How do you define evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll try to stick to the topic and questions, so thank you for your answer. Since you did say that environment plays a vital part in evolution, what environmental factors were there when the first cell(s) evolved into more cells?

We do not know the details of the environment as it existed on the emergence of first life. However, not knowing does not mean that any belief is true by default. Which one would be the default truth? Yours of course.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's always a virus.

And the theory of evolution does not state or imply that it would magically transform into some other life form either. Much as you keep wishing it did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Frankly, if it weren't a theory in general, we'd see humans evolving to a more advanced organism if I can use the word advance, chimpanzees evolving, and so forth. Including viruses which stay viruses.

This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just to be sure, I checked the definition of evolutionist. One dictionary says this defining evolutionist... "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection."

Believe like you believe things or believe in the sense of accepting it based on logic, reason and evidence? With the caveat that new evidence could require that the theory be revised or rejected? As opposed to your view that your understanding is universal and static.

 

[Windwalker]

I'll try to stick to the topic and questions, so thank you for your answer. Since you did say that environment plays a vital part in evolution, what environmental factors were there when the first cell(s) evolved into more cells?

I wouldn't know. I'm not sure science can say for sure what the specific environmental pressures were for specific adaptations. That would seem very speculative, aside from easy things like why polar bears have white fur in snowy environments to better conceal themselves from their prey, as a black bear would stand out in a white environment a mile away. That sort of thing.

But to clarify, the Theory of Evolution deals specifically with how animal species evolved into different forms. It doesn't address abiogenesis, or how the first life forms came to exist. I'm sure there are some who can better answer that question for you than I can.

But as a point of clarification, I do believe in God. I also accept evolution as factual. I see no conflict between these views.

 

[exchemist]

It's always a virus.

Like the peppered moth, you mean?

 

[exchemist]

Just to be sure, I checked the definition of evolutionist. One dictionary says this defining evolutionist... "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection."

I'm sure one dictionary says that.

But as that includes practically all biologists and almost any other scientifically literate person, it is hardly a useful term these days - though I suppose it might once have been in, about 1890 or so.

Wikipaedia has this to say about the use of the term nowadays:

The term is most often used by creationists to describe adherence to the scientific consensus on evolution as equivalent to a secular religion. The term is very seldom used within the scientific community, since the scientific position on evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Because evolutionary biology is the default scientific position, it is assumed that "scientists" or "biologists" are "evolutionists" unless specifically noted otherwise.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do believe that evolutionists believe that fish evolved to humans, do you agree that evolutionists believe that fish evolved to humans?

Too simplistic to be real based on an ignorance of science and an ancient mythological religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Come to think of it, I know that time has passed by since you first answered, but why would you say environment needs to be mentioned in that brief definition? How would you define evolution? And, would you say it's a theory, or fact/truth?

The overwhelming evidence in the history of life is that environmental change is the driving force for natural selection for evolution to take place.

Evolution is based on factual objective verifiable evidence and sound science, and your intentional ignorance of science is overwhelmingly apparent. Also, it is apparent you do not understand the concepts of 'proof,' theory, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on Methodological Naturalism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Frankly, if it weren't a theory in general, we'd see humans evolving to a more advanced organism if I can use the word advance, chimpanzees evolving, and so forth. Including viruses which stay viruses.

'Theory in general?' This statement has no meaning in science, and your apparent ignorance of the meaning and use of 'theory in science.' Evolution takes place over periods of hundreds of thousands and millions of years. Your intentional ignorance of science ia appalling.

We cannot see the long term evolution in a few thousand years, but yes we see evolutionary change in response to environmental change in recent history, which parallels the overwhelming evidence of long term evolution over the past millions of years.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not sure if you offered a brief explanation as to what you believe is the theory of evolution.

Understanding the scienceof evolution does not work with simplistic layman definitions. You need to educate yourself and read further asin this comprehensive reference:

Evolution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

For the role of the environment and environmental change in terms of evolution see:

Change and Isolation — New England Complex Systems Institute.

 

[night912]

Frankly, if it weren't a theory in general, we'd see humans evolving to a more advanced organism if I can use the word advance, chimpanzees evolving, and so forth. Including viruses which stay viruses.

You're free to use the word, "advance" all you want, but that word is pretty much meaningless in relation to evolution. This is because according to the theory, that's not how evolution works. Evolution does not have a "goal" in which organisms must evolve into. Evolution does not require every species to evolve into a different species.

Including viruses which stay viruses.

Your strawman can easily be refute. We do observe viruses evolving. And viruses evolve just like how animals do. Take this scenario for instance, if one kind of animal evolves into a different kind of animal, no matter how different they may appear to be from each other, the "new" kind stays being an animal. Do you now see how your strawman is easily destroyed by those who understand the Theory of Evolution, even if that understanding is just the basics of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

I wouldn't know. I'm not sure science can say for sure what the specific environmental pressures were for specific adaptations. That would seem very speculative, aside from easy things like why polar bears have white fur in snowy environments to better conceal themselves from their prey, as a black bear would stand out in a white environment a mile away. That sort of thing.

But to clarify, the Theory of Evolution deals specifically with how animal species evolved into different forms. It doesn't address abiogenesis, or how the first life forms came to exist. I'm sure there are some who can better answer that question for you than I can.

But as a point of clarification, I do believe in God. I also accept evolution as factual. I see no conflict between these views.

I am finding that genetics do not prove evolution. Yes, I know there is no proof, but genetics is certainly misleading if one wants to apply it to evolution. I'm not sure, but black bears tend to reproduce black bears, and I suppose white bears reproduce white bears. What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

Understanding the scienceof evolution does not work with simplistic layman definitions. You need to educate yourself and read further asin this comprehensive reference:

Evolution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For the role of the environment and environmental change in terms of evolution see:

Change and Isolation — New England Complex Systems Institute.

Whether terms as you call them simplistic do not define evolution does not really matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

'Theory in general?' This statement has no meaning in science, and your apparent ignorance of the meaning and use of 'theory in science.' Evolution takes place over periods of hundreds of thousands and millions of years. Your intentional ignorance of science ia appalling.

We cannot see the long term evolution in a few thousand years, but yes we see evolutionary change in response to environmental change in recent history, which parallels the overwhelming evidence of long term evolution over the past millions of years.

While human fetuses have eyes forming that move from side to front this does not prove that humans evolved from fish by "natural selection." No matter what you say. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

The overwhelming evidence in the history of life is that environmental change is the driving force for natural selection for evolution to take place.

Evolution is based on factual objective verifiable evidence and sound science, and your intentional ignorance of science is overwhelmingly apparent. Also, it is apparent you do not understand the concepts of 'proof,' theory, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on Methodological Naturalism.

Bears remain bears, white or brown, sheep remain sheep, etc. and otherwise. (Viruses remain viruses, etc.)

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sure one dictionary says that.

But as that includes practically all biologists and almost any other scientifically literate person, it is hardly a useful term these days - though I suppose it might once have been in, about 1890 or so.

Wikipaedia has this to say about the use of the term nowadays:

The term is most often used by creationists to describe adherence to the scientific consensus on evolution as equivalent to a secular religion. The term is very seldom used within the scientific community, since the scientific position on evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Because evolutionary biology is the default scientific position, it is assumed that "scientists" or "biologists" are "evolutionists" unless specifically noted otherwise.

More than one dictionary says that an evolutionist is one that believesi n evolution and "natural selection." So you can use scientist -- or biologist -- it's ok. wikipedia says a lot of things and I like wikipedia but it is not always unbiased. So in the future I might say 'someone who believes in evolution.'

 

[YoursTrue]

Like the peppered moth, you mean?

Moths usually remain moths, don't they? Viruses have not been noticed to become moths, have they?

 

[exchemist]

More than one dictionary says that an evolutionist is one that believesi n evolution and "natural selection." So you can use scientist -- or biologist -- it's ok. wikipedia says a lot of things and I like wikipedia but it is not always unbiased. So in the future I might say 'someone who believes in evolution.'

Just so long as you realise that include the entire community of scientifically literate people. So it’s rather like calling people who believe the sun is at the centre of the solar system “heliocentrists”.

 

[exchemist]

Moths usually remain moths, don't they? Viruses have not been noticed to become moths, have they?

Look up peppered moth. It’s an example of evolution being observed in action.