• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do you define evolution?

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
It becomes tiresome to keep telling you and showing you that your strawman version of evolution is not evolution. No scientists claim birds, gorillas or any living thing magically transforms into some other living thing. The theory of evolution does not state or imply that birds, gorillas or any other living thing magically transforms into some other living thing.

You keep saying it. You keep getting told the truth. You keep repeating the same erroneous nonsense that you were shown was wrong.

Your insistence in repeating refuted claims reminds me of what has been described to me as the roller coaster of addiction.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
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?
More and more, I am seeing statements like this that make no sense and I cannot begin to understand what they mean or why they are there.

Perhaps it is her version of God of the gaps.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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. :)

First, fortunately for the nth time there is no such thing as proof in science. Since your totally ignorant of the sciences that are the basis of evolution on what basis do you make the uninformed assertions rejecting evolution in the above and throughout this thread?

Proper definition of 'mindless,' which fits the worldview of science by Fundamentalist Christians that cling 'mindless' to mythical ancient view of science, the history of life and our universe,

Pick your own synonym from the following:

https://www.google.com/search?q=min...3j0i512l2.18829j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

adjective
  1. acting or done without justification or concern for the consequences.
    "a generation of mindless vandals"

    Similar: stupid, idiotic, brainless, imbecilic, imbecile, asinine, witless, foolish, empty-headed, vacuous, unintelligent, halfwitted. dull,
    slow-witted, obtuse. weak-minded. featherbrained, doltish, blockish, dumb, moronic, pig-ignorant, dead from the neck up,
    brain-dead, cretinous, thick, thickheaded, birdbrained, pea-brained, pinheaded, dopey, dim, dimwitted, dippy, pie-faced, fat-headed,
    blockheaded, boneheaded, lamebrained, chuckle-headed, dunderheaded, wooden-headed, damfool, mutton-headed, divvy,
    dumb-***, chowder-headed, dof, dotish, unthinking, thoughtless. gratuitous, careless, wanton, indiscriminate, unreasoning, uncalled for,
    brutish, barbarous, barbaric
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
The evidence supports the conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs did not magically transform into birds though.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
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. :)
You don't appear to understand evolution or science. Not with the claims that you keep making in the face of evidence and explanations you have been provided. We have evidence of changes in DNA. Every human alive has, on average, 50 or more mutations that they do not share with their parents. Evidence that DNA changing. We have no evidence or reason to consider that these changes didn't occur in ancient species.

There is a lot of evidence for changes in chromosomes. I have changed chromosomes in onions and snails by adding specific chemicals to their respective environments.

What is electronic change? What do you mean? Is that chimps with video cameras?

Yet, you cannot show us that there is something supernatural going on.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
As stated, there are no proofs of any sort in science.

Is this you moving from your argument against mainstream biology and expanding it into an argument against all of scientific inquiry?

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.

This isn't just some scientist's opinion.
Birds factually ARE dinosaurs, just like felines, humans, etc ARE mammals.


As in: it is impossible to come up with a definition for "dinosaur" that includes ALL dinosaurs but excludes birds, without arbitrarily adding "...but not birds".

Because birds factually, anatomically, are dinosaurs.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science the highest man warning. Our destroyer.

Sophist. Phi. Dictionary said the scientist is involved in a cunning contrivance.

Says such statements once atoms floating in space began your human journey. Into human life.

You own everything as all powers as I want to access own cosmic powers myself as a human in science. I will Be the most informed scientist ever and the richest.

Humans quote but atoms are the exact same atoms floating in space as a condition today.

You want earth to be atomic blasted scattered as particles floating in space. Your final idea acted out about God statements via science.

Your head thesis.

Science by the way gave irradiated human minds it's disorders then quantified it's named status. Yet never did the same for self. Highest disorder destructive reasoning.

Science today says origin humans are one form one DNA. Human is the actual title not DNA.

Humans all babies from the cell base Female form ovary changed DNA via sex. One only place female human body.

Humans DNA not one form we are diverse DNA.

Science the theist destroyer mentality asserted again. Sophism who placed female quotes everywhere else except where it naturally belonged a real female.

One form in man's mind theist self human. Just the man. Stating I am the God.

Mind theism states by category information used he wants to be destroyed as the topic God.

How to describe the destroyer human psyche. Highest status a scientist.

Says in all man behaviour now I am by observation now Female from transgender behaviours to male male equalled answer to having sexual genitals change. A female role.

Science hence says I have won my argument about owning everything as God status and science status combined and agrees in his argument instead of just living naturally.

Achieved his God answers as a man scientist. Ignored his science warning about human observations of life changing and argues only science and not natural human life is correct.

Owning every controlled position of total arguing.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
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.
Obviously. Science can't figure out anything because science is not a living and thinking agent, it's a concept. Scientists are the ones who figure things out by using science. Science/natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. It means that those laws don't dictate what occurs in nature, instead, they describe what happens in nature. Those laws are/were created by scientists to describe how nature works.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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.

Actually there is abundant evidence of gradual incremental change (fragments)af a result of mutations in DNA, but you are too 'mindless' to make the effort to do any research in the literature to understand it.

Fossil bones are not just bones, but in the fossil bones are DNA still there in the past 50,000 to ~700,000 years. Ancient DNA as old as 50,000 years can be reconstructed and compared to related evolved species showing incremental change in the DNA over time. In older DNA in bones it is more difficult, but yes fragments are found that can be useful to compare extinct animals that are antecedents of evolved living species. The amount and kind of mutations can be calculated in predictable pattern that acts like a 'clock' to measure the rate of evolution over time. The asisstence of modern computers has greatly advance the accuracy of reconstructing ancient DNA.

The ability of related Equus species living today to interbreed is directly related to the amount of mutations in the DNA over time. Closely related species to horses can and so interbreed in the wild in Asia. More distantly related species like the Zebra and Donkey (The domestic version of the African wild ***, E. africanus.) cannot, but can artificially interbreed, but not usually fertile.

Has dinosaur DNA been found? An expert explains what we really know

"By using massive computing resources, DNA from fossils maybe 50,000 years old can be reconstructed from millions of short fragments. The oldest such samples are 700,000 years old . . . "

Example: First the diverse related Equidae, species living today can be compared to horses. Related species to modern horses that have evolved in recent geologic history can be demonstrated incrementally by comparing the anatomy of the bones and the incremental genetic evolution, back to the time that the antecedents of horses were small dog and cat sized animals that were definitely not horses. Measured genetic change overtime matches the gradual anatomical change in the fossil bone evidence.

Ancient horse DNA reveals gene flow between Eurasian and North American horses

Ancient horse DNA reveals gene flow between Eurasian and North American horses

"A new study of ancient DNA from horse fossils found in North America and Eurasia shows that horse populations on the two continents remained connected through the Bering Land Bridge, moving back and forth and interbreeding multiple times over hundreds of thousands of years.

The new findings demonstrate the genetic continuity between the horses that died out in North America at the end of the last ice age and the horses that were eventually domesticated in Eurasia and later reintroduced to North America by Europeans. The study has been accepted for publication in the journal Molecular Ecology and is currently available online.

"The results of this paper show that DNA flowed readily between Asia and North America during the ice ages, maintaining physical and evolutionary connectivity between horse populations across the Northern Hemisphere," said corresponding author Beth Shapiro, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UC Santa Cruz and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.

The study highlights the importance of the Bering Land Bridge as an ecological corridor for the movement of large animals between the continents during the Pleistocene, when massive ice sheets formed during glacial periods. Dramatically lower sea levels uncovered a vast land area known as Beringia, extending from the Lena River in Russia to the MacKenzie River in Canada, with extensive grasslands supporting populations of horses, mammoths, bison, and other Pleistocene fauna.

Paleontologists have long known that horses evolved and diversified in North America. One lineage of horses, known as the caballine horses (which includes domestic horses) dispersed into Eurasia over the Bering Land Bridge about 1 million years ago, and the Eurasian population then began to diverge genetically from the horses that remained in North America."
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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, there was no goal. There is more than one possible cause for life to go from the sea to land. The most likely was that there was a food source that was not being utilized. The existence of food that no one else was using could have led to the development of tetrapods. No conscious choice was needed. Evolution is not guided by thought. There is no goal as you seem to think.

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.

No, this has been explained to you countless times. There is no change in kind in evolution. New species or variations arise but they are always still in the same group that they came from. That is why we are still apes. It is why birds are still dinosaurs. The offspring of birds will always be birds. The offspring of gorillas will always be gorillas. Even if a new name is thought of for the new species. So the far future they may be glerps that arise from birds, and the creationists of that time may not believe it but those glerps will still be birds.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No, there was no goal. There is more than one possible cause for life to go from the sea to land. The most likely was that there was a food source that was not being utilized. The existence of food that no one else was using could have led to the development of tetrapods. No conscious choice was needed. Evolution is not guided by thought. There is no goal as you seem to think.



No, this has been explained to you countless times. There is no change in kind in evolution. New species or variations arise but they are always still in the same group that they came from. That is why we are still apes. It is why birds are still dinosaurs. The offspring of birds will always be birds. The offspring of gorillas will always be gorillas. Even if a new name is thought of for the new species. So the far future they may be glerps that arise from birds, and the creationists of that time may not believe it but those glerps will still be birds.

Glepts? GibbleLipplePolyTrilitStumpus?

Actually,the development of land life forms begins with microbial life and viruses first in the tidal zone in semi-aquatic migration to land.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, there was no goal. There is more than one possible cause for life to go from the sea to land. The most likely was that there was a food source that was not being utilized. The existence of food that no one else was using could have led to the development of tetrapods. No conscious choice was needed. Evolution is not guided by thought. There is no goal as you seem to think.



No, this has been explained to you countless times. There is no change in kind in evolution. New species or variations arise but they are always still in the same group that they came from. That is why we are still apes. It is why birds are still dinosaurs. The offspring of birds will always be birds. The offspring of gorillas will always be gorillas. Even if a new name is thought of for the new species. So the far future they may be glerps that arise from birds, and the creationists of that time may not believe it but those glerps will still be birds.

So if there is no change in kind in evolution, how do you explain where the groups as you say above, or kinds emerged from?
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, there was no goal. There is more than one possible cause for life to go from the sea to land. The most likely was that there was a food source that was not being utilized. The existence of food that no one else was using could have led to the development of tetrapods. No conscious choice was needed. Evolution is not guided by thought. There is no goal as you seem to think.

I would think that because you mention there is no goal, there are other causes for life to emerge (evolve) from sea dwellers to land dwellers. You mention food source. OK, do you think that these fish smelled the food source and desired it so much that they developed the means to get to the land to eat it, even if they had enouigh to eat in the water? Or maybe not enough to eat in the water -- they developed legs in teeny tiny steps and then eventually developed until their offspring mutants no longer could live exclusively in water?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Actually there is abundant evidence of gradual incremental change (fragments)af a result of mutations in DNA, but you are too 'mindless' to make the effort to do any research in the literature to understand it.

Fossil bones are not just bones, but in the fossil bones are DNA still there in the past 50,000 to ~700,000 years. Ancient DNA as old as 50,000 years can be reconstructed and compared to related evolved species showing incremental change in the DNA over time. In older DNA in bones it is more difficult, but yes fragments are found that can be useful to compare extinct animals that are antecedents of evolved living species. The amount and kind of mutations can be calculated in predictable pattern that acts like a 'clock' to measure the rate of evolution over time. The asisstence of modern computers has greatly advance the accuracy of reconstructing ancient DNA.

The ability of related Equus species living today to interbreed is directly related to the amount of mutations in the DNA over time. Closely related species to horses can and so interbreed in the wild in Asia. More distantly related species like the Zebra and Donkey (The domestic version of the African wild ***, E. africanus.) cannot, but can artificially interbreed, but not usually fertile.

Has dinosaur DNA been found? An expert explains what we really know

"By using massive computing resources, DNA from fossils maybe 50,000 years old can be reconstructed from millions of short fragments. The oldest such samples are 700,000 years old . . . "

Example: First the diverse related Equidae, species living today can be compared to horses. Related species to modern horses that have evolved in recent geologic history can be demonstrated incrementally by comparing the anatomy of the bones and the incremental genetic evolution, back to the time that the antecedents of horses were small dog and cat sized animals that were definitely not horses. Measured genetic change overtime matches the gradual anatomical change in the fossil bone evidence.

Ancient horse DNA reveals gene flow between Eurasian and North American horses

Ancient horse DNA reveals gene flow between Eurasian and North American horses

"A new study of ancient DNA from horse fossils found in North America and Eurasia shows that horse populations on the two continents remained connected through the Bering Land Bridge, moving back and forth and interbreeding multiple times over hundreds of thousands of years.

The new findings demonstrate the genetic continuity between the horses that died out in North America at the end of the last ice age and the horses that were eventually domesticated in Eurasia and later reintroduced to North America by Europeans. The study has been accepted for publication in the journal Molecular Ecology and is currently available online.

"The results of this paper show that DNA flowed readily between Asia and North America during the ice ages, maintaining physical and evolutionary connectivity between horse populations across the Northern Hemisphere," said corresponding author Beth Shapiro, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UC Santa Cruz and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.

The study highlights the importance of the Bering Land Bridge as an ecological corridor for the movement of large animals between the continents during the Pleistocene, when massive ice sheets formed during glacial periods. Dramatically lower sea levels uncovered a vast land area known as Beringia, extending from the Lena River in Russia to the MacKenzie River in Canada, with extensive grasslands supporting populations of horses, mammoths, bison, and other Pleistocene fauna.

Paleontologists have long known that horses evolved and diversified in North America. One lineage of horses, known as the caballine horses (which includes domestic horses) dispersed into Eurasia over the Bering Land Bridge about 1 million years ago, and the Eurasian population then began to diverge genetically from the horses that remained in North America."
Yes, I say mindless because unless you want to say that the microbes as offered in explanation for the process of evolution had minds and mentally knew what they were doing, yes -- it's mindless.
 
Top