How do you define evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

From what I am reading, the theory of evolution is not described always in the same way. So when I talk about changing form, I personally am talking not as a scientist (obviously) about things like cats, chimps, fish, changing structures by evolving over the long period. It no longer is clear or acceptable to me as outlined by hardline evolutionists that it all came about by natural (unintelligently sponsored) selection. By that I mean there are those evolutionist mainlilners who do not believe in God. Since I had been an atheist (I used to say I did not believe in God), I can understand their belief. And I'm not getting into that right now, but as I said, the discussions have been helpful to me,

Science does not have a built in requirement that a person must hold a specific belief or have no belief in order to understand and accept the findings, explanations and conclusions of the work in science. That many atheists accept the theory of evolution does not mean that it is part of some atheist agenda or the result of some atheist agenda. I know several atheists that are Republicans. Is that then part of the atheist agenda?

Science is the same whether you are a theist, atheist or agnostic. It is the same whether you were born in the US, the UK, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, France, Greenland or wherever. It is the same no matter what your race, creed, color or national origin is.

Fish did not change into amphibians. In the fossil record there is a an age represented where there are only fish and no amphibians. Gradually, over time some fish population evolved incrementally until the descendants had some fish characters and some new characters that would be shared with amphibians. This point in the lineage is transitional between the two. One existent ancestor group (fish) and one potential descendant group (amphibians). Over further time, the descendants of this lineage continued to evolve until the dominant traits were no longer fish traits, though some basic traits would remain and be shared between both groups. At no point did a fish turn into an amphibian in one generation or in one individual.

This is illustrated when you follow the fossil record.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, to my knowledge the Bible does not talk about underwater cities. Secular research does that.

To be clear, Atlantis is mythological and there is no evidence that it existed anywhere on earth at any time. But I agree, the Bible does not mention underwater cities.

 

[shunyadragon]

So let me know if you think that viruses may become something else? Like humans in the long run?

The only thing that science can demonstrate is that viruses have evolved, and have the potential to evolve into more complex organisms. Making hypothetical predictions of what may take place in the future for evolution that takes place over hundreds of millions of years is unreasonable speculation.

Evolution is an opportunistic process that responds to environmental changes and voids in ideal environments such as periods rapid evolution and diversification of life after mass extinctions events. All populations of life forms have the potential to evolve. In ideal environments such as tropical and subtropical forests and shallow tropical and subtropical seas have great genetic diversity and the best potential

 

[shunyadragon]

The point I bring out about transitional forms is that there has been no observation of them, either in real life scenario, or any other testable occasion. I'm not talking about covid19 becoming a delta virus. Or tigers and lions mating. By the way, are dogs and cats in the same lineage, backwards or forwards? From what I read, the answer is kind of 'no,' because they are not of the same species. Which made me wonder, what about lions and feral (small) cats, can they interbreed? After having looked at opinions about this type of thing, I am no longer going to keep examining the ideas behind the postulates about evolution and dna. Here's why: because there is no proof but hypothesis as to how it happened, regarding the dna changes. Despite scientists' thinking, and philosophical reasoning, there is (absolutely) no true proof, Since I am convinced that God caused life to grow on this earth, how He did it is not explained in the Bible. Except that He did it. So if it happened with dna relation, and climate change, it does not negate the teaching in the Bible that life was given by God. I really have no more questions, I thank you all for your responses.

in the hundreds of millions of years of geologic history transitional forms in evolution have been found and more and more found all the time, In the evolution of birds, horses and whales there is abundant fossil evidence of transitional forms, even within diverse populations of the animals living at the same time.

You are still using the Creationist ignorant non-science vocabulary such as 'absolute proof.' The concept of proof only applies to math and logic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I will say that I have examined the Bible and have come to the conclusion that it is reliable. I cannot say I understand everything.

How did you do that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So let me know if you think that viruses may become something else? Like humans in the long run?

Why do they need to become "something else," in your mind?

Do you acknowledge that viruses can mutate, like the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) virus has done?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point I bring out about transitional forms is that there has been no observation of them, either in real life scenario, or any other testable occasion. I'm not talking about covid19 becoming a delta virus. Or tigers and lions mating. By the way, are dogs and cats in the same lineage, backwards or forwards? From what I read, the answer is kind of 'no,' because they are not of the same species. Which made me wonder, what about lions and feral (small) cats, can they interbreed? After having looked at opinions about this type of thing, I am no longer going to keep examining the ideas behind the postulates about evolution and dna. Here's why: because there is no proof but hypothesis as to how it happened, regarding the dna changes. Despite scientists' thinking, and philosophical reasoning, there is (absolutely) no true proof, Since I am convinced that God caused life to grow on this earth, how He did it is not explained in the Bible. Except that He did it. So if it happened with dna relation, and climate change, it does not negate the teaching in the Bible that life was given by God. I really have no more questions, I thank you all for your responses.

This is why people are getting frustrated with you. You've been given plenty of examples of transitional forms. You ignored all of them and continued to declare that they don't exist. How can anyone have a discussion about something when the person on one side of it doesn't acknowledge evidence when it's presented to them?


List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Evolution: Library: Transitional Tetrapod Fossil
Are There Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record? | The Paleontological Society Papers | Cambridge Core
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory
Transitional Fossils
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/


So you're not talking about "covid19 becoming a delta virus." Why not? Oh right, because that's evolution.


What you're basically saying in the second part of your post (and have been saying all along), is that there must be some vast scientific conspiracy when it comes only to evolution, where scientists all over the world for the last 150+ years have all been involved in some sort of plot to rid the world of God(s) and fool the masses into believing that we all evolved and that all life on earth is related. This is based on absolutely no evidence, other than the apparent fact that you simply don't want to accept evolution because for some reason, it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Not the germ theory of disease though, or plate tectonics, which of course, are all based on the same scientific principles, methods and data that evolution is based on. You accept those just fine. Think on that a bit.

By the way, this is yet another one of those creationist talking points I was pointing out. "There are no transitional forms." Creationists have been trying this one for decades, and it gets less and less persuasive as more and more "transitional forms" have been discovered.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been reading about underwater cities, and things like that. There is often no proof of history there either. It's just 'there.' Obviously there have been floods. And decimation of cities and civilizations, leaving little recognizable history. There are so many specifics that have been verified in the Bible, I have come to realize this. What I find fascinating is that scientists are declaring the climate change will wreak more disaster upon life as we know it, including the devastation of coastal cities. This has nothing to do with the Flood of Noah's time, but rather the destruction of the earth by man's indecent and often selfish hand.

What specifics "have been verified in the Bible?"
Certainly not "underwater cities."

 

[SkepticThinker]

The evidence you speak of must be fossils and dating, is that correct? I am convinced that life started with God as the Creator. Looking at the evidence such as the universe, electrons, water, etc., I see no other way these things could have come about except from a "higher source," and by that I mean a meaningful, intelligent source. Thinking about the universe itself is scary enough, then going on to a cell or two burgeoning to things like plants and animals is also mind-boggling to the point of no answer. Whether a person understands it or not, that in itself is a form of proof of -- a Higher Power not understood in its fullness by man. And although we are living through a pandemic, there is much to say about life on the earth being threatened in many different ways.

You know, you can believe that "life started with God as the Creator" and still accept the fact that evolution occurs and/or that the same God is the creator of evolution as well, right? Many people do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What specifics "have been verified in the Bible?"
Certainly not "underwater cities."

I was thinking about this. If you believe the flood in Genesis is a real event, all cities of the time had to end up under water. Afterwards they were dried, cleaned up, populated and the pre-flood culture was completely replicated to seem as if they had never experienced a flood.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is an opportunistic process that responds to environmental changes and voids in ideal environments such as periods rapid evolution and diversification of life after mass extinctions events. All populations of life forms have the potential to evolve. In ideal environments such as tropical and subtropical forests and shallow tropical and subtropical seas have great genetic diversity and the best potential

I like that description of evolution. I don't know that I have ever read it put that way, but I think it is an excellent way to describe the process. I like it so much, I put your quote with attribution in my daily notes.

It is definitely about opportunity.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know, you can believe that "life started with God as the Creator" and still accept the fact that evolution occurs and/or that the same God is the creator of evolution as well, right? Many people do.

Correct, especially from the answers on this board from those claiming to believe in "God," yes, some do say that evolution is the way things came about. But I have been thinking (I do, upon occasion) about the 'kinds' as expressed in the Bible. "Each according to its kind." So let's assume back then they didn't know anything about evolution, meaning transferring genes and having them over millions of years, transmute to another form or stage of being. The Bible talks about 'kinds.' Now as I understand the theory of evolution so far, there is a point in which a common ancestor is lost, by that I mean, hasn't been found. Is that true? In other words, while the theory of continuance of genetic mutation slowly, of course, is there, there are absences or voids in the history found (fossil history). Is this correct so far? Please don't try to rationalize, or -- as a detective or lawyer might say, let's look at the "bare facts." So to reiterate, in the phylogenic tree, are there spaces which cannot be filled now?

 

[YoursTrue]

I was thinking about this. If you believe the flood in Genesis is a real event, all cities of the time had to end up under water. Afterwards they were dried, cleaned up, populated and the pre-flood culture was completely replicated to seem as if they had never experienced a flood.

The people other than Noah and his immediate family were drowned. I do not know about cities recovered after the flood, but I do know that there have been places that were completely inundated by water. In any case, it was only Noah and 7 others that survived to populate the earth again. Also, since it interestingly said the floodgates of the heavens were poured out on the earth, that would make a change in the topography of the surface of the earth.

 

[rational experiences]

Evolution just a theory of men talking thinking.

Theory egotism.

Design is exact only proven in invention itself.

Invention is not creation it was chosen by its human thinker.

Thinking by humans imposes a story for their ego.

We knew ego would destroy us.

So we began to teach self control as human spirituality.

Claiming natural as a word form describing actual one of any one body we observe was its highest title.

As words are first used to coerce mind belief in human egotism.

Why the term words were holy owning only one true described meaning.

Natural is the highest scientific observed human statement without any human ability to argue as suggested by its use and descriptive teaching purpose.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you acknowledge that viruses can mutate, like the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) virus has done?

Seems so, but they stay viruses, don't they?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Correct, especially from the answers on this board from those claiming to believe in "God," yes, some do say that evolution is the way things came about.

All of the Christians in my life except for one, all believe that God created the universe with evolution built into it as part of His plan. They believe the God they worship is certainly intelligent enough to have have come up with evolution and put it into action in this world He created. While I don't believe in any gods, I tend to agree with them that if there was a God, there's nothing stopping said God from being able to create the process of evolution.

Correct
But I have been thinking (I do, upon occasion) about the 'kinds' as expressed in the Bible. "Each according to its kind."

Even with evolution, each organism reproduces it's own "kind." Living organisms never reproduce offspring that is a different "kind" or "species" or whatever from itself.
So I don't see any conflict there, unless you've got some strange definition of "kind" that I'm not aware of.

If you are asserting that the god you worship created each "kind" of creature we have on earth, then that leads us to a few problems that need sorting out, because as we know, 99.99% of every creature that has ever lived on this planet has gone extinct. Now the implication from that would appear to be that this God who supposedly created all these creatures only to have them all go extinct, is a terribly poor designer of living creatures, given how low His success rate in creating viable living creatures appears to be. How do you reconcile that?

The second problem is, in order for your assertion to be true, you would have to find and identify each "kind" and then determine when and where each of these "kinds" were created (ex nihilo?). We know that most of the creatures living on earth today did not exist millions or hundreds of millions of years ago (because they evolved from earlier forms). But you don't believe that they evolved from earlier forms, so how is it that you are claiming these creatures came to be what they are today? Are you claiming that they were also all created by this God at some exact point, ex nihilo? Can you demonstrate that? And if not, why believe it?

So let's assume back then they didn't know anything about evolution, meaning transferring genes and having them over millions of years, transmute to another form or stage of being. The Bible talks about 'kinds.' Now as I understand the theory of evolution so far, there is a point in which a common ancestor is lost, by that I mean, hasn't been found. Is that true? In other words, while the theory of continuance of genetic mutation slowly, of course, is there, there are absences or voids in the history found (fossil history). Is this correct so far? Please don't try to rationalize, or -- as a detective or lawyer might say, let's look at the "bare facts." So to reiterate, in the phylogenic tree, are there spaces which cannot be filled now?

They definitely didn't know anything about evolution. And the explanation of "kinds" isn't all that clear either. Plus, the Bible really is not a science book, not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not sure why people try to make it into one.

Scientists are aware of many common ancestors shared by many creatures that live (and have lived) on earth. It's pretty difficult to figure out every single one, as there isn't a clear, delineated progression from one to the next, because that's not really how evolution works. I know you've seen the diagrams before about how species branch off from and connect to one another, kind of like how our own family trees look, but obviously more complicated and with many more branches. And as you also know, there is far more evidence for this branching that goes far beyond just the fossil record. Scientists can see and measure via genetic sequencing the degrees of relatedness between various creatures and when they do, these things called "nested hierarchies" emerge, which clearly show that groups of related organisms share suites of similar traits, with that number of shared traits increasing with relatedness. Remember the whole talk we had about degrees of relatedness between family members getting more and more distant as you go back through your family tree? That's where I was trying to lead you during that discussion. So, the idea you keep harping on here about "where is this and that specific common ancestor to that" isn't really the big problem you want to make it out to be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The people other than Noah and his immediate family were drowned. I do not know about cities recovered after the flood, but I do know that there have been places that were completely inundated by water. In any case, it was only Noah and 7 others that survived to populate the earth again. Also, since it interestingly said the floodgates of the heavens were poured out on the earth, that would make a change in the topography of the surface of the earth.

What reason does anyone have to believe that is a true story?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Seems so, but they stay viruses, don't they?

The point is that they evolved.

 

[shunyadragon]

Correct, especially from the answers on this board from those claiming to believe in "God," yes, some do say that evolution is the way things came about. But I have been thinking (I do, upon occasion) about the 'kinds' as expressed in the Bible. "Each according to its kind." So let's assume back then they didn't know anything about evolution, meaning transferring genes and having them over millions of years, transmute to another form or stage of being. The Bible talks about 'kinds.' Now as I understand the theory of evolution so far, there is a point in which a common ancestor is lost, by that I mean, hasn't been found. Is that true? In other words, while the theory of continuance of genetic mutation slowly, of course, is there, there are absences or voids in the history found (fossil history). Is this correct so far? Please don't try to rationalize, or -- as a detective or lawyer might say, let's look at the "bare facts." So to reiterate, in the phylogenic tree, are there spaces which cannot be filled now?

No rationalizing necessary. Up ro the present you have not been willing to investigate and understand the sciences and "bare facts" behind evolution. The "bare facts" are available to you if you are willing to get the basic science education and investigate the science behind evolution. The above bold questions statements do not reflect an understanding of the current knowledge of science.

Claim a vague 'arguing from ignorance' as to what science knows without a knowledge of science is a fallacy and not a meaningful response to a discussion.You did not respond to the posts where I explained some the current knowledge concerning the intermediates in the evolution of life. For example: we have detailed knowledge of the evolution of the eye including the genetic history of the eye evolving from light sensitive cells. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

You also continue to ask questions and make assertions based on a fundamentalist Christian agenda, and not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Seems so, but they stay viruses, don't they?

No, as cited they DO NOT necessarily stay viruses. I gave a reference that demonstrated that viruses evolve into more complex life forms, and have the potential to evolve into complex micro organisms. They are complex self producing DNA viruses.