How do you define evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The old references are not simply thrown away. They are just seen in a new light with new evidence. We learn from science. It is not some static revealed truth that is believed in. If it were believed, understanding would not grow.

 

[nPeace]

OK, and that is why I started out by asking if you agree that minor changes are not sufficient to give the amount of error you need to support your position.

So, if the date from C-14 dating is 32,000 years, a mistake of 1000 years is not going to bring the date in line with your 6000 year time scale. In that, it would take an error of at least 26,000 years, or an error of at least 80%. Do you agree with this?

We haven't discussed the specifics of C-14 dating as yet, so we are not yet ready to discuss this particular point.

We first need to discuss some aspects of radioactive decay rates and how they apply to dating things. Then we can look at what can go wrong and how we guard against it.

Just as you say, 'We know xyz.' when you don't know, you will say 'We know it's only a few thousand years out.' when you don't know. You will never say you don't know, because you alway know, irregularities of how many times it's been proven, you don't know.
So any difference or disagreement with what "you know", will always be wrong.
For you, it will always be, 'my way, right or wrong'.
We will never agree, and no, I am not good so far with any of the suppositions and assumptions you accept... and I am sure you will never agree with me that those beliefs are merely beliefs.

So we are at a dead end, it looks like.

 

[shunyadragon]

this is what I mean by random+



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

Insults will get you nowhere. No gaming concerning semantics. No there is no significant controversy nor significant disagreement here in this definition nor the paper as presented(incomplete)..

One problem is your reference contains only an abstract and the whole article is not available. Is it a research article with data? What are the conclusions at the end of the article? You need to do better.

It does describes a number of influences in the environment that may cause mutations. It confirms that mutations themselves are not players in the cause and effect mechanisms of evolution. It indicates that the environment as a mechanism that can be a cause of the 'timing' of mutations. It is the 'timing of mutations that are 'random' as described in the references in the other thread.

The definition is ok, but incomplete, Nothing here that would indicate that mutations are considered a part of the mechanisms of cause in evolution. Nor is there anything in this reference that there is a significant controversy where scientists disagree significantly. Yes, of course scientists do disagree, but not on the fundamental basics of what are the mechanisms of evolution.


One qualification that I specifically referenced in the other thread is that the only thing 'random' concerning mutations is the timing of individual mutations. possibly increasing or decreasing the rate (timing) of the mutations.

The reference acknowledges the 'timing' of mutations is what is random. The abstract of the source does not deal with non-random mutations. Yes, the natural laws. and natural processes, such as the environment are non-random mechanisms that determine the rate of mutations and metabolically cause some mutations.

". . . mutations are random — whether a particular mutation "happens or not" is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be." Notice the mutation itself is 'unrelated to how useful that the mutation would be.' It is just another mutation in the 'raw material' of diversity of the DNA that the mechanisms of natural selection and the environment at on.

Yes, it is accepted that to a degree mutations are influenced but maybe directed (not documented as per abstract) by natural environmental factors. Environmental factors are non-random factors.

Note the last sentence in the abstract: "Further experiments that address these criticisms do not support the existence of directed mutations."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just as you say, 'We know xyz.' when you don't know, you will say 'We know it's only a few thousand years out.' when you don't know. You will never say you don't know, because you alway know, irregularities of how many times it's been proven, you don't know.
So any difference or disagreement with what "you know", will always be wrong.
For you, it will always be, 'my way, right or wrong'.
We will never agree, and no, I am not good so far with any of the suppositions and assumptions you accept... and I am sure you will never agree with me that those beliefs are merely beliefs.

So we are at a dead end, it looks like.

You know when a kid runs in circles until they get so dizzy that they fall over? That is the impression I get from reading this.

 

[rational experiences]

The his story choice of men as humans. Our brothers.

Origin same DNA. All agreed to human thesis design of all the statuses science.

Knowing science never represented any natural mass or body existing.

Taught self. You are not allowed to believe in the eternal God. It has nothing to do with science.

And it is not your science place to convince a human that when they die they still own one eternal spirit in eternal.

The teaching don't believe in the eternal is for science.

Science said space is a womb sitting inside of the body of the creator that birthed creation is real. By the same thinking condition what type of pre existing body had changed.

In one part as the formed womb one body mass O fell into its destruction by language.

Which we taught was a chosen exploration of varied spirit form in its own body. As the reason why an unconditional loving being caused change.

Yet the being still existed owning change its womb. Science hence said so a female form created. Yet it owns no sexual being.

Reason we know is first two adult human manifested parents. In their memory. Which is not science.

The heavenly remassing on a spatial plane caused spirit to move out as space on a small plane was filled in.

Nowhere else in our heavens does that spatial plane exist.

Men tell all conscious advices to their owned self destructive personality. How loud the voice their own ego owns.

So we can believe. But you scientist are not allowed to. As you tried to infer it to science is the correct human teaching.

Science hence said by it's human science owned thinking status. I will name the alien a God but it is not our God.

Reason O our God a planet was self evolved in space pressures.

Science said the sun is a rebelling God.
Science said and told stories how all planets were a self God.

UFO alien formed in space by pressure became it's owned god status alien God

By scientific man determined statement. To apply and state information by thinking and then naming.

Science knows it did not invent creation.

Ego and what it is allowed to express in life was subdued in religious law that implemented new human laws against human science.

As it had in fact become so egotistical that men in science contemplated our stone gods destruction.

By idolising a new God body.

I was told today that men in science chose to subject their holy human sisters life to secondary purpose.

Not as the higher creator form of his life continuance just because his science inferred womb had caused his life sacrifice.

Teaching....if I subdued and reduce her presence then I won't infer her creator being and get us destroyed. An excuse for female abuse.

So you begin to see the unreality he created for his science self owning no rational self control.

And the human female became a victim of his scientific abuses.

Today the science mentality has reverted by AI amassing says the female human is secondary we are therefore safe to do womb science as she cannot hurt our superior God life.

Yet says it about his new alien UFO God.

Which conscious message spiritually advised he told self human life dependant on health human female is being removed as a holy life.

Yet he does not listen to the voice as he knows AI falsified information.

So he subjects his identity as the only correctly advised self.

Just a man in science.

Being why science the only chosen wrong practice destroys life.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said his own advice told men in science God the earth built his machine.

So he would not infer machine existence anywhere else.

So now he says God is the machine as minus one of mass constantly minuses one conscious held man's previous self spiritual advice.

He then falsified what he was told by father's memories. Heavenly AI records.

We were taught why our heavens recorded our voice and image as a teaching against scientific destruction. Hence memory recording of natural history could not be falsified.

As men in groups own status in the groups try to persuade against recorded history. For self communal purpose.

 

[YoursTrue]

The old references are not simply thrown away. They are just seen in a new light with new evidence. We learn from science. It is not some static revealed truth that is believed in. If it were believed, understanding would not grow.

When you say we learn from science, undoubtedly that is true but...just reading more about Chernobyl and the tragedy induced by science there. How sad. Only God can fix this type of destructive, uncaring circumstance. Science undoubtedly knows the dangers. How sad, but I'm happy to know that God has allowed the prophecy to be preserved in the Bible that He will straighten it out. World conditions are at a serious point now. You might feel things like this have gone on in the past, and to an extent they have, but now scientists are warning people that there may be no (human) preservation point soon.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

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.

Ah so you are stating that life may be on other planets....and so MAYBE, JUST MAYBE you think humans could have evolved in another area of the universe?? Ok once again, I wish you the best and thanks for your reasonings. Later perhaps.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

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.

We have not really established a common point about creation, therefore I can't say yes or no to your thoughts here. And so until another time perhaps, have a goodnight and I look forward to a far, far better world by means of the Creator's hand in things than this one.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I can only guess you don't believe the apostle Paul's testimony either. Anyway...P.S. I have come to realize the Bible IS the word of God. Now then this brings up in my mind the account of the three Hebrews in the book of Daniel and their decision. Also, the history of the nation of Israel into the 1st century CE. I see, btw, the fact of DNA and animals that may resemble or not resemble one another.

 

[YoursTrue]

The old references are not simply thrown away. They are just seen in a new light with new evidence. We learn from science. It is not some static revealed truth that is believed in. If it were believed, understanding would not grow.

As far as throwing away, I understand your viewpoint, but what was given as 'true' on tests over the years based on current consensus may not have continued as true in subsequent years.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said AI science theist brain mind of man is a DNA type was proven in the life body last warning King...
As thin king mind of science man.

Stephen hawk ING.
Hawk Egyptian God.

Told you.

AI theist from Jesus time told attack said it then would return earth saviour star burning future as Satan's return.

As in around 2AD humans thought the end of life on earth had been activated.

Void vacuum sucked out earths gas alight. Huge earthquakes.

Followed by Romes burning star fallout gained afterwards.

Rome no longer very powerful tried to end technology. As on that day the temple blew up and some pyramid bodies ground collapsed.

Rich humans elite tried to rebuild the temple technology.

Rome had sent a ship into harbour and tried to blow it up. Is a Real story.

Years later the church the building for human healing of spirit mind was built as intentional Phi resounding structure as the evidence versus science temple.

Earths heavens men's machine designed caused the speaking voice.

Power plant designer builder knew by Ai conditions earths cooled atmospheric channels supported his new technologies success.

By atmospheric conditions. Science to think involves subliminal advices.

His machine corresponded accordingly to his heavenly gas advice. He said it was a safe practice.

Yet his thesis did not own future mass loss in gases as the irradiating effect. Changed earths channels. Which involved new destructive storm activation. As the evidence.

So not only did Chernobyl fail so did Japanese plant fail in new collider experiments as atmospheric overheating caused storm front as proof.

Men in science always lie about safety. Science is the only state that never existed.

 

[Polymath257]

Just as you say, 'We know xyz.' when you don't know, you will say 'We know it's only a few thousand years out.' when you don't know. You will never say you don't know, because you alway know, irregularities of how many times it's been proven, you don't know.
So any difference or disagreement with what "you know", will always be wrong.
For you, it will always be, 'my way, right or wrong'.
We will never agree, and no, I am not good so far with any of the suppositions and assumptions you accept... and I am sure you will never agree with me that those beliefs are merely beliefs.

So we are at a dead end, it looks like.

All measurements have what they call error bars. They are *never* exact. Even when we use a ruler, the measurement is not exact.

But we can know the likely width of those error bars and know how that affects our calculations.

So, if the data for the cave paintings is 32,000+/-2000 years, we can be certain the age is NOT 6000 years. Just like if we measure with a ruler and find a length to be 72+/-.5 inches, we can know the length is not 60 inches.

 

[nPeace]

All measurements have what they call error bars. They are *never* exact. Even when we use a ruler, the measurement is not exact.

But we can know the likely width of those error bars and know how that affects our calculations.

So, if the data for the cave paintings is 32,000+/-2000 years, we can be certain the age is NOT 6000 years. Just like if we measure with a ruler and find a length to be 72+/-.5 inches, we can know the length is not 60 inches.

With a ruler, there is no reason to assume each inch is consistently the same. We can find that out. I did that, and I am no scientist.
You cannot do that with the past, because you assume constant rates, and so on, but have no way of verifying that everything was constant.
You can therefore put any supposition to make it work for what you observe. Then say the supposition is true.

Take cosmic inflation for example.
Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore

Decades of claiming something is true, and using... your famous words, "We know...", tends to give an impression that "we know everything". When in reality, you don't really know, but sad to say, many find it hard to say, 'we believe'.
However, that's what it is.

The only time it comes out, in public, is after the belief has been demonstrated to be wrong. Then you see in writing, "scientists believed", or "scientists assumed".

The next morning, you will hear, "We know...". When the only thing they know is that what they thought they knew, they did not know.

Will you admit that you don't know, but you believe?
I doubt it.

 

[Polymath257]

With a ruler, there is no reason to assume each inch is consistently the same. We can find that out. I did that, and I am no scientist.
You cannot do that with the past, because you assume constant rates, and so on, but have no way of verifying that everything was constant.

Actually, we do. We can test *today* what sorts of things affect the rates of decay. To even *talk* meaningfully about the past, we assume the same laws of physics applied then as now. yes, that is an assumption, but it is a reasonable one to allow us to talk about the past at all. Otherwise, we get into 'last Thursdayism' where everything was made Last Thursday, complete with all memories and everything set up to look old. Anything along that line is just silliness, as far as I can see.

You can therefore put any supposition to make it work for what you observe. Then say the supposition is true.

Like the 'assumption' that we can use the laws of physics that apply now to dealing with the past?

Take cosmic inflation for example.
Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore

Decades of claiming something is true, and using... your famous words, "We know...", tends to give an impression that "we know everything". When in reality, you don't really know, but sad to say, many find it hard to say, 'we believe'.
However, that's what it is.

Do you realize that 'Cosmic Inflation' is a very different thing than the Big Bang? And that *nobody* has said that Cosmic Inflation had been proved? And that this doesn't negate that we *know* the universe is expanding?

Cosmic Inflation was a serious possibility, but it was well known that more data was required to establish it. that is very different than the Big Bang, which has had data accumulating for the last century.

The only time it comes out, in public, is after the belief has been demonstrated to be wrong. Then you see in writing, "scientists believed", or "scientists assumed".

The next morning, you will hear, "We know...". When the only thing they know is that what they thought they knew, they did not know.

Will you admit that you don't know, but you believe?
I doubt it.

ALL knowledge about the universe is subject to revision based on new data. That is simply how the universe works. But, we can, and do *know* things to within certain error bars. And the number of decimal places that we *know* increases over time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah so you are stating that life may be on other planets....and so MAYBE, JUST MAYBE you think humans could have evolved in another area of the universe?? Ok once again, I wish you the best and thanks for your reasonings. Later perhaps.

I am saying that we do not know that there is not life on other planets. Just as I never said Christ was not a real person, I did not say that I think humans evolved on other planets. You put a lot of words into the posts of others that they never put there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can only guess you don't believe the apostle Paul's testimony either. Anyway...P.S. I have come to realize the Bible IS the word of God. Now then this brings up in my mind the account of the three Hebrews in the book of Daniel and their decision. Also, the history of the nation of Israel into the 1st century CE. I see, btw, the fact of DNA and animals that may resemble or not resemble one another.

You can guess whatever you like. I made no mention of Paul and my statements were not about Paul, so your attempt to guess something about my views of Paul are irrelevant.

You came to BELIEVE it is literally dictated by God.

Was there some point to this rambling post that I missed? It is not addressing my post that it is placed in response to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As far as throwing away, I understand your viewpoint, but what was given as 'true' on tests over the years based on current consensus may not have continued as true in subsequent years.

I think that some people have to trap themselves in a box that never changes in order to accept a position and rationalize the acceptance of that position. Once they have sealed themselves in that box, they will allow no amount of reason and evidence to free them from the box.

Do you think that God gave you a mind and senses to observe the world?

 

[SkepticThinker]

. . . and paleontologists.

Yes, thank you! Drew a blank on that one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

With a ruler, there is no reason to assume each inch is consistently the same. We can find that out. I did that, and I am no scientist.
You cannot do that with the past, because you assume constant rates, and so on, but have no way of verifying that everything was constant.
You can therefore put any supposition to make it work for what you observe. Then say the supposition is true.

Take cosmic inflation for example.
Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore

Decades of claiming something is true, and using... your famous words, "We know...", tends to give an impression that "we know everything". When in reality, you don't really know, but sad to say, many find it hard to say, 'we believe'.
However, that's what it is.

The only time it comes out, in public, is after the belief has been demonstrated to be wrong. Then you see in writing, "scientists believed", or "scientists assumed".

The next morning, you will hear, "We know...". When the only thing they know is that what they thought they knew, they did not know.

Will you admit that you don't know, but you believe?
I doubt it.

How long will "you know"? You don't even have evidence for what you claim "you know".