How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

This is an old bofus dishonest Fundi Christian argument and meaningless. A terrible unethical ignorant misrepresentation of the scientific concept of theories and hypothesis. The sciences supporting evolution use the same scientific methodology as the sciences of medicine and the technology of computers.

So, in other words, it all (life in its various forms) just happened to happen. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. Just happened to happen.

 

[Bear Wild]

That is correct. There is no proof, no evidence of the real kind such as genes changing that shows emergence into different animals claimed to have evolved somewhere, such as...the unknown common ancestor to humans, gorillas, nobody, and that good stuff.

Very good you have misrepresented what I have said. There is no proof in science and by know given how many have explained this you still misuse the word. There is no proof yet there is more than enough evidence to show that real changes in DNA and epigenetics causes real changes in animals which collectively cause enough change to see them as a different animal than their origin. The evidence has been presented over and over throughout this category of the forum.

As for the ancestor for gorillas and humans, there is plenty of evidence showing they did have a common ancestor. In science you do not have to have a fossil of the actual common ancestor to have sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion. The same is in medicine, geology, astronomy, physiology, and so on in scientific fields. You do not have any proof or evidence at all to explain the evidence so you get stuck on only making incorrect claims. You have nothing to argue with than just opinion. If you had evidence you would have presented it.

 

[Bear Wild]

I believe they stay birds, right? We could go on with this but the level is such that no one, anywhere, has proven, demonstrated, shown, evidenced with reality of the absolute kind (demonstrating change such as fish to tetrapods or anything else). If someone sets a building on fire that's reality. It didn't just happen by chance or selective innate ability. Anyway, bye for now.

But they were not always what we call birds. Considering the degree of variation in birds they are clearly very diversified. What has been demonstrated is that birds do genetically change when isolated to new environments that require different phenotypic expressions.

Just in case you are not aware. A building is not a living thing, and it catching fire as example of clear cause and effect relation then animal with a white coat in an area where snows have receded getting eaten is just as valid as your building catching fire. Isolated instances observed. Your argument fails to reject the theory of evolution in any way.

 

[Bear Wild]

Why, is there or is there not some lost enough proclaimed common link transitioning via natural evolutionary circumstances from whatever it was to something like humans?

But there is fossil evidence showing fragments of the change. What you fail to understand is how infrequent fossil evidence is and how amazing we have so much. It is entirely possible that some transitional organism failed to fossilize sufficiently to be represented. Much fossil evidence has been lost due to human expansion and building. This does not matter for you do not need any one transitional fossil to see the clear pattern from what evidence we have today. If you have evidence to disprove this other than your unreasonable demands then present it. So far you have provided nothing other than opinion.

 

[YoursTrue]

But there is fossil evidence showing fragments of the change. What you fail to understand is how infrequent fossil evidence is and how amazing we have so much. It is entirely possible that some transitional organism failed to fossilize sufficiently to be represented. Much fossil evidence has been lost due to human expansion and building. This does not matter for you do not need any one transitional fossil to see the clear pattern from what evidence we have today. If you have evidence to disprove this other than your unreasonable demands then present it. So far you have provided nothing other than opinion.

Fragments of the change, you say? What does that mean, please explain. Fossil fragments of change? Yes, as I have been reading, nothing in science can be proven. Any conclusions, i.e., presumptions, can change. Therefore, nothing can be proven. Now if you will, please do explain how fossil evidence shows fragments of the change.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, in other words, it all (life in its various forms) just happened to happen. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. Just happened to happen.

No, your use of 'just happened' and very odd ''just happened to happen' is an incoherent and unintelligible way to communicate.

Evolution takes place according to natural laws and natural processes just as everything we observes today. Nothing can ;just happen' outside the constraints of natural laws and natural processes.

Still no response to you ignorant misuse of science concerning the inbreeding of species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If, for instance, a dna test indicated that I was related to someone I never knew of, I might wonder about it. Meaning just how close would I be?

Seems to me you are trying to dodge the question.

It's a straightforward question: do you trust DNA tests to find out shared ancestry / biological bonds?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Naturally the closer a relative, the closer the similarity of the DNA.

Correct.
So what does that tell you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me get on to something else for a moment, even though you certainly don't want to explore that area at to whether or not God exists,

I personally have no problem with the question whether God exists, and as a matter of fact I believe God exists, which I have explained many times and apparently like everything else in my posts you refuse to acknowledge. As explained many times this question is a 'theological/philosophical question and not a question in science, which is neutral to whether 'God exists or not.

. . . so I wonder about the cell, something you might have a scientific opinion about. Would you say that the cell is considered the basic unit of life?

Separate question, but until you educate yourself and rey to understand science as science concerning the nature of our physical existence getting you to comprehend basic science is hopeless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Looking back at your post here, let me ask you a question in ref to evolution, and the theory of. There is no mention of God being involved in the situation, is there?

Indeed there isn't. Just like in all other scientific theories, gods don't show up in the evidence, so gods aren't part of the equation.

I mean it appears to be a godless type of theory, as if God were not involved in any sort of activity regarding the various forms of life on the earth,.

Correct.

Just like Germ theory of desease. Gods don't appear to be involved in any sort of activity regarding infectious deseases caused by germs either. Or like in plate tectonics theory. Gods don't seem involved in any sort of activity regarding geological stuff either.

What's the point?

Does the theory offer any possibility that God is involved in the 'making,' (or evolving) from beginning to current times?

Every theory is open for any factor that can't be shown to have any sort of role or impact. Evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, germs, atoms,.... whatever can be shown to be part of the equation, will be included as a variable with the value that the evidence supports.

Or is it just by nature (however that's explained) that living forms came about?

We only have evidence of a natural process. And it seems sufficient to explain the facts.
Does that mean there aren't "unnatural" things at play?
No.

It just means that the natural explanation is sufficient and that there's no evidence of unnatural things going on.

That is one question I have about the theory

That question was NOT about the theory of evolution.
It was more about religious beliefs then anything else.

, including the so-called evidence of the theory in reference to fossils and dna, basically the entire theory.

How you think that question concerned the evidence for the theory, is mindblowing to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me put it this way: there is, according to scientists, similar dna in bonobos, gorillas, and humans. So although you are expert in geology, is it?, would you happen to know why humans and gorillas can't interbreed?

The interbreeding of species is dependent on how long the species have been isolated from each other by environmental and physical barriers. The common ancestors found in the fossil record and by the calculations of the genetic clock is millions of years, therefore they cannot interbreed.

It remains a problem that you are not willing to educate yourself and understand science yourself, and resort to religious assertions and ancient agenda to reject science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's say it does, but (I'm not an expert) just how far must one look for ancestral relatives due to dna? How close does the dna have to be to show the specimen (fossil or flesh) is a relative?

Because DNA is vertically inherited by off spring in mutated form, there literally is no limit to it.
At any one point, you can sequence a bunch of genomes, plot them out by counting the matches and you'll get a hierarchical structure as a visual representation of that data. A family tree.

This is what a phylogenetic tree is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me put it this way: there is, according to scientists, similar dna in bonobos, gorillas, and humans. So although you are expert in geology, is it?, would you happen to know why humans and gorillas can't interbreed?

Because they genetically have diverged to much from one another for them to still be able to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe they stay birds, right?

How many times more?

How do you define evolution? | Page 30 | Religious Forums

We could go on with this but the level is such that no one, anywhere, has proven, demonstrated, shown, evidenced with reality of the absolute kind (demonstrating change such as fish to tetrapods or anything else).

Tiktaalik, found by prediction, is exactly that. Also referred to as a "fish-apod" sometimes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can't science do any collaborative research on evidence or figuring if there's evidence or not as to God's existing? What do you think, believe, or surmise about that? Just taking a neutral stand on that? How come? Either the theory of evolution is true or it's not true. Either God exists or He doesn't. Why a scientist who believes in evolution would believe in God is a question that a "scientist," or person of logic should be able to answer. Surely someone should be able to distinctly surmise, as he does with godless, mindless evolutionary theory, whether there is a vastly superior, intelligent creative force with unlimited ability.

Science ONLY deals with the 'objective verifiable physical evidence' concerning the nature of our physical existence. There is absolutely NO physical objective evidence for the existence of God or God(s). Research from the scientific perspective cannot deal with theological/philosophical subjective ( . . . of the mind only) questions without physical objective evidence. Therefore, there are diverse conflicting beliefs from many religions of believers, non-believers and agnostic scientists that agree concerning science, but do not agree concerning the existence of God and other religious questions.

Evolution is NOT a godless, mindless theory, it is simply the knowledge of the objective verifiable evidence of the nature of our physical existence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You never know how much you have in common until at least your first date. An the whole poo throwing is only with the ones in captivity. You are going to have to go for one of the wild ones for a serious relationship, not that I have tried. You would have to wonder from @YoursTrue question about interbreeding humans and gorillas if this is a serious religious stance that is accepted in her beliefs. Otherwise why even ask the question. Maybe the idea came from watching planet of the apes?

I have difficulty understanding the point of a lot of questions that are raised on this thread.

So one that is a little wild and perhaps from a more affluent, educated family. And take the time to get to know her before jumping right to the interbreeding? That sounds like a good advice.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why, is there or is there not some lost enough proclaimed common link transitioning via natural evolutionary circumstances from whatever it was to something like humans?

What you keep repeating is that without every step of a journey identified, witnessed and recorded, no traveler can claim that they took the journey. Even if they cannot verify a single step, you consider that the journey never happened.

Anyway, that is what you keep telling us, though I feel pretty sure you do not understand that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me get on to something else for a moment, even though you certainly don't want to explore that area at to whether or not God exists, so I wonder about the cell, something you might have a scientific opinion about. Would you say that the cell is considered the basic unit of life?

Are you claiming to have objective evidence for the existence of God? Do you have evidence for every twist, turn and step of the way. Do you have video evidence. Millions of hours of video evidence or no one can believe it. Pictures. Lots and lots of pictures or it never happened. You must have a really big attic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can't science do any collaborative research on evidence or figuring if there's evidence or not as to God's existing? What do you think, believe, or surmise about that? Just taking a neutral stand on that? How come? Either the theory of evolution is true or it's not true. Either God exists or He doesn't. Why a scientist who believes in evolution would believe in God is a question that a "scientist," or person of logic should be able to answer. Surely someone should be able to distinctly surmise, as he does with godless, mindless evolutionary theory, whether there is a vastly superior, intelligent creative force with unlimited ability.

Show us all the evidence that you have used. Objective, unimpeachable evidence that can be explained no other way. Either you have it or you do not as you say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe they stay birds, right? We could go on with this but the level is such that no one, anywhere, has proven, demonstrated, shown, evidenced with reality of the absolute kind (demonstrating change such as fish to tetrapods or anything else). If someone sets a building on fire that's reality. It didn't just happen by chance or selective innate ability. Anyway, bye for now.

The evidence that demonstrates evolution exists despite your continual efforts to deny it with double standards, ignorance, refusal, etc.