Evolution has never been observed

[Acim]

So far all I'm getting from your posts are complaints about language in a particular article.
I'm not seeing you address the topic of evolution at all.

Why don't you try quoting one of the posts that is directly related to OP, and we can verify whether I am addressing the topic of evolution. I believe I squarely am, and if I am not, then I would say it is the material presented that is not.

Right now, just saying "discussing the FAQ's" is far to vague to be useful. What exactly is it you want to discuss?

wa:do

TOE at level of understanding everything put forth, based on material presented in another thread. This may take some time, but it makes way more sense to me, to start with basic understandings, and make sure people are on same page. As we might (and are strongly suggested to do) with a spiritual type debate. It's not enough there to assume all agree God exists. That's deemed, from getgo, as not rational to simply assume that, as the evidence is not clear, nor clearly defined and so before debate gathers much legs we are spinning wheels on things that are pretty much easy to grasp if one is willing learner. But not all are, and neither do all need to be. Good questions can come from observing basics and underpinning logic at work.

I do that here. And you can do that here as well. You don't have to, and I'm getting distinct impression that proponents of evolution don't want that done. They don't want level of scrutiny that I'm applying to the material. Instead, I'm guessing, they want material read in silence, read as a whole, and then ask very specific questions, on more or less intermediate type things that are essentially accepted, and we'll go from there. But anyone hung up on the basics and harping on those things are somewhere between, 'not really willing to learn' or 'not able to grasp what is already established as fact.'

I honestly believe my last post in vein of "let's examine the material" was genuine willingness to learn, while also questioning some of logic in assertions. Earlier posts may be more mocking than questioning, but like 'student' of spirituality who may not fully buy into what is being taught, I may show up with biases that either you as proponent of evolution can handle, or perhaps you best leave this thread of discussion to those with greater patience and understanding to discuss these matters with wisdom and balanced approach.

I do not accept TOE hook line and sinker, and do not expect myself to have to show up as if everything being said is to be treated with some sanctimonious call to intelligence and rational. It is philosophy first and foremost to me, and when I encounter something that is deemed 'fact' my desire to question and scrutinize is going to go up a few notches since I am a free thinker. I hope those in the room who also claim to be free thinker are able to keep up, participate in way that guides with the material, rather than distract and question my intelligence, or my willingness. I already have four posts in as evidence of willingness. How many you got (on this thread)?

 

[Acim]

Because you're either biased or uneducated with regards to archaeology or geology?

*shrug* Just a possibility.

So, it then isn't really something observable, but is taught. A meme passed on rather than something that resembles objectivity. For if it did, any observer ought to see this, unless extraordinary tools (of observation) and extraordinary means (of investigation, through formal education) are the way to 'see' this evolution thing.

Thus not directly observable.
Thus straw man claim #1 has been knocked down.

 

[Alex_G]

I don't think I actually believe the title of this thread, but since it can't be discussed in the other thread, I thought I'd posit a few items here for consideration.

I guess, I'd also like to think this thread could serve as discussion for that other one, but if for some reason the first point on the first resource listed goes on for 10+ pages, then I myself might start another thread for the following point(s), and go from there. Make sense?

So, I guess this first post is working from this assertion:



Be that (the underlined part) as it may, it is what all informal debates are pretty much about. I mean to me, it is akin to saying, "Atheists wrongly believe that their understanding of deities is what theists conceptions of God must be, and declare God as non existent. In fact, they haven't addressed the subject of God."

But since evolution and atheism may have absolutely no correlation, just allow me to sneak that in there as point I wish to make, and let's move onto discussing (misconceptions of) Evolution (Theory).

Evolution is observable. As with everyday objects that exist in 3 dimensions, and can be identified with ease by us, some things have an existence that is more pronounced in the 4th dimension, or time. Now such a thing wont be as identifiable or visible in one day, just as a cube is not really visible or identifiable as a cube in 2 dimensions. The perspective is what’s inadequate, not the thing itself.

It is hard to really see evolution, because of its incredibly slow pace stretched over long periods of time. Similarly things of vast dimensions and very tiny dimensions are equally hard for us to 'see', but nevertheless exist as it were.

As for examples, well there are so many i wont even say anymore, from bacterial resistance to antibiotics, to livestock breeding to fruit flies and pea plants. Plenty.

As for complaints regarding evolution not being as clear as say a monkey giving birth to a giraffe, well this is to not even understand evolution at all, and is demanding it to be something it isn’t, or never claimed to be.

Alex

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, it then isn't really something observable, but is taught.

Wrong, it can be both. In order to understand something, you need to have the capacity and education to be able to observe it. This is the difference between a conclusion and an informed or educated conclusion.

The fact is that it is observed by myself, many others and over 99% of scientists in the field of biology. The fact that you cannot see it indicates nothing more than either bias or ignorance on your part.

A meme passed on rather than something that resembles objectivity. For if it did, any observer ought to see this, unless extraordinary tools (of observation) and extraordinary means (of investigation, through formal education) are the way to 'see' this evolution thing.

Or unless people are biased and refuse to accept things they observe that contradict their preconceived worldview.

Thus not directly observable.
Thus straw man claim #1 has been knocked down.

Except it is, which is why it has been observed and accepted by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Also, this logic is extremely poor. If there exist flat-earthers in the world, does their denial of observable evidence that the world is round mean that the evidence is not directly observable, or is it just evidence that they refuse to deny reality in favour of their beliefs?

 

[Acim]

So, picking up where #74 left, and again, coming from this literature.

The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations

Before I get into this, I would like to summarize points that did stand out to me from previous section (#2 in the material). These points I think can all be found in my previous posts, #7, #48, #60 and #74.

• A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species.
• There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists.
• Folk Concept = individuals are basically alike ... there is a discontinuity of variation between species.
• BCS = species as a reproductive community ... that occupies a specific niche in nature.
• Considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC.
• The fact of the matter is that the time, effort and money needed to delimit species using the BSC is, to say the least, prohibitive
• using the BSC to delimit species is impractical is that breeding experiments can often be inconclusive
• Phenetic (or Morphological) Species Concept = smallest groups that are consistently and persistently distinct and distinguishable by ordinary means
• What means are ordinary are determined by what is needed to examine the organisms in question. (Noted by me as: This seems between presumptuous and logical fallacy to assume this is how the definition can be made in reasonable way.)
• Phenetic SC ... places a heavy, though not exclusive, emphasis on morphological characters. It also recognizes phenetic characters such as chromosome number, chromosome morphology, cell ultrastructure, secondary metabolites, habitats and other features. (Noted by me with: this is saying we are going to need a whole branch of understanding (jargon) to specify what the heck we mean by this overarching assessment of phenomenon. To the point where the definition will be lost in the haze of "well look how finely detailed we got in our description of things.")
• Phylogenetic Species Concepts = 1) smallest cluster of organisms that possesses at least one diagnostic character ... reproductive continuity is not used in the same way as in the BSC. Phylogenetic species may be reproductive communities. (Note: BCS does say species as a reproductive community.) ... Reproductively compatible individuals need not have the diagnostic character of a species. (Noted by me with: So, what this is telling me is that "phylogentic species" are essentially exceptions to the rule found in folk definition of species, or perhaps more accurately, not the sort of organisms that laypeople generally run into, unless they have utensils and/or (controlled) environments in which to study 'atypical' forms of species.) 2) A species must be monophyletic and share one or more derived character. (In relation to definition of monophyletic, I noted: we are 'suddenly' in domain of accepting 'descendants of a common ancestor' as definition of species. Which from folk definition, I can relate, but from something that goes beyond that, and say further backwards, I am not clear how we got to this point other than throwing out a term, and hoping it would stick, without much question.)
• recently offered hypothesis suggests that phylogenetic species concepts and the biological species concept may be highly, if not completely, incompatible.
• Parallel speciation = repeated independent evolution of the same reproductive isolating mechanism ... experimental evidence that this might occur ... could undermine the usefulness of phylogenetic species concepts
• What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. (Noted by me as: in vein of subjective.) When we examine putative speciation events, we need to ask the question, which species definition is the most reasonable for this group of organisms? In many cases it will be the biological definition. In many other cases some other definition will be more appropriate. (Noted by me with: So, we fit the definition to match the data? Interesting.)
• My bottom line (at this point) = Personally, folk definition still strikes me as most reasonable, unless one is concerned with studying organisms that no one reading this comes into contact with outside of labs, or outside of using special (extraordinary) utensils.

I'll let this post stand on its own as possible point(s) for discussion in this thread, and will get on with material in next post I do.

 

[Acim]

Evolution is observable ... The perspective is what’s inadequate, not the thing itself.

It is hard to really see evolution, because of its incredibly slow pace stretched over long periods of time. Similarly things of vast dimensions and very tiny dimensions are equally hard for us to 'see', but nevertheless exist as it were.

As noted earlier, I accept that evolution is inferred. Your statement, "It is hard to really see evolution," continues to confirm to me that evolution is not directly observed.

As for examples, well there are so many i wont even say anymore, from bacterial resistance to antibiotics, to livestock breeding to fruit flies and pea plants. Plenty.

So, like breeding with like is evolution? And/or is example you give as 'we do observe this?' We really need a theory for this?

Me, I think this is not what is meant by evolution (specifically) especially in doctrine of TOE, though if someone reading this wishes to come forth and say, "this is all evolution is," then I think the entire debate will be put to rest in matter of seconds.

As for complaints regarding evolution not being as clear as say a monkey giving birth to a giraffe, well this is to not even understand evolution at all, and is demanding it to be something it isn’t, or never claimed to be.

Tis nice that we can always appeal to the ridiculous extreme, to hopefully get away from or ignore the appeal to straw-man, in what has already been stated by you and at least 2 other people on this thread, "that we do not really see evolution occurring directly." And yet, this paragraph I write will be met with persons claiming they do see it, it can be seen, it is seeable, can't you see that? If you can't, you are ignorant, uneducated and obtuse. Don't you see that?

LOL.

 

[Acim]

In order to understand something, you need to have the capacity and education to be able to observe it.

Thus it is not objective, but influenced by capacity and education (indoctrination).

This is the difference between a conclusion and an informed or educated conclusion.

Which clearly demonstrates bias. Notice you are not saying objective conclusion, which the word "conclusion" does allow for, but instead are saying informed or educated one, which begs the question of how one becomes informed or educated? As student of philosophy, I am I would say very familiar with answer to that question, but will let it be answered by all those who may wish to say "my teachers and informers do not have a bias, and are instead objective practitioners of scientific method."

The fact is that it is observed by myself, many others and over 99% of scientists in the field of biology. The fact that you cannot see it indicates nothing more than either bias or ignorance on your part.

Would hold equally true for all things unseen. You don't see God? Okay, well that indicates nothing more than either bias or ignorance on your part. My sister Suzy doesn't see leprechauns. Well that indicates nothing more than either bias or ignorance on her part.

Clearly, this is not something that can be seen by one and all, unless they are indoctrinated with understanding of "how seeing is done." I think that indoctrination is fine. I actually do. But ought to be presented with what it is (bias, reaching for consensus) and not attempted to be conveyed as "objectivity." For if it is attempted to be conveyed in that way, I will gladly continue this debate for as long as the (ahem) non-bias and non ignorant persons wish to entertain a wretch like me.

If there exist flat-earthers in the world, does their denial of observable evidence that the world is round mean that the evidence is not directly observable, or is it just evidence that they refuse to deny reality in favour of their beliefs?

I've been through this recently on this site. This is matter of perspective. The world is still (apparently) flat, but is also (apparently) spherical. The flat-earthers may not be able to explain a whole bunch of things that spherical-earthers would, with consensus, and via reason. But spherical earthers don't make wrong that the earth appears flat. It does.

Just like quantum realists don't make wrong that the earth appears to me made up of large, tangible objects that are mostly solid. It does appear that way. But quantum realists know that this perspective is limited and is not 'end all, be all' to what is 'observable' within our reality, via extraordinary means of observation.

 

[Alex_G]

As noted earlier, I accept that evolution is inferred. Your statement, "It is hard to really see evolution," continues to confirm to me that evolution is not directly observed.



So, like breeding with like is evolution? And/or is example you give as 'we do observe this?' We really need a theory for this?

Me, I think this is not what is meant by evolution (specifically) especially in doctrine of TOE, though if someone reading this wishes to come forth and say, "this is all evolution is," then I think the entire debate will be put to rest in matter of seconds.



Tis nice that we can always appeal to the ridiculous extreme, to hopefully get away from or ignore the appeal to straw-man, in what has already been stated by you and at least 2 other people on this thread, "that we do not really see evolution occurring directly." And yet, this paragraph I write will be met with persons claiming they do see it, it can be seen, it is seeable, can't you see that? If you can't, you are ignorant, uneducated and obtuse. Don't you see that?

LOL.

Simply put i think the facts of evolution are there to be seen as directly as any facts can be seen, if one is able to look at the evidence with an appreciation for its timescale in order to synthesise an understanding of the process.

 

[camanintx]

So, it then isn't really something observable, but is taught. A meme passed on rather than something that resembles objectivity. For if it did, any observer ought to see this, unless extraordinary tools (of observation) and extraordinary means (of investigation, through formal education) are the way to 'see' this evolution thing.

Thus not directly observable.
Thus straw man claim #1 has been knocked down.

Evolution is a process that explains changes in biological organisms from simple immunity all the way up to the diversity of species. Just because we can directly observe the former and not the latter does not invalidate the theory in any way.

 

[painted wolf]

Why don't you try quoting one of the posts that is directly related to OP, and we can verify whether I am addressing the topic of evolution. I believe I squarely am, and if I am not, then I would say it is the material presented that is not.

You don't need me to quote you, the discussion on your use of the term "jargon" was enough evidence.

TOE at level of understanding everything put forth, based on material presented in another thread. This may take some time, but it makes way more sense to me, to start with basic understandings, and make sure people are on same page.

Then lets start at basic understanding, rather than jumping into minutia like the biological species concept.

As we might (and are strongly suggested to do) with a spiritual type debate. It's not enough there to assume all agree God exists. That's deemed, from getgo, as not rational to simply assume that, as the evidence is not clear, nor clearly defined and so before debate gathers much legs we are spinning wheels on things that are pretty much easy to grasp if one is willing learner. But not all are, and neither do all need to be. Good questions can come from observing basics and underpinning logic at work.

I do that here. And you can do that here as well. You don't have to, and I'm getting distinct impression that proponents of evolution don't want that done. They don't want level of scrutiny that I'm applying to the material. Instead, I'm guessing, they want material read in silence, read as a whole, and then ask very specific questions, on more or less intermediate type things that are essentially accepted, and we'll go from there. But anyone hung up on the basics and harping on those things are somewhere between, 'not really willing to learn' or 'not able to grasp what is already established as fact.'

Actually all I'm getting from your posts is a steam of consciousness diatribe about how much you don't like the wording they are using. And some tossed in comments about how mistreated creationists are and so on.

I honestly believe my last post in vein of "let's examine the material" was genuine willingness to learn, while also questioning some of logic in assertions. Earlier posts may be more mocking than questioning, but like 'student' of spirituality who may not fully buy into what is being taught, I may show up with biases that either you as proponent of evolution can handle, or perhaps you best leave this thread of discussion to those with greater patience and understanding to discuss these matters with wisdom and balanced approach.

do you realize how unimpressive this kind of exposition is when directed at another theist?

I do not accept TOE hook line and sinker, and do not expect myself to have to show up as if everything being said is to be treated with some sanctimonious call to intelligence and rational. It is philosophy first and foremost to me, and when I encounter something that is deemed 'fact' my desire to question and scrutinize is going to go up a few notches since I am a free thinker. I hope those in the room who also claim to be free thinker are able to keep up, participate in way that guides with the material, rather than distract and question my intelligence, or my willingness. I already have four posts in as evidence of willingness. How many you got (on this thread)?

I have never expected anyone to accept evolution "hook line and sinker".

You appear to be arguing against someone other than myself in this.... some sort of strawman scientist perhaps?

What I have asked is that you help me understand your point by not rambling and going off on tangents about how little people understand "free thinkers" like yourself.

If you really want to start with basics... you should start with defining evolution.
Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

I would suggest discussing the above to start with, rather than trying to jump into the technical stuff right off. Indeed, according to the first thing you cited, one problem is with people trying to debate the details without knowing the basics.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

Evolution is a process that explains changes in biological organisms from simple immunity all the way up to the diversity of species. Just because we can directly observe the former and not the latter does not invalidate the theory in any way.

Nor does the claim that evolution cannot be observed. That doesn't invalidate the theory. I think evolutionists would, rather easily acknowledge that. But feel such acknowledgement, or concession given to Creationists would be seen as giving misguided information to misguided persons. Or something similar to that.

At same time I write this, I realize that evolutionists are simply not going to let go of idea that they do observe evolution.

And to me this comes back to perspective, which is deeper than the kind of evolution we do see and the one we don't. But for now, that is where this point is hung up on, and well unless there is arbitration of sorts, I think there will be 2 camps on this point. Those who swear evolution is observed, they've seen it, all can see it if they apply themselves. And those who reason and/or truly believe evolution is not observable, they have not seen it, and unless person uses extraordinary tools or means of investigating 'world around us,' then it is reasonable to conclude that evolution, as theory, is not directly observable.

That arbitration will come from "us" but right now, someone like me sees 2 'thems' that are claiming the other side is willfully being ignorant on key points up for discussion. And thus an arbitrator may not be possible since neither side is really all that interested in objectivity, but more interested in defending their doctrine.

An arbitrator stands very good chance as being seen as "one of them" if not buying completely into doctrine of either side.

 

[painted wolf]

This is where starting with the basics... "what is evolution" ... would be handy.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

Then lets start at basic understanding, rather than jumping into minutia like the biological species concept.

I'll admit there is points before TOE to consider 'basic understanding' but at same time, material presented is going with rather basic understandings to get further along.

I'm willing to set aside the literature I chose first (also listed first on other thread) and go with other literature you would have me consider, but mostly I would only do this if it is truly 'more basic' than this one, which so far strikes me as fairly basic, except for jargon, or under defined terminology.

Actually all I'm getting from your posts is a steam of consciousness diatribe about how much you don't like the wording they are using. And some tossed in comments about how mistreated creationists are and so on.

And that to me, would be on you. You could quote this to provide perhaps more accurate assessment of what you say you are getting, or I could attempt to work with this perspective, while knowing I have taken both material and underpinnings of evolution, head on.

Read my summary post (last one in the series) and see where your take is to be found, more than the one that demonstrates me with willingness to understand and question the material being presented.

You appear to be arguing against someone other than myself in this....

The material being presented, is what I am having argument (discussion) with, as if that is possible. I like to pretend it is, as I think it is another way to learn. Essentially, I am scrutinizing the material put forth by what I understand to be proponents of TOE.

If you really want to start with basics... you should start with defining evolution.
Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

I'll look into the material and may switch to this, as you are one of the main 'presenters' in other thread. I might suggest you put this item as #1 material to read first, if you think it is, in fact #1. If order isn't really all that important, then the one I went with, is what is first and strikes me as fairly basic (minus the jargon).

I would suggest discussing the above to start with, rather than trying to jump into the technical stuff right off. Indeed, according to the first thing you cited, one problem is with people trying to debate the details without knowing the basics.

And again, I would suggest changing how other thread appears in presentation of what reading material to consider. Because arguably, debate is at point it is, because we simply can't assume everyone involved will go through remedial education. We can think that may be necessary, helpful, possible, but I think it is implausible.

Akin to me thinking if everyone went through spiritual search I did (much if not all of which is 'around us'), they'd be theist, based on objective search. But if I have to go back and explain things all myself on "what makes for experience" and how does Reason apply to seeking and so on, it is daunting task. Material is all around. Remedial education is there for those who are truly willing. But I think given what is reality, I simply cannot assume persons are going to go through that sort of remedial education. So, I usually go within instruction of "go within" which is most direct way I can suggest seeking turn into knowledge. But all this is another matter.

And so, I'll look into material you've suggest, I will likely approach it with scrutiny and do similar discourse to posts I have on this thread already. You are welcome to join in at that level whenever you are moved to do so. Hopefully to help clarify and guide, but maybe to be met with debate and question of fundamental logic at work.

 

[Acim]

At just a glance I can already tell the other one isn't going to be any more clearer than the present one. But I'll go with it, and bring forth reasonable scrutiny and let chips fall where they may.

I might suggest you link me to something even more basic, but just a suggestion. Would hate to tear this one apart and you all jump all over me for that.

 

[painted wolf]

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

Hopefully we can move forward together on a more steady footing.

wa:do

ps. I'll see what I can find for you.

 

[Jose Fly]

I guess I have to throw my lot in with Painted Wolf. I see the title of the thread, "Evolution has never been observed" and immediately identify the claim as ludicrous. Yet when I read through the thread, I can't for the life of me figure out what any of the subsequent dialog has to do with the thread title.

 

[Krok]

OP is not about questiong these observations.

I also agree to all these observations as I have observed all these. But examine the assertion "In the lowest strata, there's no life at all.". Should it not better read "In the lowest strata (oldest strata) there are no fossils?

OK, I”ll change it to: “In the lowest strata, we’ve never observed any evidence of life at all.” In the higher and younger strata, we have. Better?

In your statement you make an assumption: structutre= life. That is a supposition which is perpetuated.

No,I haven’t. Nothing to do with structure. There’s just no evidence of life in the lowest strata. No word salad will change facts. There’s no evidence of life in the lowest strata at all. Fullstop.

On the other hand, i will like to say that it is life which continually gives rise to more and more complex structures.

Doesn’t look like it, as from the evidence it seems like that is certainly not true. Unicellular organisms still vastly outnumber more complex organisms.

But science cannot work from this perspective,,,,

Not from your straw man. Science works from evidence.

… since science needs measurable things.

You’re welcome to measure these fossils. They do exist in real life.

My goal as a scientist is same and as a scientist I say :Yes. From no fossil to complex fossils through geological time proves evolution beyond doubt.

You’ve still got no idea, do you? Most fossils certainly are not ‘complex’ as in multicellular organisms.

But my goal as a general enquirer goes along with the second line of thought that it is the 'unformed' life-force which brings in varieties of shapes and ever increasing specialisations in forms.

You mean something which can’t be observed? Not science. It’s called woo.

THis has many practical benefits for my life and that cannot be subject of this thread.

Sorry, I don’t believe in anybody's woo. I prefer evidence.

The OP, I think, talks about bridging the understanding gap.

No, the OP is misleading. There’s lots of evidence for evolution. Evolution is fact. No evidence for woo at all.

Just recorded here to generate a few thoughts.

Try a less misleading OP then.:sleep:

 

[Acim]

Okay, this post continues in same vein as #7, #48, #60, #74, and #85. Yet, at request of participant in this thread, who is also one of proponents for idea that is the other thread, I now go with new material. This is actually cited as top item from painted wolf in post #3 of that other thread. Titled, "Evolution 101," it is, I gather, an introductory piece that (as it states), "provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution."

From what I can tell the piece has been put together by Berkeley College.

And to be clear about a few things going in.
1 - I enter into this piece with desire to scrutinize the material, within context of debate forum titled, "Evolution vs. Creationism."
2 - At this point, I may or may not come back to title of this thread which claims, "evolution cannot be observed." IMO, this thread has already established the veracity of that claim, though is not complete in that validation, and perhaps may never be. But this thread was started in that vein, and well, now the thread is changing gears. It is still the same car, still the same driver, but we are now changing lanes and I would say shifting the gear down a bit, to cruise at a different speed.
3 - I very much invite all reading this into a discussion on what that material is saying, how I am interpreting, what I am choosing to scrutinize, and whatever it is the additional participants wish to bring into the discussion. As long as....
4 - We can stay on topic. I'm taking the material head on. Squarely addressing it. Perhaps not with same bias that another may take it on, but I am quoting directly from it, and that is what is now up for discussion in this thread. What is not intended to be up for discussion is my bias, my intelligence, my way of presenting the material, etc. But I feel equipped enough to realize some respondents to this thread may only care to have THAT discussion and not the one that deals with the material that is supposedly here to help us with, at least one side of the larger debate.

 

[Krok]

You are a) saying it is observed and …

Yes, it has been observed. Those rocks exist. Any evidence to the contrary?

in every rock ever investigated.

In every rock scientifically described? Yes.

Though not really explaining what is observed….

How many rocks have you ever described scientifically?

… nor accounting for why I don't see it in every rock I've investigated.

Ever published your findings? I have.

But your claim is in every rock I've observed / looked at / investigated, I've seen it. Pretty nifty trick in logic being employed.

No, I don’t expect non-geologists to do it, as they wouldn’t really have a clue what they’re talking about. I was talking about persons with a vague understanding of geology.

In every rock that's been looked at, God has been seen.

I’ve got quite a few rocks in my office. No god to be seen.

Perhaps the ifs need further justification? Further explanation. You don't have to do that here, because we already have enough material to walk us (or me and perhaps others) through the logic being used, but I'm going to say you have way under explained yourself, and 'pretending the hows are same as the ifs" is at core of the debate. When I say, "in every rock you look at, God is there (to be seen), ‘..

No gods in my office, just rocks.

..and you say, something along lines of, "If God exists....,"

No, I certainly won’t. I work on evidence, not if’s. Are you confusing fundamentalist religious arguments with science?

I can now return with, "Spiritual people are interested in how, not if. If has been established and need not be reviewed for those who are only wanting to mislead people from their lack of understanding, lack of belief. Spiritual people do the how and why, not the ifs."

What the? Word salads about woo don’t mean much. Evidence would do it for me. Why do all fundies think that word saladds are effective?

Your word salads won't change the arrangement of fossils in those rocks from lowest to highest. No matter how hard you try to word salad those rocks away .

 

[Acim]

The literature now is from Evolution 101, cited in previous post.

It consists of 7 sections, which anyone can see when following the link, and which I'll make note of as I go along.

On home page, there is "Navigation Notes" stating that Evolution 101 is (actually) complex, and so has 2 levels of going through the material. I am intentionally going with "The Basic" level for purposes of this thread.

And with that in mind, Definition, is the first of 7 sections presented in this material.

An Introduction to Evolution

Definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.

Let the scrutiny begin. LOL.

I'm pausing here for 2 reasons. Mainly because on page before this (what I think is home page), there isn't assumption that we are talking about 'biological' evolution. Perhaps a minor point, but when definition put forth is, "descent with modification," I do have desire to scrutinize that in ways that threads on forums wanna have all things defined before we can 'reasonably' move forward.

So descent, as defined by my computer dictionary means:
1 - an action of moving downward, dropping, or falling
2 - the origin or background of a person in terms of family or nationality
3 - (descent on) a sudden, violent attack

I'll assume, though assumptions can be that which leads to inaccuracy, that definition 1 and 3 do not apply in this context. Though I do kinda think "moving downward" is somewhat applicable.

I think "origin or background" is, for now, workable definition to go with.

And "Modification" I'm not compelled to go with dictionary definition, since I understand that to mean (simply) change. In fact, I'll go as far as saying, opening definition, given what has been presented so far, and with understanding I have going in, can be phrased as: Evolution is changes in original makeup or background characteristics of a species. Species hasn't yet been defined in this material, but something tells me we'll get there soon enough.

This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Unless otherwise noticed, all underlined portions in quotes are emphasis done by me.

I understand and agree that the definition encompasses small and large scale versions of modifications to a species. Given context of this thread (so far), I just wish to note that small scale changes are observable with non-ordinary means, while large scale evolution is not directly observable in vast majority of cases, but is instead inferred. This is my current understanding. If this material presents something that is different and this is known in advance by another participant in this thread, then just trust that I'll get there when I get there, and realize we don't need to be side tracked by this point (of understanding fact) that I am making now.

I'm also going to say "history of life" is not something I can go along with at this point, without explanation of life being provided for. To me, it is history of forms in the nature of physical reality that TOE helps us to understand. Again, if this point doesn't jive with you, then perhaps we need to agree on something more basic (thus go backwards) before we can go forward in 'meaningful' way. For me, my understanding likely won't take away anything from what TOE proponents deem is factual.

While the first section does continue with another point, I'll pick that up in next post.