Describe your understanding of evolution.

[pitabread]

removed

 

[durangodawood]

Evolution: change over time of a form or idea.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Since there's a lot of threads lately from pitabread about trying to get creationists to explain their positions (without a lot of success sadly) with regards to evolution, I thought I'd try something which I feel does need to be touched on slightly.

To those who accept theory of evolution and to those who do not, please can you explain what you think of when someone says evolution?

I'm not talking about if you have a degree in science and what you know about it, I'm not talking about a diatribe or religious screed on it. I'm not interested in a discussion about macro vs microevolution. I just mean the bare bones definition in your mind that comes up when you hear/read the word 'evolution'.

My person definition is: the change in alleles in a population in response to a change in the environment. Simple as that.

Evolution is gene mutation of different" kinds" in order to produce one "kind" that is considered the same. Kind as defined in scripture can not reproduce with other "kinds", in other words a dog and cat can not reproduce offspring because they are not the same " kind". So evolutionary theory is not possible unless they are the same " kind".

 

[Direct Driver]

Evolution is gene mutation of different" kinds" in order to produce one "kind" that is considered the same. Kind as defined in scripture can not reproduce with other "kinds", in other words a dog and cat can not reproduce offspring because they are not the same " kind". So evolutionary theory is not possible.

I tend to agree, but I will add, to be a theory it must be testable. And since it is not testable (or it would have been) it is really just an hypothesis.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution is gene mutation of different" kinds" in order to produce one "kind" that is considered the same. Kind as defined in scripture can not reproduce with other "kinds", in other words a dog and cat can not reproduce offspring because they are not the same " kind". So evolutionary theory is not possible.

I'm not sure I understand your post. The theory of evolution itself tells us that a dog and a cat cannot produce offspring.

 

[pitabread]

I tend to agree, but I will add, to be a theory it must be testable. And since it is not testable (or it would have been) it is really just an hypothesis.

Why do you think it's not testable?

( I'd also note that to be a scientific hypothesis something must be testable. A hypothesis that can't be tested, eg falsified, is not a scientific hypothesis.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution is gene mutation of different" kinds" in order to produce one "kind" that is considered the same. Kind as defined in scripture can not reproduce with other "kinds", in other words a dog and cat can not reproduce offspring because they are not the same " kind". So evolutionary theory is not possible unless they are the same " kind".

I do get what you mean, and I thank you for sharing.

 

[Direct Driver]

Why do you think it's not testable?

( I'd also note that to be a scientific hypothesis something must be testable. A hypothesis that can't be tested, eg falsified, is not a scientific hypothesis.)

Define "it". ;D

Some "sub theories" are testable and have been. But "the theory of evolution" as I think many understand it is not testable, unless you have a few million years to wait around for results. All we can do is see the results of what has already happened and come up with hypotheses regarding what we think happened.

So far, any tests only support or disprove very tiny concepts related to "the theory of evolution".

I firmly believe some sort of evolution happens. That is how we define random and permanent modifications to DNA. But that only shows that mutation happens. It doesn't show that mutation results in the evolution of any species into a different species. But I believe it's possible. There is no reason to suggest the bible does not allow for that. The bible is not a science book. Those that try to make it one will summarily get their butt handed to them in a debate. God wasn't trying to give 24th century scientific knowledge to the authors.

The bible is not about how. The bible is about why. And of all human endeavors, the pursuit of why is by far the highest. So I love to follow this evolution stuff. It really has nothing to do with my spirituality or my understanding of the message in both the old and new testaments.

Like I always like to say to YEC's, how much time passed between Genesis 1:2 and the beginning of the first day in Genesis 1:3? There is no definitive answer - Only opinion. And now we see as through a glass darkly, but then, face to face.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Define "it". ;D

Some "sub theories" are testable and have been. But "the theory of evolution" as I think many understand it is not testable, unless you have a few million years to wait around for results. All we can do is see the results of what has already happened and come up with hypotheses regarding what we think happened.

So far, any tests only support or disprove very tiny concepts related to "the theory of evolution".

I firmly believe some sort of evolution happens. That is how we define random and permanent modifications to DNA. But that only shows that mutation happens. It doesn't show that mutation results in the evolution of any species into a different species. But I believe it's possible. There is no reason to suggest the bible does not allow for that. The bible is not a science book. Those that try to make it one will summarily get their butt handed to them in a debate. God wasn't trying to give 24th century scientific knowledge to the authors.

The bible is not about how. The bible is about why. And of all human endeavors, the pursuit of why is by far the highest. So I love to follow this evolution stuff. It really has nothing to do with my spirituality or my understanding of the message in both the old and new testaments.

Like I always like to say to YEC's, how much time passed between Genesis 1:2 and the beginning of the first day in Genesis 1:3? There is no definitive answer - Only opinion. And now we see as through a glass darkly, but then, face to face.

Okay, let's not get into this since this can turn into a meta-debate.

But what exactly is your personal definition, the definition you get in the dictionary of your mind, when you see/hear the word 'evolution'?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm not sure I understand your post. The theory of evolution itself tells us that a dog and a cat cannot produce offspring.

Yet animal to man can ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yet animal to man can ?

Humans are animals, by definition.

But let's not go into all this, because this isn't a place to debate about evolution. It's just a thread where I ask the simple question: what is your personal definition for evolution?

 

[Larniavc]

that claims changes of species from one to another over billions of years

Incorrect. You’ve been lied to.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Humans are made in the image of God. Animals are not. Though secularism puts us in this category, God does not. If one holds that humans are equally the same as animals, then there is certainly room for apes to man theory yet still not able to procreate.

 

[Larniavc]

if you have a multi-functional protein with redundancy, removal of that redundancy creationists greater

I lol’d.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Humans are made in the image of God. Animals are not. Though secularism puts us in this category, God does not. If one hold humans are equally the same as animals, then there is certainly room for apes to man theory yet still not able to procreate.

Please save that for another thread, this thread isn't about that argument.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Please save that for another thread, this thread isn't about that argument.

Understood, but that is my understanding of evolution. Be blessed.

 

[Larniavc]

Evolution is gene mutation of different" kinds" in order to produce one "kind" that is considered the same. Kind as defined in scripture can not reproduce with other "kinds", in other words a dog and cat can not reproduce offspring because they are not the same " kind". So evolutionary theory is not possible unless they are the same " kind".

So a domestic cat and a tiger are different kinds?

 

[Direct Driver]

Okay, let's not get into this since this can turn into a meta-debate.

But what exactly is your personal definition, the definition you get in the dictionary of your mind, when you see/hear the word 'evolution'?

It literally depends on what is being discussed. Hence my "the corvette has evolved" comment.

Are we talking about men from apes, or Finches, or bacterium, etc. It all depends on the "sub-category" of evolution. But generally speaking, I believe that evolution of all types happens. I did read an article once, about ten years ago, that suggested that plants have an ingenious mechanism that kills any potential mutations from becoming a "new plant", but I can't remember where I saw it now.

I have a rather "unique" theory regarding the origin of species and all the evidence we currently have. Without going into detail, I use the analogy of a painting that is actually using the same canvass that has a painting under it. And that painting has a painting under it, and so forth. And all modern science is doing is pealing back layers to find evidence of previous paintings. And God is the Painter, this age is the latest painting, and the Earth is the Canvass.

And there will be at least one painting on top of this one after Jesus returns - and maybe more.

 

[Direct Driver]

Why do you think it's not testable?

( I'd also note that to be a scientific hypothesis something must be testable. A hypothesis that can't be tested, eg falsified, is not a scientific hypothesis.)

My understanding is that an hypothesis becomes a theory when it is testable.

Edit: Yep. From here: Primary Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

Definition of Hypothesis
In the scientific process, a hypothesis is “a statement that makes generalizations about a set of facts, usually forming a basis for possible experiments” or, “an unproven theory or statement.”

Students often learn that a hypothesis is an educated guess. It is basically an assumption about what might happen based on known information that is used for the sake of argument when testing something.

Definition of Theory
A theory is “an idea to explain something or a set of guiding principles” or, ”a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted.”

A theory is an explanation for why or how something happens that is backed by a lot of data collected over time and from different circumstances.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It literally depends on what is being discussed. Hence my "the corvette has evolved" comment.

Are we talking about men from apes, or Finches, or bacterium, etc. It all depends on the "sub-category" of evolution. But generally speaking, I believe that evolution of all types happens. I did read an article once, about ten years ago, that suggested that plants have an ingenious mechanism that kills any potential mutations from becoming a "new plant", but I can't remember where I saw it now.

I have a rather "unique" theory regarding the origin of species and all the evidence we currently have. Without going into detail, I use the analogy of a painting that is actually using the same canvass that has a painting under it. And that painting has a painting under it, and so forth. And all modern science is doing is pealing back layers to find evidence of previous paintings. And God is the Painter, this age is the latest painting, and the Earth is the Canvass.

And there will be at least one painting on top of this one after Jesus returns - and maybe more.

I think that you're really making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's just a simple question: what is your personal definition of evolution? That's all there is to it.