If Evolution were true...

[Inan3]

I'm the kind of person that would probably prefer that there was a loving God who let us live a life after death. I'd love to see my dead loved ones again. But I refuse to believe in something without evidence; I refuse to have faith.

Common descent and the big bang theory have lots of evidence. You simply don't understand the evidence, so you reject it. I've seen concise and basic explanations of evolution and its evidence fly in one of your ears and out the other. Frankly, you're in no position to critically analyze any of these scientific theories because you don't understand them.

They really don't ... you are believing a big bang lie right from the pit of Hell to keep you from God!! What concise and basic explanation of evolution and it's evidence that you have seen fly in one of my ears and out the other. Do tell me please. The only explanations I get is that I am wrong and evolution is right. Duh!! That's just not enough. Now if you are saying that some moth changed his spots over millions of years... that also, is NOT evidence. It is speculation. I can just as well speculate that it is NOT.

Now, do I think that species and animals and even human beings experience changes over the years... yes, I do... I do not live in a vacuum; but I do NOT think a fish becomes a dog or a dog becomes a bird or a chimp becomes a human or any other species changeover. No one has ever proved that. (I know I know science doesn't prove anything) Well, why is it that you believe what has not been proved but only speculated, and you have NEVER seen any of that. You guys just keep hoping you might see it, and you keep saying we are getting closer. How can you be getting closer? You mean , because one or two creatures have shown up and MIGHT be a link but then again they MIGHT not. No one knows when the next one or IF a next one will ever show up, so how can you be closer??

You say there is no evidence for God and yet, people of all walks of life say that God has CHANGED their lives for good when they turned to Him and believed. That IS real evidence because of a real and living spiritual Being. ALL of nature IS evidence of an intelligent being. Unless one does exactly what you said .... REFUSE to believe... it is so apparent and obvious that it didn't all just happen with the BIG BANG. A big bang has no order as our universe does. Chaos does not beget beauty and efficiency. There is NO evidence, as you say, and yet you still believe. You have never seen the evidence, you just believe what people say is evidence, and what people explain to you the evidence is, and what people speculate. You DO have faith but it is in the wrong thing. And for WHAT to you hold on to this for?? Where does it take YOU personally? Oh I know... I've heard these guys are doing it all for humanity.. right? But in the end where does it get them? No place. If they are right they come to the end of the road and it's over. They are not guaranteed that all their work or efforts or ideals will continue. Another few hundred years and it could all be different. If they are wrong and have refused to believe in the only way to salvation then they will not partake in a future of hope and eternal life but rather eternal death and all that entails. No I would rather at least, (without throwing away what I think I do know) at least try the waters. Call upon God and ask HIM to show you if He is real. Ask Him to help you and forgive you if you have been going about it all wrong. If you are serious and talk to Him (not your church, not me, not anyone) Talk to HIM in honesty. You will begin to find out the truth.

P.S. Please don't forget to give me the evidence I let slip in and out of my ears. I would like to see this evidence. Been asking for a long time.

 

[Nabobalis]

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

evidence for evolution - Google Scholar

Evidence for the Big Bang

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or if you have a library near by, I'm sure it has books on the subject (though I have no idea on what state public libraries are in the US of A)

 

[pgp_protector]

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

evidence for evolution - Google Scholar

Evidence for the Big Bang

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or if you have a library near go, I'm sure it has books on the subject (though I have no idea on what state public libraries are in the US of A)

Get ready for an incoming dodge

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Now, do I think that species and animals and even human beings experience changes over the years... yes, I do... I do not live in a vacuum; but I do NOT think a fish becomes a dog or a dog becomes a bird or a chimp becomes a human or any other species changeover. No one has ever proved that.

If you knew anything about evolution you'd know that those things happening would completely falsify the theory of evolution.

You say there is no evidence for God and yet, people of all walks of life say that God has CHANGED their lives for good when they turned to Him and believed. That IS real evidence because of a real and living spiritual Being. ALL of nature IS evidence of an intelligent being. Unless one does exactly what you said .... REFUSE to believe... it is so apparent and obvious that it didn't all just happen with the BIG BANG. A big bang has no order as our universe does. Chaos does not beget beauty and efficiency. There is NO evidence, as you say, and yet you still believe. You have never seen the evidence, you just believe what people say is evidence, and what people explain to you the evidence is, and what people speculate. You DO have faith but it is in the wrong thing. And for WHAT to you hold on to this for?? Where does it take YOU personally? Oh I know... I've heard these guys are doing it all for humanity.. right? But in the end where does it get them? No place. If they are right they come to the end of the road and it's over. They are not guaranteed that all their work or efforts or ideals will continue. Another few hundred years and it could all be different. If they are wrong and have refused to believe in the only way to salvation then they will not partake in a future of hope and eternal life but rather eternal death and all that entails. No I would rather at least, (without throwing away what I think I do know) at least try the waters. Call upon God and ask HIM to show you if He is real. Ask Him to help you and forgive you if you have been going about it all wrong. If you are serious and talk to Him (not your church, not me, not anyone) Talk to HIM in honesty. You will begin to find out the truth.

I have actually had discussions with you (unfortunately, because it was a waste of my time) where I told you my background in Christianity and told you why I left the faith. Your hollow evangelizing does not impress me, and your attitude towards science is even worse. I won't pass judgement on your beliefs or anything like that, but frankly the more I read your posts the less I want to return to Christianity.

P.S. Please don't forget to give me the evidence I let slip in and out of my ears. I would like to see this evidence. Been asking for a long time.

See Nabobalis' post. The wikipedia article about evolution is pretty exhaustive. But I doubt you have the fundamental understanding of biology to get most of it, because a lot of it is pretty technical. I don't say that as an insult, it would be the same for me if I were to look up the evidence backing up most theories in chemistry and physics.

 

[Split Rock]

They really don't ... you are believing a big bang lie right from the pit of Hell to keep you from God!! What concise and basic explanation of evolution and it's evidence that you have seen fly in one of my ears and out the other. Do tell me please. The only explanations I get is that I am wrong and evolution is right. Duh!! That's just not enough. Now if you are saying that some moth changed his spots over millions of years... that also, is NOT evidence. It is speculation. I can just as well speculate that it is NOT.

Changes in things like coloration and spotting pattern have been observed and certainly do not take millions of years. We even know often which genes are involved. No speculation required.

Now, do I think that species and animals and even human beings experience changes over the years... yes, I do... I do not live in a vacuum; but I do NOT think a fish becomes a dog or a dog becomes a bird or a chimp becomes a human or any other species changeover. No one has ever proved that. (I know I know science doesn't prove anything) Well, why is it that you believe what has not been proved but only speculated, and you have NEVER seen any of that. You guys just keep hoping you might see it, and you keep saying we are getting closer. How can you be getting closer? You mean , because one or two creatures have shown up and MIGHT be a link but then again they MIGHT not. No one knows when the next one or IF a next one will ever show up, so how can you be closer??

Common Descent is inferred from all the physical evidence. The evidence continues to accumulate in its support. I'm not sure what more you want... other than perhaps the evidence to all go away in a puff of , "It was all speculation." One thing the evidence does not point to is "a fish becomes a dog or a dog becomes a bird or a chimp becomes a human." Actually, one cannot excape one's heredity. That is why we are animals, vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, primates, and apes... just like our ancestors were.
This is why life on Earth forms a nested hierarchy. The only process that produces a nested hierarchy is genetic descent.

 

[Inan3]

If you knew anything about evolution you'd know that those things happening would completely falsify the theory of evolution.

I was obviously being faceteous and exaggerting and I knew I would get a response. I hoped it would be a controlled response and so far it seems to be. Nobody blew a gasket anyway (so far).

I have actually had discussions with you (unfortunately, because it was a waste of my time) where I told you my background in Christianity and told you why I left the faith. Your hollow evangelizing does not impress me, and your attitude towards science is even worse. I won't pass judgement on your beliefs or anything like that, but frankly the more I read your posts the less I want to return to Christianity.

So because I don't believe in evolution my "evangelizing" is hollow? I don't get that. I never told you anything wrong when it comes to the scriptures. How does that make it hollow. So if I tell you the same things but then I agree with all of science will it then NOT be hollow or is it hollow just to you. It sounds to me though, that a person would have to agree with science to your liking before you could call them a good christian. I'm sorry that doesn't jive with me and quite frankly, it will not with God. You won't be ever able to say to Him but those Christians of Yours we just not the way I thought they should be that's why I didn't follow You. At the time we stand before the Judge we will stand on our own merit meaning... what we did with what He has done for us through Jesus. You can make any choice you want but quite frankly, it's a hollow excues to try to blame others for why YOU don't believe.

See Nabobalis' post. The wikipedia article about evolution is pretty exhaustive. But I doubt you have the fundamental understanding of biology to get most of it, because a lot of it is pretty technical. I don't say that as an insult, it would be the same for me if I were to look up the evidence backing up most theories in chemistry and physics.

I will do that and have done that so look for my post to that.

 

[Inan3]

Okay Let's try this differently. I have a few questions to ask.

Is this a good definition of evolution? If not please give me YOUR definition.

"It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. "

What is Evolution?

​

Also, could you please verify or not whether in this definiton the words "population" and "individuals" mean the same as the definition for the rest of the population in the real world or do they mean something different in Scienceville?

 

[Tiberius]

Okay Let's try this differently. I have a few questions to ask.

Is this a good definition of evolution? If not please give me YOUR definition.

"It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. "

What is Evolution?

​

Also, could you please verify or not whether in this definiton the words "population" and "individuals" mean the same as the definition for the rest of the population in the real world or do they mean something different in Scienceville?

That's pretty good.

If you have a population of animals (that is, a group of animals of some number that is large enough to maintain its population over many generations instead of dying out due to lack of numbers), then over many generations, the traits that the population has will change.

So if you look at the population in the generation that is a,ive today (we'll call it generation 0), and then come back in a thousand years to look at generation 500, you'll find that the traits that Gen 500 has are different to the ones gen 0 has. Some will be developments of things that gen 0 had. Maybe Gen 0 had some small mark on the tail, which has grown larger and more conspicuous on the males of gen 500 as a part of their mating display. or maybe it's a thin coat of hair on gen 0 that has become thicker in gen 500 due to a decrease in temperature.

Or there could be new traits that came from a pre existing feature. Examples of these are the trunks of elephants, which were formed from a fusing of the nose and upper lip of their ancestor. Even our jaws were made from gill supports from an ancestor of ours which lived a long time ago.

So, in evolution, "population" means a group of animals that are capable of breeding among themselves to produce fertile offspring. An "individual" is a single representative from that population.

An individual does not evolve. A zebra could live to be a million years old, but it will always be a zebra.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

"It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. "

What is Evolution?

​

Also, could you please verify or not whether in this definiton the words "population" and "individuals" mean the same as the definition for the rest of the population in the real world or do they mean something different in Scienceville?

In evolutionary biology an individual is a single, or very small group of organisms that posses a mutation.

A population is the group the individual(s) live in.

How natural selection works is when a new mutation arises in an individual, the individual will then pass on the mutation to its offspring, if the mutation wasn't debilitation. If the mutation is not debilitating, but instead improves the survival rate or opens up a new nitch, the gene will continue to pass on until the mutation grows to a noticeable level in the population. This is where punctuated equilibrium, Founder effect, and or nitches come into play.

If the mutation opens up a new nitch, the parts of the population that can utilize this new area will most likely separate from the main population and create a new subspecies. This is pretty much the founder effect in a nutshell.

If there is a change in the environment that favors the mutation, the population will shift to those with the mutation.

This is measured with the hardy weinberg equation. The equation tracks how populations adapt, stagnate, or reach equilibrium.

 

[Greg1234]

Common Descent is inferred from all the physical evidence.

No it isn't. Experiments blatantly show limits, loss of function, degradation, intelligent mechanisms for adaptation etc.

The evidence continues to accumulate in its support.

If only it could have accumulated in those long term experiments. 80 years ==> 80. Fruit flies. From the way you people talk...

 

[Awesome_Frog]

No it isn't. Experiments blatantly show limits, loss of function, degradation, intelligent mechanisms for adaptation etc.

The only limit I have seen when it comes to mutation, is that the entire genome dosen't reset when an individual is borne. Degradation happens when a mutation happens in a currently vital gene or sequence. For instance, if a mutation causes an individual to produce less proteins that code for white blood cells when a higher count would be more beneficial. Function gain is seen, especially when we look at human evolution when we compare the Cranial capacity of erectus and Sapian.

If only it could have accumulated in those long term experiments. 80 years ==> 80. Fruit flies. From the way you people talk...

The fruit fly experiments showed how genetics works when genes are turned on or off, or when new sequences appear in places of other sequences ( mutations). The information showed from these experiments gave us the evidence that genes do impact how species develop and divide.

 

[Inan3]

That's pretty good.

If you have a population of animals (that is, a group of animals of some number that is large enough to maintain its population over many generations instead of dying out due to lack of numbers), then over many generations, the traits that the population has will change.

So if you look at the population in the generation that is a,ive today (we'll call it generation 0), and then come back in a thousand years to look at generation 500, you'll find that the traits that Gen 500 has are different to the ones gen 0 has. Some will be developments of things that gen 0 had. Maybe Gen 0 had some small mark on the tail, which has grown larger and more conspicuous on the males of gen 500 as a part of their mating display. or maybe it's a thin coat of hair on gen 0 that has become thicker in gen 500 due to a decrease in temperature.

Or there could be new traits that came from a pre existing feature. Examples of these are the trunks of elephants, which were formed from a fusing of the nose and upper lip of their ancestor. Even our jaws were made from gill supports from an ancestor of ours which lived a long time ago.

So, in evolution, "population" means a group of animals that are capable of breeding among themselves to produce fertile offspring. An "individual" is a single representative from that population.

An individual does not evolve. A zebra could live to be a million years old, but it will always be a zebra.

Two questions:

In that "population" is that "group of animals" all the same animals?

How is it possible that an individual, like the zebra, COULD live a million years and not evolve? or is it possible?

 

[Inan3]

In evolutionary biology an individual is a single, or very small group of organisms that posses a mutation.

A population is the group the individual(s) live in.

How natural selection works is when a new mutation arises in an individual, the individual will then pass on the mutation to its offspring, if the mutation wasn't debilitation. If the mutation is not debilitating, but instead improves the survival rate or opens up a new nitch, the gene will continue to pass on until the mutation grows to a noticeable level in the population. This is where punctuated equilibrium, Founder effect, and or nitches come into play.

If the mutation opens up a new nitch, the parts of the population that can utilize this new area will most likely separate from the main population and create a new subspecies. This is pretty much the founder effect in a nutshell.

If there is a change in the environment that favors the mutation, the population will shift to those with the mutation.

This is measured with the hardy weinberg equation. The equation tracks how populations adapt, stagnate, or reach equilibrium.

Okay, I see that but it seems to all point forward. How does this translate back to Common Descent?

 

[Delphiki]

Okay, I see that but it seems to all point forward. How does this translate back to Common Descent?

The same way as when you see a dragster cross a finish line at 150 mph, you can make a safe bet it came from the starting line and not from a flying saucer.

 

[Inan3]

The same way as when you see a dragster cross a finish line at 150 mph, you can make a safe bet it came from the starting line and not from a flying saucer.

No safe bets allowed. According to YOUR rules we know he started at the starting line BECAUSE we OBSERVED it.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

No safe bets allowed. According to YOUR rules we know he started at the starting line BECAUSE we OBSERVED it.

You can observe the tyre tracks running back to the starting line. Even if you didn't actually see the dragster leave the starting line it is obvious from the observable evidence that that is where it started from.

I'd really like to know if you think we need to have observed something directly how we prosecute people in the justice system when we don't have eye witnesses.

 

[Delphiki]

You can observe the tyre tracks running back to the starting line. Even if you didn't actually see the dragster leave the starting line it is obvious from the observable evidence that that is where it started from.

I'd really like to know if you think we need to have observed something directly how we prosecute people in the justice system when we don't have eye witnesses.

Or why she would subscribe to the bible as truth, as I'm fairly certain she wasn't around yet for Jesus' crucifixion or Adam and Eve.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Two questions:

In that "population" is that "group of animals" all the same animals?

All the same, from what I can gather.

How is it possible that an individual, like the zebra, COULD live a million years and not evolve? or is it possible?

Because it's just a million year old zebra, evolution is caused by genetic mutation passed on to the next generation, that one million year old zebra is just one generation.

I guess, if he was bitten by a radioactive spider or something he might evolve superpowers.

 

[Inan3]

You can observe the tyre tracks running back to the starting line. Even if you didn't actually see the dragster leave the starting line it is obvious from the observable evidence that that is where it started from.

I'd really like to know if you think we need to have observed something directly how we prosecute people in the justice system when we don't have eye witnesses.

Oh no, I live by faith. I find it very confusing, that you would hold to that because what I have been told is that you guys never believe in anything you do NOT see and yet it seems you are believing something you do NOT see. Let's take the tire tracks, OBSERVABLE evidence as you point out, that gives us the starting point of the race, but surely you cannot tell the owner of the vehicle or what facility it was parked in or where that facility was located or what the original color of the vehicle was, or the brand of the tires it used to have etc. etc. by those tire tracks. Yes, they do give us evidence of the vehicle having wheels and that possible someone was driving and where the race "could" have started but they certainly are not enough. In the real world we know that all these things can be found out because the race car did not evolve it was created and made and we have records for it. It all goes back to the creator though and the original intent or pattern.

As to your justice system example, I suppose it is as vague as science and yet it all hangs on evidence. It has been proven though, that just because the victims blood was on the defendents shirt and the defendent was holding the knife over the victim, and someone saw that whole scene. Though it is evidence, it can sometimes prove NOT to be evidence that the defendent actually commited the crime.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Oh no, I live by faith. I find it very confusing, that you would hold to that because what I have been told is that you guys never believe in anything you do NOT see and yet it seems you are believing something you do NOT see. Let's take the tire tracks, OBSERVABLE evidence as you point out, that gives us the starting point of the race, but surely you cannot tell the owner of the vehicle or what facility it was parked in or where that facility was located or what the original color of the vehicle was, or the brand of the tires it used to have etc. etc. by those tire tracks. Yes, they do give us evidence of the vehicle having wheels and that possible someone was driving and where the race "could" have started but they certainly are not enough.

In the case of something like evolution, if you wish to continue with the analogy, in addition the tyre tracks there is evidence of the dragster's passing (receipts and records to do with the dragster, fuel purchases along the way, lease agreements etc.) stretching all the way back in a manner allowing us to determine who the owner is, where the facility the dragster was parked was and what colour the dragster was. Currently there isn't a single other definition that fits the evidence we're seeing associated with this dragster.

Others have suggested possibilities that come from an ancient book telling us about a magical mechanic that built the dragster 6000 years ago but it just doesn't fit what we're seeing. What we're seeing tells us the dragster has been around much much longer. Continuing to push an idea that is obviously wrong is like having mountains and mountains of evidence demonstrating that the victim was killed by her neighbour only to convict a man that lives 8000km away, had never met the victim and had a reliable alibi confirmed by 300 people just because someone wrote down a campfire story about a murder just like this one 2000 years ago.

In the real world we know that all these things can be found out because the race car did not evolve it was created and made and we have records for it. It all goes back to the creator though and the original intent or pattern.

Unfortunately this is where the analogy doesn't work and it is why I don't like using non-biological things to try to describe a biological process. While a dragster is obviously built by someone a dragster doesn't produce offspring and doesn't pass inherited traits to it's offspring. At this point the analogy is imperfect.

As to your justice system example, I suppose it is as vague as science and yet it all hangs on evidence.

You think science is vague? You have a rather warped view of science then.

It has been proven though, that just because the victims blood was on the defendents shirt and the defendent was holding the knife over the victim, and someone saw that whole scene. Though it is evidence, it can sometimes prove NOT to be evidence that the defendent actually commited the crime.

This is why we have reasonable doubt. Just like in science we have margins of error, recognition of the difference between cause and correlation etc.. You will notice that when people talk about when a particular creature existed it is always a case of "around X number of years ago". We understand and account for possible inaccuracies.