Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[SkepticThinker]

I noticed none of you can explain it in your own words. (lol)

Evolution is the process through which living organisms change and adapt over time. It is driven by two key mechanisms: genetic variation and natural selection. Genetic variation refers to the differences that exist in the DNA of individuals within a population. These variations can arise through random mutations, genetic recombination during reproduction, or other genetic processes.

Natural selection acts on this genetic variation by favoring certain traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction in a particular environment. Organisms with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, while those with less favorable traits are less likely to reproduce.

Over many generations, this selective pressure leads to the gradual accumulation of beneficial traits in a population, resulting in adaptations that enhance survival and reproductive success. This process can lead to the development of new species over time, as populations become genetically distinct and unable to interbreed.

Evolution is not a deliberate or goal-oriented process, but rather the result of the interaction between genetic variation and the environment. It is a fundamental concept in biology that explains the incredible diversity and complexity of life on Earth.

These are your own words? While I believe you believe this explanation is correct, right now I'm not going to go over it with you.

No, we've just all got sick and tired of explaining it all over again, for the nth time, to a tedious troll who keeps asking, time after time, without ever listening to the detailed answers that have been provided, many times over lol.

Anyone with a genuine interest in learning would in any case have have found the answer for themselves, as this information is all over the internet for anyone who is at all curious. But no, your sole purpose is to keep asking for answers to silly questions, precisely in order to reach the point we have now got to, at which we stop responding to your provocation, so that you can , absurdly, claim you have "won" and we have "no answers".

Lol.

Yup.

 

[exchemist]

What some who post do not comprehend is that I do NOT DENY SCIENCE. I do not, however, respect the idea that changes happen across the board from the start of life on earth due to the unintelligent process ascribed by how facts, such as DNA and cellular processes, are considered. As if there is no basic superior intelligent power behind it all.

Untrue.

You could easily, for instance, acknowledge the science but say you think there is a higher power involved to guide the process. Or you could show you have understood the theory and then identify where you find it unpersuasive, so that it can be constructively discussed. But no, instead, you keep misrepresenting evolution with stupid claims, e.g. that fish turn into humans, and then laughing ("LOL") at your own silly caricatures of the science.

That is denying the science, by deliberately refusing to engage with what it says, opting instead for trollish ridicule of silly straw men.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Either way -- but as we have discussed, what is the hope in evolution? Better times? Hmm, I wonder. Cryogenics? Again -- it's expensive anyway. Dirt coming back by genetic engineering? That's a thought, that is if mankind doesn't kill itself first, you think maybe? Evolution leads to -- thoughtless death -- doesn't it...

There is no "hope" in evolution. It's simply a description of how biological life reproduces and diversifies. Do you look for hope in say, germ theory? Your question is an odd one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

G'nite.

Not at all, you have that wrong. Try again. It doesn't threaten my religious beliefs at all. I'm going by the lack of true evidence in the theory of evolution. There is no real evidence beyond timing maybe. If there is, you might want to explain. Keep going because I KNOW there is no real substance beyond supposition and skeletons, etc. (bones & stuff). The fact that DNA can be transferred from one organism to another does not evidence evolution as the theory goes at all, in my opinion as it stands now. Have a good day.

You don't know anything at all about evolution. Not even the basics. You also don't seem to know much about science in general, or how it operates.

And you wanna sit here in that ignorance and declare that you know more than all the scientists across the world and across all fields of science that have been studying this and producing mountains evidence of evolution for the last 160 years, and you want us to take that seriously? Meanwhile, you believe everything contained in an ancient book, written by people who knew far, far less about the world than we do today, without question. Without evidence. Every bit of it.

Okey dokey then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I realize some people don't like to be put to the test.

Nah. Some just don't want to be drawn off into pointless tangents that have nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is no "hope" in evolution. It's simply a description of the biological life reproduces and diversifies. Do you look for hope in say, germ theory? Your question is an odd one.

It's like asking what the hope is in gravity. It's nonsensical.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not sure what you're referring to but when I read about evolution I see lots and lots of conjecture. On the other hand, do I believe vaccines work? Yes. Do I believe science can determine if a person has a bacterial infection? Yes. Do I believe surgeons can help some people live a better life? Hope that helps explain my viewpoint somewhat. Not to forget, do I believe dinosaurs evolved to become birds? (Guess. )

So vaccines aren't "conjecture" but the evolutionary science that produced them is "conjecture?"
Mhmmm

 

[SkepticThinker]

About death and evolution, evolution is said to be MINDLESS. It doesn't have a mind. It is not intelligent. Because evolution does not have a mind or a brain. It is what it is.

Huh?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then why can't they breed together. You keep avoiding that part of your claim.

It's only the important part.

 

[SkepticThinker]

From what I read, there are categories considered to be macro vs. micro evolution. Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World

Didn't you just read his/her post?
Good grief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Allow me to say that the divergences of the DNA does not confirm the theory.

You're wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My response is that nothing that I have heard about demonstrates how DNA is missing from gorillas to humans. Can it be tested? perhaps you know. That brings up other questions but I'll get back to this perhaps later...

Your question is nonsensical.

 

[exchemist]

Your question is nonsensical.

This is part of the approach: ask a silly or meaningless question, then run away.

Until the next silly or meaningless question.

Whereas on other topics, YT can string coherent thoughts together without any difficulty. Odd, that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is part of the approach: ask a silly or meaningless question, then run away.

Until the next silly or meaningless question.

Whereas on other topics, YT can string coherent thoughts together without any difficulty. Odd, that.

Indeed it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's like asking what the hope is in gravity. It's nonsensical.

I have to disagree. In the winter I have had hope in gravity more than once. As I slip and fall on a patch of ice I hope that it won't hurt.

Unfortunately hope failed again

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have to disagree. In the winter I have had hope in gravity more than once. As I slip and fall on a patch of ice I hope that it won't hurt.

Unfortunately hope failed again

My hope is that I won't fall at all.
Epic fail.

 

[metis]

What some evolution deniers don't understand is that there are a great many theologians who believe in what's sometimes called "theistic evolution", namely that God [or Gods] was/were behind it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What some evolution deniers don't understand is that there are a great many theologians who believe in what's sometimes called "theistic evolution", namely that God [or Gods] was/were behind it all.

Like so many things in life there is a spectrum. Most creationists do not even realize that most Flat Earthers are just a slightly more extreme version of themselves.

 

[metis]

Like so many things in life there is a spectrum. Most creationists do not even realize that most Flat Earthers are just a slightly more extreme version of themselves.

I hear ya.

OTOH, none of us really know how the whole shebang started, thus Divine creation cannot be discounted out-of-hand. As Confucius supposedly said [paraphrased], the more we know, the more we should know that we really don't know that much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hear ya.

OTOH, none of us really know how the whole shebang started, thus Divine creation cannot be discounted out-of-hand. As Confucius supposedly said [paraphrased], the more we know, the more we should know that we really don't know that much.

Yes, I will lack a belief in a god because the evidence for such is lacking. That is not the same as claiming that there is no god. Now I will easily deny and refute certain versions of God but so many of the believers in those gods seem to think that I am trying to refute all versions of god. That simply cannot be done. That is a pitfall of having an absolute belief that one's own God is the only possible version of God.