How do you define evolution?

[shunyadragon]

That is just a story, what you have to show is that there is a step by step path where the light sensitive cell evolved in to a modern eye

1 each step has to be achievable in 1 generation (one mutation for example).

2 each step has to have a selective benefit

You failed to read nor understand the numerous references involving the evolution of the eye, which answers your questions in terms of the evolving genes related to the eye. Your supposed 'arguing from ignorance' reflects your intentional ignorance of science.

 

[leroy]

You failed to read nor understand the numerous references involving the evolution of the eye, which answers your questions in terms of the evolving genes related to the eye. Your supposed 'arguing from ignorance' reflects your intentional ignorance of science.

So will this be another 100 pages long thread where you make a bunch of assertions but provide zero evidence?

 

[nPeace]

So will this be another 100 pages long thread where you make a bunch of assertions but provide zero evidence?

Yup. You can bet your whole life's savings on it, if you are willing to respond to parroted nonsense.

 

[Polymath257]

same as the corona virus, a hoax

I hope that is a joke.

 

[Polymath257]

That is just a story, what you have to show is that there is a step by step path where the light sensitive cell evolved in to a modern eye

1 each step has to be achievable in 1 generation (one mutation for example)

2 each step has to have a selective benefit

Not even close to what is required.

First of all, there are very few systems that we understand down to the genetic level even in species alive today. For example, the complete set of genes responsible for the development of the eye. We know *some* of the genes involved, of course.

When you get to asking about species that are now extinct, it is going to be impossible to know what the specifics of their genetics is and how that changed over the generations.

To go beyond even that and require that we know the environment in enough detail to know which mutations would be advantageous and which would not be is, again, so far beyond our capabilities today as to be laughable.

Next, even if we had that level of detail in our understanding of developmental genetics and ancient environments, your requirements above are NOT what is required for an evolutionary sequence to occur.

In particular, it is NOT required that every single mutation give a selective advantage. Mutations do not have to happen one at a time. And events like recombination broaden the range of possibilities even in a population without mutations.

So, not only are you asking for the impossible, you are asking for things that are not required for the results claimed.

 

[Earthtank]

I hope that is a joke.

someone gets it. Thank you

 

[shunyadragon]

So will this be another 100 pages long thread where you make a bunch of assertions but provide zero evidence?

You failed to read nor understand the numerous references involving the evolution of the eye, which answers your questions in terms of the evolving genes related to the eye. Your supposed 'arguing from ignorance' reflects your intentional ignorance of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution is an “umbrella term” that has many definitions.

In the context of biology there are 3 relevant definitions

1 organism change and adapt

2a common ancestry, (we share a common ancestor with chimps )

2b Universal common ancestry (all life shares a common ancestor)

3 The complexity and diversity of life is mainly due to random variation and natural selection (eyes evolved from simpler organs by this mechanism)

Note that accepting any of these doesn’t imply that you have to accept the other 2

Number 3 is not an accepted definition in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

someone gets it. Thank you

or sarcasm?

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is an “umbrella term” that has many definitions

I can agree with that

In the context of biology there are 3 relevant definitions

1 organism change and adapt

2a common ancestry, (we share a common ancestor with chimps )

2b Universal common ancestry (all life shares a common ancestor)

3 The complexity and diversity of life is mainly due to random variation and natural selection (eyes evolved from simpler organs by this mechanism)

Note that accepting any of these doesn’t imply that you have to accept the other 2

OK I understand. So while scientists will often say that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, it seems they have no answers or viable theory perhaps as to how "life" got started, and...more importantly, continued. The things said to have evolved were alive, weren't they? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe science does have an answer. As to how did "life" evolve.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is just a story, what you have to show is that there is a step by step path where the light sensitive cell evolved in to a modern eye

I would say so. But that's what I'm asking about the entire theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

same as the corona virus, a hoax

Oh?

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is not redefined, and no natural selection does not automatically equate common ancestry. More than 200 years of scientific research, Objective verifiable evidence, and discoveries involving Physics, Biology, Organic Chemistry, Geology, Paleontology, Genetics, Comparative Anatomy determined that the common ancestry of evolution of life on earth is the only explanation that fits the evidence.

When you say natural selection doesn't equate common ancestry, I would say that's true, but do those "naturally selected" have a common ancestor is the question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is not redefined, and no natural selection does not automatically equate common ancestry. More than 200 years of scientific research, Objective verifiable evidence, and discoveries involving Physics, Biology, Organic Chemistry, Geology, Paleontology, Genetics, Comparative Anatomy determined that the common ancestry of evolution of life on earth is the only explanation that fits the evidence.

While the theory of evolution may not be redefined, the placement of artifacts in the branch of theory certainly may be when fossils portray something different than what first thought.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is an “umbrella term” that has many definitions.

In the context of biology there are 3 relevant definitions

1 organism change and adapt

2a common ancestry, (we share a common ancestor with chimps )

2b Universal common ancestry (all life shares a common ancestor)

3 The complexity and diversity of life is mainly due to random variation and natural selection (eyes evolved from simpler organs by this mechanism)

Note that accepting any of these doesn’t imply that you have to accept the other 2

Oh boy, now I wonder what you mean by "relevant definitions." So I won't ask.

 

[YoursTrue]

God can't be proven (except by psychic prediction).

Why, then, must we define evolution? This is tantamount to putting the burden of proof on scientists.

Twilight Hue mentioned that the environment is also a factor. Consider SETI (Search For Extra Terrestrial Intelligence), which focuses somewhat on earth-like environments (water, etc.) Of course, that is a search for life as we know it....but what about life as we don't know it?

InfraBenji said that evolution relies on natural selection. Entirely? Could there be a fluke in which a less able species dominated? Not everyone has married a perfect mate....some mates are terrible.

The Chixulub impact changed evolution. It dimmed the sun, which killed or weakened a lot of plants, and that greatly altered the food chain, so the biggest carnivores at the top of that chain were harmed the most (wiped out, except their offspring (birds, lizards, and mammals) still exist).

The K-Pg layer (formerly KT layer) poignantly demarks the impact and mass extinctions, but also delineates the "punctuated equilibrium" that ensued. Punctuated equilibrium is a hitherto unexplained speciation at the boundary. I think that I can elucidate this speciation: When many members of a species die off, the surviving members must mate to procreate. Yet, that produces more inbreeding, and that inbreeding produces more mutations, which gives "natural selection" more choices to winnow out. Once mass extinction occurred, there were new ground rules for natural selection (didn't have to evade huge dinosaurs if huge dinosaurs no longer existed). So, some mutations gained a greater foothold than others, thus accelerating evolution.

In summary, natural selection was not the only factor stimulating evolution, but diminished population created more mutations for natural selection to select.

Deeje asserted that we have no proof that whales were once small land mammals about the size of dogs. I agree....they could have been the size of blue whales, treated like dogs, but not properly trained to not jump on their owners or others while walking them. As a consequence, the owners of the dog/whales could have ordered them into the ocean (you don't want a pet blue whale jumping on you). If it lifts a leg......run.

How did we start with apes, which blended perfectly with their environment, then evolve to man, who's Republicans deny Global Warming, rape the environment, poison the streams, cut the timber, constantly assert that they are fighting evil (thou shalt not kill) and assert that they have a greater intelligence? Didn't evolution go in reverse?

The first thing people did when they realized that the melting poles allowed a polar bear to mate with a brown bear was to shoot (kill) the child. Good thing we're so smart, right?

Suave says that evolution (to a different species) is about not being able to procreate with another species. Yet, there are plenty of different species that do (horses and donkeys). Mule offspring can "sometimes" mate, though there is a chromosome mismatch.

Lions and tigers breed ligers and tigons which can have offspring.

Sometimes (especially in the case of insects), inability to procreate is a matter of geometry....the sexual apparatus physically won't fit (like playing Tetris with the wrong pieces).

List of genetic hybrids - Wikipedia

I would think that if a scientist theorizes something, there should be/could be, a matter of reason (proof perhaps?) as to why he said that.

 

[Deeje]

Only by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Well I guess that all depends on whether the people who purport to "know what they are talking about" ....actually do.

I see that science likes to blur the line between what they know and what they assume to be true. A large part of the evolutionary theory (especially its first premise) is based on assumption...not provable facts.

 

[Deeje]

Because the meaning of the word is not the same.

Who gave it its meaning? Don't tell me...let me guess. The same ones who designed the clades.....no?

See that line on the bottom...? It says "Primate Ancestor"......what was that exactly? And who are all those other "common ancestors" pictured by the branch points that we see routinely on these graphs that remain unidentified to this day? Lots of speculation.....but no actual proof that they ever existed. Why can science never produce or identify a single one?

You can't build on something that has no solid foundation....but that doesn't stop science from stating their speculations as fact. A castle built on matchsticks....

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.

No you cannot "see it happeneing".....no scientist has ever observed evolution....at best they have observed adaptation in a lab with fish, flies or bacteria......all remained true to their taxonomic families, producing new varieties within their own families. Not a single one started to become something other than what they were at the beginning. Darwin didn't see that either. All adaptations remained true to their "kind".

Selective breeding is genetic manipulation by man....not nature.

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.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis.....meaning: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
Supposition is not fact....nor is there ever a finishing point.......and the things studied have never taken evolution out of its definition. It remains a "theory" to this day, because it is no more provable to us than our God is to you.

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.

Sorry but that theory would be quite easily provable.....you would have to take the leap first of course....but no doubt about the conclusion ...eh?

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!!.

Giving a well known word a different meaning just because it is prefixed with the word "scientific" doesn't change anything, except for those who want to believe it matters.....I don't happen to view science as my religion.....that is not my scripture.

 

[firedragon]

I think it’s just a matter of dates with Barnasha being used in post biblical literature. Do you mean The Hebrew expression "son of man” (בן–אדם) Ben Adam or in Aramaic Bar Adam? Yeah if I remember correctly and I could be wrong but yes I believe they are interchangeable. Just depends on the date of the material for which one is used. I hope that helps, if not, well that’ll tell you how rusty I am lol.

Hmm. You mean the Barnasha is a newer usage in comparison to the Hebrew Ben Adam.

How about Pistos Doolos. What would be the Aramaic translation or rather, think of it from the Aramaic origin. I mean Palestinian Aramaic. If Pistos Doolos was translated from the original Aramaic, what do you think the original would have been?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. People like to redefine it so they can pretend that natural selection automatically equals common ancestry.

You are the only person I have ever heard make that wild claim. It doesn't make any sense at all.