Describe your understanding of evolution.

[stevil]

My understanding of Evolution

Descent with modification coupled with changes in environments leads to speciation.

Species become adapted to suit their environments giving the appearance of design.
Evolution is a never ending process which becomes significant only over multiple generations.

Evolution is without design, without goal, it is merely the consequence that resources are limited and those forms more suited to win the competition for necessary resources (food, shelter, teritory) and win the competition to procreate, those forms will persist and proliferate where as poorer suited forms will become scarce or be eliminated entirely (extinction).

The Descent part denotes that a single living thing does not evolve as evolution is generational.
Parents give their DNA to their offspring, hence their offspring share many traits with the parents. e.g. skin colour, eye colour, eventual height and even behavioural traits. Along a descendant line there are no discrete delineation of species as offspring will always be the same species as their parents. A cat for example never gives birth to a dog. No matter how many millions of years pass cats will never evolve to become birds as they are not descended from birds. They might develop the ability to fly, just as bats have, but bats are not birds and whales and dolphins are not fish. Humans are animals, our descendants will always be animals not plants, humans are mammals, our descendants will always be mammals and not reptiles, humans are apes, our descendants will always be apes and not feline.

 

[Direct Driver]

An hypothesis is usually expressed in a way where it is objectively testable in principle. A theory has already been objectively tested.

Its worthwhile understanding the distinction of: testable vs tested.

It's a foregone conclusion that anything that is testable has been tested.

 

[Speedwell]

It's a foregone conclusion that anything that is testable has been tested.

Not necessarily. I have formed the hypothesis that it is raining. It is a testable hypothesis; in order to test it I would have to get up and go look out of the window. But I haven't tested it yet.

 

[Direct Driver]

Not necessarily. I have formed the hypothesis that it is raining. It is a testable hypothesis; in order to test it I would have to get up and go look out of the window. But I haven't tested it yet.

OK. Anything IMPORTANT that is testable has been tested (or soon will be).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK. Anything IMPORTANT that is testable has been tested (or soon will be).

That depends on a lot of assumptions - that we know what's important, that the people who can test it agree, that the people who can finance it agree, that it's testable in a relatively short time, and so-on.

 

[inquiring mind]

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 no more than variation and adaptation that often covers pretty long spans of time. But, projecting it backwards into deep time is just that, a projection, not unlike a robot sent through a stargate never to be heard from again. I will give evolutionists this much, they have proposed for many a believable mechanism in that regard, which is based only on study and observation today. Of course, it makes sense or mainstream science wouldn’t have jumped all over it… filling in here and there to link it all, and some even believing the faint popping, cracking and static from the robot is verification of this process. To me it's only a weak signal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution is no more than variation and adaptation that often covers pretty long spans of time.

I'll be honest, you could have stopped here because that's all this thread is really about.

 

[J_B_]

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?

My first thought is, "Sigh, here we go again."

I can repeat the definition regarding allele frequency. In fact, that's what I did in @pitabread 's thread, but got virtually no response. I think I have a fair understanding of evolution for a non-biologist.

I'm not sure what these threads are after. It seems, first of all, an attempt to elevate the conversation, which is admirable and much appreciated. But then what?

* Are they an attempt to better understand creationists, though you may disagree with them?
* Are they an attempt to push past the rhetoric to find the bottom line objection?
* Are they an attempt to weed out the unreasonable people who plague this forum to have a good conversation with the reasonable people?
* Or something else?

Just curious.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My first thought is, "Sigh, here we go again."

I can repeat the definition regarding allele frequency. In fact, that's what I did in @pitabread 's thread, but got virtually no response. I think I have a fair understanding of evolution for a non-biologist.

I'm not sure what these threads are after. It seems, first of all, an attempt to elevate the conversation, which is admirable and much appreciated. But then what?

* Are they an attempt to better understand creationists, though you may disagree with them?
* Are they an attempt to push past the rhetoric to find the bottom line objection?
* Are they an attempt to weed out the unreasonable people who plague this forum to have a good conversation with the reasonable people?
* Or something else?

Just curious.

I am just curious about what people's personal definitions of evolution is. There really is no trick to it. The duck literally is just a duck in this one.

 

[Lost4words]

I think that anyone who wants to believe the they have relatives that were apes is entitled to their opinion, my family tree does not include a monkey.

Mine contains a whole tree full of dogs!

 

[J_B_]

I am just curious about what people's personal definitions of evolution is. There really is no trick to it. The duck literally is just a duck in this one.

OK. I guess we'll see where that goes. Mine is here: Creationists: Describe your conceptual understanding of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK. I guess we'll see where that goes. Mine is here: Creationists: Describe your conceptual understanding of evolution.

Entirely fair. Thank you for participating.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mine contains a whole tree full of dogs!

And corgis are just above dachshunds and chihuahuas.

 

[pitabread]

I can repeat the definition regarding allele frequency. In fact, that's what I did in @pitabread 's thread, but got virtually no response. I think I have a fair understanding of evolution for a non-biologist.

Apologies, I missed that earlier. I've replied now.

I'm not sure what these threads are after. It seems, first of all, an attempt to elevate the conversation, which is admirable and much appreciated. But then what?

* Are they an attempt to better understand creationists, though you may disagree with them?
* Are they an attempt to push past the rhetoric to find the bottom line objection?
* Are they an attempt to weed out the unreasonable people who plague this forum to have a good conversation with the reasonable people?
* Or something else?

I can't speak for Warden, but in the case of the two threads I created, I've long held the view that creationists and non-creationists subscribe to different understanding of evolution. Often times, I find there is a perceivable gap in these discussions that lead people to talking past each other.

The reason I created my two threads was to explore this by getting people to explain their conceptual understanding of evolution. If we can pinpoint where those gaps are, perhaps it would be more possible to bridge them.

 

[J_B_]

I can't speak for Warden, but in the case of the two threads I created, I've long held the view that creationists and non-creationists subscribe to different understanding of evolution. Often times, I find there is a perceivable gap in these discussions that lead people to talking past each other.

I'll admit that seems true of many creationists. What I read here even makes me cringe sometimes. But then I also just read some posts from atheists (on a different forum) that made me sigh, roll my eyes, and move on. There was no point in even trying to reply because the posts were so fractally bad.

The reason I created my two threads was to explore this by getting people to explain their conceptual understanding of evolution. If we can pinpoint where those gaps are, perhaps it would be more possible to bridge them.

I'd be in favor of closing those gaps, if possible.

 

[Direct Driver]

That depends on a lot of assumptions - that we know what's important, that the people who can test it agree, that the people who can finance it agree, that it's testable in a relatively short time, and so-on.

Meh. Red herring. I'm done with the minutia on a basic and easily answered question. You guys have fun with this. I've got bigger fish to fry.

I've said, for decades, and internet forums amplify it: You could wake up and say "What a beautiful blue sky today", and someone might say, "Well, you know, technically, it's not really blue" and try to argue the point. But it's still a beautiful blue sky and I'd like to enjoy it on the porch with a nice cup of coffee and a biscotti.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's a foregone conclusion that anything that is testable has been tested.

It is your foregone conclusion, one that ignores reality. Your bizarre foregone conclusion presumes that all scientific work has ceased, that no scientist is developing methods of testing their hypotheses, that no scientist is still in the process of carrying out that test, that no scientist has an incompleted test. That's just silly.

 

[Direct Driver]

It is your foregone conclusion, one that ignores reality. Your bizarre foregone conclusion presumes that all scientific work has ceased, that no scientist is developing methods of testing their hypotheses, that no scientist is still in the process of carrying out that test, that no scientist has an incompleted test. That's just silly.

Your post is predicated on an incorrect inference.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is your foregone conclusion, one that ignores reality. Your bizarre foregone conclusion presumes that all scientific work has ceased, that no scientist is developing methods of testing their hypotheses, that no scientist is still in the process of carrying out that test, that no scientist has an incompleted test. That's just silly.

Your post is predicated on an incorrect inference.

Guys, this isn't a thread about a discussion about evolution. It's just asking about people's personal definitions of evolution, that's all.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your post is predicated on an incorrect inference.

That is entirely possible, but unless you show me the courtesy of detailing that inference I shall remain ignorant.