How do you define evolution?

[shunyadragon]

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.

There is absolutely no evidence that such a flood described as described in the Bible ever took place. In fact the geologic evidence worldwide including the Middle East has determined conclusively no such flood ever happened. I am a geologist with fifty years experience.

 

[YoursTrue]

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
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.

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
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 You'more "transitional forms" have been discovered.

You're reading too much into my posts, or thought. "Transitional forms" are said to be that because the fossils are discovered, perhaps dna similar to others, but again, there is no testtube occurrence. The argument I'm hearing is that humans haven't been around that long to see such distinct changes. From one distinct species to another where they cannot interbreed any longer. What I am saying is that while there are fossils, there is no proof that the first cells grew into more complex forms as noted by those believing that trees, animals, fishes, came about by the process of natural burgeoning. I prefer that term 'burgeoning' rather than "natural selection." Because selection implies more than mutating. We're talking here that evolution suggests growth without any intelligent outside for, short of conjecture, cannot show how things like a virus becomes something other than a virus. I see your point, but there is a gap for real in the theory of evolution.
I am not aware of any observable outcome of one or two cells becoming more than a bunch of cells. By that (and correct me if you know something I do not, which is probably quite a lot) I mean that one, two, three or a hundred virus cells become/grow into a plant, perhaps? Or an animal with arms and legs, etc.? I know by this time you probably believe it can happen, or something like that did happen.
So to recap -- viruses stay viruses even though they change to a degree (but remain viruses), chimpanzees stay chimpanzees and don't "become" bonobos (however you want to look at it). Does the theory have it that reptiles maybe you think became eventually humans?? Or maybe they're placed in a different branch? Not sure, I'll have to do some studying about that. Cats and dogs cannot interbreed. Cows and humans cannot interbreed. That dogs can have shorter or longer legs as they interbreed does not mean evolution, so if you're talking to me, please don't bring those things up as an example because that is not how I see the theory of evolution as having happened. If you really do think that the coronavirus19 morphing to the delta virus is an example of evolution, I see no way that it fits the classical definition, or that the virus becomes other than a virus.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is absolutely no evidence that such a flood described as described in the Bible ever took place. In fact the geologic evidence worldwide including the Middle East has determined conclusively no such flood ever happened. I am a geologist with fifty years experience.

Whether or not explorers have seen underwater habitats or vestiges as described having come from the Flood in the Bible, there have been discoveries, such as that by Greece called Pavlopetri. Pavlopetri - Wikipedia
Please do not misunderstand. I am not saying this proves that it was around when the Flood in Genesis occurred. I am saying that there are remains of civilizations that have been submerged.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

OK, please can you give that reference again?

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.

Sooo sorry, but the bare facts are not there. You say they are -- but they are not. Viruses mutate, but so far they don't become anything but viruses. How Viruses Mutate and Create New Variants | Tufts Now
If you have info that they mutate into something other than a virus, please do provide info, I think you said you gave it, but I hope you can give it to me again, I apologize since I tend to answer the last post first. I'll try not to answer you until I see the information you provide that viruses evolve to become something other than a virus. (Thanks.)

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, please can you give that reference again?

Sooo sorry, but the bare facts are not there. You say they are -- but they are not. Viruses mutate, but so far they don't become anything but viruses. How Viruses Mutate and Create New Variants | Tufts Now
If you have info that they mutate into something other than a virus, please do provide info, I think you said you gave it, but I hope you can give it to me again, I apologize since I tend to answer the last post first. I'll try not to answer you until I see the information you provide that viruses evolve to become something other than a virus. (Thanks.)

Again 'arguing from ignorance' without any basic knowledge of science, and a religious Fundamentalist Christian agenda.

Your reference did not have anything to do with evolution of viruses,mine did, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

The large DNA Viruses are the 'Transitional form" (not missing) between simple RNA viruses and more complex DNA single celled organisms. They have properties of both.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're reading too much into my posts, or thought. "Transitional forms" are said to be that because the fossils are discovered, perhaps dna similar to others, but again, there is no testtube occurrence. The argument I'm hearing is that humans haven't been around that long to see such distinct changes. From one distinct species to another where they cannot interbreed any longer. What I am saying is that while there are fossils, there is no proof that the first cells grew into more complex forms as noted by those believing that trees, animals, fishes, came about by the process of natural burgeoning. I prefer that term 'burgeoning' rather than "natural selection." Because selection implies more than mutating. We're talking here that evolution suggests growth without any intelligent outside for, short of conjecture, cannot show how things like a virus becomes something other than a virus. I see your point, but there is a gap for real in the theory of evolution.
I am not aware of any observable outcome of one or two cells becoming more than a bunch of cells. By that (and correct me if you know something I do not, which is probably quite a lot) I mean that one, two, three or a hundred virus cells become/grow into a plant, perhaps? Or an animal with arms and legs, etc.? I know by this time you probably believe it can happen, or something like that did happen.
So to recap -- viruses stay viruses even though they change to a degree (but remain viruses), chimpanzees stay chimpanzees and don't "become" bonobos (however you want to look at it). Does the theory have it that reptiles maybe you think became eventually humans?? Or maybe they're placed in a different branch? Not sure, I'll have to do some studying about that. Cats and dogs cannot interbreed. Cows and humans cannot interbreed. That dogs can have shorter or longer legs as they interbreed does not mean evolution, so if you're talking to me, please don't bring those things up as an example because that is not how I see the theory of evolution as having happened. If you really do think that the coronavirus19 morphing to the delta virus is an example of evolution, I see no way that it fits the classical definition, or that the virus becomes other than a virus.

No, the mutation the coronavirus that resulted in the Delta variant is not in and of itself a good example of evolution, but the evolution of simple RNA viruses into larger complex DNA viruses a 'Transitional Form' to single celled DNA single celled organisms with properties of both.

Again your abysmal lake of knowledge of science with a Fundamentalist Christian agenda is abundantly apparent in all your posts including this one

 

[shunyadragon]

Whether or not explorers have seen underwater habitats or vestiges as described having come from the Flood in the Bible, there have been discoveries, such as that by Greece called Pavlopetri. Pavlopetri - Wikipedia
Please do not misunderstand. I am not saying this proves that it was around when the Flood in Genesis occurred. I am saying that there are remains of civilizations that have been submerged.

It is not a matter of proof, but simply a total lack of evidence,

Underwater remnants of human habitation are evidence of the gradual rise in sea level in recent history, and geologic land subsidence due to earthquakes and volcanoes, which is observed by the physical evidence and documented. They have not documented as being from a world nor regional flood.

The only flooding that is documented on land is local flooding, tidal wave and hurricane flooding, and floods from glaciation, The filling of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea are ancient and due to normal post glacial rise in sea level. There is not any evidence of regional or world flooding on land.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again 'arguing from ignorance' without any basic knowledge of science, and a religious Fundamentalist Christian agenda.

Your reference did not have anything to do with evolution of viruses,mine did, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

The large DNA Viruses are the 'Transitional form" (not missing) between simple RNA viruses and more complex DNA single celled organisms. They have properties of both.

Again, I refer you to what I think is NOT a "creationist" website. Viruses obviously have variants, but -- Jun 09, 2021 · "How viruses mutate largely has to do with how they make copies of themselves and their genetic material, says Marta Gaglia, an associate professor of molecular biology and microbiology at the School of Medicine. Viruses can have genomes based on DNA or RNA—unlike human genomes, which are made up of DNA, which then can create RNA." So -- They are still viruses. How Viruses Mutate and Create New Variants | Tufts Now

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not a matter of proof, but simply a total lack of evidence,

Underwater remnants of human habitation are evidence of the gradual rise in sea level in recent history, and geologic land subsidence due to earthquakes and volcanoes, which is observed by the physical evidence and documented. They have not documented as being from a world nor regional flood.
The only flooding that is documented on land is local flooding, tidal wave and hurricane flooding, and floods from glaciation, The filling of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea are ancient and due to normal post glacial rise in sea level. There is not any evidence of regional or world flooding on land.

You got it about not being "proof" of a worldwide flood. I never said they were -- but something happened to put them under water. Water rose and knocked those places out. I'm not even SUGGESTING it was because of the Flood spoken of in the Bible. But it's there as proof (yes, proof) that something big happened to submerge that rather finished city. Times change. Scientists believe it was submerged because of earthquakes. But no need for speculation to see it's under water.
Oh, and by the way, I was reading about Mt.Etna, having shot up about 100 feet recently, did you read about that? (Topography changes, doesn't it?)

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not a matter of proof, but simply a total lack of evidence,

Underwater remnants of human habitation are evidence of the gradual rise in sea level in recent history, and geologic land subsidence due to earthquakes and volcanoes, which is observed by the physical evidence and documented. They have not documented as being from a world nor regional flood.

The only flooding that is documented on land is local flooding, tidal wave and hurricane flooding, and floods from glaciation, The filling of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea are ancient and due to normal post glacial rise in sea level. There is not any evidence of regional or world flooding on land.

Actually, the city of Pavlopetri was only discovered rather recently, estimates of the age of the city vary, but latest is that it's about 5,000 years old. "now believed that the town was submerged around 1000 BC[3] by the first of three earthquakes that the area suffered.[4] " Pavlopetri - Wikipedia (I don't dispute that, but the fact is that it was not discovered until rather recently. In other words, no historical writings about its being submerged.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not even close to what is required.

First of all, there are very few systems that we understand down to the genetic level even in species alive today. For example, the complete set of genes responsible for the development of the eye. We know *some* of the genes involved, of course.

When you get to asking about species that are now extinct, it is going to be impossible to know what the specifics of their genetics is and how that changed over the generations.

To go beyond even that and require that we know the environment in enough detail to know which mutations would be advantageous and which would not be is, again, so far beyond our capabilities today as to be laughable.

Next, even if we had that level of detail in our understanding of developmental genetics and ancient environments, your requirements above are NOT what is required for an evolutionary sequence to occur.

In particular, it is NOT required that every single mutation give a selective advantage. Mutations do not have to happen one at a time. And events like recombination broaden the range of possibilities even in a population without mutations.

So, not only are you asking for the impossible, you are asking for things that are not required for the results claimed.

I always find it hilarious when people demand to see a "step by step", "generation per generation" full account of the exact genetic path that was taken over the course of 600 million years in order to support the idea that eyes evolved.


That's like saying that I will only accept that you are aging, if you can show me a photograph of your face of every second since your birth till today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you say natural selection doesn't equate common ancestry, I would say that's true, but do those "naturally selected" have a common ancestor is the question.

Common ancestry of species = genetic fact

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See that line on the bottom...? It says "Primate Ancestor"......what was that exactly?

It doesn't matter what it was exactly.
Just like it doesn't matter who your grandfather was.
A simple DNA sample from you and your cousin, is enough to demonstrate that you shared that grandfather. Regardless if that person is known or unknown or even unknowable.

In the exact same way, DNA from those primates at the top is more then enough to demonstrate that they share an ancestor. Regardless if that ancestor is known or unknown or even unknowable.

And who are all those other "common ancestors" pictured by the branch points that we see routinely on these graphs that remain unidentified to this day?

Same as above: it doesn't matter.
The DNA demonstrates they existed, whoever they were.

Lots of speculation.....but no actual proof that they ever existed.

False.
The DNA is proof they existed. Whoever they were.
Just like the DNA of yourself and your cousin demonstrate you shared a grandfather. Whoever it is.

Why can science never produce or identify a single one?

Because it is impossible to do so. It would require DNA and we can't have DNA of species millions of years old.

But however we do have plenty of transitional fossils.
Likely though, you don't realize what a transitional fossil actually means, considering your strawman idea of evolution you keep touting rooted in ignorance.

No you cannot "see it happeneing".....no scientist has ever observed evolution....

False.

at best they have observed adaptation in a lab with fish, flies or bacteria......

Which is evolution.

all remained true to their taxonomic families, producing new varieties within their own families

As evolution predicts.

Not a single one started to become something other than what they were at the beginning.

If that were to happen, evolution would be FALSIFIED!!! How many times must that be repeated before it will sink in???????????


This is far from the first time I pointed this out to you.
Why do you keep getting it wrong?

Humans are great apes, just like their non-human ancestors.
Humans are primates, just like their non-human ancestors.
Humans are mammals, just like their non-human ancestors.
Humans are tetrapods, just like their non-human ancestors.
Humans are vertebrates, just like their non-human ancestors.
Humans are eukaryotes, just like their non-human ancestors.

Darwin didn't see that either. All adaptations remained true to their "kind".

As evolution predicts.
It's even a law in evolution: Species will not outgrow their ancestry.

Again: how many times must it be repeated?

Selective breeding is genetic manipulation by man....not nature.

No. Genetic manipulation is when a geneticists fiddles with the genetics.
Selective breeding is not that.
Selective breeding uses natural evolutionary processes. The only difference is that humans do the selecting instead of the environment. It's evolution with artificial selection instead of natural selection.


This too, has been pointed out to you at numerous occasions.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis.....

No.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been promoted after being confirmed again and again and again.
It's the graduation stage of a hypothesis.

Lean 2 science.

It remains a "theory" to this day, because it is no more provable to us than our God is to you.

Theories in science always remain theories. This too, has been pointed out to you more times then I can count.

Why are you so stubborn and intellectually dishonest?

Here are some other theories that "remain theories":
- theory of relativity
- germ theory of desease
- atomic theory
- plate tectonics theory
- .......................

Theories in science don't become facts. They explain facts.
Again: learn 2 science.

Giving a well known word a different meaning just because it is prefixed with the word "scientific" doesn't change anything

Newsflash: words can mean different things when used in different contexts. This is why dictionaries will typically list multiple meanings for the same word.

Next to learning how science works, you might also want to learn how language works.





Sheesh.

 

[shunyadragon]

ok but you won't support your assertions.

Concerning evolution my posts are supported by scientific references, and over fifty years of education and experience as a geologist. You lack the education in science, experience and willingness to read and understand the references and science behind evolution.

It is the Fundamentalist Christian assertions and claims based on an ancient scripture that are not supported by science.

Scientific references please?

Still waiting . . .

 

[leroy]

Concerning evolution my posts are supported by scientific references, and over fifty years of education and experience as a geologist. You lack the education in science, experience and willingness to read and understand the references and science behind evolution.

It is the Fundamentalist Christian assertions and claims based on an ancient scripture that are not supported by science.

Scientific references please?

Still waiting . . .

Its hard to follow you.

Can you please quote any scientific reference that I have denied?

 

[shunyadragon]

Its hard to follow you.

An education in science, and competent high school English is necessary.

Can you please quote any scientific reference that I have denied?

All of them including the list of basic texts on evolution previously provided in high school and freshman college level in English. There have numerous previous threads on evolution withmany scientific references provided.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're reading too much into my posts, or thought.

I'm trying to point out and lead you to the logical conclusions of the assertions you are making.

It sure would help if you'd actually address it and answer the questions posed to you.

"Transitional forms" are said to be that because the fossils are discovered, perhaps dna similar to others, but again, there is no testtube occurrence.

What do you mean by “testtube occurrence?”

Why do you constantly ignore the fact we can trace ancestry via DNA analysis?

The argument I'm hearing is that humans haven't been around that long to see such distinct changes. From one distinct species to another where they cannot interbreed any longer.

Have you ever looked up ring species? I’ve only mentioned it about 30 times before. I know other posters have thoroughly explained them.

I’ll just leave these here so you can ignore them:

Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation - Genetica
Evolution: Library: Ring Species: Salamanders
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02

What I am saying is that while there are fossils, there is no proof that the first cells grew into more complex forms as noted by those believing that trees, animals, fishes, came about by the process of natural burgeoning.

Now you’re no longer talking about evolution. You’re talking about abiogenesis.

And as pointed out several times before, we don’t have to know the origins of something in order to study it and learn how it operates. We can be completely ignorant about where and how gravity originated while still being able to study how it operates.

I prefer that term 'burgeoning' rather than "natural selection." Because selection implies more than mutating.

Making up your own word for it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a mechanism at play in evolutionary processes.

We're talking here that evolution suggests growth without any intelligent outside for, short of conjecture, cannot show how things like a virus becomes something other than a virus. I see your point, but there is a gap for real in the theory of evolution.

Your lack of understanding of what natural selection is, is not a “gap in the theory.” It’s a gap in your knowledge.

Natural selection is a demonstrable mechanism at play in evolutionary processes.

And we know for sure that artificial selection absolutely works, because we’ve been breeding dogs for thousands of years. If natural selection weren’t a fact of reality, then artificial selection wouldn’t work.

I am not aware of any observable outcome of one or two cells becoming more than a bunch of cells. By that (and correct me if you know something I do not, which is probably quite a lot) I mean that one, two, three or a hundred virus cells become/grow into a plant, perhaps? Or an animal with arms and legs, etc.? I know by this time you probably believe it can happen, or something like that did happen.

I know for a fact that several posters with much more expertise and knowledge than myself have already thoroughly explained this to you, so I have to wonder why you’re repeating this question, yet again.

NASA Astrobiology
How Life Made the Leap From Single Cells to Multicellular Animals

So to recap -- viruses stay viruses even though they change to a degree (but remain viruses), chimpanzees stay chimpanzees and don't "become" bonobos (however you want to look at it). Does the theory have it that reptiles maybe you think became eventually humans?? Or maybe they're placed in a different branch? Not sure, I'll have to do some studying about that.

I’ve seen these questions answered on this and your other threads countless times.

Why repeat them?

Try doing some studying on some academic sites instead of creationist sites. You’ll learn more and will actually be accurate information.

Cats and dogs cannot interbreed. Cows and humans cannot interbreed. That dogs can have shorter or longer legs as they interbreed does not mean evolution, so if you're talking to me, please don't bring those things up as an example because that is not how I see the theory of evolution as having happened. If you really do think that the coronavirus19 morphing to the delta virus is an example of evolution, I see no way that it fits the classical definition, or that the virus becomes other than a virus.

I would never bring such things up as examples of evolution because nothing about evolution says cats and dogs have to interbreed in order for new species to emerge. That’s not how it works in the slightest. I honestly don’t know why you keep trying to bring that up at this point in the discussion.

What do you think the “classical definition” of evolution is?

 

[leroy]

An

All of them including the list of basic texts on evolution previously provided in high school and freshman college level in English. There have numerous previous threads on evolution withmany scientific references provided.

But you can’t quote a single specific example of me denying a scientific reference can you?

 

[tas8831]

That's like saying that I will only accept that you are aging, if you can show me a photograph of your face of every second since your birth till today.

I will settle for an unbroken chain of corpses/skeletons/fossils from Adam to me in order to accept creation and Genesis. It should be super easy, seeing as how it was only a few thousand years ago. Heck, I'd settle for every 3rd one in the line, as that would only be about 100.

 

[YoursTrue]

I will settle for an unbroken chain of corpses/skeletons/fossils from Adam to me in order to accept creation and Genesis. It should be super easy, seeing as how it was only a few thousand years ago. Heck, I'd settle for every 3rd one in the line, as that would only be about 100.

What is it you say was "only a few thousand years ago"?