"Created" and "formed" are words of action, not magic.
-
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!
Explaining the terminology used in Evolutionary Sciences
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Thats cool - show me where I used the word magic:
Been on this forum 10 years, has claimed to understand science and to have been debating evolution for at least as long as she's been on this forum, and she STILL does not understand even basic biology terminology?
That is the action of some that does not want to learn it... Or perhaps cannot .
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Somebody accepts "poofed"...
But is isn't us.
Then help Deeje out - provide some evidence for Genesis 2:7. She sure cannot.That is the action of some that does not want to learn it... Or perhaps cannot .
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Somebody accepts "poofed"...
But is isn't us.
Audie
Veteran Member
No "perhaps" to the "cannot".
Audie
Veteran Member
Possibly does not know that the giant panda,
an obligate herbivore, is a member of Carnivora.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
That depends. Are the "actions" carried out via natural or supernatural means?
Audie
Veteran Member
God spoke the universe into existence.
That is a action.
Do not confuse it with a magic-poof.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Again, it depends on whether that "action" is natural or supernatural.
Well actually, I think with creation, since I believe Jehovah also created the laws that govern the universe, He would act in harmony with those laws, to create everything living and non-living.
So, natural.
But with life, there’s something more than just a spark of energy, to get it going....at least, something more than what is currently understood.
But I do not doubt, though, that humans will one day learn the way life forms.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Out of curiosity......what sort of natural means do you believe God used to create living things?
So that would involve supernatural means, correct?
Who knows?! By what means are humans trying to generate life?
I doubt it’s magic.
What you call normal today, like a cig. lighter, people 200 yrs. ago would call supernatural.
You’re doing the same thing, now.
Given enough study and direction, humans may figure out the natural means, which up-to-now is unknown.
Keep in mind, I said “may”; that doesn’t mean “will”.
Thought I’d clarify, since y’all seem to understand probably’s as definitely’s, apparently.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So from what I can tell, you seem to believe that when it comes to creating the first life and subsequent living things, God utilized exclusively natural means. Is that about right?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
That is because it is all just "jargon" intended to confuse people claiming to have studied all this for years and years.
ecco
Veteran Member
Deeje, Deeje, Deeje. You are slipping back into your old ways here. You know science doesn't deal in "proofs" - it deals in evidence.
You have been told this over and over and over. At one time I even recall you requesting proofs and then, correcting yourself, changed it to evidence.
Have you forgotten all this? Is it a sign of impending senility? Or are you just being intentionally difficult?
ecco
Veteran Member
FIFY:
Thank you for the link. I always appreciate seeing and ignoring the “evidence” for myself.
ecco
Veteran Member
Hypothetically...
Let's say species A lives in a stable environment. At some time some members of species A migrates to an area with a different and changing environment. At this point, we have two groups of species A.
Time passes and the migrants have wandered far and adapted to the changed environment to such an extent that they can no longer successfully breed with the group they originally split from. So now we have the stay-at-home species A and a closely related but different species we can call B.
Even though species B derived from species A, species A still exists.
Let's say species A lives in a stable environment. At some time some members of species A migrates to an area with a different and changing environment. At this point, we have two groups of species A.
Time passes and the migrants have wandered far and adapted to the changed environment to such an extent that they can no longer successfully breed with the group they originally split from. So now we have the stay-at-home species A and a closely related but different species we can call B.
Even though species B derived from species A, species A still exists.
All matter. Created things.
Now, when He was saving His people, He performed miracles...by somehow suspending physical laws. But not when creating.
He simply knows how to harness energy to turn it into functional matter.
Humans have created matter, but in a chaotic state. Do they use magic? 300 years ago people may have thought so.
This post is to the 'collective'...you know who you are...
I am going to use my favorite source of explanation on evolution because Berkeley presents its information in a nice concise and simple way. I always subscribe to the KISS principle because when you strip things down to their bare bones, you can't hide anything.
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
Lets begin...
"Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.
These lines of evidence include:
Fossil evidence
The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time. "
OK..all good so far.....we see the premise quite clearly stated....and we see that it is claimed that there is "overwhelming evidence" to back up this statement. So lets see what is "overwhelming" about this evidence....
"Indication of interactions
This ammonite fossil shows punctures that some scientists have interpreted as the bite mark of a mosasaur, a type of predatory marine reptile that lived at the same time as the ammonite.
Damage to the ammonite has been correlated to the shapes and capabilities of mosasaur teeth and jaws. Others have argued that the holes were created by limpets that attached to the ammonite. Researchers examine ammonite fossils, as well as mosasaur fossils and the behaviors of limpets, in order to explore these hypotheses."
Now lets explore the language used here.....The heading says "indications of interactions" not evidence for them. And "some scientists have interpreted" what they see in this fossil.....others interpret differently.....supposedly the scientists all have the necessary qualifications to assess what they are seeing? Why the disagreement? Why is exploring these hypotheses leading to different interpretations?....because they are trying to squeeze a conclusion out of their evidence that supports their theory...even if they disagree with each other....as long as their conclusions prop up their theory, what does it matter?
"Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!"
This is the size of Pakicetus...what do you notice about the size of these allegedly related creatures pictured above?
This is the size of a grey whale...
Do we really see an authentic comparison? Or a deliberate attempt to mask the truth? How does a small four-legged land dweller (the size of a dog) morph itself into a gigantic aquatic monster? The basic ingredient is imagination.....fueled by a desire to prop up a ridiculous theory that can never be proven.
I am going to use my favorite source of explanation on evolution because Berkeley presents its information in a nice concise and simple way. I always subscribe to the KISS principle because when you strip things down to their bare bones, you can't hide anything.
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
Lets begin...
"Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.
These lines of evidence include:
Fossil evidence
The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time. "
OK..all good so far.....we see the premise quite clearly stated....and we see that it is claimed that there is "overwhelming evidence" to back up this statement. So lets see what is "overwhelming" about this evidence....
"Indication of interactions
This ammonite fossil shows punctures that some scientists have interpreted as the bite mark of a mosasaur, a type of predatory marine reptile that lived at the same time as the ammonite.
Damage to the ammonite has been correlated to the shapes and capabilities of mosasaur teeth and jaws. Others have argued that the holes were created by limpets that attached to the ammonite. Researchers examine ammonite fossils, as well as mosasaur fossils and the behaviors of limpets, in order to explore these hypotheses."
Now lets explore the language used here.....The heading says "indications of interactions" not evidence for them. And "some scientists have interpreted" what they see in this fossil.....others interpret differently.....supposedly the scientists all have the necessary qualifications to assess what they are seeing? Why the disagreement? Why is exploring these hypotheses leading to different interpretations?....because they are trying to squeeze a conclusion out of their evidence that supports their theory...even if they disagree with each other....as long as their conclusions prop up their theory, what does it matter?
"Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!"
This is the size of Pakicetus...what do you notice about the size of these allegedly related creatures pictured above?
This is the size of a grey whale...
Do we really see an authentic comparison? Or a deliberate attempt to mask the truth? How does a small four-legged land dweller (the size of a dog) morph itself into a gigantic aquatic monster? The basic ingredient is imagination.....fueled by a desire to prop up a ridiculous theory that can never be proven.
"Homologies
Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.
In the following photos of plants, the leaves are quite different from the "normal" leaves we envision.
Each leaf has a very different shape and function, yet all are homologous structures, derived from a common ancestral form. The pitcher plant and Venus' flytrap use leaves to trap and digest insects. The bright red leaves of the poinsettia look like flower petals. The cactus leaves are modified into small spines which reduce water loss and can protect the cactus from herbivory."
What is this "suggesting"? You have a "prediction" that because plants have a "similar" set of characteristics, that they must necessarily be "related" down some kind of evolutionary chain? That they are dogmatically declared to have been "derived from a common ancestral form".......who said? This is pure speculation based on nothing but an idea that scientists must force to fit their pet theory.
"Another example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs).
Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry."
Again, there is nothing but assumption linking these creatures because their basic framework reflects the framework of most living vertebrates on Earth. It doesn't necessarily demonstrate common ancestry....it can just as easily demonstrate that the same Creator was using a superior principle of design, much like an architect will use the same engineering principles in a multitude of different buildings. They have one Designer using the same raw materials....and that explains everything.
"Homologies: anatomy
Individual organisms contain, within their bodies, abundant evidence of their histories. The existence of these features is best explained by evolution.
After all, why would useless organs continue to exist for millions of years after they ceased to have any selective advantage? Does anyone have an answer for that?
The problem with declaring any organ to be truly without function is that often what is declared to be useless was merely misunderstood. I have read that, over the years nearly all of the organs once thought to be useless have been found to be functional in a way that was not anticipated. When science has no evidence for the function of an organ, we all know that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Whales were thought to have vestigial 'leftovers' from when they were land animals.....but now they have had to rethink......"now scientists have discovered that the tiny bones may actually play a huge role in whale reproduction. Whales belong to a group of sea-dwelling mammals called cetaceans, which also includes dolphins. Comparing hundreds of whale and dolphin pelvic bones to their genitalia and mating style, researchers found that males from more promiscuous species had larger penises and larger pelvic bones. A larger bone would theoretically give a whale more maneuverability while tackling the logistically difficult task of mating in the water, the team writes in a study accepted for publication in the journal Evolution."
Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises | Science | Smithsonian
This is just a small sample of why I think evolution is based on nothing but assumptions and imagination run amok. What they are actually looking at, and the interpretation they put on their evidence is influenced by their pre-conceived ideas about evolution. Their findings are neatly squeezed into their foregone conclusions....and you all believe them.
I am not buying it. I acknowledge that adaptation is a mechanism that was programmed by the Creator to ensure the survival of any individual species.....but there is not one shred of actual evidence that all life had a common ancestor.....I believe that they all had a common Creator. The evidence for his existence is all around us.
Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.
In the following photos of plants, the leaves are quite different from the "normal" leaves we envision.
Each leaf has a very different shape and function, yet all are homologous structures, derived from a common ancestral form. The pitcher plant and Venus' flytrap use leaves to trap and digest insects. The bright red leaves of the poinsettia look like flower petals. The cactus leaves are modified into small spines which reduce water loss and can protect the cactus from herbivory."
What is this "suggesting"? You have a "prediction" that because plants have a "similar" set of characteristics, that they must necessarily be "related" down some kind of evolutionary chain? That they are dogmatically declared to have been "derived from a common ancestral form".......who said? This is pure speculation based on nothing but an idea that scientists must force to fit their pet theory.
"Another example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs).
Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry."
Again, there is nothing but assumption linking these creatures because their basic framework reflects the framework of most living vertebrates on Earth. It doesn't necessarily demonstrate common ancestry....it can just as easily demonstrate that the same Creator was using a superior principle of design, much like an architect will use the same engineering principles in a multitude of different buildings. They have one Designer using the same raw materials....and that explains everything.
"Homologies: anatomy
Individual organisms contain, within their bodies, abundant evidence of their histories. The existence of these features is best explained by evolution.
- Several animals, including pigs, cattle, deer, and dogs have reduced, nonfunctional digits, referred to as dewclaws. The foot of the pig has lost digit 1 completely, digits 2 and 5 have been greatly reduced, and only digits 3 and 4 support the body. Evolution best explains such vestigial features. They are the remnants of ancestors with a larger number of functional digits."
After all, why would useless organs continue to exist for millions of years after they ceased to have any selective advantage? Does anyone have an answer for that?
The problem with declaring any organ to be truly without function is that often what is declared to be useless was merely misunderstood. I have read that, over the years nearly all of the organs once thought to be useless have been found to be functional in a way that was not anticipated. When science has no evidence for the function of an organ, we all know that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Whales were thought to have vestigial 'leftovers' from when they were land animals.....but now they have had to rethink......"now scientists have discovered that the tiny bones may actually play a huge role in whale reproduction. Whales belong to a group of sea-dwelling mammals called cetaceans, which also includes dolphins. Comparing hundreds of whale and dolphin pelvic bones to their genitalia and mating style, researchers found that males from more promiscuous species had larger penises and larger pelvic bones. A larger bone would theoretically give a whale more maneuverability while tackling the logistically difficult task of mating in the water, the team writes in a study accepted for publication in the journal Evolution."
Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises | Science | Smithsonian
This is just a small sample of why I think evolution is based on nothing but assumptions and imagination run amok. What they are actually looking at, and the interpretation they put on their evidence is influenced by their pre-conceived ideas about evolution. Their findings are neatly squeezed into their foregone conclusions....and you all believe them.
I am not buying it. I acknowledge that adaptation is a mechanism that was programmed by the Creator to ensure the survival of any individual species.....but there is not one shred of actual evidence that all life had a common ancestor.....I believe that they all had a common Creator. The evidence for his existence is all around us.
Great job, Deeje!This post is to the 'collective'...you know who you are...
I am going to use my favorite source of explanation on evolution because Berkeley presents its information in a nice concise and simple way. I always subscribe to the KISS principle because when you strip things down to their bare bones, you can't hide anything.
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
Lets begin...
"Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.
These lines of evidence include:
Fossil evidence
The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time. "
OK..all good so far.....we see the premise quite clearly stated....and we see that it is claimed that there is "overwhelming evidence" to back up this statement. So lets see what is "overwhelming" about this evidence....
"Indication of interactions
This ammonite fossil shows punctures that some scientists have interpreted as the bite mark of a mosasaur, a type of predatory marine reptile that lived at the same time as the ammonite.
Damage to the ammonite has been correlated to the shapes and capabilities of mosasaur teeth and jaws. Others have argued that the holes were created by limpets that attached to the ammonite. Researchers examine ammonite fossils, as well as mosasaur fossils and the behaviors of limpets, in order to explore these hypotheses."
Now lets explore the language used here.....The heading says "indications of interactions" not evidence for them. And "some scientists have interpreted" what they see in this fossil.....others interpret differently.....supposedly the scientists all have the necessary qualifications to assess what they are seeing? Why the disagreement? Why is exploring these hypotheses leading to different interpretations?....because they are trying to squeeze a conclusion out of their evidence that supports their theory...even if they disagree with each other....as long as their conclusions prop up their theory, what does it matter?
"Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!"
This is the size of Pakicetus...what do you notice about the size of these allegedly related creatures pictured above?
This is the size of a grey whale...
Do we really see an authentic comparison? Or a deliberate attempt to mask the truth? How does a small four-legged land dweller (the size of a dog) morph itself into a gigantic aquatic monster? The basic ingredient is imagination.....fueled by a desire to prop up a ridiculous theory that can never be proven.
Just look at the actual sizes of these animals, yet look how they display the side-by-side skulls as being similar in size!
What a crock! I betcha most people wouldn’t even notice...they’d just say, “Yep, that’s evidence!”
Reminds me of the blue “Creation” book.
"Natural selection at work
Scientists have worked out many examples of natural selection, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.
Any coffee table book about natural history will overwhelm you with full-page glossies depicting amazing adaptations produced by natural selection, such as the examples below.
Orchids fool wasps into "mating" with them. Katydids have camouflage to look like leaves. Non-poisonous king snakes mimic poisonous coral snakes.
Behavior can also be shaped by natural selection. Behaviors such as birds' mating rituals, bees' wiggle dance, and humans' capacity to learn language also have genetic components and are subject to natural selection. The male blue-footed booby, (above) exaggerates his foot movements to attract a mate.
In some cases, we can directly observe natural selection. Very convincing data show that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands has tracked weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.
In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented."
There you go.....that is Berkely's definition....
The "very convincing data" is in support of adaptation.....none of these examples takes any creature and makes it into something else. I can't imagine why the blue footed booby would naturally select his blue feet....who else in the bird world has them?
The finches on the Galapagos were still finches with adapted beaks. The Peppered Moth was still a Peppered Moth of a darker color.....no matter how much time elapsed, or how much a creature adapted, their taxonomy would never change. How is an amoeba morphing into a dinosaur not straddling many taxa?
If the Peppered Moth is a "striking example", its a pathetic one......when the pollution problem was addressed, it returned to its original color....that is adaptation, not an example of organic evolution. Science only assumes that macro-evolution is adaptation on a larger scale.
Natural selection is the driver of adaptation, which is why I have no problem with it.