How do you define evolution?

[leroy]

No I am citing scientific references which you deny.



No, it is a scientific fact that mutations, whether random nor non-random only contribute to the diversity of the genes, and are not a part of mechanisms of evolution. The mechanisms ofevolution by science are defined in thereference, which you deny.






It is a matter of a fact of science as cited.



No need, your claim was specific, and my question.



I asked, which is specific: Where was evolution described in the evolution of all living creatures beginning with single celled organisms over hundreds of millions of years?

I gave the closest early reference in the poetry of Lucretius.




No, semantics, just science on my part, and scientific references, which you deny the scientific content..



It is not semantics. Mutations play no tole as a part of the mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that they are only contribute to the diversity of the raw materials of the genes.




No, this is a dishonest and it does not. Please cite the article where this is the case.




The scientific article I cited was specificasto what the mechanism of evolution are, and they do not include mutations. No need for any other word.

Ok so I mistakenly claimed that mutations are part of evolution, when in reality mutations are only the suppliers of the raw material. (and not really part of the mechanism of evolution)… would you add something else?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, and I thought I made that quite clear in two of my posts, #446 and #454.

Sorry. Missed that. Thank you much for the clarification.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol ok. Don't agree, that's obviously your choice to choose the concept of evolution over the idea that God created the heavens and the earth as Genesis outlines. Thank you for bringing that out to the fore I have chosen to believe in a God that is a Creator and Giver of life.

It is my choice to follow the gifts of intellect and senses that God gave me and not choose to lie to myself about the evidence. I have chosen to believe in God and respect his prohibition on false witness, even to myself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Testing?? Of evolution theory? Again, maybe my memory isn't so good, please overlook my forgetfulness if you have offered a definition of evolution you agree with and believe in, how do you, btw, define evolution? Then please explain what you call testing of that definition Thanks.

You don't really show much knowledge of the science you deny or how it works. Don't you think you should know what it is that you reject in order to develop enough knowledge to make an honest rejection?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me say this about the definition of evolution. That is before we may stop conversing about it. Some say that language development such as the change from Latin to modern languages is evolution. That is not the evolution I am talking about. If you think it's "biologic" evolution, we might as well say a southern accent as opposed to a New York accent is evolution. And that's not what I consider as the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution. If you want to include that in the definition of evolution, yes, we can stop talking about any settlement of definition.

The change in language over time is an example of evolution. The similarities between language evolution and biological evolution are very good and useful in comparing and describing biological evolution. It is the evolution you deny, but it is not the straw man you report on here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One self human the egotists as a scientist lied. One state one status.

Two bodies earths and earths heavens both converted by sun in one same incident were always two separate bodies in space.

One special self is human men's owned title elite greedy human liar history reasons.

O earth owned all powers as science use.
O earth owned all metals and jewels

First humans naturally living rich in abundance with natural God.

By human words thought for science to own. All of gods O earths riches. The topic I want.

Never shared amongst each human member human family equal life owner any body taken from earth. O God presence as stated by human dominion. Equal for all.

Looking back today as a rich man who lied said the poor man as first man was rich with God. By that exact human lived status.

No poor man in reality actually existed. They lived naturally first without science.

Reasons today falsely as he attacks experiments on poor humans thinks they own gods riches today by his statement and incorrect status artificially given to self. Is self possessed. The known human men warning for natural human men.

Our heavens burnt. Historic. The sun mass is self consuming so it never created. Both masses attacked.

Gases cooling simply returned to not being attacked. As space held both masses.

As consumed mass in both circumstance no longer existed. Man in science said one of only cause.

Just a story not a thesis.

Anti teaching. Anti meant removed and hence what once was there no longer exists.

So as Jesus cannot exist before Christ it was just an inferred symbolic information to be notified as the term cross began via man sciences thesis + addition.

The teaching said you cannot add onto. Yet you did.

Scientific relativity advice as the bible was only meant to be read by the wise of man's scientific lying. Men versus men.

Why an oath to tell the truth was a shut bible.

If you.lied about owning God when God owned itself then you also lie about owning UFOs and aliens as a human designer.

Stating the UFO created the alien inside it's body. No designer.

When you fake thesis metal....machines...reactions inside machines. As metal actually naturally is a cooled melt inside of mass.

Why Alchemy was banned known evil status of machine building.

As earth owned metal.in metallic seams of pressure science had opened irradiating space and expanding causes space metals to be dangerous.

Cold contraction kept metal where it belonged not released out of earths God body

Historic one of attack involving radiation mass had been stopped. Dispersed by mass water evaporation.

2012 was a man's one of agreed contract of God saving our life spirit water oxygen as ufo God radiation was removing it.

A space cooling contraction was going to end the created caused ancient science release.

God would have reowned its eternal life existing sealed and present forevermore. The promise of men in science about God earths body. One.

Removed God X mass is from inside of stone...removes is leaving...comes back in heated by burning gases takes water again...seen sucking up water in sea also.

Stones held water gone as water was created in space...leaves a hole. Anyone would think men tried to put water back in its origin place in creation.

You know scientists pretending you invented created creations beginnings.

Water had been formed in space protected us from hydrogen. By its mass as pressure itself. As a contraction is opposed by an expansion.

Holy law was water...life.

Science discusses hydrogen separate to water their own selves. In thinking.

We live and need water to survive life.

Basic status science is a liar.

Science in the past was stopped as a practice as they knew earth was not supporting life continuance.

Why it was stopped waiting for life to be rebalanced again.

Holy life of three. Two first human parents.

I earth O one. I heavens is one. Two of one but not the same one.

Humans one two of the same one human creating beyond a human baby. Three a holy life.

How it once was taught as a teaching without reading false thesis.

?????????????

 

[shunyadragon]

?????????????

Extremely high fog index.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Extremely high fog index.

Opaque.

 

[rational experiences]

If you have one form sun mass it consumed mass attacking earth in the same one incident.

Two bodies changed by the same one.

Science. Is not creating it was converting.

Hence science says conversion began life.

Yet water was created in space so he lied.

Then he says natural light is balanced with night immaculate lied again.

Balances is a status =.

Two symbolic. False two answer.

As they are not in science terms equal. As they are not the same constant a thesis a formula.

Science said immaculate is the body sacrificed.

No man is God theme. The God of Satan.

Satan is science. The state.

The voiding space body had caused earth gases to become immaculate.

Known science mystery how. Said it was known but not nor ever observed. Not science statement used word mystery.

Said one day light will be voided and end the same way. By spatial void.

Why it stated the balances so science cannot lie in thesis. Many words cause a theist to think beyond mere want.

Yet to come. Light by space causes to be voided.

Hence space thesis the want of space as space was to remove light and only have the highest form. Immaculate.

He however wanted it in his science thesis.

Which is our life warning. Burning us to death gave him the space moment to remove light out of earths atmosphere. But it never equated immaculate for a scientist.

Burnt us all to death as a satanist.

Why no man is Satan's God is written.

We came out of the God body that had released the God of Satan. The eternal. The eternal only lost a portion in creation.

Proof is that water was created in space.

We came into a pre held earth alight atmosphere owning ground water. Entered at ground zero itself. As nature was grounded.

Hence we had to have come from a higher state as water is now within our body.

You might not accept that story yet science is only a story also.

Practice of science is just a machine so you can't argue yourself in Satan God science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis and evolution is not a choose over the 'idea' that God created the heavens and the earth. It is possibly the way God created life on earth.

The problem with Genesis it is ancient mythical view of creation without science.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It does, however, make sense, and the order of creation going by the (figurative) days of creation makes sense. I find it notable that from what I have seen, and others have seen, no planet other than the earth has trees. Yes this is important, because when God said "let there be light," He obviously was directing the atmosphere of the earth to capably deal with the light from the sun and other sources, perhaps the moon and stars.

Testing evolution is based on Methodological Naturalism. The hypothesis for evolution make predictions based on the current knowledge. The hypothesis is confirmed when the predictions are confirmed. The discoveries of fossil evidence, dating of fossil discoveries and genetics are the main tools for confirming the predictions made in the hypothesis.

This is the scientific methodology used in all sciences where predictive models work in the past, present and future.

The up front problem remains you refuse to educate yourself in the basics of science and scientific methodology, and remain in self imposed ignorance.

I was listening to a scientific program of psychological import today in the news reported on by the BBC. The researchers did tests. They reported the results of those tests of the hypothesis. It was interesting, I must say. And reasonable. The tests, the participants, and the results were all there. The testing was done in conjunction with the hypotheses and possibilities conjectured. In one large case, the outcome was surprisingly different from what had been expected.
Dating and categorizing of various artifacts in the theory of evolution is questionable, if that's what you're referring to. I'm speaking specifically of the hisotyr of homo sapiens, of course. Let's go back to the atom for a moment. The more I "look at" the explanations of what constitutes atoms, for example, the more convinced I am that these things did not come about by themselves without a superior, intelligent force backing it up. And right now I do not think humans will ever find out how it happened. Because of the complexities and the incomprehensible idea that something as fascinating and wonderful as an atom could come about by itself. We can see there have been analyses of dna, similar in various forms, but this does not prove evolution. It simply says that gorillas have one system of dna, lions have another, and humans have another. Scientists may analyze it, but this does not mean the mechanics of evolution (sans a creator) are the means and continuance of life.

 

[YoursTrue]

No I am citing scientific references which you deny.



No, it is a scientific fact that mutations, whether random nor non-random only contribute to the diversity of the genes, and are not a part of mechanisms of evolution. The mechanisms ofevolution by science are defined in thereference, which you deny.

Often scientists don't deny references, debates happen, though, but as those touchpoints change because of new research, they throw out the old references, which had been deemed to be the truth and -- nothing but. Until new ideas emerge. And then, even then, it's not positive in many cases as to conclusions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Often scientists don't deny references, debates happen, though, but as those touchpoints change because of new research, they throw out the old references, which had been deemed to be the truth and -- nothing but. Until new ideas emerge. And then, even then, it's not positive in many cases as to conclusions.

Yes there is debate, disagreement and some scientists are reluctant to change when new knowledge is developed. but In 'science' the knowledge of science has never been 'deemed to be the truth and --- nothing but.' This is most true in the 20th and 21st centuries as Methodological Naturalism became the standard, which is that the knowledge of science changes with new discoveries, technologies and research, and the standard of 'truth' is change and the advancement of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It does, however, make sense, and the order of creation going by the (figurative) days of creation makes sense. I find it notable that from what I have seen, and others have seen, no planet other than the earth has trees. Yes this is important, because when God said "let there be light," He obviously was directing the atmosphere of the earth to capably deal with the light from the sun and other sources, perhaps the moon and stars.

Belief in God does not translate into the rejection of science as you and other Fundamentalist Christians I believe in God, but I do not live with the contradictions of an ancient worldview that is in direct contradiction with science.

I was listening to a scientific program of psychological import today in the news reported on by the BBC. The researchers did tests. They reported the results of those tests of the hypothesis. It was interesting, I must say. And reasonable. The tests, the participants, and the results were all there. The testing was done in conjunction with the hypotheses and possibilities conjectured. In one large case, the outcome was surprisingly different from what had been expected.

All the above demonstrates is that the knowledge of science changes and evolves as new knowledge is revealed.

Dating and categorizing of various artifacts in the theory of evolution is questionable, if that's what you're referring to. I'm speaking specifically of the history of homo sapiens, of course. Let's go back to the atom for a moment. The more I "look at" the explanations of what constitutes atoms, for example, the more convinced I am that these things did not come about by themselves without a superior, intelligent force backing it up. And right now I do not think humans will ever find out how it happened. Because of the complexities and the incomprehensible idea that something as fascinating and wonderful as an atom could come about by itself. We can see there have been analyses of dna, similar in various forms, but this does not prove evolution. It simply says that gorillas have one system of dna, lions have another, and humans have another. Scientists may analyze it, but this does not mean the mechanics of evolution (sans a creator) are the means and continuance of life.

Again, believe in God does not translate to the rejection of science, and your road of contradictory self-imposed ignorance you take.

The above bold is absolutely false, and previously described in detail, and reflects your contradictory religious agenda.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It does, however, make sense, and the order of creation going by the (figurative) days of creation makes sense. I find it notable that from what I have seen, and others have seen, no planet other than the earth has trees. Yes this is important, because when God said "let there be light," He obviously was directing the atmosphere of the earth to capably deal with the light from the sun and other sources, perhaps the moon and stars.

I was listening to a scientific program of psychological import today in the news reported on by the BBC. The researchers did tests. They reported the results of those tests of the hypothesis. It was interesting, I must say. And reasonable. The tests, the participants, and the results were all there. The testing was done in conjunction with the hypotheses and possibilities conjectured. In one large case, the outcome was surprisingly different from what had been expected.
Dating and categorizing of various artifacts in the theory of evolution is questionable, if that's what you're referring to. I'm speaking specifically of the hisotyr of homo sapiens, of course. Let's go back to the atom for a moment. The more I "look at" the explanations of what constitutes atoms, for example, the more convinced I am that these things did not come about by themselves without a superior, intelligent force backing it up. And right now I do not think humans will ever find out how it happened. Because of the complexities and the incomprehensible idea that something as fascinating and wonderful as an atom could come about by itself. We can see there have been analyses of dna, similar in various forms, but this does not prove evolution. It simply says that gorillas have one system of dna, lions have another, and humans have another. Scientists may analyze it, but this does not mean the mechanics of evolution (sans a creator) are the means and continuance of life.

People who "date artifacts" are archaeologists.

People who date rocks and fossils are geochronologists and geologists.

People who study atoms are physicists and/or chemists.

Remember how I keep pointing out that the evidence for evolution comes from many multiple different fields of science? This is what I was talking about.
All the evidence from all these different fields of science, all verified by independent groups of scientists across time and across all these different fields, all points to the same conclusion that evolution is a fact of reality. Archeologists aren't directly studying evolution when they examine ancient artifacts left behind by our ancestors. But their body of work has contributed and enhanced our understanding of evolution. Geologists aren't directly studying evolution, but they are contributing to its body of knowledge. Chemists aren't necessarily directly studying the theory of evolution, but their work contributes to it's body of knowledge.

So you are not only rejecting biology and genetics, you've now added archaeology, physics and chemistry to the list of science you reject. All because you somehow believe that you must adhere to ancient Biblical stories at all costs, apparently.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok so I mistakenly claimed that mutations are part of evolution, when in reality mutations are only the suppliers of the raw material. (and not really part of the mechanism of evolution)… would you add something else?

Well, ah . . . I presented the case that evolution is indifferent to whether mutations are 'described as random or non-random.' Over time the concept of randomness in science and math has evolved and changed.

This thread: Nothing is truly 'random' in nature. deals with the contemporary view of randomness in science and math.

 

[leroy]

Well, ah . . . I presented the case that evolution is indifferent to whether mutations are 'described as random or non-random.' Over time the concept of randomness in science and math has evolved and changed.

This thread: Nothing is truly 'random' in nature. deals with the contemporary view of randomness in science and math.

So it would be save to say that scientists don’t know yet the relevance and extent of nonrandom mutations as suppliers of the “raw materials”… that is a point of disagreement where different scientists have different views with no consensuses.

 

[shunyadragon]

So it would be save to say that scientists don’t know yet the relevance and extent of nonrandom mutations as suppliers of the “raw materials”… that is a point of disagreement where different scientists have different views with no consensuses.

No it is not 'safe to say' the above conclusion. I know of no disagreement among scientists. Please specifically cite a scientific reference where this is the case.

This thread deals in more detail concerning the definition of 'random' and how it presently is considered in science and math including the issue of defining the cause and effect nature of mutations.

This thread: Nothing is truly 'random' in nature. deals with the contemporary view of randomness in science and math.

 

[shunyadragon]

People who "date artifacts" are archaeologists.

. . . and paleontologists.

 

[leroy]

No it is not 'safe to say' the above conclusion. I know of no disagreement among scientists. Please specifically cite a scientific reference where this is the case.

This thread deals in more detail concerning the definition of 'random' and how it presently is considered in science and math including the issue of defining the cause and effect nature of mutations.

This thread: Nothing is truly 'random' in nature. deals with the contemporary view of randomness in science and math.

this is what I mean by random+

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

using this defintion of "random" there is a controversy on the role and relevance of none random mutations, this article expalisn the controversy
The directed mutation controversy in an evolutionary context - PubMed

so:
1 Do you agree
2 do you disagree (explain why is the paper wrong)
3 Will you insist in your semantic game

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It does, however, make sense, and the order of creation going by the (figurative) days of creation makes sense. I find it notable that from what I have seen, and others have seen, no planet other than the earth has trees. Yes this is important, because when God said "let there be light," He obviously was directing the atmosphere of the earth to capably deal with the light from the sun and other sources, perhaps the moon and stars.

We don't know every planet, so it is presumptuous to declare that only this one has life. What is the significance of having trees? We are the only planet we know of that has living anythings. Doesn't mean that there are no other planets like ours.

You do know that the moon just reflects sunlight and doesn't create its own?

I was listening to a scientific program of psychological import today in the news reported on by the BBC. The researchers did tests. They reported the results of those tests of the hypothesis. It was interesting, I must say. And reasonable. The tests, the participants, and the results were all there. The testing was done in conjunction with the hypotheses and possibilities conjectured. In one large case, the outcome was surprisingly different from what had been expected.
Dating and categorizing of various artifacts in the theory of evolution is questionable, if that's what you're referring to. I'm speaking specifically of the hisotyr of homo sapiens, of course. Let's go back to the atom for a moment. The more I "look at" the explanations of what constitutes atoms, for example, the more convinced I am that these things did not come about by themselves without a superior, intelligent force backing it up. And right now I do not think humans will ever find out how it happened. Because of the complexities and the incomprehensible idea that something as fascinating and wonderful as an atom could come about by itself. We can see there have been analyses of dna, similar in various forms, but this does not prove evolution. It simply says that gorillas have one system of dna, lions have another, and humans have another. Scientists may analyze it, but this does not mean the mechanics of evolution (sans a creator) are the means and continuance of life.

So you want to ignore the evidence and base your views on your own incredulity and ignorance? That doesn't sound like a rational basis for learning about the world to me.

The questions regarding methodologies like radiometric dating are not the kinds of questions you are claiming. That there are questions is also not evidence that the techniques are flawed beyond use either.