How do you define evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

no genetic proof of evolutionary transference.

What is that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, it happened so ....

Evolution provides an explanation that fits all the evidence.

How about your belief?

First of all, from reading the posts here, I wonder what your definition is of evolution. Because there is a list of definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Evolution | Definition of Evolution by Merriam-Webster
It's an interesting read, so do you agree with all of them? Or some of them?

 

[YoursTrue]

Since we know that it did not happen it is either a myth or a legend. What do you think that the story is?

And why does it matter how long I think that a human life is? The question is rather poorly asked since there can be sooooo many variables. Is that life good or bad? If one is tortured every day of one's life 40 may be too long. If one has a life that is extremely pleasant 50 years would not be enough.

I bring up about the general lifespans and thank you for your comment on that. Funerals are held, people can be in misery when they experience the death of a loved on. And so yes, this makes me realize that somehow we're very different from chimpanzees and cats. Etc. And this recognition of death did not just "come about," or evolve. That's my belief or recognition about it anyway.
Now as far as the flood described in the book of Genesis, I don't know that it did not happen. I realize many people (scientists and others) do not believe the Biblical account. Doing some research, I see this in part from the Smithsonian magazine (not a "creationist" outfit as far as I know):
"This quote from the Book of Genesis is part of a familiar tale --the story of Noah's flood. Scholars have known for a long time that the Bible isn't the only place this story is found--in fact, the biblical story is similar to a much older Mesopotamian flood story in the epic of Gilgamesh. Scholars usually attribute things like the worldwide occurrence of flood stories to common human experiences and our love of repeating good stories, but recently scientists have started to uncover evidence that Noah's flood may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place around the Black Sea some 7,500 years ago."
Perhaps you are aware of this article. Yes, I disagree with their dating, but -- geologically speaking, it makes sense to me that vast flooding happened in many parts of the world, even if it was throughout the centuries. Looking at some rock formations on the sides of hills as I was traveling, seeing the layers themselves so prominently one on top of the other made me think of flooding, the flood of Noah's time, although I obviously can't say if those layered hills were results of that.
Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
These researchers do not claim it was the flood as described in Genesis, but -- they do look at the geography with a different perspective.
Also, 'Great Flood' Theory Passes Science Test (aapg.org), article brings out an interesting point: out of all accounts of flooding, the flood as described in Genesis is the big one. They bring their surmises to the table; these scientists theorize what may have happened at the Black Sea. Similarly, evolution ... while conjectured, also cannot be proved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I bring up about the general lifespans and thank you for your comment on that. Funerals are held, people can be in misery when they experience the death of a loved on. And so yes, this makes me realize that somehow we're very different from chimpanzees and cats. Etc. And this recognition of death did not just "come about," or evolve. That's my belief or recognition about it anyway.
Now as far as the flood described in the book of Genesis, I don't know that it did not happen. I realize many people (scientists and others) do not believe the Biblical account. Doing some research, I see this in part from the Smithsonian magazine (not a "creationist" outfit as far as I know):
"This quote from the Book of Genesis is part of a familiar tale --the story of Noah's flood. Scholars have known for a long time that the Bible isn't the only place this story is found--in fact, the biblical story is similar to a much older Mesopotamian flood story in the epic of Gilgamesh. Scholars usually attribute things like the worldwide occurrence of flood stories to common human experiences and our love of repeating good stories, but recently scientists have started to uncover evidence that Noah's flood may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place around the Black Sea some 7,500 years ago."
Perhaps you are aware of this article. Yes, I disagree with their dating, but -- geologically speaking, it makes sense to me that vast flooding happened in many parts of the world, even if it was throughout the centuries. Looking at some rock formations on the sides of hills as I was traveling, seeing the layers themselves so prominently one on top of the other made me think of flooding, the flood of Noah's time, although I obviously can't say if those layered hills were results of that.
Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
These researchers do not claim it was the flood as described in Genesis, but -- they do look at the geography with a different perspective.
Also, 'Great Flood' Theory Passes Science Test (aapg.org), article brings out an interesting point: out of all accounts of flooding, the flood as described in Genesis is the big one. They bring their surmises to the table; these scientists theorize what may have happened at the Black Sea. Similarly, evolution ... while conjectured, also cannot be proved.

Death has existed almost since life existed. Once again, you are relying on a book of myths and ignoring the evidence. As a result you are claiming that God is a liar.

By the way, what you do is not "research". Cherry picking sources is not research.

And I see that you did not understand your source. That is only about a flood that might have been the inspiration for the myth. The Black Sea flood was nothing like the Noah's Ark myth. It was a "catastrophic flood. For cities. Not so much for people. The flood advanced so slowly that people could have crawled away from it. Buildings cannot move. They were inundated. . This is not evidence for the Noah's Ark Myth.

To even have evidence you first need a testable model. In other words you need an explanation that can be shown to be wrong with a reasonable test. This is what scientist do every day.

 

[shunyadragon]

It depends. Mahatma Ghandi, for instance, had one perspective. Not all agree with his views. But, as you say, religions, while differing, have many adherents. And some are doctors, lawyers, and leaders of state. Etc. Many of those also believe in evolution. And adhere to different belief systems.

Nonetheless the different religious views are subjective and based on a diversity of conflicting beliefs.
The science of evolution is based on 'objective verifiable evidence,' and represents the uniform support of 95%+ of all the scientist in the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

Death has existed almost since life existed. Once again, you are relying on a book of myths and ignoring the evidence. As a result you are claiming that God is a liar.

By the way, what you do is not "research". Cherry picking sources is not research.

And I see that you did not understand your source. That is oabout a flood that might have been the inspiration for the myth. The Black Sea flood was nothing like the Noah's Ark myth. It was a "catastrophic flood. For cities. Not so much for people. The flood advanced so slowly that people could have crawled away from it. Buildings cannot move. They were inundated. . This is not evidence for the Noah's Ark Myth.

To even have evidence you first need a testable model. In other words you need an explanation that can be shown to be wrong with a reasonable test. This is what scientist do every day.

I don't understand why you say I am calling God a liar. If you would, kindly explain.
And about the source, yes, I do understand they weren't necessarily saying the flood topography is related to the flood as described in the Genesis account, but rather that a catastrophic flood affected the Black Sea area. And more recently, if I recall correctly, a lot of refuse was floating through the ocean when there was a horrific tsunami not too long ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Death has existed almost since life existed. Once again, you are relying on a book of myths and ignoring the evidence. As a result you are claiming that God is a liar.

By the way, what you do is not "research". Cherry picking sources is not research.

And I see that you did not understand your source. That is only about a flood that might have been the inspiration for the myth. The Black Sea flood was nothing like the Noah's Ark myth. It was a "catastrophic flood. For cities. Not so much for people. The flood advanced so slowly that people could have crawled away from it. Buildings cannot move. They were inundated. . This is not evidence for the Noah's Ark Myth.

To even have evidence you first need a testable model. In other words you need an explanation that can be shown to be wrong with a reasonable test. This is what scientist do every day.

First, your last statement. It is because there are no tests proving evolution that is in part why I say I don't believe it. By testable I mean as in a lab. Not lookalikes or figuring how old a fossil is. (or cave paintings.)
Scientists have not seen any animal mutating and becoming another ?family? shall we say?, as I've been reading about birds and kinds and families. I'm not that old and I've only been reading about these things for a few years, my major interest has not been how or why evolution is or is not true -- it is, however, taking up a lot of time for me now, and I'm not going back to school to become a scientist. Although if I did go back to school, I believe I might like to become a researcher rather than an arts major, but not about fossils and surmising how they fit in the Darwinian picture, but rather about studying genetics. Or viruses. But yes, the examination of such things is fascinating.

 

[We Never Know]

First, your last statement. It is because there are no tests proving evolution that is in part why I say I don't believe it. By testable I mean as in a lab. Not lookalikes or figuring how old a fossil is. (or cave paintings.)
Scientists have not seen any animal mutating and becoming another ?family? shall we say?, as I've been reading about birds and kinds and families. I'm not that old and I've only been reading about these things for a few years, my major interest has not been how or why evolution is or is not true -- it is, however, taking up a lot of time for me now, and I'm not going back to school to become a scientist. Although if I did go back to school, I believe I might like to become a researcher rather than an arts major, but not about fossils and surmising how they fit in the Darwinian picture, but rather about studying genetics. Or viruses. But yes, the examination of such things is fascinating.

Let me ask you one simple question. There are millions of species(even millions have since died), some huge, some microscopic.... Do you really believe noah had two each of them all on his ark?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand why you say I am calling God a liar. If you would, kindly explain.
And about the source, yes, I do understand they weren't necessarily saying the flood topography is related to the flood as described in the Genesis account, but rather that a catastrophic flood affected the Black Sea area. And more recently, if I recall correctly, a lot of refuse was floating through the ocean when there was a horrific tsunami not too long ago.

All of the evidence out there supports the theory of evolution. There is no evidence at all for the Adam and Eve myth. All of the evidence out there tells us that there was no Flood of Noah.

Since only God supposedly has the force of creation you are in effect claiming that God made that false evidence and that is a form of lying. If those two myths of the Bible are true God had to hide it by planting false information.

Your last two claims appear to be rather odd.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, your last statement. It is because there are no tests proving evolution that is in part why I say I don't believe it. By testable I mean as in a lab. Not lookalikes or figuring how old a fossil is. (or cave paintings.)
Scientists have not seen any animal mutating and becoming another ?family? shall we say?, as I've been reading about birds and kinds and families. I'm not that old and I've only been reading about these things for a few years, my major interest has not been how or why evolution is or is not true -- it is, however, taking up a lot of time for me now, and I'm not going back to school to become a scientist. Although if I did go back to school, I believe I might like to become a researcher rather than an arts major, but not about fossils and surmising how they fit in the Darwinian picture, but rather about studying genetics. Or viruses. But yes, the examination of such things is fascinating.

You have ti backwards again. Scientific tests work by disproving ideas. Nothing is ever absolutely proven in the sciences, but ideas can be shown to be wrong. Like yours for example. Since you just admitted that you do not understand the scientific method or scientific evidence we should take a short detour and go over those ideas.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have ti backwards again. Scientific tests work by disproving ideas. Nothing is ever absolutely proven in the sciences, but ideas can be shown to be wrong. Like yours for example. Since you just admitted that you do not understand the scientific method or scientific evidence we should take a short detour and go over those ideas.

I don't mind that, but would you say evolution has been proved or disproved by tests? I believe water can be formed by combining two parts hydrogen with one part oxygen. So I guess that's proof (?) that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. ? And so there is no disproof of that. But now, in reference to evolution, what is there to prove or disprove? But go ahead...

 

[YoursTrue]

All of the evidence out there supports the theory of evolution. There is no evidence at all for the Adam and Eve myth. All of the evidence out there tells us that there was no Flood of Noah.

Since only God supposedly has the force of creation you are in effect claiming that God made that false evidence and that is a form of lying. If those two myths of the Bible are true God had to hide it by planting false information.

Your last two claims appear to be rather odd.

Oh, I see. Thank you. Allow me to respond as I think about it. The Bible says that Adam was formed from the ground. Or dust. I wasn't there. So I'm not sure exactly what happened, but -- I can guess or extrapolate what it could mean. After all, scientists do say that it is possible (likely perhaps?) that dust from outer space fell on the earth, causing life and evolution. (Do not take this to mean that I believe that evolution is how plants and other forms of life eventually appeared on the earth.)
Moses wasn't there either, so I can only suppose he got the information somehow, right now I can only guess, but I see it as a possibility that the physical composition of Adam's body was that as taken from the elements in earth. However it happened, as I said, I wasn't there. So the terminology is broad. That is how I understand it. As far as the rib from Adam, again -- it does seem clear to me that genetics are highly transportable (transmissible) from body to body. And I learned that human ribs can regrow, so -- how it happened in particularity is not knowable to me. It seems that scientists have concluded that ribs can regrow. While again, I wasn't there to take a video of the process, I feel it is, in the broad scope, harmonious with what is known scientifically. While I speak of genetics in a broad sense certainly as a learner, I remember that there is a genetic "gap" between bonobos and humans that has not been authentically discovered as to how and why. By authentic, I mean absolute evidence of -- forms changing and genetic transfer. And intermediary forms (UCA?) dying out without recourse or leaving their genetic footprint behind showing any type of evolutionary process moving on in actuality.
Furthermore, as I think about it again, and your points, I realize the short time I believe from what the Bible says that cognizant, thinking humans have been on the earth. This is relevant for me because it does not make sense to me that in the literally hundreds of thousands of years that scientists claim anything close to humans have been around they (the human race of any sort) would not have categorized changes they observed in animal morphing. Yes, morphing. Meaning changing from something like Tazmanian devils to kangaroos.I know some would say they were too busy finding food, but -- I find that hardly believable since in a rather short time humans have developed microscopes, harnessed electricity, among other things. (and go to the moon.)
We can regenerate! Researchers reveal our ribs regrow if damaged - and say the same could be true for our entire skeleton | Daily Mail Online

 

[YoursTrue]

You have ti backwards again. Scientific tests work by disproving ideas. Nothing is ever absolutely proven in the sciences, but ideas can be shown to be wrong. Like yours for example. Since you just admitted that you do not understand the scientific method or scientific evidence we should take a short detour and go over those ideas.

Here's the thing with me and science. I wish I could have taken courses in electrical engineering because I am fascinated by these things. But that's applying what knowledge we (humans) have, what researchers have done, and yes, I find it fascinating and fantastic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nonetheless the different religious views are subjective and based on a diversity of conflicting beliefs.
The science of evolution is based on 'objective verifiable evidence,' and represents the uniform support of 95%+ of all the scientist in the world.

Certainly many people believe in evolution as the means of causing humans to be on this earth. If there were no humans to form opinions, we wouldn't need to think about how plant life and the animals came about. Because there wouldn't be any humans to think about these things. I don't think the animals or plants wonder, and I'm hardly being funny here.
The fact that many or most scientists believe in evolution as to how living matter grew on this earth does not mean, however, that it is true. It's true for them -- perhaps -- but doesn't mean that it is the truth and nothing but. What comes to mind in particular are the cave paintings, dating of these and of fossils, including those of fish which apparently have been found at the top part of mountains, and the vestiges of flooding, whether worldwide or not, seen (observed) in layered earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Certainly many people believe in evolution as the means of causing humans to be on this earth. If there were no humans to form opinions, we wouldn't need to think about how plant life and the animals came about. Because there wouldn't be any humans to think about these things. I don't think the animals or plants wonder, and I'm hardly being funny here.
The fact that many or most scientists believe in evolution as to how living matter grew on this earth does not mean, however, that it is true. It's true for them -- perhaps -- but doesn't mean that it is the truth and nothing but. What comes to mind in particular are the cave paintings, dating of these and of fossils, including those of fish which apparently have been found at the top part of mountains, and the vestiges of flooding, whether worldwide or not, seen (observed) in layered earth.

The fossils found on mountain are in folded and faulted rock formations millions of years old like limestone that can only form in shallow seas over a period of hundreds of thousands of years like ariund Bermuda today and CANNOT form in floods.. These rock formations extend down into the mountains and only outcrop and are revealed in hundreds of thousands of years of weathering with rocks and boulders of these formations with fossils in the mountain sides, river beds down to the sea as weathered pebbles..

The Black Sea flood was well defined by the sediments as being ONLY around the Black Sea much older than any flood as described in the Bible.. NO, there are no vestiges of a world wide. All the known sediments around the world are well defined geologically as the source, and there is absolutely no evidence for a flood on the scale described in the Bible.

Again your knowledge of science, geology and evolution is appalling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I see. Thank you. Allow me to respond as I think about it. The Bible says that Adam was formed from the ground. Or dust. I wasn't there. So I'm not sure exactly what happened, but -- I can guess or extrapolate what it could mean. After all, scientists do say that it is possible (likely perhaps?) that dust from outer space fell on the earth, causing life and evolution. (Do not take this to mean that I believe that evolution is how plants and other forms of life eventually appeared on the earth.)
Moses wasn't there either, so I can only suppose he got the information somehow, right now I can only guess, but I see it as a possibility that the physical composition of Adam's body was that as taken from the elements in earth. However it happened, as I said, I wasn't there. So the terminology is broad. That is how I understand it. As far as the rib from Adam, again -- it does seem clear to me that genetics are highly transportable (transmissible) from body to body. And I learned that human ribs can regrow, so -- how it happened in particularity is not knowable to me. It seems that scientists have concluded that ribs can regrow. While again, I wasn't there to take a video of the process, I feel it is, in the broad scope, harmonious with what is known scientifically. While I speak of genetics in a broad sense certainly as a learner, I remember that there is a genetic "gap" between bonobos and humans that has not been authentically discovered as to how and why. By authentic, I mean absolute evidence of -- forms changing and genetic transfer. And intermediary forms (UCA?) dying out without recourse or leaving their genetic footprint behind showing any type of evolutionary process moving on in actuality.
Furthermore, as I think about it again, and your points, I realize the short time I believe from what the Bible says that cognizant, thinking humans have been on the earth. This is relevant for me because it does not make sense to me that in the literally hundreds of thousands of years that scientists claim anything close to humans have been around they (the human race of any sort) would not have categorized changes they observed in animal morphing. Yes, morphing. Meaning changing from something like Tazmanian devils to kangaroos.I know some would say they were too busy finding food, but -- I find that hardly believable since in a rather short time humans have developed microscopes, harnessed electricity, among other things. (and go to the moon.)
We can regenerate! Researchers reveal our ribs regrow if damaged - and say the same could be true for our entire skeleton | Daily Mail Online

Okay, just because you do not understand something does not make it wrong. The question you should be asking yourself is:

Is there any reliable evidence for my beliefs?

There does not appear to be any reliable evidence for your beliefs. All you have is a book of myths that has been refuted time and time again. Did we go over the concept of evidence? A handwaving argument is not evidence. You need a testable concept first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly many people believe in evolution as the means of causing humans to be on this earth. If there were no humans to form opinions, we wouldn't need to think about how plant life and the animals came about. Because there wouldn't be any humans to think about these things. I don't think the animals or plants wonder, and I'm hardly being funny here.
The fact that many or most scientists believe in evolution as to how living matter grew on this earth does not mean, however, that it is true. It's true for them -- perhaps -- but doesn't mean that it is the truth and nothing but. What comes to mind in particular are the cave paintings, dating of these and of fossils, including those of fish which apparently have been found at the top part of mountains, and the vestiges of flooding, whether worldwide or not, seen (observed) in layered earth.

There are no vestiges of flooding. The sediments deposited do not match any of the various flood models that believers in the Ark myth can come up with. That alone refutes their claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

no genetic proof of evolutionary transference.

We have no DNA of a fossil of hundreds of million years old, nor was genetics part of the prediction.

We are talking about fossils, not about genetics.

Please address the actual question: How does Tiktaalik NOT support (not "prove") evolution theory?

To recap:

1. Evolution theory says at one point ocean animals gradually migrated to land and evolved into tetrapods
2. since it's gradual, evolution predicts "transitional" species which has both typical fish anatomical features as well as typical tetrapod features, and lists a few specifics.
3. based on what was already known from the fossil record and the genetic record, they estimated an age
4. based on what was already known from the fossil record, the genetic record and comparative anatomy, they predicted the anatomical feature and the environmental habitat.

Then they went looking for exposed rock of that age which would have been the required habitat all those millions of years ago. They pinpointed that location and started digging.

They found it and it matched all predictions exactly.



How does this fossil NOT support evolution theory?
Why does this fossil even exist, if evolution isn't accurate?

 

[SkepticThinker]

First of all, from reading the posts here, I wonder what your definition is of evolution. Because there is a list of definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Evolution | Definition of Evolution by Merriam-Webster
It's an interesting read, so do you agree with all of them? Or some of them?

I've given it to you several times during our discussions.

Biological evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics in populations of organisms over successive generations.

 

[gnostic]

And about the source, yes, I do understand they weren't necessarily saying the flood topography is related to the flood as described in the Genesis account, but rather that a catastrophic flood affected the Black Sea area.

Two problems with you linking Genesis Flood to the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis.

One, the Black Sea scenario only covered the shoreline of the Black Sea. It had no affect to the other side of mountain ranges of Anatolia, Armenia and Caucasus. The BSDH certainly didn’t cover Mount Ararat, the supposed landing side of the Ark.

Another thing, it the lack of much geography in Genesis before the Flood, so we lack details as to where Noah was born, where he lived and where he built his ark.

So you don’t know he live on the coast of the Black Sea or somewhere in Mesopotamia or the Levant.

Two. The BSDH has been estimated to be dated to 5500 BCE. While the estimated date to the Flood of Genesis points to some times in the second half-life the 3rd millennium BCE (meaning between 2500 and 2000 BCE), then your claim is bogus.

Plus, if we were to believe in the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as Moses flourishing in the 2nd millennium BCE, then there are only 292 years between Noah boarding the ark and Abraham’s birth, according to Genesis 11...NOT 3000 YEARS!

Do the maths, YoursTrue.

Lastly, the BSDH is a hypothesis, that have never been verified. All there are assumptions, with little in the “evidence” department. It is absurd to accept a hypothesis that haven’t been tested.