What's the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?

[Guy Threepwood]

Can I be your technology "evangelist"!!! Btw I would enjoy a nice dialog about evolution and metaphysics not as proof or disproof of God that's not correctly approaching the topic. John Muir said "Darwins just staying the obvious but his narrative is so ungodly". If you have ever read Muir you know , he definitely was not of the creationism, ID, virtual reality group.

I'd have agreed with both of them 100 years ago also

 

[David T]

I'd have agreed with both of them 100 years ago also

Yes some of the earliest adopters to evolution were poetic artist types. I treat evolution as a cultural issue. Its really really base understanding in pre literate cultures. The dissasociation develops into contemporary form through literacy itself. Books speak, people listen, to books, about, and slowly, nature no longer speaks, peole no longer listen, to nature, because they now listen, to books, about nature, and the books speak ,and people listen ,to just themselves about nature, about god, about the cosmos because books speak.
Sounds almost like a "spell" is cast!!! That is modern culture today. "My books speak truth," says the science mind, no my books "speaketh truth" says the religious minded. "what do you mean speaketh you religious nut job? That's mythology ancient science the word up today is speak not speaketh evolve religious moron" replied the science minded. "Sinner you need jesus" says the religious minded. And on and on it goes. I love the eddy Vedder version "society" tone perfect!!! "Society, you crazy breed, i hope you not lonely,, without me".

 

[Sapiens]

I like that. I'm thinking of marketing miniature wind turbines, that can be mounted on electric cars to generate electricity on the go, it would pay for itself and save money on charging

You do realize that the drag of the turbine cost more in the form of decreased mileage than it would add to the car. Remember, the first law of thermodynamics says you can't win, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics says you can't even break even.

 

[Deeje]

Either you didn't pay attention, or you're attempting to dishonestly recast the issue.

Again, the dishonesty is in how you take media articles and complain that they don't provide sufficient empirical support for their claims. But when it's pointed out to you that it's unreasonable to expect that sort of detail in media articles, and someone takes the time to provide you the original scientific journal articles that contain those details, you complain that they're too technical for you to understand and accuse the authors of deliberately using terminology to hide their lack of data.......even though you have no idea what they're saying.

That's fundamentally dishonest of you.


Exhibit A


Not to you, but that's not at all a comment on the data, but is a reflection of you belonging to a religious group that absolutely forbids its members from being a "evolutionist" in any way.


Again more dishonesty. You've admitted that you don't understand much of the science involved, yet here you are speaking as if you're such an authority you get to not only make grand declarations about the state of the science, but everyone else should pay heed to your declarations.

Kinda odd coming from a person who doesn't understand the material, isn't it?


Long before I ever met you, I knew full well that Jehovah's Witnesses completely deny pretty much all of evolutionary biology.


"Bigoted"? How is this....

of course there aren't any Jehovah's Witnesses who "believe in evolution". You're not allowed to. As soon as a JW does "believe in evolution", they're kicked out of the faith and shunned by the JW friends and family.

...."bigoted"? It's accurate, is it not?


So what I said was entirely accurate, yet it obviously upset you. Why? Are you ashamed of your faith?


Now you're being dishonest again. As you describe above, any JW who becomes an "evolutionist" will be "removed" from the faith, and we also know that they will be forever shunned by all their JW friends and family.

That's a very clear case of members of a group not being allowed to hold certain views, lest they be removed from that group.

And in that entire tirade what did we see that was remotely connected to the OP?

Is that all you have? Accusations and skewed ideas about who JW's are? What has that got to do with the topic?

The constant accusations of dishonesty are getting old and tired. I have not been dishonest.....I have just told an inconvenient truth. So all you can do is make personal slurs to cover your own lack of defense about this subject. That is what I believe is obvious. So if this is all you have, I won't bother to respond to you again.

 

[Sapiens]

And in that entire tirade what did we see that was remotely connected to the OP?

Is that all you have? Accusations and skewed ideas about who JW's are? What has that got to do with the topic?

The constant accusations of dishonesty are getting old and tired. I have not been dishonest.....I have just told an inconvenient truth. So all you can do is make personal slurs to cover your own lack of defense about this subject. That is what I believe is obvious. So if this is all you have, I won't bother to respond to you again.

I'm willing to grant that you are so enraptured with your opinions that you should, perhaps, not be styled as lying or dishonesty. But ... describing your unsupported and unsupportable claims as any kind of "truth," convenient, inconvenient or any other sort, goes way beyond credibility.

 

[Deeje]

Don't know where you get this old earth from...
There has only ever been one earth in this particular solar system, and that is this one.

Read Genesis 1:1-2.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." (ESV)

What does it say? "In the beginning God created"....in the beginning of what? Obviously the beginning of creation.
In its 'infant' state, the earth was without form and void, shrouded in darkness. The earth came into existence when the rest of the universe was created. That could well have been billions of years ago.
There is no timeframe stated between creation and the preparation of this unique planet for habitation. The preparation involved many phases.

And life has developed from a single source as far as can be ascertained, as only one type of dna has ever been discovered. All life on earth is linked through time and by the process we call evolution.

Or conversely, all life on this planet is linked because the Creator used the same raw materials in the formation of all living things. We don't know any more than what Genesis tells us. The creative "days" were obviously NOT 24 hour days because the earth itself tells us that it isn't young. The very first biological specimens were seen to appear on the third day.
Vegetation sprouted...life in seeds, self replicating and self-perpetuating, began to spread in the earth. God doesn't tell mankind about living things they cannot see, (such as microorganisms) as this would have been rather pointless to his original audience. He did however make laws that dictated hygienic procedures that would have made no sense back then, but would become known only a few centuries centuries ago. The health of God's people was protected to a great degree by those laws. Scientists did not discover "germs" until relatively recently. (1660's) but they did not start washing their hands to prevent the spread of disease till the mid 1800's.

There is no way to test the "process" of evolution, except by the guesswork of scientists. If you are a Bible believer, then you know about the one Jesus called "the ruler of this world".
This unseen enemy of God and his people has always been able to mislead mankind.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4:
"If the Good News we preach is hidden behind a veil, it is hidden only from people who are perishing. 4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."(NLT)

The ability to 'blind minds' means that he can disable people's thinking ability. This is why we see perfectly intelligent, educated men being led down a slippery slope like evolution as if they had a ring in their collective noses.

However had more than one framework, like dna, been discovered, or is still to be discovered, this would not change the process of evolution one iota.

There never was a process of evolution. Science cannot test its theory in real life.....they have to rely on data furnished by other scientists who also want to support this theory. The "evidence" will be "interpreted" accordingly. Professional reputations are at stake.

Man is not a distinct end point in this process, man is a stage. Evolution will continue past the line of man towards something else, should we live so long and not become extinct.

Who told you that? There is not a single species of living creature on this planet who is like man. None of them have the mental capacity that we do. None have the language or communication skills that we do. None can consciously plan for the future because they have no concept of past or present, let alone what might happen 20 years from now. We are the most intelligent of all species on this earth. Though many behave as though they had no intelligence whatsoever.

Do we have the capacity to become better than we are at present? I have no doubt, because when God's purpose for this earth is fulfilled and wickedness and ungodly people are eliminated from existence, things will go back to what God purposed at the start. This is not the life God planned for us, but we are stuck with it until every intelligent creature, both in heaven and on earth will have had his or her free will tested to the max. We will either pass or fail that test by the way we live and worship.

What ever happens will be known by God.

Absolutely. He is in control of everything....but evolution was never part of the original plan. He gave all creatures the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, but that was taken way out of the realms of science by those who were keen to lose any accountability to a higher authority. We all have an innate need to worship....so by making himself the most intelligent creature in existence, man can actually worship himself...science then becomes his 'religion'. He also has his temples and his 'holy' writings.

Its a tangled web.

 

[psychoslice]

I think evolution and adaption go hand in hand, how could you divide them ?.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Read Genesis 1:1-2.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." (ESV)

What does it say? "In the beginning God created"....in the beginning of what? Obviously the beginning of creation.
In its 'infant' state, the earth was without form and void, shrouded in darkness. The earth came into existence when the rest of the universe was created. That could well have been billions of years ago.
There is no timeframe stated between creation and the preparation of this unique planet for habitation. The preparation involved many phases.



Or conversely, all life on this planet is linked because the Creator used the same raw materials in the formation of all living things. We don't know any more than what Genesis tells us. The creative "days" were obviously NOT 24 hour days because the earth itself tells us that it isn't young. The very first biological specimens were seen to appear on the third day.
Vegetation sprouted...life in seeds, self replicating and self-perpetuating, began to spread in the earth. God doesn't tell mankind about living things they cannot see, (such as microorganisms) as this would have been rather pointless to his original audience. He did however make laws that dictated hygienic procedures that would have made no sense back then, but would become known only a few centuries centuries ago. The health of God's people was protected to a great degree by those laws. Scientists did not discover "germs" until relatively recently. (1660's) but they did not start washing their hands to prevent the spread of disease till the mid 1800's.

There is no way to test the "process" of evolution, except by the guesswork of scientists. If you are a Bible believer, then you know about the one Jesus called "the ruler of this world".
This unseen enemy of God and his people has always been able to mislead mankind.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4:
"If the Good News we preach is hidden behind a veil, it is hidden only from people who are perishing. 4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."(NLT)

The ability to 'blind minds' means that he can disable people's thinking ability. This is why we see perfectly intelligent, educated men being led down a slippery slope like evolution as if they had a ring in their collective noses.



There never was a process of evolution. Science cannot test its theory in real life.....they have to rely on data furnished by other scientists who also want to support this theory. The "evidence" will be "interpreted" accordingly. Professional reputations are at stake.



Who told you that? There is not a single species of living creature on this planet who is like man. None of them have the mental capacity that we do. None have the language or communication skills that we do. None can consciously plan for the future because they have no concept of past or present, let alone what might happen 20 years from now. We are the most intelligent of all species on this earth. Though many behave as though they had no intelligence whatsoever.

Do we have the capacity to become better than we are at present? I have no doubt, because when God's purpose for this earth is fulfilled and wickedness and ungodly people are eliminated from existence, things will go back to what God purposed at the start. This is not the life God planned for us, but we are stuck with it until every intelligent creature, both in heaven and on earth will have had his or her free will tested to the max. We will either pass or fail that test by the way we live and worship.



Absolutely. He is in control of everything....but evolution was never part of the original plan. He gave all creatures the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, but that was taken way out of the realms of science by those who were keen to lose any accountability to a higher authority. We all have an innate need to worship....so by making himself the most intelligent creature in existence, man can actually worship himself...science then becomes his 'religion'. He also has his temples and his 'holy' writings.

Its a tangled web.

It is clear that you have convinced youself about the relative merits between evolution and creation.
And I will never change your mind.
As for myself I believe That God started the process of creating the universe and the trajectory of his plan led to what we find today. Evolution was part of that plan.
While we seem to be the most advanced animal on this planet now, I can see no reason to believe that this will always be the case, as evolution is a continuing process.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that we are the most advanced creature in the universe. As generations of stars have come and gone and others will follow. There are, and will continue to be millions of planets capable of supporting life, any of which could be greater than us.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You do realize that the drag of the turbine cost more in the form of decreased mileage than it would add to the car. Remember, the first law of thermodynamics says you can't win, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics says you can't even break even.

Of course, but the law of green energy subsidization says otherwise

You simply measure the amount of energy you are generating from the turbine itself- as 'renewable energy' this can be 'sold' back to the grid at a mandated highly inflated cost, and/or 'carbon credits' (picked up by your neighbor in the form of taxes and energy bills) This amount is far greater than the cost of the electricity needed to replace what is lost by the drag.

Besides, you are talking about a market who buys hybrid and/or electric cars already, the decision is more about the ideological statement than any practical advantage or scrutiny of the 'science' involved. The high visibility of the turbines is the main selling point for this market.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution was part of that plan.

So God set up all the excruciatingly fine engineering necessary for life to exist and thrive on Earth, but had no particular plan for what would be produced from this? And then the result of a single sentient species, a means by which his creation can be experienced and contemplated from within- who deduces his existence and gives thanks for it.... That was all a bizarre unintended coincidence?

Does that really seem logical to you?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes some of the earliest adopters to evolution were poetic artist types. I treat evolution as a cultural issue. Its really really base understanding in pre literate cultures. The dissasociation develops into contemporary form through literacy itself. Books speak, people listen, to books, about, and slowly, nature no longer speaks, peole no longer listen, to nature, because they now listen, to books, about nature, and the books speak ,and people listen ,to just themselves about nature, about god, about the cosmos because books speak.
Sounds almost like a "spell" is cast!!! That is modern culture today. "My books speak truth," says the science mind, no my books "speaketh truth" says the religious minded. "what do you mean speaketh you religious nut job? That's mythology ancient science the word up today is speak not speaketh evolve religious moron" replied the science minded. "Sinner you need jesus" says the religious minded. And on and on it goes. I love the eddy Vedder version "society" tone perfect!!! "Society, you crazy breed, i hope you not lonely,, without me".

Then what is there, other than the perceived 'authority' of certain science books, that you personally feel maketh a compelling case for evolution?

 

[David T]

Then what is there, other than the perceived 'authority' of certain science books, that you personally feel maketh a compelling case for evolution?

It's in the bible!!! The ancient Joseph narrative is evoution in human thought and actions. What you are asking is about a scientific narrative, not evolution itself or interconnected "family of god" as religion is find of saying .St Francis called it 700 years before Darwin. So the scientific narrative "i am an independent objective observer of evolution is clearly fantasy and only sees it as a narrative in application on nature. All mystics in christianity have always stated that they are carried along by nature by God. Where as philosophy asks how do I define God how do I define nature. So we today have a philosopy debate but who sid philosophy is anything but definitions? Nothing more.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's in the bible!!! The ancient Joseph narrative is evoution in human thought and actions. What you are asking is about a scientific narrative, not evolution itself or interconnected "family of god" as religion is find of saying .St Francis called it 700 years before Darwin. So the scientific narrative "i am an independent objective observer of evolution is clearly fantasy and only sees it as a narrative in application on nature. All mystics in christianity have always stated that they are carried along by nature by God. Where as philosophy asks how do I define God how do I define nature. So we today have a philosopy debate but who sid philosophy is anything but definitions? Nothing more.

"Nature is the executor of God's laws" (Galileo)

 

[Jose Fly]

And in that entire tirade what did we see that was remotely connected to the OP?

You have got to be kidding me. I mean....did you really just say that?

Remember, I started this thread to look into your repeated talking point of "that's adaptation not evolution". You tried to explain yourself by citing the Encyclopedia Britannica, but after I pointed out that they basically defined and described "adaptation" and "evolution" as being the same thing (thereby negating your talking point), you bailed on the discussion and didn't respond.

And now you're calling for a return to the OP topic? Ok, fine.....you can start by responding to my post linked to above.

Is that all you have? Accusations and skewed ideas about who JW's are?

Skewed? Exactly which part of what I described isn't correct?

What has that got to do with the topic?

With you, everything. Or were you expecting to be able to constantly link to Jehovah's Witness' material in a science and religious forum, but never have anyone bring up Jehovah's Witnesses' approach to science?

The constant accusations of dishonesty are getting old and tired.

Then stop being dishonest.

I have not been dishonest.....I have just told an inconvenient truth.

Then there's something fundamentally wrong with you. Several people have specifically noted, documented, and described examples of your repeated dishonesty here, and you have not addressed any of it. Instead all you've done is whine that people are picking on you. Well, guess what? When you're repeatedly dishonest, people tend to hold that against you.

So all you can do is make personal slurs to cover your own lack of defense about this subject. That is what I believe is obvious. So if this is all you have, I won't bother to respond to you again.

I wondered how long it would take before you played this standard creationist card, where you are persistently dishonest and after enough people call you on it, you cry "personal attack" and start putting people on ignore.

Funny how the option of not being dishonest in the first place never even occurred to you. The fact that so many different people have pointed to the exact same behaviors from you doesn't even seem to have registered.

But I guess in your mind you've already convinced yourself that it's everyone else who's wrong, and that you've done nothing at all......right?

 

[David T]

And Elon musk said there is a billion in one chance we are not living in a virtual reality! I am not sure 2 virtual statements either by gallileio or Elon musk is saying much!!! Buts its normal ehich mea.s you are normal!!! Not a bad thing an is thing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And Elon musk said there is a billion in one chance we are not living in a virtual reality! I am not sure 2 virtual statements either by gallileio or Elon musk is saying much!!! Buts its normal ehich mea.s you are normal!!! Not a bad thing an is thing.

It's pretty much down to that now - a virtual reality that was created by a designer of some kind - or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) that created it accidentally along with every other possible thing- including designers.. hmm..

 

[David T]

It's pretty much down to that now - a virtual reality that was created by a designer of some kind - or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) that created it accidentally along with every other possible thing- including designers.. hmm..

It's pretty much down to that now - a virtual reality that was created by a designer of some kind - or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) that created it accidentally along with every other possible thing- including designers.. hmm..

Problematic I might say. We could debate that, but if we debated that, without awareness of the obvious underlying assumption you and I see, we could carry on an infinite debate. It starts to smack of angels on the head of a pin. The religious view would be infinite, the secularist would claim finite due to the "LAWS" of physics. How isn't that biblical literalism dressed up in secular drag? So we could go down that path but seems sort of lame either way and not even remotely new testament for that matter.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Problematic I might say. We could debate that, but if we debated that, without awareness of the obvious underlying assumption you and I see, we could carry on an infinite debate. It starts to smack of angels on the head of a pin. The religious view would be infinite, the secularist would claim finite due to the "LAWS" of physics. How isn't that biblical literalism dressed up in secular drag? So we could go down that path but seems sort of lame either way and not even remotely new testament for that matter.

The lines become blurred yes, there are atheists now open to the possibility of an 'alien' intelligence accounting for our universe, while still being repulsed with labeling it God, though the distinctions can seem unclear.

atheist Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it 'feasible' that we may one day create our own universe, having fully reverse engineered ours.. and that this could be where ours came from...

There are many forms of ID possible, and we know creative intelligence is at least hypothetically capable of producing the information systems necessary. Whether or not this can also happen by purely spontaneous processes... it's an interesting proposition to ponder, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it at this point!

 

[ChristineM]

Could you possibly mean me Jose Fly? You know the difficulty I have with responding to you is that you become your avatar.
I think this could possibly be why I have trouble taking you seriously. You just become Mr Grumblebum Cranky Face.

So we begin with the usual putdown just to set the scene....

Make sure you reduce the opposition to K-12 status.
I think we understand perception management here.

So........
Evolution is a theory based on an imagined hypothesis. It is suggested to occur when a series of imagined beneficial mutations take place for no apparent reason, or natural selection drives a species to develop into another species of creature altogether (again for no apparent reason) and supposedly takes place via imaginary processes which can never be duplicated in a lab. Examples of evolution would be suggested processes that make it possible for amoebas to eventually turn into dinosaurs, despite the fact that no one has ever seen a single part of the process take place. Gaps in knowledge or evidence can be filled in by speculation, assumption and misinterpreting evidence.

Adaptation on the other hand are minor changes that can occur only within a species. e.g. the length of a bird's beak or the color of an animal's coat or the ability of a plant to survive in a desert. It occurs when a change of environment or an alteration in food sources cause small changes in the animals or bird's ability to survive in a change of circumstance and takes place via small, mostly cosmetic changes driven by that alteration in the creature's living conditions. Examples of adaptation observed by man would be the hawthorn fly, stickleback fish, bacteria and the Galapagos species that Darwin observed.....none of which showed any alteration in the creature's natural structure, but merely minor changes to facilitate survival in a different, more marine oriented environment.
In all cases, the fish remained fish.....the flies remained flies....and the bacteria remained bacteria. The Galapagos species also remained true to their "kind" with small alterations in their appearance due to natural adaptations to their marine environment.



1.Minor adaptive changes within a single species, as opposed to one creature morphing into a series of completely different creatures over millions of years.

2. Small adaptations that facilitate survival within a species produce variety but remain true to their kind. Ability to adapt does not support a long series of beneficial mutations e.g. eventually turning land animals into whales. Most mutations are not beneficial, but detrimental to an organism.
Common ancestry is assumed but not provable. It is not evidence based. It is suggested.

3. Plants can adapt but remain plants. Insects can adapt but remain insects. Marine creatures can adapt but remain marine creatures and land animals can adapt but remain true to their kind.
The difference between the the two is vast, but the line is so blurred by science that most supporters of macro-evolution cannot even see it.

Will there be anything else?

I have 2 words to say to you, deoxyribonucleic acid, shortened to dna.

I could also add the pygmy three-toed sloth.

Evolution is proven in so many ways if really does not matter how indignant you are, your agreement is not needed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Crossing the species boundary. We can tell a pug and chihuahua are related because they could hook up and produce offspring. And we know man is not related to the monkeys because we can't hook up with apes and produce offspring, no matter how much we might want to.

If that's your criteria, wouldn't the existence of ring species prove you wrong?

Ring species - Wikipedia