

    Nor do we need them.
    We don't need photographs of your distant ancestor to know that you and your distant cousin shared that ancestor. All we need is a DNA sample.

    And pretty much every living thing is your distant cousin. Some are close, most are separated by millions and billions of years.

    Off course you would.
    The amount of fossils we currently do have could fill a few dozen of such vaults.
    It is not the lack of, or nature, of the evidence that upsets you in evolution theory. It's how it appears to conflict with your religious beliefs. That's what I think at least.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    27,766
    Ratings:
    +14,371
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    So their religious community doesn't ostracize them for accepting evidence over blind faith?
    Could be.....
     
  11. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    27,766
    Ratings:
    +14,371
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    How much 'in between' must you have before you accept something as a chain of events? People are convicted every day of crimes based on incomplete evidence. If every step of every action must be observed before any continuity is accepted, we'd never make any sense of anything in the world.

    Sometimes there's no reasonable alternate explanation for a new species or feature.
    How is it that new species keep popping up fully formed, with noöne ever observing the process, or being able to explain it?
    Speciation has been observed in real time. How would you explain that?
    The mechanisms of evolution are observable, commonsense and have been used commercially for centuries. What rational reason would you have for doubting they would work?
    Why would a God who values a correct understanding of reality plant so much, anatomic, physiologic, geologic, radiologic, and paleontological evidence for gradual evolution?

    "Goddidit" is an assertion of magic. Do you really think magic is a reasonable "explanation" for diversity?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    8,033
    Ratings:
    +1,268
    Religion:
    Christian
    Since the theory is that the genes mutated into another form (I'm not speaking of things like viruses or interbreeding dogs) that eventually cannot interbreed with its previous form, the theory is questionable, since again -- there are no videos or eyewitnesses of these changes. The Tour de France is still the Tour de France, when comparing it with other competitions it still is the Tour de France, etc. Perhaps it has similar characteristics to other competitions, but it did not physically and genetically evolve.
     
  13. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    8,033
    Ratings:
    +1,268
    Religion:
    Christian
    You mean a raccoon's religious community? Or a bumblebee's? They have a cerrain degree of intelligence, or innate properties that bind them to their form, but -- the conversation was, I believe, about the difference in religious thinking and history, and to the best of my knowledge, we (humans) see what we see and can relate it in writing to other humans.
     
  14. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,496
    Ratings:
    +3,291
    Religion:
    none
    Nor do there need to be to provide evidence. How long are you going to ignore the evidence? When people give you evidence (like here), you just run away and ignore it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,274
    Ratings:
    +12,354
    Religion:
    Christian
    Do you need to see every mile or even every foot of the race to accept that the winner is the winner? You do not.

    There is evidence for the changes.

    The theory--any scientific theory--is always subject to questions and testing. But honest, logical questions based on evidence. The inability of a person to not understand out of will or ignorance is not a sound basis to challenge science backed with reason and evidence.

    You can dismiss it all and without even trying. You can use the excuse that no one is providing you with the evidence and explanations you demand. That is all on you and no one here is responsible for that action but yourself.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,274
    Ratings:
    +12,354
    Religion:
    Christian
    Unfortunately, she is not telling a joke and neither are the other creationists. They have made up there own whacky version of the theory of evolution, misrepresent it as the actual theory and regularly attack it as if it were.

    There is no effort to learn. Learning isn't the point. Creationists exist in a condition where learning is no longer seen as necessary, and for some, learning would get them kicked out of their church. Their doctrine mandates willful ignorance. The point is to get engagement so that they can declare victory and talk about their victories among themselves.

    The reality is that you can be a Christian and accept science. They don't want to do that.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,274
    Ratings:
    +12,354
    Religion:
    Christian
    They always forget the trees.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. infrabenji

    infrabenji Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +219
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I agree, I’m extra skeptical when someone requires unquestioning obedience. I definitely feel this is the case with this person. I explained the mechanisms for the process of natural selection very clearly and they just ignored it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,274
    Ratings:
    +12,354
    Religion:
    Christian
    I am not sure where you think you are going with this silliness. Is there a point to it? Should I even waste the time to ask?

    The differences in species is in the genes and revealed in the phenotypes.

    There is no evidence that other species have religious communities. So what?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. infrabenji

    infrabenji Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +219
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Two question asked by @YoursTrue. Answered questions but with no response? What happened?

    Items (organisms) are placed there on the various branches, where are the 'proofs' or "evidences" of the in-between organisms? And more specifically, what happened to cause these distinct (other) organisms to come about?

    Answering your second question should explain the first as well. I think both questions tie together nicely and are just a simple matter of misunderstanding the process of evolution.
    You see natural selection only acts on the population’s heritable traits: selecting for beneficial alleles (an allele is one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome) and thus increasing their frequency (the variant of a gene at a particular point in a population and is the fraction of all chromosomes in the population that carry that alternative gene) in the population, while selecting against deleterious alleles and thereby decreasing their frequency—a process that is adaptive. Natural selection does not act on individual alleles, but on entire organisms. An individual may carry a very beneficial genotype (the genetic constitution of an individual organism) with a resulting phenotype (the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment) that, for example, increases the ability to reproduce, but if that same individual also carries an allele that results in a fatal childhood disease, that fertility or reproductive phenotype will not be passed on to the next generation because the individual will not live to reach reproductive age. Natural selection acts at the level of the individual; it selects for individuals with greater contributions to the gene pool of the next generation, known as an organism’s evolutionary fitness. Fitness is often quantifiable and is measured by scientists in the field. However, it is not the absolute fitness of an individual that counts, but rather how it compares to the other organisms in the population. This concept called relative fitness allows researchers to determine which individuals are contributing additional offspring to the next generation, and therefore, how the population might evolve. There are several ways selection can affect population variation: stabilizing selection (a type of natural selection is which the population mean stabilizes on a particular non extreme trait value. This means that most common phenotype in the population is selected for and continues to dominate in future generations), directional selection (a trend in which an extreme phenotype is favored over other phenotypes, causing the allele frequency to change over time in the direction of that phenotype),
    diversifying selection (a mode in which extreme values for a trait are favored over intermediate values and can occur when environmental changes favor individuals on either end of the phenotypic spectrum), frequency-dependent selection (a process whereby the fitness of a phenotype or genotype increases as it becomes more common in a population), and sexual selection (natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics in individuals of the other sex). As natural selection influences the allele frequencies in a population, individuals can either become more or less genetically similar and the phenotypes displayed can become more similar or more disparate. So in short there are several different factors that effect genetics and as a result over time these mutations can make a group more or less genetically similar. So for instance genetic mutations occur and the now less genetically similar creatures may change slowly over time, slowly becoming less similar, and passing down genetic mutations and accruing new genetic mutations by either the mutation becoming more prevalent in the group or by environmental changes or sexual preference etc…until they are a new creature. We have found and do find transitional fossils all the time and we use evolutionary taxonomy to arrange and classify them using a combination of progenitor-descendant relationships (serial descent), degrees of evolutionary change, and their phylogenetic relationship (shared descent). You seem like a smart guy. Let me know if you need further clarification.
     
Loading...