Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[Gabethewiking]

Ok, is this it? The theory of Evolution is the theory of how life evolved, and evolution is how it actually evolved.

No, the Theory of Evolution is the attempt to explain how/why life evolve (mechanisms), Evolution is referring to the Fact of it (things evolving, actions).

Ok, guys fire away! Where do you want to start? (Also, what isn't there to understand about evolution that I appently don't understand?) And by the way, some of my previous post were windups, I admit, so sorry about that. Some people can't tell when I'm joking...But just one more thing before you start, and this time I am serious, I'd just like to know why so many people who believe in evolution are so against ID or creationism, (as can be seen by many posts and remarks) as it seems to me that those two things attempt to explain the origins of life, whereas evolution only tries to explain how things moved on from that point onwards. (I know, they are two seperate things)

However, if so many evolutionists don't care about how life got started (abiogenesis), then why mock creationism or ID, as if it's the same as believing in the toothfairy etc? Seeing that scientists can't explain what happened at the start, isn't it fair game to allow such theories as put forward by creationists.

You see, and I tink this has been pointed out before, it's about world views. A creationist will look a cell and see a complex structure with it's many functions which indicate design, where as a non-creationist (call it what you will) will look at the same cell and will see something that came about by random mutations over a very long time.

Excellent, so let us get started.

Your rsponse indicate that you understand Evolution, could you please give me/us a short description below what the Theory of Evolution is and some examples of basic Evolution. (This is to get started).

Ga Briel

 

[McBell]

This what i wrote in a previous post: The theory of Evolution is the theory of how life evolved, and evolution is how it actually evolved. Pretty much the same. Oh, and 'evolutionists' is not my term but the dictionary's definition of guys like you. "An evolutionist is someone who accepts the scientific theory that all living things evolved from a few simple life forms."(Google dictionary)

And yet you are are mixing up your own terms.
Not a very good way to present an argument.

 

[Kerr]

Does it?

It does. Creationism tend to talk about that there exist kinds of animals and that those kinds can´t evolve. The ToE disagrees, and does not even talk about "kinds".

 

[Atruthseeker]

And yet you are are mixing up your own terms.
Not a very good way to present an argument.

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]
Ok, here is my understanding of the theory. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the belief that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic descent with modification. So, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally given enough time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, DNA, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- this is called natural selection. These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). [/FONT]I hope I'm right on this...

An example of simple evolution. The eye of a mollusk. First you have a few light sensitive cells that can detect light and dark, then you may get another mollusk with say a cupped structre of light sensitive cells, so they can tell which direction the light is coming from. Eventually it reshapes to form something like a pin hole that enables basic focussing. Then you get a basic lens that then further leads onto a very good lens that enables good vision.

 

[Gabethewiking]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Ok, here is my understanding of the theory. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the belief that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic descent with modification. So, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally given enough time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, DNA, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- this is called natural selection. These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). [/FONT]I hope I'm right on this...

An example of simple evolution. The eye of a mollusk. First you have a few light sensitive cells that can detect light and dark, then you may get another mollusk with say a cupped structre of light sensitive cells, so they can tell which direction the light is coming from. Eventually it reshapes to form something like a pin hole that enables basic focussing. Then you get a basic lens that then further leads onto a very good lens that enables good vision.

No, "Complexity" or "Superiority" is not involved in Evolution, we may consider something "more complex" by our own definitions, but this is subjective, Also, Darwins Theory has nothing to do with Abiogenesis and is not related to "none-life".

 

[Atruthseeker]

No, "Complexity" or "Superiority" is not involved in Evolution, we may consider something "more complex" by our own definitions, but this is subjective, Also, Darwins Theory has nothing to do with Abiogenesis and is not related to "none-life".

Ok, but is the rest close enough?

 

[Gabethewiking]

Ok, but is the rest close enough?

I do not know if you copy-pasted it or if you wrote it yourself. The formulation is poor, it states that "Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the belief that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor".

Well, no, it is not a "belief" as in common usage of the word, it is based on factual evidence of Evolution, it attempts to explain these facts through Natural Selection and Random Genetic Mutations (but do not be confused with the usage of the word "random" either).


And this: "Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism" is completely wrong, or i think you misunderstand as you divide each organism seperately.

This is why i use a graphical tree to explain, This is always the problem if you do not understand evolution. To help you out (I apologize if poorly formulated): Imagine we have 1 to 10.

1 BOB
2 BOBX
3 BOBEY
4 BOBER
5 BOXERI
6 BBERIX
7 BBERIC
8 BERICC
9 BERIC
10 ERIC

At one we have the Animal BOB 8NONE-HUMAN), at at 10 we have it evolving "into" ERIC (HUMAN).

This is a really poor example, I apologize. But It is an attempt to explain to you how things change into something else but always being something. You see ERIC today, but if you saw in at nummer 9, you would see the same, but you would define the "end product" as 9 instead of 10. We are changing all the time, every generation, and eventually we, if we look at it from outside time, see a long chain of animals slowly turning into something but each is to his own.... I do not know if i explained it very good.

 

[Atruthseeker]

I do not know if you copy-pasted it or if you wrote it yourself. The formulation is poor, it states that "Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the belief that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor".

Well, no, it is not a "belief" as in common usage of the word, it is based on factual evidence of Evolution, it attempts to explain these facts through Natural Selection and Random Genetic Mutations (but do not be confused with the usage of the word "random" either).


And this: "Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism" is completely wrong, or i think you misunderstand as you divide each organism seperately.

This is why i use a graphical tree to explain, This is always the problem if you do not understand evolution. To help you out (I apologize if poorly formulated): Imagine we have 1 to 10.

1 BOB
2 BOBX
3 BOBEY
4 BOBER
5 BOXERI
6 BBERIX
7 BBERIC
8 BERICC
9 BERIC
10 ERIC

At one we have the Animal BOB 8NONE-HUMAN), at at 10 we have it evolving "into" ERIC (HUMAN).

This is a really poor example, I apologize. But It is an attempt to explain to you how things change into something else but always being something. You see ERIC today, but if you saw in at nummer 9, you would see the same, but you would define the "end product" as 9 instead of 10. We are changing all the time, every generation, and eventually we, if we look at it from outside time, see a long chain of animals slowly turning into something but each is to his own.... I do not know if i explained it very good.

Actually, you did explain it well. I see what you are saying. And I did copy and paste the first bit as I thought it'd take me a ages to type it out so I googled the ToE and the first page had that in it and I thought that that pretty much sums up what I thought. I did change the odd bit tho. (It's quite hard to get a nutshell explanation of the theory on the web!)

 

[tumbleweed41]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]
Ok, here is my understanding of the theory. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the belief that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic descent with modification. So, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally given enough time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, DNA, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- this is called natural selection. These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). [/FONT]I hope I'm right on this...

An example of simple evolution. The eye of a mollusk. First you have a few light sensitive cells that can detect light and dark, then you may get another mollusk with say a cupped structre of light sensitive cells, so they can tell which direction the light is coming from. Eventually it reshapes to form something like a pin hole that enables basic focussing. Then you get a basic lens that then further leads onto a very good lens that enables good vision.

I do not know if you copy-pasted it or if you wrote it yourself. The formulation is poor, it states that "Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the belief that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor".

Pasted from HERE, a website arguing for [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]irreducible complexity.[/FONT]

 

[Atruthseeker]

Pasted from HERE, a website arguing for [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]irreducible complexity.[/FONT]

Yeah, I didn't even see that when I copied it! If I had seen it, I wouldn't have copied it as it would undermine my arguments...

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yeah, I didn't even see that when I copied it! If I had seen it, I wouldn't have copied it as it would undermine my arguments...

I[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]rreducible complexity is a debunked [/FONT]argument for Intelligent Design argued by Creationist Micheal Behe.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Yeah, I didn't even see that when I copied it! If I had seen it, I wouldn't have copied it as it would undermine my arguments...

That is no problem at all, you realize your mistake and admitted it. So let us move on shall we?

 

[Atruthseeker]

That is no problem at all, you realize your mistake and admitted it. So let us move on shall we?

Yep. Go ahead.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Yep. Go ahead.

Rats, I thought you would ask something, so much easier then thinking for yourself....
Well then, so you have a rough idea of the Theory of Evolution, the explanation of (how) Evolution (functions). So do you have a problem with Evolution in general?

Do you accept such things as Germ Theory, Adaption and so forth? (if you say Yes you are a "Evolutionist" by the way, which would be nice).


Corrected Spelling, No instead of Yes.. Hahah.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd just like to know why so many people who believe in evolution are so against ID or creationism, (as can be seen by many posts and remarks) as it seems to me that those two things attempt to explain the origins of life, whereas evolution only tries to explain how things moved on from that point onwards. (I know, they are two seperate things)

ID is a form of creationism, and I assume when you say "creationism" you're referring to some type of Biblical creationism. The reason I oppose them is because they're wrong. Now, that by itself doesn't necessarily bother me; people believe all sorts of factually wrong things all the time. The difference here is, creationists in the US spend a lot of time and resources trying to undermine science education. And as long as they do that, I'll oppose them.

However, if so many evolutionists don't care about how life got started (abiogenesis), then why mock creationism or ID, as if it's the same as believing in the toothfairy etc? Seeing that scientists can't explain what happened at the start, isn't it fair game to allow such theories as put forward by creationists.

You're mixing "evolutionists" with "evolutionary theory". Just because the theory of evolution doesn't address the origins of the first life, that doesn't mean other branches of science aren't tackling it, or that "evolutionists" aren't interested in it.

Evolutionary theory doesn't address subatomic particles either, but that doesn't mean "evolutionists don't care about subatomic particles".

You see, and I tink this has been pointed out before, it's about world views. A creationist will look a cell and see a complex structure with it's many functions which indicate design, where as a non-creationist (call it what you will) will look at the same cell and will see something that came about by random mutations over a very long time.

Sure, people see what they want to see. The difference is, when we study populations, all we see is evolution. They all evolve, all the time. We never really see them do anything different.

Do we ever see this "designer" (God) create anything? Even a single grain of sand? Nope.

 

[Atruthseeker]

Rats, I thought you would ask something, so much easier then thinking for yourself....
Well then, so you have a rough idea of the Theory of Evolution, the explanation of (how) Evolution (functions). So do you have a problem with Evolution in general?

Do you accept such things as Germ Theory, Adaption and so forth? (if you say Yes you are a "Evolutionist" by the way, which would be nice).


Corrected Spelling, No instead of Yes.. Hahah.

I don't have a problem with it as such, I just wonder about really complex systems and how long they must have taken to evolve and how they must also work with other systems at the same time, and I also wonder about the information that's in DNA. How did it get there?
And I admit, I know very little about Germ Theory and adaption and so forth compared to you...

 

[fantome profane]

I don't have a problem with it as such, I just wonder about really complex systems and how long they must have taken to evolve and how they must also work with other systems at the same time, and I also wonder about the information that's in DNA. How did it get there?
And I admit, I know very little about Germ Theory and adaption and so forth compared to you...

I know I am sounding like a broken record, and I know I am terribly tiresome on the subject. But if you really honestly want to know the answers to these questions, if you really are honestly “Atruthseeker” then may I recommend you go to your local library and check out some books on the topic. Or if you have the money go to a bookstore, or order some books online. We can give you quite an extensive list of excellent books if you want. Starting with my signature below.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know I am sounding like a broken record, and I know I am terribly tiresome on the subject. But if you really honestly want to know the answers to these questions, if you really are honestly “Atruthseeker” then may I recommend you go to your local library and check out some books on the topic. Or if you have the money go to a bookstore, or order some books online. We can give you quite an extensive list of excellent books if you want. Starting with my signature below.

Translated: You're going to have to do some work.

That's one thing a lot of creationists I've encountered don't realize. The data and information is out there, waiting for you to look at it. But, like any field of science, it takes a bit of work to get to a point where it makes sense.

 

[Valjean]

OK. Here's my two cents:
Evolution is change. It's the observed fact that organisms have and are changing over time.
ToE is an explanation of the mechanisms of this change.
Abiogenesis is the observation that life began. First there was no life, then there was life. For theories of the mechanisms involved, just do a google search.
Creationism is an assertion: Goddidit. It's neither an observed fact nor a proposed mechanism.
ID is Christian sleight-of-hand designed to discredit the ToE and to appear as an alternative. It masquerades as theory but posits no explanation of anything. It just re-iterates the Creationists' "Goddidit."

 

[Atruthseeker]

...It's neither an observed fact..."

Neither was the big bang but that is a field of scientific study? Why, because you can observe it's effects amongst other things, and this is what creationists claim. We believe you can see the effects of the hand of a designer.