• 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!

Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

cladking

Well-Known Member
Science doesn't deal in beliefs. It deals in what is most likely / plausible / probable.

Beliefs are for the religious.

You have accepted what is most likely for what is real. You simply can't tell the difference.


I didn't miss anything. I sure noticed your misunderstandings.

"The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off."

How is it even possible an intelligent individual can't see this?

If you remove a few individuals from a population for breeding and remove their off spring from that population as well how is this any different than a random collapse of population known as a bottleneck?

Address the questions rather than skating about and attacking the messenger. Why do believers almost never answer a simple direct question? How do you have a conversation with people who aren't talking about the same thing you are? All believers want to do is lecture and teach. I've studied Evolution, I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT.

Don't teach. Talk.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
That is believing that "something" is likely/plausible/probable. Since it is not certain, people need to have faith on it ... and many many times what they believed was wrong.

They aren't supposed to have faith in it but we both know they do.

Science is being taught wrong now days. It is taught as revealed truth handed down by the Priests of Science called "Peers". Unfortunately many peers have fallen for the hype as well.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
They aren't supposed to have faith in it but we both know they do.

Science is being taught wrong now days. It is taught as revealed truth handed down by the Priests of Science called "Peers". Unfortunately many peers have fallen for the hype as well.
Science is supposed to be based on "evidence" they use to say.

But it turns out that what was once considered "evidence" often ceased to be so after a while.

Do humans actually have any unambiguous and reliable way of determining what "evidence" really is?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Science is supposed to be based on "evidence" they use to say.

But it turns out that what was once considered "evidence" often ceased to be so after a while.

Do humans actually have any unambiguous and reliable way of determining what "evidence" really is?

Don't get me started.

I learned long ago that people believe what they want to believe and everyone interprets evidence to fit what they want to believe. All "evidence" is just a mirror of ourselves and what we want to believe.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I've studied Evolution, I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT.

I studied Evolution many years ago back when it was still taught correctly; not established fact. In those days they taught science and metaphysics together and expected student to think for themselves. It never rang true. As the years have gone by it still doesn't ring true and there's still no substantiation for gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. There's still no predictive capability and blunders have come to light in many fields. Taxonomies were found to be based more on appearances in many cases than upon genetics when genome mapping become possible. We have no more understanding of "consciousness" today than when I was a child. We are simply willing to confer consciousness on ever more species like a hummingbird or an acorn cares whether we think it's conscious or not. Punctuated equilibrium was invented to explain inconsistencies. There is still no proper definition for survival of the fittest and a biologist can no more predict which butterfly in China will cause the next hurricane than he can predict which mouse will run the maze fastest or explain why or how he knew. He can't even hypothesize what possible effect fast maze running will have on natural selection in mice. It's all a quilt of 19th century assumptions layered with a couple centuries of attempts to establish it as experimental science.

I don't deny Darwin could be right. I deny there is a certainty that he was right and that there is such a thing as "settled science". I deny his assumptions mustta been correct and I deny that consciousness can not indirectly affect change in species. I even deny that there is any certainty that consciousness can not directly affect change in species.

I believe ancient people understood the reality of change in species and used this understanding to invent agriculture.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I studied Evolution many years ago back when it was still taught correctly; not established fact. In those days they taught science and metaphysics together and expected student to think for themselves. It never rang true. As the years have gone by it still doesn't ring true and there's still no substantiation for gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. There's still no predictive capability and blunders have come to light in many fields. Taxonomies were found to be based more on appearances in many cases than upon genetics when genome mapping become possible. We have no more understanding of "consciousness" today than when I was a child. We are simply willing to confer consciousness on ever more species like a hummingbird or an acorn cares whether we think it's conscious or not. Punctuated equilibrium was invented to explain inconsistencies. There is still no proper definition for survival of the fittest and a biologist can no more predict which butterfly in China will cause the next hurricane than he can predict which mouse will run the maze fastest or explain why or how he knew. He can't even hypothesize what possible effect fast maze running will have on natural selection in mice. It's all a quilt of 19th century assumptions layered with a couple centuries of attempts to establish it as experimental science.

I don't deny Darwin could be right. I deny there is a certainty that he was right and that there is such a thing as "settled science". I deny his assumptions mustta been correct and I deny that consciousness can not indirectly affect change in species. I even deny that there is any certainty that consciousness can not directly affect change in species.

I believe ancient people understood the reality of change in species and used this understanding to invent agriculture.
The simpler start forward statement you previous made is all that was needed.

"I've studied Evolution, I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT."
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Don't get me started.

I learned long ago that people believe what they want to believe and everyone interprets evidence to fit what they want to believe. All "evidence" is just a mirror of ourselves and what we want to believe.
", , . get started?!?!?!" You can't go far with one foot nailed to the floor.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Science is supposed to be based on "evidence" they use to say.

But it turns out that what was once considered "evidence" often ceased to be so after a while.

Do humans actually have any unambiguous and reliable way of determining what "evidence" really is?
Yes, it is defined as objective, verifiable and predictable evidence that applies uniformly to ALL sciences through Methodological Naturalism.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, it is defined as objective, verifiable and predictable evidence that applies uniformly to ALL sciences through Methodological Naturalism.
Except that gorillas are still gorillas, fish are still fish. Ain't morphing now.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Nor are you getting more intelligent, nor are you learning from the very thread in which you disingenuously asked members to "explain." I wonder why you began the entire thread by pleading for what you didn't want?
Nope. I have not received any answers that convince me of the validity of the theory. Just to clarify, I used to believe that the theory of evolution is true. I no longer do. Because aside from the fact that no one has seen any form move from one type (fish, for example) to Tiktaalik (for example), the rest is conjecture.
 

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Nope. I have not received any answers that convince me of the validity of the theory. Just to clarify, I used to believe that the theory of evolution is true. I no longer do. Because aside from the fact that no one has seen any form move from one type (fish, for example) to Tiktaalik (for example), the rest is conjecture.

Congratulations. You win. Evolution is debunked now
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
When individuals are selected for breeding they are removed from that gene pool. Certainly the individuals selected might have bred naturally without having been removed but the odds are very low and then their off spring would have bred into the population.
So? It's an artificial situation.

There's no way to know the odds of a natural mating, not knowing the genes of interest, the size of the population, how deeply the GOA has spread into the population and other information you don't have. I think you're saying low odds, because you think it supports you and makes it sound like you did some real hard math. Whoooo!

The pair selected for breeding are isolated from the main population, but neither in natural or artificial conditions does that mean the line can't be backcrossed into the original population they were removed from or some other same species population.

Whatever the case, this is not the description of a population bottleneck. The pair of organisms selected for artificial breeding would be similar to a founder population that has splintered off from the main population in natural conditions. Perhaps they wondered into a new territory out of the normal range. They are not likely to have the opportunity to breed with members of the main population again, but that isn't fixed. They may rejoin the main population or it may overtake them. Or they may remain isolated and begin to gradually diverge through mutation and natural selection in a process that you don't call evolution, but is evolution.

I haven't got the time or the space to go into plant an animal breeding, which you also don't seem to know that much about. But what I've written is enough to show that a pair of organisms artificially selected for breeding do not represent a bottleneck and the offspring are not a new species.
The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off.
Functionally similar, but the rest of the species isn't dead. In a natural situation, the main or ancestral population doesn't have to disappear or die off.
The odds of nature accidently breeding dogs into existence through survival of the fittest is virtually nonexistent. Indeed, almost any major changes caused by such a process might be nearly as improbable.
So. Still not a population bottleneck or sudden.

Again, your claims of probability are dubious and immaterial.

The ancestors of dogs were those that naturally became accustomed to close contact with humans. At some point humans began to breed them for traits that were useful to us.

It is no surprise and not evidence against the theory of evolution and natural selection that artificially selected traits are unlikely to arise naturally. It doesn't falsify the theory or redefine a population bottleneck to mean something it isn't.

Species change but there is no such thing as "Evolution".
That is your belief. It isn't a fact no matter how omniscient you may think you are.
"Evolution" is defined as gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but this does not exist.
That is your straw man definition of evolution. Evolution is basically defined as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. There are other mechanisms of change in addition to natural selection, but it is the dominant mechanism. Since there are other mechanisms a specific one is not used or required in the definition. It exists. It has been demonstrated. If you at all listened to others you would know this.
When you ignore individual differences, consciousness, and specific behavior you are effectively saying these things play no role in speciation.
There is no evidence that these things have a role in speciation. If they did you could show us that role and the evidence supporting it. You never do. Repeating unevidenced claims are meandering through a ramble about ethics, morality and how the education system has imploded according to your professional opinion is not evidence for your claims.
The expression of the genome is irrelevant. Genes are irrelevant. Individuals are irrelevant. Experience and life are irrelevant.
What are you babbling on about now?
I don't know.
I agree.
But certainly even theologians are seeking answers.
Sure.
Philosophers are seeking answers.
Sure.
Who isn't seeking answers except those who have already found them?
It is my personal opinion that this includes you.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Congratulations. You win. Evolution is debunked now
Nope, I'm not saying that mainly because the journey will undoubtedly continue, some scientists trying to figure how life as we know it came about. Although I no longer believe the basic inherent theory as purported. But what I am saying is that there is no proof in the form of fossils that show these very small incremental changes happening by mutations, natural selection, or survival of the fittest. That includes Tiktaalik, the derivation of which by evolutionary scientists can only guess, as well as what it supposedly evolved into in the very long run, of course, according to the theory. There is nothing beyond conjecture to support the idea that some type of fish morphed (evolved) eventually to Tiktaalik which then eventually over the very long run evolved to total land dwellers which then, of course, over another very long run evolved into gorillas, which still stay as gorillas and the like.
 

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Nope, I'm not saying that mainly because the journey will undoubtedly continue, some scientists trying to figure how life as we know it came about. Although I no longer believe the basic inherent theory as purported. But what I am saying is that there is no proof in the form of fossils that show these very small incremental changes happening by mutations, natural selection, or survival of the fittest. That includes Tiktaalik, the derivation of which by evolutionary scientists can only guess, as well as what it supposedly evolved into in the very long run, of course, according to the theory. There is nothing beyond conjecture to support the idea that some type of fish morphed (evolved) eventually to Tiktaalik which then eventually over the very long run evolved to total land dwellers which then, of course, over another very long run evolved into gorillas, which still stay as gorillas and the like.

Exactly. You're right. You win

What do you think your next evolution thread will be about?
 
Top