Question for creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

This question is directed at creationists ONLY.

For the purpose of the thread, I am defining a creationist as one who rejects common ancestry of species instead favoring the creation of individual organisms not sharing common ancestry.

My question is simply how you would characterize the Theory of Evolution.

Is it a false science based on deliberate conspiracy?
Is it an invalid science based on poor scientific research and methodology?
Is a partially valid science (e.g. somewhat correct, but also somewhat incorrect)?
Or is a valid scientific theory based on evidence gathered to date?

rockytopva · Jul 13, 2021

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma, the sun is the visible form of E/c2.
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

God can change energy to matter... E/c2 (energy)= m (matter)
God can change matter to energy... m (matter) = E/c2 (energy)

All of which took….

1. Mass
2. Intelligence
3. Spiritual motive

I see the theory of evolution as simply false as mass could not re-arrange itself on its own and come to life. And evolution had no motive to break out of the plant kingdom into the animal. This formula also makes mass eternal stuff…

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

Sketcher · Jul 13, 2021

I'm flexible as to whether YEC is what happened or not. Either way, I believe God is Creator. Not sure if this qualifies me as a creationist for the purpose of this poll.

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 13, 2021

pitabread said:
My question is simply how you would characterize the Theory of Evolution.

Humanity domesticated wolves into dogs and crosbred plants for thousands of years before Charles Darwin was born. All Darwin did was take what everyone already knew and tack his own questionable philosophic views to it.

Ideology like "survival of the fittest" are philosophy rather than science. I think its political and philosophy elements of evolution most question. Rather than basic science which says parents will bear a resemblance to their children, due to genes and DNA being passed on.

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Ideology like "survival of the fittest" are philosophy rather than science.

Survival of the fittest isn't intended to be an ideology. Natural selection is simply an observable mechanism of evolution.

GallagherM · Jul 13, 2021

Hello you, to me believe it is always helpful to know the definition of evolution. As someone who believes that God created everything. You should know that for me have no problem with the theory of evolution and find it almost as a useless argument in general.

Definition of evolution

1a: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.— Stephen Jay Gouldalso :

the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.— Nature

In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.— Pamela Weintraub
b: the historical development of a biological group (such as a species) : PHYLOGENY

2a: a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING
b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION

c(1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH

(2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4: the extraction of a mathematical root
5: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
6: one of a set of prescribed movements

Synonyms & Antonyms for evolution
Synonyms

Antonyms

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 13, 2021

pitabread said:
Survival of the fittest isn't intended to be an ideology. Natural selection is simply an observable mechanism of evolution.

Can we prove selection is natural.

More of evolutionary theory is philosophy than most appear to realize.

We try to rationalize explanations for things. Some of which like natural selection could be completely contradictory to "nature abhoring a vacuum" and similar precedents which have defined biology among leading minds for ages.

Thinking about evolution, eventually you realize much of it doesn't make falsifiable predictions and cannot be tested. (Those same criticisms which have been made about intelligent design) Which classifies it as philosophy, rather than science.

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Can we prove selection is natural.

We observe it in natural populations... so yes?

Thinking about evolution, eventually you realize much of it doesn't make falsifiable predictions and cannot be tested. (Those same criticisms which have been made about intelligent design) Which classifies it as philosophy, rather than science.

This isn't true, at least not on the basis of the umpteen papers on evolutionary biology I've read over the years.

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

GallagherM said:
Definition of evolution

For the purpose this thread, any official definition is irrelevant. Since many creationists have their own private definitions of what they think the theory of evolution entails, this is the reason I created this poll/thread.

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 13, 2021

pitabread said:
We observe it in natural populations... so yes?

This isn't true, at least not on the basis of the umpteen papers on evolutionary biology I've read over the years.

...............

If we're observing human mating patterns. Some humans like skinny mates. Others like curvy mates. Some like fair skin. Others like dark skin.

If natural selection is something that can be clearly defined by science. Which preference is the natural selection for a person to make.

Natural selection doesn't necessarily exist in science or nature. Its a philosophic generalization used in an attempt to interpret data relating to choices. Which invoke free will and countless other variables.

Where this becomes perhaps more obvious is there has never been a single experiment which clearly defined what natural selection is, or a precedence for it existing in nature. Its philosophy. Scientists who tote evolution probably couldn't cite a clear cut example of natural selection in nature. And if they did there could easily be enough exceptions and contradictions for the description to be questionable.

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
If we're observing human mating patterns. Some humans like skinny mates. Others like curvy mates. Some like fair skin. Others like dark skin.

If natural selection is something that can be clearly defined by science. Which preference is the natural selection for a person to make.

Let's take skin color as an example here:

What is the geographic distribution of skin pigmentation and what is the underlying genetics involved in that distribution? And what are the physiological impacts on individuals relative to different skin pigmentations in different geographical locations?

PloverWing · Jul 13, 2021

Sketcher said:
I'm flexible as to whether YEC is what happened or not. Either way, I believe God is Creator. Not sure if this qualifies me as a creationist for the purpose of this poll.

I'm assuming that the OP is defining "creationism" to mean a view of the origin of species that rejects biological evolution (or at least rejects so-called "macroevolution"), so that the belief "God created species through the mechanism of biological evolution" would not count as "creationism". @pitabread , have I understood you correctly?

GallagherM · Jul 13, 2021

You should know that it’s highly important to use the truth in such matters, you won’t have to make up definitions and people will have to go by the rules of definition. However if you desire to go otherwise that is fine to. Have a good night pitabread.

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 13, 2021

pitabread said:
Let's take skin color as an example here:

What is the geographic distribution of skin pigmentation and what is the underlying genetics involved in that distribution? And what are the physiological impacts on individuals relative to different skin pigmentations in different geographical locations?

There is far more to it than geography or physiology. And more variables involved than simply skin color.

Natural selection is a very broad generalization. To try to make it appear valid requires a considerable degree of oversimplification.

The combination doesn't contribute much if anything of value to scientific discussion.

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
There is far more to it than geography or physiology.

And more variables involved than simply skin color.

I'm simply choosing a single trait for the purpose of discussion.

Now let's try that again:

What is the geographic distribution of skin pigmentation and what is the underlying genetics involved in that distribution? And what are the physiological impacts on individuals relative to different skin pigmentations in different geographical locations?

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

GallagherM said:
You should know that it’s highly important to use the truth in such matters

This is an opinion poll. Thus, people's definition of evolution is whatever people choose it to be within the options listed in the poll.

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

PloverWing said:
I'm assuming that the OP is defining "creationism" to mean a view of the origin of species that rejects biological evolution (or at least rejects so-called "macroevolution"), so that the belief "God created species through the mechanism of biological evolution" would not count as "creationism". @pitabread , have I understood you correctly?

Correct. I defined it as someone who rejects the idea of common ancestry in favor of individually created organisms leading to separate lineages not sharing common ancestry.

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 13, 2021

pitabread said:
What is the geographic distribution of skin pigmentation and what is the underlying genetics involved in that distribution? And what are the physiological impacts on individuals relative to different skin pigmentations in different geographical locations?

If someone said geography and physiology is all there is to human mating patterns.

Most might say that's an unscientific oversimplification that can't be applied to the real world.

If circumstances must be oversimplified to the nth degree for philosophy concepts like natural selection to appear valid. Then we might question whether such philosophy is useful at all in a scientific context.

pitabread · Jul 13, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
If someone said geography and physiology is all there is to human mating patterns.

Most might say that's an unscientific oversimplification that can't be applied to the real world.

If circumstances must be oversimplified to the nth degree for philosophy concepts like natural selection to appear valid. Then we might question whether such philosophy is useful at all in a scientific context.

That you're avoiding answering the questions is quite telling.

Skin pigmentations are largely distributed biogeographically via different climates relative to the equator. Darker skinned individuals tend to occupy more equatorial regions with higher UV exposure. Whereas lighter-skinned individuals tend to occupy regions further from the equators with less UV exposure.

Why do you think that is? What could have led to the geographic distributions we observe in populations re: skin pigmentation?

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 13, 2021

pitabread said:
That you're avoiding answering the questions is quite telling.

Skin pigmentations are largely distributed biogeographically via different climates relative to the equator. Darker skinned individuals tend to occupy more equatorial regions with higher UV exposure. Whereas lighter-skinned individuals tend to occupy regions further from the equators with less UV exposure.

Why do you think that is? What could have led to the geographic distributions we observe in populations re: skin pigmentation?

Some asian cultures near the equator consider pale skin to represent nobility and high social status.

To think regional location or UV light are the only relevant variables is a gross oversimplification.

Question for creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

Creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

A fake scientific theory resulting from a deliberate conspiracy of scientists, governments, etc.

An incorrect scientific theory that is a result of poor science, but not a deliberate conspiracy

A scientific theory that is partially valid / partially invalid, but not a deliberate conspiracy

A valid scientific theory based on the current available evidence to date

Other - Please describe

I am not a creationist (non-creationists use this option to vote)

Well-Known Member

Love to pray! :)

Born Imperishable

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads