How do you define evolution?

[infrabenji]

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.

Yeah I agree that doesn’t sound right to me. The whole universe came about by evolution? I just copied and pasted my definition but I haven’t seen any other definition that broad. The whole universe huh. Wild.

 

[rational experiences]

If I preached as a human science and was an ancient human scientist I would quote evolution involved cooling.

As ice a mass is frozen held form.

I observe the frozen so identify by bones laying around another human.observatiin....life forms had changed.

Basic intelligence. No ego involved.

However...
Group status infers who is the best. Who is the greatest. Who is the smartest. Who is the richest. Who has the most followers.

Human traits. Human beliefs.

Own no conditions in review observation.

As what you look at exists as either a dead body form. Or a living body form.

So if frozen involves extreme cold and pressure then basic advice exists.

Cold status and pressure status changes form.

Hence I would not theory involving those conditions in science otherwise I knowingly would de evolve.

The reason basic why I discussed observed evolution.

 

[blü 2]

I love how science makes its theories "scientific"....meaning that they don't need proof for any of their musings as long as there is some jargon to back it up

What's a nice clear example of this?

Or are you just muttering curses?

 

[infrabenji]

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.

Certainly, I think there’s a lot of prejudice. Are you thinking that evolution could be bad dogged and new facts about our origin could come to light? I don’t think it must be god though. I don’t know how we’d get there. How do we rule out every other possibility. I’ve read the Bible hundreds of times in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, English of course. I’ve never personally found the creation story in the Bible to be to believable as fact. As much as I would love talking animals and a magic garden guarded by angels there’s just no evidence these things can even exist.

 

[firedragon]

Certainly, I think there’s a lot of prejudice. Are you thinking that evolution could be bad dogged and new facts about our origin could come to light? I don’t think it must be god though. I don’t know how we’d get there. How do we rule out every other possibility. I’ve read the Bible hundreds of times in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, English of course. I’ve never personally found the creation story in the Bible to be to believable as fact. As much as I would love talking animals and a magic garden guarded by angels there’s just no evidence these things can even exist.

You know all three languages? Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew?

 

[infrabenji]

You know all three languages? Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew?

Yes, 20 years ago in the seminary language was required I took 3 years and had access to scholars who spoke fluently and there are as you know a lot of resources for understanding meanings of words. Etymology right but I’ve also been an atheist for 20 years and not an outspoken one so I’ve forgotten most of what I learned though I do have a Bachelor of Arts in theology. Well, I have 2 associates and a bachelors. I’m studying law currently. Health Insurance law. Super exciting. Not.

 

[Justanatheist]

Define Evolution.

A brick wall against which ignorant people spend their life bashing their heads.

Creationism.

A dead horse which ignorant people keep flogging

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

In fairness the foundation of science as per evidence is itself as the foundation without evidence. It is basis of evidence as a concept used by science.

In short for the world is natural versus the world is supernatural, one of them is wrong as they amount to a contradiction, yet people who believe in the contradiction are apparently still in the world.
So I figured I didn't have to believe in either and simply state: I don't need that type of metaphysical beliefs.

 

[Nimos]

LOL...you just demonstrated exactly what I mean.....when is a fact not a fact?
When its theory....when is a theory not a theory? When its a "scientific" theory....

I remain as unconvinced about evolution as you apparently are about God.....I guess we will all know the right answer one day.

Because the meaning of the word is not the same.

We can say that evolution is a fact, because we can see it is happening and we use it, for instance in medicine, food industry, animals have been bred for thousands of years to get that perfect horse or cow or whatever. So it is a fact because we can observe it and see it in action.

When scientists say that Evolution is a theory, given it doesn't mean the same as in everyday use. What they refer to, is that it is a scientific theory, which means. And this is very important, that it is explaining why something is a fact.

Hugely different from me saying I have a theory that if you spin around yourself 3 times before jumping off a 30 meters high cliff, there is a greater chance that you will survive the impact.

So even though they use the same word, if one is not aware of the different meaning, then surely it all just sound like the same thing, but it isn't!!.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, 20 years ago in the seminary language was required I took 3 years and had access to scholars who spoke fluently and there are as you know a lot of resources for understanding meanings of words. Etymology right but I’ve also been an atheist for 20 years and not an outspoken one so I’ve forgotten most of what I learned though I do have a Bachelor of Arts in theology. Well, I have 2 associates and a bachelors. I’m studying law currently. Health Insurance law. Super exciting. Not.

Thats pretty amazing. If I have some questions I will trouble you. I know only one scholar who has that level of language expertise. He too doesnt know Aramaic, only Hebrew and koine greek. Its extremely rare. When she retired, there was no one left in the whole country. So its an absolute privilege to know someone who knows all three languages.

I have always wondered how an Aramaic dialect would say pistos doolos. This is to reverse translate in order to get a grip on what some verses mean. I would truly appreciate your help.

 

[infrabenji]

Thats pretty amazing. If I have some questions I will trouble you. I know only one scholar who has that level of language expertise. He too doesnt know Aramaic, only Hebrew and koine greek. Its extremely rare. When she retired, there was no one left in the whole country. So its an absolute privilege to know someone who knows all three languages.

I have always wondered how an Aramaic dialect would say pistos doolos. This is to reverse translate in order to get a grip on what some verses mean. I would truly appreciate your help.

I’m really flattered but remember I’ve been an atheist since I left the seminary after graduation some 20 years ago and I’ve never been outspoken about my beliefs so much of what I learned has been long forgotten or replaced by other educational pursuits. I do get snaps of Bible verses and there etymological roots that come out of nowhere randomly. But that also happens with other texts I’ve devoted significant time too. But I have to say I devoted years to the study of the Bible and I’ll probably have Bible verses run through my head unannounced for the rest of my life.

 

[rational experiences]

When humans don't speak about truth as a subject why bother? Your threats in script meaningless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where can we see adaptations taking creatures out of their taxonomy?

Nowhere.

If that were to happen, evolution would be disproven.

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.

Or a rubbish strawman?

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.

Demonstrating common ancestry is rather easy using DNA, actually. Happens all the time.

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

I agree.
Now when you're done arguing strawmen...

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm looking up definitions, and the first one I came across is this (short and sweet) --
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Do you agree with it?

Evolution is one of those words that can be used to refer to subtly different concepts in different contexts and circumstances. It's a bit like asking for a singular definition of the word "car" (considering all the varieties of motor vehicles plus things like train cars and cable cars).

I'm not sure it's beneficial to get bogged down in creating fixed definitions of general terms as that tends to lean towards people playing sematic games to push their own beliefs rather than actually trying to understand anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

No, natural selection does not imply some where an intelligent force of nature, because it simply describes a 'natural process,' based on the Laws of Nature where 'natural' environmental change causes a 'natural selection' process that can be observed and documented in the past and today in the diversification and evolution of life.

 

[shunyadragon]

What's a nice clear example of this?

Or are you just muttering curses?

. . . with magic potions, and a magic wand?

 

[SigurdReginson]

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.

Ahh.

Indeed....so why should the Creator respect the categories that scientists have made for it?

It's very true that Scientists have to alter their categories all the time to more accurately define the things that happen in nature for sure. That's the thing about science - it changes in the face of new information.

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.

Can I ask where he stated these things in such a concise way? The only thing I've seen about "kinds" is in conclusions being drawn from YECs on some verses in Genesis and then adding meaning that isn't there in the bible. Where does the bible say that "kinds" will carry their genetics, mostly unaltered, unless there are circumstances that force alteration to facilitate survival? It feels like extra meaning extrapolated onto some verses that don't go that far into detail, and from a very modern perspective on concepts that weren't really a thing thousands of years ago...

It is an inbuilt mechanism that science really doesn't know much about....even though they like to speculate a lot.

It feels like an assumption (barriers of change) so that more assumptions (the concept of kinds) can make sense according to the assumptions (YEC) that don't reflect observations of the natural world. It looks like a very haphazardly and unintuitively constructed thing from my perspective. Doesn't seem structurally sound to me.

 

[firedragon]

I’m really flattered but remember I’ve been an atheist since I left the seminary after graduation some 20 years ago and I’ve never been outspoken about my beliefs so much of what I learned has been long forgotten or replaced by other educational pursuits. I do get snaps of Bible verses and there etymological roots that come out of nowhere randomly. But that also happens with other texts I’ve devoted significant time too. But I have to say I devoted years to the study of the Bible and I’ll probably have Bible verses run through my head unannounced for the rest of my life.

Is Ben Elohim directly translatable as barabba? How about Barnasha and Adham? what I don't really understand is if both languages can replace an allusion to language interchangeably.

 

[syo]

I'm looking up definitions, and the first one I came across is this (short and sweet) --
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Do you agree with it?

Evolution???

Not applicable.

 

[Polymath257]

Most people's definition of "evolution" includes the unsubstantiated claim that such minor changes over time means that an amoeba can become a dinosaur, given a few million years.

Billion, not million. There is a big difference.

I acknowledge that "adaptation" can change the physical characteristics of any species within a 'family' of creatures over generations when environmental changes also mean a change in diet....each is equipped to make those changes naturally as a survival mechanism (e.g. Peppered Moth or Darwin's finches)......but it is a fact that science cannot take the small changes that occur in one species and claim "evolution" on a macro scale, as if one family of creatures can become a different family, given enough time......and then treat that idea as if it must be a fact. (e.g. whale evolution, where the first "whale" was claimed to be a four legged furry land dweller, the size of a dog.) This is an assumption......not the same as a fact at all.

First, the changes in finches and moths were *genetic* changes. This is different than individual adaptation. It is a change of *species* since the different finches cannot interbreed (or, like lions and tigers, give sterile offspring).

Now, what mechanism *prevents* further changes from happening after speciation occurs? What prevents large scale change from happening because those smaller changes add up over generations?

So, we see otters adapting to a more and more water-based lifestyle. Do you not see it as *possible* that in another 10000 generations they will be able to stay under water for longer and not go back to land at all? And then that they will become more streamlined so as to move through water even better than they do now?

And, to bring it back to the whale ancestors, what is the barrier for a land based animal adapting over generations to living more and more in the water? Especially when we have the fossils showing the changes involved?

But lets also add that there were NO whales anywhere prior to 50 million years ago. But, at that time there *were* animals that showed similarities in their skulls and shared unique characteristics in their ears to modern whales.

Now, modern whales came from *somewhere*. They clearly had an ancestor 50 million years ago. But there were no whales then. So the ancestor 50 million years ago was NOT a whale as we currently see them. The *evidence* based on similarities of skulls is that certain land animals, Pakicetus and ambulocetus were those ancestors.

I believe that the line gets blurred even for scientists keen to get their evolutionary message across. (some relishing the idea of killing off God for good) But, when does science fact become science fiction?.....evolution is a classic example IMO.....not that gradual changes occurred in any given species over time, but at its very foundation where claims are made and real evidence is missing......lots of it.

It's always good to have more evidence. But there is enough evidence to show the broad patterns. Species change over many generations. All species today had ancestors 50 million years ago and many we would not recognize as being in the same 'kind' as the animals today. That is evolution.