How do you define evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

Video evidence of genes changing and making different forms that cannot interbreed such as fishes and frogs or platypuses are not available.

And you make a lot of decisions and draw conclusions all the time without any available video evidence. If your decisions and conclusions are good enough without video, why are scientific conclusions about evolution not good enough? You have not supported any reason for that. So far, no one has been able to support the double standard.

There are no videos of Christ 2,000 years ago. By your own argument, Christ did not exist. By the way, don't twist that. I am not saying that Christ did not exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As for natural selection this could not be clearer. Anything that causes and organism to die and not reproduce that is a part of the natural world. There is no intentional selection going on until you get to humans who select for the strangest features. Human breading of animals shows how plastic the genetics of phenotypic expression is. Thus you have this

or this

As for interbreeding there are examples of birds that could interbreed by do not secondary to behavioral differences.

I am pretty sure that most of the anti-science crowd doesn't understand that behavior and geography are also barriers to reproduction just as genetic and physical incompatibilities are.

 

[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?

So if a road no longer exists, there was no way for ancient people to have gotten to wherever that road went, simply because we don't have that road to show everyone today. That is what you keep repeating over and over and over.

You believe Adam and Eve were the first people, yet you cannot show every member of your lineage relating you to them. Therefore, you are not related to them. That is your objection right there. By now, even you should have some inkling of how silly that objection is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are some questions about existence (nature?) that I believe will possibly never be answered. Such as: the space between protons and electrons and the power therein. How did it get there? Also keep in mind that according to many scientists today, the earth is at a precarious state regarding its self-existence. So if we don't live to get the answers, it may be in some minds that no one will get the answers in the long or short run. Not to change the subject, while it's interesting, those who have been killed while running for more freedom than they have, perhaps we'll see if they'll see. As I say, according to the predictors, the human race may not have much time left to explore these questions.

I've seen you bring this up several times now.
What on earth do you mean by the bolded part? Are you insinuating that some God had to have created the space between protons and electrons, and if so, how and why are you coming up with that claim?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, you're telling me what I believe, which I'm telling you that your opinion of what I believe is not true. To say we see something is like saying you see the in-betweens of the species. As it happened. And how it happened. Which we don't. But you know what? (insult me all you want, but) I believe that the forces of life are so strong that there is no way they came about by themselves. And that the One that made these fabulous, extraordinary amazing forces can override them when desired. Anyway, it's been a nice discussion, thank you for your thoughts. Further, yes, there are some things that only our hearts and mind can truly figure out, and yes, I believe God knows what's going on.

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy and not a valid argument.

When you can demonstrate that some God exists and did all the things you claim, please get back to us. Til then, we're gonna have to go with the actual available evidence which all points to evolution being a fact of life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Video evidence of genes changing and making different forms that cannot interbreed such as fishes and frogs or platypuses are not available.

I don't think you realize how terrible this point actually is.

There is no video evidence for anything in the Bible either, so according to your line of logic, none of that happened either. Oops.

And of course this ignores the fact that we don't actually need video evidence to examine fossils, genetic sequences, living organisms, etc. and to draw obvious conclusions about the diversity of life on earth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

How do you think science should go about investigating the existence of god(s)? There are many scientists who actually believe in god(s) (see: Francis Collins), and yet when they come up with scientific explanations for things, they don't seem to see the need to inject God(s) into those explanations.

Don't you think it's odd that in all the years human beings have been believing in gods, that not a single person in all those centuries has managed to demonstrate the existence of these gods?

And again, evolution doesn't have to be godless. As many posters have pointed out to you several times, who says God(s) couldn't have created the earth with evolution in place as a mechanism to create the diversity of life that has resulted from it? Surely an intelligent God would be able to do so.

 

[Bear Wild]

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy and not a valid argument.

When you can demonstrate that some God exists and did all the things you claim, please get back to us. Til then, we're gonna have to go with the actual available evidence which all points to evolution being a fact of life.

The problem here is that @YoursTrue continually points out there is no proof despite the fact that they have learned the science does not use proofs. Yourstrue then ignores all real evidence stating they are not "proof" but cannot provide any evidence for their position much less any "proof". Thus we add the "You do not have proof and I will not listen to any evidence" to the "God did it and that's all I will accept no matter what you present". One just repeats god did it the other repeats you don't have proof over and over again. All we can do is keep on responding to keep the record correct on evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

And again, evolution doesn't have to be godless. As many posters have pointed out to you several times, who says God(s) couldn't have created the earth with evolution in place as a mechanism to create the diversity of life that has resulted from it? Surely an intelligent God would be able to do so.

This is one of the great mysteries of the religious forum. There is absolutely no reason believe that believing in evolution has any affect on believing in a god or goddess. Science explains the natural world no matter how it was created. Religion deals with questions not addressed by science. I believe anything as powerful and creative as evolution with the biodiversity we now have on earth should be celebrated no matter what religion you have and to protect the habitats to allow all life to continue their creative process.

 

[night912]

If I have an incorrect conclusion, given enough significant 'proof,' yes I know there's no proof in science, but anyway -- I am certainly willing to change my mind. -) Nevertheless, if you want to keep arguing that the building was made by human hands as if it burnt down from a fire as if that's evolving -- um -- count me out from the example. Thanks anyway.

Ummmm........you counted yourself in when you first compared evolution with a building getting set on fire. And I never said that you are absolutely 100% unwilling to change your mind. Your response here is evidence proving that you are willing to change your mind whenever you're wrong. But instead of changing your mind and accepting the facts, you change your mind in the sense of moving the goalpost.

Wrong time to change your mind for you, but right time to change your mind for me because you presented evidence for what I was saying.

 

[rational experiences]

Science basic advice first said evolution was cooled cooling gases

As believe it or not microbes did not begin creation in the cosmos.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

So summing up about my comment in reference to mindless, are you saying that fish, for instance, that are said to have evolved to become landwalkers, did so by their own intelligent, conscious choice?

 

[YoursTrue]

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

So birds do not stay birds, and gorillas do not stay gorillas? Or would you say there's not enough time to determine whether they do or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So birds do not stay birds, and gorillas do not stay gorillas? Or would you say there's not enough time to determine whether they do or not.

They do.

As I have pointed out to you a bazillion times already. In fact, these last couple days, I have linked you back at least 7 times to this post, earlier in this very thread:

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


How many times more before it sinks in?

Why do you insist on not correcting this mistake of yours?

 

[shunyadragon]

So summing up about my comment in reference to mindless, are you saying that fish, for instance, that are said to have evolved to become landwalkers, did so by their own intelligent, conscious choice?

No. your lack of knowledge pf science is glaringly apparent,and the fact that you fail to read and comprehend my posts.

The outcomes of cause and effect events in evolution and all of our physical existence is determined by natural laws and natural processes. Comments like 'mindless' and 'by their own intelligent conscious choice' are too anthropomorphic and stupid to be real.

Evolution is driven by the nature of the environment, and changes in the environment over millions of years. Ideal environments result in genetic diversity in populations of life forms, Changes in the environment result in natural selection and the survival of those best suited to the change. If the environment changes too quickly to unfavorable conditions species of life go extinct sometimes mass extinctions as in the extinction of the dinosaurs and recent human impact on the environment.

By the way humans represent a 'major extinction event' due to overpopulation environmental impact trashing our world.

 

[shunyadragon]

So birds do not stay birds, and gorillas do not stay gorillas? Or would you say there's not enough time to determine whether they do or not.

Your still failing to comprehend the science of evolution, and the above is an incoherent question.

 

[shunyadragon]

So birds do not stay birds, and gorillas do not stay gorillas? Or would you say there's not enough time to determine whether they do or not.

To add there are millions of years for changes in life forms to rake place. Fossil and genetic evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive that species go extinct or evolve and change over millions of years in response to environmental change, Gorillas will likely go extinct due to human impact, except in captive and human controlled environments. Many birds will go extinct due to human impact, but considering the diversity in bird populations they will evolve and change over time in response to environmental change as they have over the past millions of years since they evolved from bird-like dinosaurs.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was thinking about that, and yes, it's my thought. I have not read of any studies that might declare this, but - since it seems that the descriptive data is that it's survival of the fittest, OR -- "natural selection," how is it selected, who selects it? Use of language here could be a problem. For instance, do the organisms select their adaptation? By environment or simply by survival with the mutations into an environment ore conducive to their form? Or rather evolved form? Until, of course, they evolve so much they can't interbreed with former relatives, is that so? Because -- (I'm guessing here) -- the former relatives have died out? Or were too far away somehow, floated away maybe?

'Nobody' selects anything in the natural processes of evolution. Try to avoid dumb anthropomorphic statements such as this when we are talking about Natural Laws and natural processes.

Again . . .

The outcomes of cause and effect events in evolution and all of our physical existence is determined by natural laws and natural processes. Comments like 'mindless' and 'by their own intelligent conscious choice' are too anthropomorphic and stupid to be real.

Evolution is driven by the nature of the environment, and changes in the environment over millions of years. Ideal environments result in genetic diversity in populations of life forms, Changes in the environment result in natural selection and the survival of those best suited to the change. If the environment changes too quickly to unfavorable conditions species of life go extinct sometimes mass extinctions as in the extinction of the dinosaurs and recent human impact on the environment.

By the way humans represent a 'major extinction event' due to overpopulation environmental impact trashing our world.

 

[YoursTrue]

'Nobody' selects anything in the natural processes of evolution. Try to avoid dumb anthropomorphic statements such as this when we are talking about Natural Laws and natural processes.

Again . . .

The outcomes of cause and effect events in evolution and all of our physical existence is determined by natural laws and natural processes. Comments like 'mindless' and 'by their own intelligent conscious choice' are too anthropomorphic and stupid to be real.

Evolution is driven by the nature of the environment, and changes in the environment over millions of years. Ideal environments result in genetic diversity in populations of life forms, Changes in the environment result in natural selection and the survival of those best suited to the change. If the environment changes too quickly to unfavorable conditions species of life go extinct sometimes mass extinctions as in the extinction of the dinosaurs and recent human impact on the environment.

By the way humans represent a 'major extinction event' due to overpopulation environmental impact trashing our world.

As stated, there are no proofs of any sort in science. Yes, scientists say that human extinction by hook or crook (either by tilting of earth or suicide by wickedness--I'll add stupidity to that in terms of man's way of dealing with things) is in the cards. (But I don't believe God will allow it, based on prophecies in the Bible, just to let you know.)
One may call something a Law by nature, but again -- there is no proof of anything in science. I won't go into terminology of human law, or abrogation of it. Because science hasn't figured how and why something called a Law got there. I'm not saying that the dinosaurs weren't knocked out of commission by some meteor, but evidently scientists think something of their kind evolved to birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your still failing to comprehend the science of evolution, and the above is an incoherent question.

I understand to an extent the science of evolution, so I will pass over the idea that birds do not stay birds, or do stay birds over the years, but I move to DNA differences. Because I've said it many times, while there are fossils, there is no real proof (and by proof I mean dna movement of change, slow or fast, in replications and transfer and staying power of the thing). Like videos. I realize that's extreme, but I wonder -- how come electronic change came uniquely to humans and not chimpanzees? No proof or evidence of any sort showing inner workings of chromosomal changes if there are any over the long run. So despite the 'fact" that I see and understand how scientists may conclude that evolution is the key (yes, mindless like the wind, except if you want like magnetism) to the formation of life on earth, I realize after our many discussions there's much more to it.