"Evolution"- The chameleon.

[Greg1234]

In spite of the empirical evidence that supports the fact that the process occurs, it is Mark's belief that natural selection is a philosophical, not a scientific, concept.

Thats not true. Mark, here, asks for a definition and distinguishes between the philosophical and scientific. Here, Mark calls himself an evolutionist under the definition you are using right now. Here he talks about equivocation which is essentially what happens all the time. You were told here to define evolution, and that the definition you are giving now was never problem for Creationism (in fact, you can find change in the bible). In your response to that you declined to provide a definition.

And so forth-

http://www.christianforums.com/t7101229-7/#post45652794

http://www.christianforums.com/t7190414-4/#post46405099

http://www.christianforums.com/t7190768/#post46404995

Darwin, of course, was theorizing when he proposed that nature "selected" individuals better suited to their environment than others in the population.

But many experiments and field observations since then have confirmed the reality of natural selection in the process of changing the typical characteristics of a species.

If you would like to read up on it, a good book on the topic for a lay reader is The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner which describes the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant on the island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos as well as that of several other scientists.

I see.

 

[KTskater]

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of EVOLUTION

1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : 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
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena


When discussing "evolution" in these forums, we're talking about 4.b.

 

[sfs]

sfs

Jonathan Sarfati writes excellent books showing the evolution side, showing the science, then showing the creation side

I'm familiar with Sarfati, and have interacted with him on the web, back before he got kicked off TheologWeb for an insufferable jerk. He is a fine example of a creationist who ignores and dismisses evidence and refuses to seriously engage the science of biology at all. I've never seen him write anything about evolution that was remotely competent.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm familiar with Sarfati, and have interacted with him on the web, back before he got kicked off TheologWeb for an insufferable jerk. He is a fine example of a creationist who ignores and dismisses evidence and refuses to seriously engage the science of biology at all. I've never seen him write anything about evolution that was remotely competent.

Of course he has to be incompetent, he is a creationist. Creationists catch on to the fact that the controversy between evolution and creation is between two world philosophies, one is Biblical Christianity and the other is Darwinian natural selection aka, one long argument against creation. Once you start seeing the fallacious nature of Darwinism the controversy disappears and all the is left are the real reason creation is rejected before the evidence is considered:

Logic and reason are far from being incompatible with biblical Christianity. Rather, they are essential. Without them it is impossible to deduce anything from the true propositions of the 66 books of Scripture, the Christian’s final authority. This applies to Creation, one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity. Examples of valid and fallacious reasoning are discussed, with emphasis on showing how logical reasoning can support the truth of biblical creation, and demonstrate the fallacies in many evolutionists’ arguments.​

Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation

This is nothing new, it requires no great technical knowledge to realize at the heart of the evolutionists arguments you have a philosophical premise that God can never be the cause of anything going back to the Big Bang.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[sfs]

Of course he has to be incompetent, he is a creationist.

No, what he writes is incompetent because it ignores data, misrepresents it, takes quotations badly out of context and ignores opposing arguments. Bad is bad, Mark, and what he writes is bad. Todd Wood is a creationist, and he's not incompetent.

Creationists catch on to the fact that the controversy between evolution and creation is between two world philosophies, one is Biblical Christianity and the other is Darwinian natural selection aka, one long argument against creation. Once you start seeing the fallacious nature of Darwinism the controversy disappears and all the is left are the real reason creation is rejected before the evidence is considered:

Logic and reason are far from being incompatible with biblical Christianity. Rather, they are essential. Without them it is impossible to deduce anything from the true propositions of the 66 books of Scripture, the Christian’s final authority. This applies to Creation, one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity. Examples of valid and fallacious reasoning are discussed, with emphasis on showing how logical reasoning can support the truth of biblical creation, and demonstrate the fallacies in many evolutionists’ arguments.​

Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation

None of which changes the fact that what I've seen from Sarfati has been scientifically incompetent.

This is nothing new, it requires no great technical knowledge to realize at the heart of the evolutionists arguments you have a philosophical premise that God can never be the cause of anything going back to the Big Bang.

Well, if you realize that, you're realizing a falsehood. Propose a model with God as a direct cause that does a better job of predicting genetic data than evolution does -- or even as remotely as good a job -- and you'll have something to complain about. Until then, you're stuck with a sterile idea that seems to have no connection to the real world of biology, and no explanation for why evolution explains and predicts data so well.

 

[samaus12345]

ktskater nice post hahah it essentially means anything at all even in the dictionary

 

[KTskater]

ktskater nice post hahah it essentially means anything at all even in the dictionary

Well, that's the nature of all words. Their meanings are whatever we decide that they are. There is nothing about the word "table" that denotes that it should be mean anything aside from what culture has decided.
My point with posting that was to give a solid definition of the type of evolution we're discussing. You seem to be trying to make a statement about how no one knows what evolution even means. That's not the case. This word, like all others, has many meanings, but we've settled on a definite understand of what is meant by evolution. In this sense, for the purposes of these discussions, we're talking about the theory of biological evolution by natural selection, hybridization, inbreeding, or mutation (of genetic material specifically). No mystery there.

 

[Greg1234]

Well, that's the nature of all words. Their meanings are whatever we decide that they are. There is nothing about the word "table" that denotes that it should be mean anything aside from what culture has decided.
My point with posting that was to give a solid definition of the type of evolution we're discussing. You seem to be trying to make a statement about how no one knows what evolution even means. That's not the case. This word, like all others, has many meanings, but we've settled on a definite understand of what is meant by evolution. In this sense, for the purposes of these discussions, we're talking about the theory of biological evolution by natural selection, hybridization, inbreeding, or mutation (of genetic material specifically). No mystery there.

But isn't the soul in charge of the body that it adapts?

 

[KTskater]

But isn't the soul in charge of the body that it adapts?

You're going to have to be more specific as to what you're trying to say with that statement. If you're using it as another way to express how a shell (a letter or word) derives purpose (meaning), then yes, I would agree and that goes along with my point. The meaning is what determines the nature of the word, not the word itself. Or, rather, culture determines the meanings of the groups of sounds we consider to be words.

If you're going after an actual metaphysical question, this might not be the place for it.

 

[samaus12345]

Yes but the lay public hears on the 6 oclock news or on a documentary something about "Thats how we evolved" or "The history of human evolution" and they picture an ape morphing into man. This is all that matters. And because we are bombarded in it people start believing it. But the above sentences in " " can mean anything and be scientifically accurate. The one definition of it that has no place in science is the fish-->ape-->man one, but this is what the lay public pictures when that word is mentioned. Its worse when the term "evolution via natural selection" is used because natural selection is real, and people may have an awareness of this, so the sentence is half lie, half truth. If everyone in the world started saying "gravity in the past worked in reverse, its a scientific fact" then after a while, the individuals, who at first thought those people were delusional may just go along with it and believe it. Its in the past, so its not easy to falsify, thats the beauty of it. The whole thing would be meaningless if it didnt mean essentially the world going to hell.

 

[KTskater]

Yes but the lay public hears on the 6 oclock news or on a documentary something about "Thats how we evolved" or "The history of human evolution" and they picture an ape morphing into man. This is all that matters. And because we are bombarded in it people start believing it. But the above sentences in " " can mean anything and be scientifically accurate. The one definition of it that has no place in science is the fish-->ape-->man one, but this is what the lay public pictures when that word is mentioned. Its worse when the term "evolution via natural selection" is used because natural selection is real, and people may have an awareness of this, so the sentence is half lie, half truth. If everyone in the world started saying "gravity in the past worked in reverse, its a scientific fact" then after a while, the individuals, who at first thought those people were delusional may just go along with it and believe it. Its in the past, so its not easy to falsify, thats the beauty of it. The whole thing would be meaningless if it didnt mean essentially the world going to hell.

Ah, so you're basing this off of the idea that if someone hears something enough, they wills start to believe it is true?
If so, what are you proposing as a solution to this? Or are you simply showing concern?

 

[samaus12345]

Yes that IS what happens, everyone should read origin of species, its like 10 bucks on ebay. Nothing can be done about it in the media but if people actually read the foundational book on it they wouldnt be so dogmatic about it and can assess it critically

 

[KTskater]

I agree with you partially, however, The Origin of Species (and The Descent of Man for that matter) aren't where everyone is pulling their ideas of evolution. Scientists do not support strict Darwinian evolution anymore. We now have what is called the "Modern evolutionary synthesis." The idea of natural selection is still based on Darwin's idea, but it's been combined with Mendelian and population genetics. In short, we no longer rely on Darwin for evidence, but have separate studies that have confirmed his ideas.

However, I do think that everyone should read Darwin's books. Educating yourself never hurt anyone.

 

[samaus12345]

so you have read origin of species, study science, AND still believe it? i am holding back laughter im sorry it isnt personal, im sorry, most people believe it because they havnt read it thats my view anyway

 

[sfs]

so you have read origin of species, study science, AND still believe it? i am holding back laughter im sorry it isnt personal, im sorry, most people believe it because they havnt read it thats my view anyway

Interesting. Are you really unaware that the vast majority of biologists (whatever their religious beliefs) fully accept evolution? Do you think that's because they haven't learned as much about it as you have?

 

[KTskater]

so you have read origin of species, study science, AND still believe it? i am holding back laughter im sorry it isnt personal, im sorry, most people believe it because they havnt read it thats my view anyway

It's not difficult to believe. Take a couple classes in biology, anthropology and maybe physiology and it all fits together pretty easily. The fossil record was enough to convince me, at least of human evolution.

 

[samaus12345]

The FACT that we have fossils is evidence things got buried in MUD VERY QUICKLY hmmmm

Genesis 7:4 KJV

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Genesis 7:6

And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Genesis 7;10-11

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 7:17-23

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.


But of course the reality of the bible is used as evidence against it.


sfs just because the entire world is delusional doesnt make it fact hahahaha


i think a quick look at a biology book should be enough to convince people its impossible

 

[KTskater]

The FACT that we have fossils is evidence things got buried in MUD VERY QUICKLY hmmmm

Genesis 7:4 KJV

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Genesis 7:6

And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Genesis 7;10-11

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 7:17-23

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.


But of course the reality of the bible is used as evidence against it.


sfs just because the entire world is delusional doesnt make it fact hahahaha


i think a quick look at a biology book should be enough to convince people its impossible

I was actually talking more about how there is a gradual change from ape-like to human-like features in the fossil record. Adaptations from life in the trees, to life on the ground, bipedalism....etc. Regardless of the dates of those fossils, there is a definite transition.

And what page do you recommend I turn to in my biology textbook to be convinced that evolution is impossible?

 

[samaus12345]

Umm if someone wants to see a connection between a few things on the planet bad enough, they will. there is no 'dates' for fossils either AHAHAHAHAH

glycolisis krebs oxidative phosphorolation any organelle mitochondria ribosome cell membrane

 

[KTskater]

Umm if someone wants to see a connection between a few things on the planet bad enough, they will. there is no 'dates' for fossils either AHAHAHAHAH

glycolisis krebs oxidative phosphorolation any organelle mitochondria ribosome cell membrane

How in the word does the production of ATP or the structure of mitochondria disprove evolution?

Also, care to elaborate on how there are no dates for fossils?