How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

The problem continues that you make statements about science with a total lack of knowledge of science, and a religious agenda to justify your misinformation. After making many statements on the misinformation of science you invoke religious assertions.

Evolution and the diversification of species takes over periods of millions of years closely related species can interbreed to a degree, but because evolutionary isolation they do not produce natural wild populations that are adapted to survive.

They do not produce natural wild populations that are adapted to survive? They don't?

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you ever talked with a scientist on the subject? I find it hard to believe you went through evidences and found it inconclusive or at worst at odds with what we have observed. Can you give an example of something that seems counter to the evidence at hand? We have observed evolution in fast evolving species before.

Do you trust DNA ancestry tests? Or DNA paternal tests? If not please explain why.

If, for instance, a dna test indicated that I was related to someone I never knew of, I might wonder about it. Meaning just how close would I be?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ok....here's the problem I have with evolution: cats and lions do not mate. Something got lost in the making, shall we say, or mating, or evolution process. It just isn't there. The in-betweens got lost? Yes, speculation is discussed among scientists, but -- again - there is no real, substantial proof of this philosophical logic. So what that means: it makes more sense for me to believe that God made/allowed these types, subspecies, subtypes, to occur (however HE did it and however a scientist categorizes it). Then these 'members' of the same family cannot interbreed. How it happened, how did God do it? I do not know, but -- it also is clear to me (now) that evolution is not the answer, because of these unanswered questions, and I am inclined to believe that life in the form of animals, came or comes from God.

There exist fossils that reveal the transitions in organisms. You just deny that they reveal that without even understanding. What do you expect a transitional form to possess? For birds for instance, do your envision a dinosaur ancestor with half a wing?

Families are made up with species that do not interbreed. Two species do not have to belong to two different families to be reproductively isolated. Do you think there may be a sound reason why tigers and house cats don't mate? Can you think of anything that would prevent a 12 foot long, 500 pound male tiger from mating with a 10 pound, 18 inch long house cat?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do believe that genes can pass on certain characteristics of a personality. I also believe ideas can affect the brain, or thinking process, and may also affect the inner workings of our dna. I don't KNOW this from proof yet, but I think it's possible.

There is no evidence or indication that people or any other organism can effect their DNA by thinking about it. What would the mechanism be? Telekinesis?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They do not produce natural wild populations that are adapted to survive? They don't?

Haven't you seen the herds of tiger tabbies? They are 4 feet tall in front and 9 inches tall in back. Or vice versa, depending on whether the sire is an Indian tiger or a Siberian.

 

[Friend of Mara]

If, for instance, a dna test indicated that I was related to someone I never knew of, I might wonder about it. Meaning just how close would I be?

I'm just trying to see where your understanding of the science breaks down. For example most people who are against evolution still understand the legitimacy of a parental dna test. They understand and accept that their own genes have gone to their offspring in a way that can be understood by DNA.

Most can still accept the way ancestry tests can show you where your lineage comes from. Though there are those that still don't accept this.

But then the very next logical step that is absolutely required to be true if all before it is true is rejected? That we share a common ancestry with other species is just as well understood by the exact same mechanisms that are done with DNA testing to see if a father and child are directly related. In fact if evolution and common ancestry was WRONG as a theory then it would follow each paternity test is also bunk.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm just trying to see where your understanding of the science breaks down. For example most people who are against evolution still understand the legitimacy of a parental dna test. They understand and accept that their own genes have gone to their offspring in a way that can be understood by DNA.

Most can still accept the way ancestry tests can show you where your lineage comes from. Though there are those that still don't accept this.

But then the very next logical step that is absolutely required to be true if all before it is true is rejected? That we share a common ancestry with other species is just as well understood by the exact same mechanisms that are done with DNA testing to see if a father and child are directly related. In fact if evolution and common ancestry was WRONG as a theory then it would follow each paternity test is also bunk.

Naturally the closer a relative, the closer the similarity of the DNA.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence or indication that people or any other organism can effect their DNA by thinking about it. What would the mechanism be? Telekinesis?

I didn't say they would think about their dna as if that would change things. But that's my opinion, and opinions can be wrong. Right? Anyway, at this point --
(Have a nice day.)

 

[YoursTrue]

There exist fossils that reveal the transitions in organisms. You just deny that they reveal that without even understanding. What do you expect a transitional form to possess? For birds for instance, do your envision a dinosaur ancestor with half a wing?

Families are made up with species that do not interbreed. Two species do not have to belong to two different families to be reproductively isolated. Do you think there may be a sound reason why tigers and house cats don't mate? Can you think of anything that would prevent a 12 foot long, 500 pound male tiger from mating with a 10 pound, 18 inch long house cat?

Again -- if someone could virtually see (as in virtual reality) a transition in real life establishing a permanent change from something like a fish to land walkers, that would be rather vital evidence.
I know that (some) people believe it happened long ago, they say humans were not around that long to see or record any such changes, etc. and etc. And then conclude that the basic darwinian theory therefore must be true.

 

[metis]

When one finds a human fossil or reads about one that's over seven million years out of four+ billion years, please let me know.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Naturally the closer a relative, the closer the similarity of the DNA.

And this trend continues yes?

 

[shunyadragon]

They do not produce natural wild populations that are adapted to survive? They don't?

Well, ah . . . your moving the goal posts. You claimed they could not interbreed to produce offspring. Yes, in the wild some related species do produce hybrids and viable populations contributing to the diversity in both animals and plants.

Jumping around and changing statements does not change the fact that you are intentionally ignorant to science. You need to do your own home work and education to respond intelligently to threads where science was involved.

Here is a reference to research articles on natural hybridization in animals, and some describe how this relates to evolution:Google Scholar. Hybridization contributes to the diversity in populations and can be traced through related species over time to confirm the evolutionary relationship to distantly related species that can no longer interbreed.

I will nail your arguments to the wall every time you persist in this foolishness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- if someone could virtually see (as in virtual reality) a transition in real life establishing a permanent change from something like a fish to land walkers, that would be rather vital evidence.
I know that (some) people believe it happened long ago, they say humans were not around that long to see or record any such changes, etc. and etc. And then conclude that the basic darwinian theory therefore must be true.

So, you demand impossible evidence from science, but offer no evidence of your own to contradict or refute the claims of science. Are you familiar with the concept of a "double standard"?

People do not conclude that evolution is true, because there are no eye witnesses and it happened millions of years ago. That is just outrageous silliness. The theory is accepted (not believed in a religious sense) based on the internal and external logic of the theory and a rational review of the evidence.

Your statement does tell me how much you actually read and understand the posts here by those that present the science and the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't say they would think about their dna as if that would change things. But that's my opinion, and opinions can be wrong. Right? Anyway, at this point --
(Have a nice day.)

What are you saying then? Please explain your opinion and its basis.

 

[shunyadragon]

Naturally the closer a relative, the closer the similarity of the DNA.

A characteristic of how life forms evolve.

 

[night912]

Again -- if someone could virtually see (as in virtual reality) a transition in real life establishing a permanent change from something like a fish to land walkers, that would be rather vital evidence.

Have you been living under a rock your entire life? Have you never seen or heard of an animal known as a frog?

Here it is, just like what you said, "..a transition in real life establishing a permanent change from something like a fish to land walkers."

Seriously though, yes, if something like that was found then it would be the biggest scientific discovery within the last 150 years. That would have a significant impact on the scientific community, specifically in biology. Such evidence like that would make scientists reject the Theory of Evolution. A new model would be needed to explain how organisms can have a drastic change in such a short amount of time. But until such evidence is found, we're sticking with the most accurate model we currently have, which is the Theory of Evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm just trying to see where your understanding of the science breaks down. For example most people who are against evolution still understand the legitimacy of a parental dna test. They understand and accept that their own genes have gone to their offspring in a way that can be understood by DNA.

Most can still accept the way ancestry tests can show you where your lineage comes from. Though there are those that still don't accept this.

But then the very next logical step that is absolutely required to be true if all before it is true is rejected? That we share a common ancestry with other species is just as well understood by the exact same mechanisms that are done with DNA testing to see if a father and child are directly related. In fact if evolution and common ancestry was WRONG as a theory then it would follow each paternity test is also bunk.

Looking back at your post here, let me ask you a question in ref to evolution, and the theory of. There is no mention of God being involved in the situation, is there? I mean it appears to be a godless type of theory, as if God were not involved in any sort of activity regarding the various forms of life on the earth,.How do you see it? Does the theory offer any possibility that God is involved in the 'making,' (or evolving) from beginning to current times? Or is it just by nature (however that's explained) that living forms came about? That is one question I have about the theory, including the so-called evidence of the theory in reference to fossils and dna, basically the entire theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

A characteristic of how life forms evolve.

I won't ask you to explain because that seems to be your stand on things; i.e., not explaining or defining what you mean. Anyway -- (have a nice evening). BTW, I've been reading a few things about soil. Is it alive? But it does have dna in it. I'm sure you have an explanation, ok, don't kid yourself, I read part of the explanation. So again -- does soil have its own dna, or does it have only the dna that sunk in from dead carcasses or plants?

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you been living under a rock your entire life? Have you never seen or heard of an animal known as a frog?

Here it is, just like what you said, "..a transition in real life establishing a permanent change from something like a fish to land walkers."

Seriously though, yes, if something like that was found then it would be the biggest scientific discovery within the last 150 years. That would have a significant impact on the scientific community, specifically in biology. Such evidence like that would make scientists reject the Theory of Evolution. A new model would be needed to explain how organisms can have a drastic change in such a short amount of time. But until such evidence is found, we're sticking with the most accurate model we currently have, which is the Theory of Evolution.

Yes about amazing things like tadpoles, but tadpoles grow up to be frogs. And plus, tadpoles come from frogs. Insofar as science knows, right? And I DO mean know, not conjecture, that frogs come from something else. Yes, we KNOW tadpoles come from frogs. We also KNOW they develop to be frogs. You want to say this is evidence (I can't use the word prove, because 'evidently' I'm not supposed to use the word 'proof' in science) of evolution? (I don't think so, apparently you do. But I don't.) Thanks for the post, though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you been living under a rock your entire life? Have you never seen or heard of an animal known as a frog?

Here it is, just like what you said, "..a transition in real life establishing a permanent change from something like a fish to land walkers."

Seriously though, yes, if something like that was found then it would be the biggest scientific discovery within the last 150 years. That would have a significant impact on the scientific community, specifically in biology. Such evidence like that would make scientists reject the Theory of Evolution. A new model would be needed to explain how organisms can have a drastic change in such a short amount of time. But until such evidence is found, we're sticking with the most accurate model we currently have, which is the Theory of Evolution.

BTW, some people like to eat frog's legs. I don't. The thought repels me. Although I have tried once in a restaurant. Not looking for more. But the flowers look pretty in the picture, I don't think the frogs do. But I know some people would say they are pretty, I suppose.