• 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!

How do you define evolution?

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Evolution=the change of the genetics of a population over time.

This change can be due to the environment (natural selection), due to mutation, due to neutral drift, etc.

We *know* species change over time. And we know the *types* of species change over time. There were no canines 50 million years ago. They had not evolved yet. There were no felines then either.

But there *were* different mammals. And the canines and felines are descendants of *something* that lived 50 million years ago.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I think so, though that opinion is subjective. People didn't breed wolves into those shapes for no reason - just not for a good reason. :D

The one on the right looks like it is trying to shrink back down to one of the mammalian common ancestors.
r-MAMMAL-ANCESTOR-large570.jpg


Just picture this one with the party hat on.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I have some questions for you...

Why do organisms adapt and change, in your opinion? What is the mechanism by which this happens? Is it through generational mutation, or something else?
I believe that all of God's creatures are designed to survive changing environments and to adapt to new food sources by the mechanisms that are programmed into them. Like instinct, it is not something consciously achieved by the creature...it is simply designed to survive without his direct intervention. These changes are apparently brought about by circumstances that trigger the adaptation.

Like the Chinese adapting to lactose now that they have discovered dairy products. The Chinese until very recently were lactose intolerant but by eating more dairy products and feeding their children on milk based formula, we can see that the tolerance is built up over time.

Darwin's finches too adapted to different food sources which resulted in a change in the shape of their beaks and over time the ones with a longer beak survived when those with shorter beaks died out.

The Peppered Moth is another example of survival. Changing color from light to dark when the trees changed color from the coal fires, this made the dark ones less of a target so they survived better than the lighter colored ones.....and then when the pollution problem that had caused the moths to adapt was remedied, the moths went back to their original color. Adaptation was never going to change one creature into another, no matter how much time elapsed.

In all instances we never saw any of them step outside of their taxonomic families....all that happened is that new varieties were created by necessity within their kind....with the survival of the species never threatened.

Why do you think that changes will be limited to the confines of what parameters exist inside of a given "family" group? What is the mechanism that prevents organisms from changing beyond that?
Because I see natural genetic roadblocks in place to prevent one "kind" from breeding with another "kind".

Horses and donkeys can produce mules....but the mules are invariably sterile. Both are equines. (same family)
Lions and tigers can interbreed but their offspring too are invariably sterile, yet both are felines.
No matter what, members of the animal kingdom are programmed to breed exclusively within their own kind.....and even within their own species. The aforementioned examples are the product of artificial breeding...something that would never take place in the wild.
In oceans full of fish, we never see one species turning into a completely unrelated one through adaptation. And I am certain that little old Pakicetus was never a whale.

Where can we see adaptations taking creatures out of their taxonomy? This is what evolution basically teaches....amoebas to dinosaurs.....that is rubbish science. It has no foundation whatsoever. It is a "belief"...just like I have.

If given enough time (let's say an infinite amount of time), do you think these changes could possibly allow an animal to change so much that they could fall outside of the confines of what the "family" group is identified by? Why or why not?
They are programmed by a Creator who has demonstrated that all the kinds he created, stay in the same family....no matter what adaptations take place.
There is no cross over...nor has anyone ever produced a "common ancestor" to prove that one kind can branch out to transform into another unrelated kind.

IMO, saying that amoebas can become dinosaurs in a few million years, is a fairy story.....more based on imagination, than fact.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
I believe that all of God's creatures are designed to survive changing environments and to adapt to new food sources by the mechanisms that are programmed into them. Like instinct, it is not something consciously achieved by the creature...it is simply designed to survive without his direct intervention. These changes are apparently brought about by circumstances that trigger the adaptation.

Like the Chinese adapting to lactose now that they have discovered dairy products. The Chinese until very recently were lactose intolerant but by eating more dairy products and feeding their children on milk based formula, we can see that the tolerance is built up over time.

Darwin's finches too adapted to different food sources which resulted in a change in the shape of their beaks and over time the ones with a longer beak survived when those with shorter beaks died out.

The Peppered Moth is another example of survival. Changing color from light to dark when the trees changed color from the coal fires, this made the dark ones less of a target so they survived better than the lighter colored ones.....and then when the pollution problem that had caused the moths to adapt was remedied, the moths went back to their original color. Adaptation was never going to change one creature into another, no matter how much time elapsed.

In all instances we never saw any of them step outside of their taxonomic families....all that happened is that new varieties were created by necessity within their kind....with the survival of the species never threatened.


Because I see natural genetic roadblocks in place to prevent one "kind" from breeding with another "kind".

Horses and donkeys can produce mules....but the mules are invariably sterile. Both are equines. (same family)
Lions and tigers can interbreed but their offspring too are invariably sterile, yet both are felines.
No matter what, members of the animal kingdom are programmed to breed exclusively within their own kind.....and even within their own species. The aforementioned examples are the product of artificial breeding...something that would never take place in the wild.
In oceans full of fish, we never see one species turning into a completely unrelated one through adaptation. And I am certain that little old Pakicetus was never a whale.

Where can we see adaptations taking creatures out of their taxonomy? This is what evolution basically teaches....amoebas to dinosaurs.....that is rubbish science. It has no foundation whatsoever. It is a "belief"...just like I have.


They are programmed by a Creator who has demonstrated that all the kinds he created, stay in the same family....no matter what adaptations take place.
There is no cross over...nor has anyone ever produced a "common ancestor" to prove that one kind can branch out to transform into another unrelated kind.

IMO, saying that amoebas can become dinosaurs in a few million years, is a fairy story.....more based on imagination, than fact.

I see. What do you base these assumptions on? There's a lot of assumptions and conclusions you are drawing - especially in the face of experts who have devoted their entire lives to solving these very problems.

Also, why should nature respect the categories that human beings make for it? "Kinds" are a purely human organizational concept that only holds real value to a small group of humans, and nature doesn't really seem to care about the way we organize things. Some are still arguing about if Pluto should even be considered a planet, for instance.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
TL;DR I thought this was the how do you define evolution thread? Not the fail to disprove evolution thread. We were just looking at different definitions online. Why write me a novel picking apart internet definitions done by experts? I’m not a scientist are you? I think there is a thread where they are discussing evolution vs creationism already goin on right now. I bet there’s some pretty smart people over there who are interested in talking to you about evolution.
:facepalm: Is this your 'go to' when you have no answers....? If you don't know what to say, then please don't make excuses for why you can't respond....what makes you think I haven't talked to all of those supposedly smart people?
What they believe doesn't alter what I believe and vice versa.

This whole argument is unwinnable......isn't that clear to you by now? "Beliefs" are not facts......neither side has cold hard concrete facts, no matter what definition you might want to present.....
 

infrabenji

Active Member
:facepalm: Is this your 'go to' when you have no answers....? If you don't know what to say, then please don't make excuses for why you can't respond....what makes you think I haven't talked to all of those supposedly smart people?
What they believe doesn't alter what I believe and vice versa.

This whole argument is unwinnable......isn't that clear to you by now? "Beliefs" are not facts......neither side has cold hard concrete facts, no matter what definition you might want to present.....
Hold your vitriol bud. I’m not that invested. I thought this thread was about defining evolution for informational purposes not arguing about it. If they were just beliefs? I’ve been unable to find anything from the scientific community that supports that. Do you have some data that supports your argument that you could recommend? I feel like you would have won a Nobel prize if you had proved that there wasn’t sufficient evidence for evolution and that it isn’t a theory and also fact. As far as not being convinced that’s totally up to you. I don’t expect you to believe anything you feel doesn’t meet your evidentiary standards. Why doesn’t a group of experts and what they can demonstrate alter your model of reality?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I found this definition. In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time.

Thats the Darwinian mechanism, not evolution per se.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes but environment needs to be mentioned as well.
OK, that was one of many definitions offered on the internet, so I hope (looking forward) to get to more later on. Thanks. But on the other hand, why do you think environment needs to be mentioned as well? Don't you think that first definition sums up the idea of evolution as outlined by those who believe life just came about naturally (by that I mean "nature"ally. You know, kind of like by forces of 'nature,' inherent in that would be forces of adaptation . I guess. :) Not that I believe it, but -- just wondering how someone defines the theory of -- evolution. thanks.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Hold your vitriol bud. I’m not that invested. I thought this thread was about defining evolution for informational purposes not arguing about it. If they were just beliefs? I’ve been unable to find anything from the scientific community that supports that. Do you have some data that supports your argument that you could recommend? I feel like you would have won a Nobel prize if you had proved that there wasn’t sufficient evidence for evolution and that it isn’t a theory and also fact. As far as not being convinced that’s totally up to you. I don’t expect you to believe anything you feel doesn’t meet your evidentiary standards. Why doesn’t a group of experts and what they can demonstrate alter your model of reality?
OK, while this is in the debate forum, I was really wanting to know how a person defines evolution. Ive learned a lot speaking to those who firmly and adamently believe in the process of evolution, as they expose their viewpoint reasoning on the basis of evidence they say, I'm not giving my opinion about that right now as I'm taking it all in, and seems that evolutionists believe life on earth just happened to happen (without an intelligent force somewhere somehow behind it all), but -- perhaps we can go back to a different thread to argue about it. (Which we've been kind of doing in various ways on other threads...but it's ok, good to get other people's opinions).
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's ok but brief. There is more to evolution than this simple definition. It does not take into consideration that change in the environment is the driving force behind evolution. Natural Selection in response to changing environment.
That would be/should be inherent in that first definition. It is, of course, a rather simple definition. On the other hand, natural selection is a bit of a difficult term to use since it implies somewhere an intelligent force of nature, if there be such a type of force like that. I hate to use this analogy, but if there is a contest and someone "selects" a winner, it didn't just happen. So the term natural selection to me seems a bit off the mark insofar as defining evolution of the natural kind without any type of intelligent force behind it.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I found this definition. In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time.
Yes, I realize that. Not that I agree, but I realize that is the way those who believe in evolution would probably define it.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Interesting. I'm going to assume you believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution. I have some questions for you...

Why do organisms adapt and change, in your opinion? What is the mechanism by which this happens? Is it through generational mutation, or something else?

Why do you think that changes will be limited to the confines of what parameters exist inside of a given "family" group? What is the mechanism that prevents organisms from changing beyond that?

If given enough time (let's say an infinite amount of time), do you think these changes could possibly allow an animal to change so much that they could fall outside of the confines of what the "family" group is identified by? Why or why not?

In 10,000 years or so, people have managed to turn wolves into this.

f8fa152f01334d56d17d1fce02ef7452.jpg
OK, now here's the problem: while the above pics are cute, and probably accurate in a manner of speaking, to me -- that is not how I see evolution as true.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
OK, while this is in the debate forum, I was really wanting to know how a person defines evolution. Ive learned a lot speaking to those who firmly and adamently believe in the process of evolution, as they expose their viewpoint reasoning on the basis of evidence they say, I'm not giving my opinion about that right now as I'm taking it all in, and seems that evolutionists believe life on earth just happened to happen (without an intelligent force somewhere somehow behind it all), but -- perhaps we can go back to a different thread to argue about it. (Which we've been kind of doing in various ways on other threads...but it's ok, good to get other people's opinions).
We have? I’ve got pay more attention lol. That is all the information I’ve been able to find. That life on earth just happened to happen. Correct me if I’m wrong but we don’t know much about the abiogenesis of life? Right? So I believe evolution literally because I can’t find any scientist to tell me otherwise. Abiogenesis is a different thing than evolution, isn’t it? Since we don’t know what happened yet, is it warranted to say god did it. Or do you say think the two propositions are equivalent so you choose god. I’m not trying to misrepresent your position. I’m just trying figure it out. I believe you said it can’t be proven either way?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change. In the American vernacular, “theory” often means ”imperfect fact”-part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. ... Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
OK, please tell me why you say evolution is a theory. I know you said it's a theory and also a fact. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that it is (still) a theory, but purported evidence proves (no, I mean demonstrates) that the theory that organisms came about kind of by themselves (let's use terms like natural selection, if that's ok) that it's a fact?
OK, the thread is about definitions, so I'm not going to interject my opinion about this now. Maybe later.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
We have? I’ve got pay more attention lol. That is all the information I’ve been able to find. That life on earth just happened to happen. Correct me if I’m wrong but we don’t know much about the abiogenesis of life? Right? So I believe evolution literally because I can’t find any scientist to tell me otherwise. Abiogenesis is a different thing than evolution, isn’t it? Since we don’t know what happened yet, is it warranted to say god did it. Or do you say think the two propositions are equivalent so you choose god. I’m not trying to misrepresent your position. I’m just trying figure it out. I believe you said it can’t be proven either way?
Someone said here that all matter came about (including the universe) by means of evolution. So abiogenesis is not in the issue right now. We MUST MUST assume that there were chemicals (?) that started it all* - so really abiogenesis is not in this issue right now. (Although yes, I do believe it should be incorporated in the theory, but that's my opinion, certainly not everyone's.)
*rather than flying organisms from other galaxies throwing chemicals that grew into other things on the surface of the earth. So I'm really not discussing that. Even though I believe it must be part of the equation.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
Yes, I realize that. Not that I agree, but I realize that is the way those who believe in evolution would probably define it.
Yeah just a definition I copied and pasted from the internet to give people something to talk about lol. It’s seems that since so many experts agree on evolution that it would be the sagacious position to take their word for it. It’s kind of lazy (as law is my thing not the sciences) but we agree with and spend most of our lives following the advice of experts. My career and everything in my life is influenced in some way by the knowledge of experts. Why does it stop with evolution?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
We have? I’ve got pay more attention lol. That is all the information I’ve been able to find. That life on earth just happened to happen. Correct me if I’m wrong but we don’t know much about the abiogenesis of life? Right? So I believe evolution literally because I can’t find any scientist to tell me otherwise. Abiogenesis is a different thing than evolution, isn’t it? Since we don’t know what happened yet, is it warranted to say god did it. Or do you say think the two propositions are equivalent so you choose god. I’m not trying to misrepresent your position. I’m just trying figure it out. I believe you said it can’t be proven either way?
#1, just to answer your question. I didn't "choose God." I was an atheist for years. I believed in evolution because it seemed logical enough, and because I did not consider any alternative to the theory until I began studying the Bible in earnest, but that's not a point really for this thread. Just to let you know, though.I am going to amend this a bit. Yes, there is a choice to be made. But one must have accurate knowledge. And I decided that life did not just "come about" by means of, or through, evolution.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yeah just a definition I copied and pasted from the internet to give people something to talk about lol. It’s seems that since so many experts agree on evolution that it would be the sagacious position to take their word for it. It’s kind of lazy (as law is my thing not the sciences) but we agree with and spend most of our lives following the advice of experts. My career and everything in my life is influenced in some way by the knowledge of experts. Why does it stop with evolution?
I'm glad you said, 'take their word for it.' Not to turn the discussion, but I'm glad you mentioned it because it's interesting, wouldn't you say, how even court decisions can turn around? Even Supreme Court decisions, let's say, of the United States? And of course we don't want to forget that juries and lawyers can be, shall be say, prejudiced sometimes.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I see. What do you base these assumptions on? There's a lot of assumptions and conclusions you are drawing - especially in the face of experts who have devoted their entire lives to solving these very problems.
I base my beliefs on my personal relationship with my Creator who has taught me that he is the greatest scientist in existence and that what humans think is really not terribly important in the big scheme of things. He is a communicator, and what he tells me makes so much more sense than the musings of scientists who are not really that knowledgeable in comparison to the one who put creation together. I have a manual from the manufacturer....and that beats all your books of educated guessing. IMO.

Also, why should nature respect the categories that human beings make for it?
Indeed....so why should the Creator respect the categories that scientists have made for it? He stated that "kinds" will carry their genetics to the next generation....mostly unaltered....unless there are circumstances that force an alteration to facilitate survival. It is an inbuilt mechanism that science really doesn't know much about....even though they like to speculate a lot.
 
Top