How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

Yes, the changes (human intervention) happened faster than mutations could adapt to them. And so they started dying off. They lived in an ecological niche and didn't manage to evolve out of it.

Polymath, I appreciate your considerate responses. However, it seems to me that if there were ecological problems with the survival of an animal (or plant, I would say), the evolution couldn't be fast enough to enable them to survive. That's my opinion, of course, and I'm willing to look at the opposing opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

I'd really like to hear the answer (the reasoning) about this from someone who believes in the process of evolutionary changes as to rapid or slow process. What species were involved, do they say, in this?

I've read a little about it years ago. What I read was about species of fish. Salmon if I remember right.

 

[YoursTrue]

When something like the dodo that had no natural peedators, only laid one egg and had no competition survival isn't a problem.

Enter humans that over hunted them, destroyed their habitat and brought in others species that ate or destroyed their single egg, extinction will follow fast.

I won't go into other subjects, such as humans destroying themselves by ruining their habitat. Except that I know. the Bible does say that God will remove all obstacles, and I do believe that is in the near enough future. Revelation 11:18.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've read a little about it years ago. What I read was about species of fish. Salmon if I remember right.

OK, I'll look into that thanks.

 

[leroy]

. . . which is the conclusion of all the scientific references and texts, which @leroy rejects.

Can you quote a single post where I rejected that conclusion?

 

[leroy]

We know with certainty that evolution occurs but abiogenesis is only a hypotheses.

Well unless you claim that life is eternal and has always existed (since infinite past) we can afire that abiogenesis at some p
happened at some point

 

[shunyadragon]

Well unless you claim that life is eternal and has always existed (since infinite past) we can afire that abiogenesis at some p
happened at some point

True. Life had a natural beginning. By the present evidence the beginning of life this occurred in hydrothermal vent caverns in the ocean spreading zones and/or volcanic regions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you quote a single post where I rejected that conclusion?

You reject the fundamental conclusion of all the scientific references and texts cited that science knows that evolution of life on earth is the result of natural laws and natural processes.

My point is and has always been that science doesn't have an explanation on how abiogenesis or evolution occurs primarily through natural selection in response to the nature and changes in the environment..

We know these events happened, but we don't know how they happened.

Science knows how it happened.

 

[Polymath257]

: You know this about the last common ancestor to other primates was around 8 million years ago how?

That is primarily the figure arrived at by comparative genetics.

By the way, what I was saying is that over the many more thousands of years before the 5,000 said to be of writing, there are, of course, conjectures as to why, but I can only guess what some might think: that there was no "need" for writing during those many more than 5,000 years humans were supposed to have been around in their current type state (you know, brains and all). I'm sure those who believe homo sapians have been around for much longer than 5-6,000 years will come up with answers

Until people started living in large groups, there wasn't much need to keep track of information, except via stories. The first writing developed from symbols used to keep track of what was in different containers.

Doing a little reading about this, "Homo sapiens, who are the modern form of humans evolved 300,000 years ago from Homo erectus. Human civilizations started forming around 6,000 years ago." So -- they say -- human civilizations started forming around 6,000 years ago. Isn't that interesting? Now I will assume that How Long Have Humans Been On Earth? - WorldAtlas is not a creationist website.

It does depend a bit on what the term 'civilization' means, but that is a ballpark estimate, yes. There were towns before that and religious sites where people gathered, but the division of labor seen in civilization didn't happen until about 6000 years ago.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath, I appreciate your considerate responses. However, it seems to me that if there were ecological problems with the survival of an animal (or plant, I would say), the evolution couldn't be fast enough to enable them to survive. That's my opinion, of course, and I'm willing to look at the opposing opinion.

A lot depends on how fast the environment changes. In the case of the dodo, humans introduced new species and disrupted things very quickly. It didn't take more than a few generations of dodo to make it impossible for them to continue to reproduce.

We see similar things happen when humans first came to the American continent. Species such as mammoths and giant sloths were common before that, but humans killed them off faster than they could adapt, so they went extinct.

On the other hand, geological processes tend to happen over the course of millions of years, which allows for adaptation to work to keep the species (for the most part) adapted to that changing environment.

 

[YoursTrue]

It isn't clear what you are asking when you ask what is between them. Why do you think there is anything 'between' them?

Electrons are one of the fundamental subatomic particles. They are stable, so they do not decay. Also, except for some nuclear reactions, no new electrons are formed (more on this later). So almost all of the electrons that exist today have existed for most of the age of the universe.

Electrons are important because it is the sharing of electrons by atoms that is the essence of an atomic bond. The formation and breaking of atomic bonds is what happens in chemical reactions. So, when a molecule of water forms, there are two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Electrons are shared between the oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms, forming atomic bonds that keep the water molecule together.

Atoms are made from electrons on the outside and protons and neutrons in the nucleus at the center of the atom. Most of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus; the electrons contribute very little mass. The nucleus itself is very small, even in comparison to the size of an atom.

Each type of atom (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, etc) has a different number of protons in its nucleus (hydrogen has 1, oxygen has 8, carbon has 6, iron has 26, etc). The number of electrons surrounding the nucleus is (usually) the same as the number of protons in the nucleus. A chemical element is a material made from only one type of atom (so, oxygen gas is made only of oxygen atoms).

You can look at the periodic table to see a list of the different elements and their properties and relations.

Also in the nucleus, there are neutrons. it is possible for different atoms of the same type (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc) to have different numbers of neutrons in their nucleus. This is what makes different isotopes of the same element.

So, for example, carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus and 6 electrons surrounding that nucleus. But different isotopes of carbon can have 6, 7, or 8 neutrons. To designate the isotope, we use the chemical symbol (C=carbon, O=oxygen, Fe=Iron, etc) and the total number of protons and neutrons int eh nucleus. So, C-14 is a carbon nucleus. It will have 6 protons (because it is carbon) and 8 neutrons (6+8=14).

I want to talk about radioactivity,because it is very relevant for dating, but first I want to be clear that you understand these ideas.

Do you have any questions about this?

You asked a question here, and my point is not necessarily connected with evolution (I don't think), but with simple chemistry or analysis. I am aware of the different numbers regarding the elements in atoms. So now you can talk about dating of cave paintings if we're somehow in that ballfield right now. Thanks. If I have any questions about what you're saying, don't worry, I'll ask.

 

[Polymath257]

You asked a question here, and my point is not necessarily connected with evolution (I don't think), but with simple chemistry or analysis. I am aware of the different numbers regarding the elements in atoms. So now you can talk about dating of cave paintings if we're somehow in that ballfield right now. Thanks. If I have any questions about what you're saying, don't worry, I'll ask.

OK, good. Now, on to what radioactivity is.

There are three common forms of radioactivity: alpha, beta, and gamma rays. They two main ones we will be interested in are alpha and beta. All are *nuclear* reactions, happening in the nucleus and not with the electrons.

Alpha radiation tends to happen in nuclei that have a lot of protons and a lot of neutrons. In it, the nucleus emits two protons and two neutrons as a single small nucleus, thereby changing itself into a different element. So, for example, U-238, an isotope of uranium, has 92 protons and 146 neutrons in its nucleus. After emitting an alpha particle (2 protons, and 2 neutrons), the new nucleus will have 90 protons and 144 neutrons, making it a nucleus of thorium-234.

Similarly, a Radium-226 nucleus will emit an alpha particle, starting with 88 protons and 138 neutrons and ending with 86 protons and 136 neutrons, which is a nucleus of Radon-222.

Like I said, alpha decay generally happens when there are both too many protons and too many neutrons for a nucleus to be stable. By eliminating two of each, it becomes *more* stable, but may still be radioactive.

Beta decay is a bit stranger. It happens when the number of neutrons is more than is required for stability, but the number of protons is about right. In beta decay, one of the neutrons turns into a proton and an electron is emitted (the beta particle). So, the number of neutrons goes down by one and the number of protons goes up by one.

An example is the decay of thorium-234 above. It starts with 90m protons and 144 neutrons and ends up with 91 protons and 143 neutrons. This is a nucleus of Protactinium-234.

Another example of this type of decay is that of carbon-14. It starts with 6 protons and 8 neutrons. After a beta decay, it will have 7 protons and 7 neutrons, leaving a Nitrogen-14 nucleus.

A third type of decay is called 'electron capture' and is, essentially, the reverse of beta decay: a proton 'captures' an electron surrounding the nucleus and changes into a neutron. For example, Potassium-40 can capture an electron and become Argon-40 OR it can go through beta decay and end with 20 protons and 20 neutrons, giving a calcium-40 nucleus.

One key thing here is that all of these happen in the nucleus, which is very small compared to the whole atom AND is surrounded by as many electrons as there were protons to start with. This means that ordinary chemistry doesn't have an effect on when these decays happen. Putting the atom under pressure doesn't affect the decay. Being hot or cold doesn't affect it (unless it is so hot that ALL of the electrons are pulled away, which can affect electron capture---but the temperatures required are hotter than the surface of the sun).

This is important: each type of isotope has its own rate of radioactive decay that depends on how many protons and neutrons are in the nucleus. The chemical environment, the temperature, the pressure, etc DO NOT AFFECT the rate of decay AT ALL. This has been verified with many different isotopes under a wide range of conditions.

Another important point: the atom before decay is chemically different than the one after decay. This is important because it is the chemical properties that determine what sorts of crystals the atom will join in and thereby what sorts of rocks it will be seen in. We can use this chemical information to know which atoms were NOT there when the crystal solidified: they would have been excluded by the chemical properties of the crystal.

Are we good so far?

 

[rational experiences]

When science says life is eternal as a thesis his claim the spirit of life became his resource God. O planet mass first. That a human is equal to God the journey of mass and mass forces changing through space.

Which his brother said is a mental condition as human life bio dies.

God remains in mass unless a man in science converts it which is not a death of God.

So proved he thinks in thesis with an irrational mind. Not even scientific.

Evolution in science is cooling. State presence of mass as energy is a science occult term.

Theorising about bio presence was an already proven man in science lie.

Who said Multi pre gods all types of animal beasts created human bio form as all various species might own one particular expressed commonality with a human.

Yet the human imposed all studies of the claim. As a human theorising.

Science said the beast animal nature life was not our God. Each was its own God in species type.

One God man as a human was the only accepted human term with an inability to argue as life is not a human argument.

So posed a human law agreed by humans that satanic theism about creation status conversions by radiation changes owned no place in biology to express their theisms.

As a world agreed medical healer law.

Fact sex of each species is why life exists today. If a monkey body evolved atmospheric to produce a human then monkey sex would still be producing human babies.

Human sex produced human babies the law.

Satanists proved their theisms owned a mind changed by human belief of sex with animals. Just one proof of science theories possessing the human mind by beliefs in AI science machine human image voice recorded heard expressions.

Theisms first. Machines only built designed controlled by humans causing unnatural recordings to inherit unnatural theisms back.

Why a medical tribunal had been established that proved occult irradiation AI human science effects were real and caused by human scientists.

Satanism effect to believe in sex with animals the beast or sex was the presence the spirit of the beast.

Why science in theism said sex was a powerful act. Self science possessed by owned human science theism.

 

[leroy]

You reject the fundamental conclusion of all the scientific references and texts cited that science knows that evolution of life on earth is the result of natural laws and natural processes.



Science knows how it happened.

For the 4th time, can you quote any of the cited scientific reference that I have rejected ?

 

[shunyadragon]

For the 4th time, can you quote any of the cited scientific reference that I have rejected?

Yes! As before and many times in the past.

You reject ALL the fundamental conclusion of all the scientific references and texts cited that science knows that evolution of life on earth is the result of natural laws and natural processes.

My point is and has always been that science doesn't have an explanation on how abiogenesis or evolution occurs primarily through natural selection in response to the nature and changes in the environment..

We know these events happened, but we don't know how they happened.

Science knows how it happened.

 

[shunyadragon]

You asked a question here, and my point is not necessarily connected with evolution (I don't think), but with simple chemistry or analysis. I am aware of the different numbers regarding the elements in atoms. So now you can talk about dating of cave paintings if we're somehow in that ballfield right now. Thanks. If I have any questions about what you're saying, don't worry, I'll ask.

I already responded and described the issue of dating cave paintings and you responded in confusion, and failed to understand basic science and English.

YoursTrue said:
hmm, well you understand this, I suppose. (?) I do not. And so I bid you adieu. I ask you no more questions. Thanks.

 

[leroy]

Yes! As before and many times in the past.

You reject ALL the fundamental conclusion of all the scientific references and texts cited that science knows that evolution of life on earth is the result of natural laws and natural processes.




Science knows how it happened.

5th time

Quote any scientific reference that I have denied

Or else apologize for your lies and false accusations

 

[shunyadragon]

5th time

Quote any scientific reference that I have denied

Or else apologize for your lies and false accusations

6th time . . .

Yes! As before and many times in the past.

You reject ALL the fundamental conclusion of all the scientific references and texts cited that science knows that evolution of life on earth is the result of natural laws and natural processes.

You clearly and specifically acknowledged that you so not accept the conclusions that acience knows how evolution happened.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, that's not the point. Humans can produce populations after a while among each other, of persons with predominantly short legs, or darker skin That is not what I consider evolution. If you do, ok, that's the way you look at evolution, ok, that's how you see evolution. I do not. That is simple genetics, but as we said, humans remain humans and viruses remain viruses. Even though their replication can change, they still remain within the boundaries.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what is evolution and what isn't.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my points about genetics and relatedness. Still.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We know, don't we, that some 'things' disappeared. Dodo birds, for instance, right? According to what I read, these guys just weren't able to find better digs, their local habitats were being knocked out of existence, and I guess they weren't bright enough (?) to look for better landings. Now the question did arise on this website if they can be "brought back." Hmmm I wonder. From a website about the dodo birds:
Can we bring back the dodo?
“There is no point in bringing the dodo back,” Shapiro says. “Their eggs will be eaten the same way that made them go extinct the first time.” Revived passenger pigeons could also face re-extinction. Shapiro argues that passenger pigeon genes related to immunity could help today’s endangered birds survive."
Often asked: When did the last dodo bird die? - LONETREE LOFTS (riedelfamilyltl.com)
So then the question remains -- if people wanted to, could they bring the dodo bird back? Maybe another bird might evolve to become a dodo?

The better question is, why did your God create a bunch of creatures that couldn't survive on the earth "He" created for them?
How come 99.9 of all living creatures that have ever lived on earth have gone extinct, if all of this is so well designed by the God you worship?