Do you know what the theory of evolution is about?

[philadiddle]

For the YECs here, please explain your understanding of the theory of evolution. Please don't attempt the lame avoidance of the question by saying "well since it isn't true it's whatever scientists can imagine" or something like that. Please explain it in your own words, so that I know you actually understand what it is, no cut and paste. I've been hearing things lately like "evolution doesn't cause genetic drift", or "hybrids disprove evolution", or even, "if evolution were true, then chaos would ensue." All of these kinds of statements show a very poor understanding of what the theory of evolution actually is, and how it works. I think if we have different views about what it is, then we'll debate forever, so maybe we could come to a consesus of what the theory actually entails, and then continue on debating from there.

 

[archaeologist]

who are you-- the evolutionary police??

 

[philadiddle]

who are you-- the evolutionary police??

nope, just trying to get us all to at least agree on what we're discussing.

 

[ExpatChristian]

who are you-- the evolutionary police??

Archie you are the first person that needs to prove he has actually understood evolution. I have, for example, hammered you on other threads for ascribing agency to evolution, as though evolution has some kind of executive function and makes conscious decisions. Nothing exposed your ignorance of evolution more than this. Prove that you understand it, or the forum will assume that you cannot and will continue on the assumption that you are confused by the theory as it is too demanding.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Arch never did understand it....but he doesn't need to; he's got his goat herders...

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

please explain your understanding of the theory of evolution.

Koko and Archie is cousins!

 

[Dannager]

The Koko sock always makes me smile.

 

[archaeologist]

nope, just trying to get us all to at least agree on what we're discussing

that is impossible for evolutionists keep changing it.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

that is impossible for evolutionists keep changing it.

No...you just don't understand it Arch...

 

[ExpatChristian]

archie.

This is just a short explanation with keywords underlined for for further study.

Evolution is theory developed by Charles Darwin and the theory explains how animals slowly evolve. They do this through adapting to changing environmental pressures.

 

[shernren]

archie.

This is just a short explanation with keywords underlined for for further study.

Evolution is theory developed by Charles Darwin and the theory explains how animals slowly evolve. They do this through adapting to changing environmental pressures.

1. Evolution applies to all imperfect replicators and importantly to all living things, not just to animals.

2. Evolution is not always slow.

3. "Animals" - or individual organisms in general - do not "adapt" to changing environments, at least not in heritable ways (as far as we know). Rather, genes which are advantageous in a changing environment are selected for. This - the "units of selection" issue - is a very subtle but very crucial difference to be understood.

4. More of an omission than an error, changes accumulate over time to cause speciation via reproductive separation. Very important part of evolutionary theory.

Having said that, at least this is better than the non-attempt some posters have been making so far ...

 

[philadiddle]

that is impossible for evolutionists keep changing it.

in other words, you have no idea what it is.

Any other YECs want to answer the OP?

 

[archaeologist]

sure i do but i am not going to say one thing then have the evolutionist say another then accuse me of not understanding evolution.

i am well aware of the games evolutionists play

 

[notto]

sure i do but i am not going to say one thing then have the evolutionist say another then accuse me of not understanding evolution.

i am well aware of the games evolutionists play

So then it's not impossible. Speaking of playing games . . .

I'm not aware of any changes in the overall theory of evolution recently. The evidence that supports it continues to mount and specific lines of evidence are put in place with timelines but the overall theory, mechanisms, and process doesn't change very often.

Maybe you could start there. Maybe you could point out one of these changes in definition you suggest to demonstrate you knowledge of the topic.

What can you tell us about the mainstream understanding of evolution?

What are the mechanisms involved and what is the evidence for them? If you understand evolution, then this should be easy.

 

[archaeologist]

as to your claim to evidence:

"{the late} Stephen Jay Gould comments on the weight of fossil findings against evolutionary theory: New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rock rocks of the same region...The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secretof paleontology. the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inferrence, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils... Most species exhibit directional change during their tenure on earth...In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'

the socalled mounting evidence is only an inferrence and credited to evolution. they go into those experiments with pre-suppositions, pre-drawn conclusions hoping to prove evolution is true rarely looking at alternative options that are just as responsible.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

No, Archie, please: make it simple for us. You reject evolution out of hand so one can only assume that to have reached that decusion, you must have come to some understanding of what evolution is.

Can you not share that with all of us here?

 

[CSchultz]

Roger Penrose,
(The British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking.)

Calculated the mathematical probability of life evolving by random chance.

His results concluded that the odds are
[FONT=Verdana, Arial]1010123 (I'm sorry, I don't know how to adjust the font to write this, but it it 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power.) [/FONT]
to 1.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]To put this number into perspective, it would be impossible to write. You would first write a one, and then follow it with a series of zero's. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]The problem with that is that if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire known universe, we would run out of protons, before we completed writing down the number. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]Those are pretty poor odds. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]This is the basis of Evolution. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]Matter + Time + Chance = Life. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]I'm sorry, but I just don't have that much faith in a theory that cannot even provide the most fundamental fossil record of evidence to support itself. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[KerrMetric]

sure i do but i am not going to say one thing then have the evolutionist say another then accuse me of not understanding evolution.

But what are we supposed to say when you make a comment that shows you do not understand it?

Are we supposed to invent a new word - say bloopykint?

Are we suppoed to pretend you got it right?

i am well aware of the games evolutionists play

Is this a euphemism for " I've been called out on errors of understanding before - and I don't like it" ?

 

[KerrMetric]

Roger Penrose,
(The British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking.)
Calculated the mathematical probability of life evolving by random chance.
His results concluded that the odds are
[FONT=Verdana, Arial]1010123 (I'm sorry, I don't know how to adjust the font to write this, but it it 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power.) [/FONT]
to 1.

No he did not. You know what's embarrassing about your quote here? It's the fact not only are the probability calculations crap - it's the fact YOU GRABBED THE WRONG ONE. LOL LOL LOL.
Now - do you think I should take you seriously on this topic when you didn't even know which bogus calculation to grab?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]This is the basis of Evolution. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]Matter + Time + Chance = Life. [/FONT][/FONT]

Wrong. You have a poor batting average on this thread so far.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]

I'm sorry, but I just don't have that much faith in a theory that cannot even provide the most fundamental fossil record of evidence to support itself.

[/FONT][/FONT]
Of course you don't - but then based upon the above quotes of yours I'm not convinced I can trust your personal appeal from incredulity.

 

[Mavros]

sure i do but i am not going to say one thing then have the evolutionist say another then accuse me of not understanding evolution.

i am well aware of the games evolutionists play

Since i can finally post here, here what evolution is shortly:

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

btw forget about kent hovind if you want to know what evolution is really about