Explaining the terminology used in Evolutionary Sciences

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Created" and "formed" are words of action, not magic.

When those actions violate laws of nature, they are magic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God spoke the universe into existence.

That is a action.

Do not confuse it with a magic-poof.

Not so sure about that...
Did he say "abracadabra"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Then why are you arguing against the very processes that happen due to the laws that govern the universe?

So, natural.

Clearly you don't beliee that, since you argue against the natural all the time.

But with life, there’s something more than just a spark of energy, to get it going....

Ow? And you determined this, how exactly?

at least, something more than what is currently understood.

How would you know, since it isn't yet understood?

But I do not doubt, though, that humans will one day learn the way life forms.

And you'll be right there, arguing against it because we all know that no gods will be involved in that explanation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Great job, Deeje!

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.

I, for one, was well aware that the land dwelling ancestors of whales were a lot smaller then whales.
And I dare say that anybody with some basic education on the topic, knows that as well.

Your objection here, amounts to nothing but an argument from incredulity.

In summary, your objection is this: "my evidence against whale evolution, is that I don't believe it"

 

[Deeje]

I, for one, was well aware that the land dwelling ancestors of whales were a lot smaller then whales.
And I dare say that anybody with some basic education on the topic, knows that as well.

Don't count on it. The ignorant masses are not taught to question the gods of science. They see the diagrams and they are taken as Gospel.

Your objection here, amounts to nothing but an argument from incredulity.

In summary, your objection is this: "my evidence against whale evolution, is that I don't believe it"

brilliant response....as I expected.
The "objection against whale evolution" is clearly stated in great detail, using Berkely's own evolution library for students.... Address the information if you can. Show us where our conclusions are wrong. (Try to behave like a grown up.)

I put in the work to show you why I can't accept the theory of evolution as established factual science....all you have provided so far are smart Alec remarks and more whining......I am beginning to wonder if this is all you do?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"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....

I asked you to explain it in your own words to show that you personally understand how it works. Not copy and paste a website.

Can you explain what natural selection is, in your own words?

The "very convincing data" is in support of adaptation.....none of these examples takes any creature and makes it into something else.

For God's sake, Deeje! I've explained this to you OVER and OVER!

Evolution DOES NOT "take a creature and make it into "something else"". Furthermore, you cannot even DEFINE "something else". Whenever asked, you are completely unable to define exactly what would qualify as "something else".

Evolution is produced by variation on the previous generation, not by producing something other than that which produced it.

That categorically, demonstrably is not, nor ever has been, any claim made by evolutionary theory.

Honestly, Deeje, you inability to learn this simple fact about evolution is getting beyond ridiculous now. It'd be like me repeatedly telling you that Bible says Jesus was born in Jamaica.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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
• Homologies
• Distribution in time and space
• Evidence by example

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.

Are you suggesting that it's impossible for the skull of a population of organisms to grow larger over 52 million years?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The "objection against whale evolution" is clearly stated in great detail,

No, it isn't. You literally just pointed out that one is larger than the other.

Your argument amounted to "I can't believe that something smaller can grow to something larger in 52 million years", which is just an argument from incredulity, not a reasonable objection.

Deeje, I'm in the middle of firmly establishing that you don't even understand the basic concepts of evolution. You're unable to explain what natural selection is or how it works, and you keep asserting patently, demonstrably false things like that evolution claims organisms "produce something other than what they are", and that adaptation "is not evolution".

Not only are these things demonstrably not true and betraying an obvious lack of any kind of basic understanding of what evolutionary theory claims, they are things that have been explained to you by other posters countless times and yet you continue to say.

Deeje, please show some capacity for learning on this matter. Even if you reject common ancestry, you can still accept and understand what evolution actually says. This shouldn't be so hard for you. And you shouldn't have to rely on denying reality in order to support your objection to evolution.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the concept of evolution drives you to take the irrational position of repeatedly asserting things you know are false. Why is that, Deeje?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't count on it.The ignorant masses are not taught to question the gods of science. They see the diagrams and they are taken as Gospel.

come on.........................

Think for a second, will ya............

Cosider the size and mass of T-rex, Brontosaurus, Argentinosaurus,...
I think it's quite obvious and common knowledge that the ancestors of all these dino's weren't such enormous in size and that they all had critter sized ancetors, and smaller.

As I said, anyone with some basic knowledge knows and realises that ancestors of whales weren't the size of whales either.

You are arguing about an imaginary problem.
Changes in size aren't a problem for the evolution of dino's and they aren't a problem in the evolution of whales.

brilliant response....as I expected.
The "objection against whale evolution" is clearly stated in great detail, using Berkely's own evolution library for students....

Nothing on the berkley site is in objection to evolution. That's all you and your opinions from incredulity.

Address the information if you can. Show us where our conclusions are wrong. (Try to behave like a grown up.)

Your own source doesn't even agree with you.
I don't feel the need to once again expose all your strawmen and misrepresentations.
It's not like you'll care and change your ways. We already have more then enough precedents of people pointing out your mistakes, only to see you repeat the same already exposed falsehoods over and over again.

I put in the work to show you why I can't accept the theory of evolution as established factual science

And you do so by pointing to sources that basically say the opposite.

....all you have provided so far are smart Alec remarks and more whining......I am beginning to wonder if this is all you do?

No, I have done much more in the past to try and talk some sense into you, but it all falls on deaf ears.

The single point I choose to highlight at this point, was how insane your insinuation is that "evolutionists" apparantly think that extant whales and their millions year old land dwelling ancestors were the same size. And the implication that evolution for some reason can't account for changes in size.

It's ridiculous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I asked you to explain it in your own words to show that you personally understand how it works. Not copy and paste a website.

Can you explain what natural selection is, in your own words?


For God's sake, Deeje! I've explained this to you OVER and OVER!

Evolution DOES NOT "take a creature and make it into "something else"". Furthermore, you cannot even DEFINE "something else". Whenever asked, you are completely unable to define exactly what would qualify as "something else".

Evolution is produced by variation on the previous generation, not by producing something other than that which produced it.

That categorically, demonstrably is not, nor ever has been, any claim made by evolutionary theory.

Honestly, Deeje, you inability to learn this simple fact about evolution is getting beyond ridiculous now. It'd be like me repeatedly telling you that Bible says Jesus was born in Jamaica.

The stubborness is strong in this one, isn't it?

It's quite amazing.
She goes on and on and on, completely ignoring the seemingly almost limitless patience of people trying to explain her mistakes and she simply continues to come back repeating the same falsehoods as if nobody every explained anything.

To the point where people simply give up addressing the nonsense because it obviously is of no use...
And then she complains about that.

It's completely insane.

 

[Audie]

The stubborness is strong in this one, isn't it?

It's quite amazing.
She goes on and on and on, completely ignoring the seemingly almost limitless patience of people trying to explain her mistakes and she simply continues to come back repeating the same falsehoods as if nobody every explained anything.

To the point where people simply give up addressing the nonsense because it obviously is of no use...
And then she complains about that.

It's completely insane.

You are missing the point of it, which is to
argue a roomfull of evos to a standstill.

 

[Audie]

Not so sure about that...
Did he say "abracadabra"?

Hard to tell for sure, sound does not transmit so well in
a vacuum.

 

[Audie]

come on.........................

Think for a second, will ya............

Cosider the size and mass of T-rex, Brontosaurus, Argentinosaurus,...
I think it's quite obvious and common knowledge that the ancestors of all these dino's weren't such enormous in size and that they all had critter sized ancetors, and smaller.

As I said, anyone with some basic knowledge knows and realises that ancestors of whales weren't the size of whales either.

You are arguing about an imaginary problem.
Changes in size aren't a problem for the evolution of dino's and they aren't a problem in the evolution of whales.




Nothing on the berkley site is in objection to evolution. That's all you and your opinions from incredulity.



Your own source doesn't even agree with you.
I don't feel the need to once again expose all your strawmen and misrepresentations.
It's not like you'll care and change your ways. We already have more then enough precedents of people pointing out your mistakes, only to see you repeat the same already exposed falsehoods over and over again.




And you do so by pointing to sources that basically say the opposite.



No, I have done much more in the past to try and talk some sense into you, but it all falls on deaf ears.

The single point I choose to highlight at this point, was how insane your insinuation is that "evolutionists" apparantly think that extant whales and their millions year old land dwelling ancestors were the same size. And the implication that evolution for some reason can't account for changes in size.

It's ridiculous.

did i really see someone object to the picture of two
side by skulls, shown the same size?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hard to tell for sure, sound does not transmit so well in
a vacuum.

You're thinking of regular sounds.
You DO realise these sounds were uttered by GOD right?
These aren't just regular sounds. They are tanscendent, eternal and divine sounds. They transmit through anything god wants them to transmit through!

Physics.... pffff! The god-that-can-do-anything virtually whipes his tanscendent bum with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

did i really see someone object to the picture of two
side by skulls, shown the same size?

Uhu.

That one is bigger then the other apparantly means that whales didn't evolve.

 

[Audie]

You're thinking of regular sounds.
You DO realise these sounds were uttered by GOD right?
These aren't just regular sounds. They are tanscendent, eternal and divine sounds. They transmit through anything god wants them to transmit through!

Physics.... pffff! The god-that-can-do-anything virtually whipes his tanscendent bum with it.

But unto whom didst he spake?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't count on it. The ignorant masses are not taught to question the gods of science. They see the diagrams and they are taken as Gospel.

brilliant response....as I expected.
The "objection against whale evolution" is clearly stated in great detail, using Berkely's own evolution library for students.... Address the information if you can. Show us where our conclusions are wrong. (Try to behave like a grown up.)

I put in the work to show you why I can't accept the theory of evolution as established factual science....all you have provided so far are smart Alec remarks and more whining......I am beginning to wonder if this is all you do?

I have to ask again Deeje, because I've never received an answer ...

How many science courses have you taken?

I've taken many science courses and never, ever were we taught not to "question the gods of science" or to take anything as "Gospel." That's actually what religions do. Perhaps you are just projecting?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

IOW, you believe the origin of the first life on earth occurred via completely non-supernatural means, and the same about the origins of all subsequent species, traits, and genetic sequences.

I have to say, I'm a little surprised.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not only are these things demonstrably not true and betraying an obvious lack of any kind of basic understanding of what evolutionary theory claims, they are things that have been explained to you by other posters countless times and yet you continue to say.

I have to confess, although Deeje's persistent and deliberate ignorance is fascinating to behold, I'm equally fascinated by all the people who regularly line up to try to explain the most basic concepts of science to her over, and over, and over, and over, and over.....

To be clear, I'm not criticizing those folks, I'm just intrigued by folks who are like "I know that's a brick wall, but I'm gonna take another crack at it....maybe this time it'll listen!"

 

[ecco]

Now, when He was saving His people, He performed miracles...by somehow suspending physical laws. But not when creating.

Your knowledge of what God did and did not do is astounding. Can you explain how you came upon such detailed knowledge.