My evolutionary challenge, what does evoution actually mean?

[levnishbar]

That is not correct. 'Evolution' describes a physical process while 'creation' ascribes a metaphysical cause. Acceptance or rejection of evolution is independent of belief or disbelief in God.

Let's not get confused between adaptation and evolution.

I have explained elsewhere in the thread that adaptation is an observable process whereas evolution is the creation of entirely new species or life from a soup of nutrients.

An example of adaptation is bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics.

Adaptation involves the removal of genetic diversity from a gene pool due to environmental pressures favoring certain traits, whereas evolution involves the creation of new genetic information. Evolution is like writing a new book while adaptation is removing pages.

Based on this definition, there has not been a single observable instance of evolution, so it remains a theory.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let's not get confused between adaptation and evolution.

Could we? That would be great.

I have explained elsewhere in the thread that adaptation is an observable process whereas evolution is the creation of entirely new species

That's one part of evolution (speciation), but there is also evolution without speciation.

Based on this definition, there has not been a single observable instance of evolution, so it remains a theory.

Even one of your definitions (the only one that was actually evolution) -- speciation -- has been observed many times in the lab and in the field.

 

[46AND2]

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Glad to see you back, ser. I've been on hiatus myself for a while, but you had been gone for a while before I left.

 

[46AND2]

Let's not get confused between adaptation and evolution.

There is no such distinction in the scientific world regarding these two words. Adaptation is merely an aspect of evolution. The only people who insist on such a distinction are the ones who deny evolution and want to refute the evolution we see in short time spans, and claim that we can never prove evolution because we can't empirically observe millions of years worth of change.

 

[levnishbar]

There is no such distinction in the scientific world regarding these two words. Adaptation is merely an aspect of evolution. The only people who insist on such a distinction are the ones who deny evolution and want to refute the evolution we see in short time spans, and claim that we can never prove evolution because we can't empirically observe millions of years worth of change.

Such a distinction is relevant if evolution is to explain how life came on Earth in the absence of intelligent creation.

The excuse of "can't empirically observe millions of years worth of change" is a smokescreen. If evolution really existed, these millions of years are cumulative and ongoing which means we should see at least some new animals/plants/bacteria/etc. being spontaneously created.

Modern science has been looking for some time now for evidence of evolution in terms of the creation of new species.

Please show me a new animal/plant/bacteria/etc. that was created from a primordial soup.

 

[46AND2]

Such a distinction is relevant if evolution is to explain how life came on Earth in the absence of intelligent creation.

The excuse of "can't empirically observe millions of years worth of change" is a smokescreen. If evolution really existed, these millions of years are cumulative and ongoing which means we should see at least some new animals/plants/bacteria/etc. being spontaneously created.

Modern science has been looking for some time now for evidence of evolution in terms of the creation of new species.

Please show me a new animal/plant/bacteria/etc. that was created from a primordial soup.

Let us now not confuse evolution with abiogenesis...because those actually are distinct.

 

[levnishbar]

Let us now not confuse evolution with abiogenesis...because those actually are distinct.

Semantics; if you exclude Divine Creation, how do you propose life appeared on Earth? It must have started from a soup of nutrients.

As I have said, please show me one instance of the creation of new species and you can rest your case.

 

[46AND2]

Semantics; if you exclude Divine Creation, how do you propose life appeared on Earth? It must have started from a soup of nutrients.

It's not semantics. Abiogenesis has no bearing on the veracity of evolution. In fact, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that god kickstarted life. It has no effect on evolution which describes how life changes ONCE IT EXISTS.

As I have said, please show me one instance of the creation of new species and you can rest your case.

Ring species, the bacteria which digests nylon, the fruit flies from the famous experiment, MANY instances in plant life, to name a few. But of course, you have likely dismissed all those before because you're expecting something which evolution doesn't even state happens. Because you want huge changes. But huge changes take GOBS of time. Which is exactly what I meant when I said that evolution deniers want to paint the evolution we do see (such as my examples) as merely adaptation. There's no such distinction in the scientific realm. We have observed speciation many times over.

 

[levnishbar]

It's not semantics. Abiogenesis has no bearing on the veracity of evolution. In fact, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that god kickstarted life. Does nothing to evolution which describes how life changes ONCE IT EXISTS.



Ring species, the bacteria which digests nylon, the fruit flies from the famous experiment, MANY instances in plant life, to name a few. But of course, you have likely dismissed all those before because you're expecting something which evolution doesn't even state happens. Because you want huge changes. But huge changes take a lot of time. Which is exactly what I meant when I said that evolution deniers want to paint the evolution we do see (such as my examples) as merely adaptation. There's no such distinction in the scientific realm. We have observed speciation many times over.

Please cite.

 

[Shemjaza]

Semantics; if you exclude Divine Creation, how do you propose life appeared on Earth? It must have started from a soup of nutrients.

As I have said, please show me one instance of the creation of new species and you can rest your case.

Unless you assert that this is a wolf.

 

[sfs]

Let's not get confused between adaptation and evolution.

I'm quite clear on both subjects (one of which is a subset of the other).

I have explained elsewhere in the thread that adaptation is an observable process whereas evolution is the creation of entirely new species or life from a soup of nutrients.

I suggest you learn more about the subject before attempting to explain it to others. As has been pointed out to you, the origin of life is a separate subject, while adaptation is indeed part of evolution.

Modern science has been looking for some time now for evidence of evolution in terms of the creation of new species.

Um, no. Exactly how many technical evolutionary biology papers have read? (That's a real question, by the way -- do you know anything at all about actual evolutionary biology?) That evolution explains the origin of species was understood and accepted by modern science well over a century ago.

In any case, none of your post dealt with what I actually wrote in my post, which is that evolutionary biology is not an alternative to creation. They're different kinds of claims. It is an alternative to certain kinds of creationism, but trying to paint evolution as inherently atheistic is simply wrong.

 

[levnishbar]

I'm quite clear on both subjects (one of which is a subset of the other).

I suggest you learn more about the subject before attempting to explain it to others. As has been pointed out to you, the origin of life is a separate subject, while adaptation is indeed part of evolution.

Um, no. Exactly how many technical evolutionary biology papers have read? (That's a real question, by the way -- do you know anything at all about actual evolutionary biology?) That evolution explains the origin of species was understood and accepted by modern science well over a century ago.

In any case, none of your post dealt with what I actually wrote in my post, which is that evolutionary biology is not an alternative to creation. They're different kinds of claims. It is an alternative to certain kinds of creationism, but trying to paint evolution as inherently atheistic is simply wrong.

The origin of life isn't a separate subject. If evolution rather than creation is intended to explain the origin of life, then evolution needs to demonstrate that the creation of life from non-life is possible, in addition to speciation.

I'm not going to get into a credential measurement contest with a stranger on the internet.

Argue with facts, argue with citations.

But now that you've started arguing by ad hom, you lost my respect so welcome to my blocklist.

 

[sfs]

The origin of life isn't a separate subject.

Sure it is. It's studied by different scientists using different methods.

If evolution rather than creation is intended to explain the origin of life

It isn't. Evolution is a process that occurs in living things. I think the word you're looking for is 'naturalism', not 'evolution'. Evolution is a particular field of scientific study while naturalism is a metaphysical belief about whether supernatural causes exist.

Argue with facts, argue with citations.

The fact is that Christian biologists accept evolution, which contradicts your claims.

But now that you've started arguing by ad hom, you lost my respect so welcome to my blocklist.

Color me shocked.

ETA: also, telling someone they don't know what they're talking about isn't an ad hominem argument.

 

[Bradskii]

If evolution rather than creation is intended to explain the origin of life....

It isn't. Who told you it was? He or she was either telling you something that they knew to be untrue or they are grossly misinformed. Maybe you could post a link to show us where this nonsense came from and we can help to put you straight.

 

[Frank Robert]

The origin of life isn't a separate subject. If evolution rather than creation is intended to explain the origin of life, then evolution needs to demonstrate that the creation of life from non-life is possible, in addition to speciation.

I'm not going to get into a credential measurement contest with a stranger on the internet.

Argue with facts, argue with citations.

But now that you've started arguing by ad hom, you lost my respect so welcome to my blocklist.

You appear to be confusing non-life, prebiotic chemistry with the first living cell on earth. As others have explained, the appearance of life whether from natural, alien or supernatural causes doesn't affect evolution from the LUCA onward.

 

[46AND2]

Please cite.

What is it, exactly, you would like citations for? The speciation events?

The origin of life isn't a separate subject. If evolution rather than creation is intended to explain the origin of life, then evolution needs to demonstrate that the creation of life from non-life is possible, in addition to speciation.

This is exactly my point: evolution is absolutely NOT intended to explain the origin of life. It is intended to explain how life changes. I already told you that for argument sake, I'll grant you that god originated first life. How does that affect evolution? Not an iota.

 

[Frank Robert]

Semantics; if you exclude Divine Creation, how do you propose life appeared on Earth? It must have started from a soup of nutrients.

Until the creator deity makes himself known "divine creation" will remain a religious belief which is not a problem for most religious people.

As I have said, please show me one instance of the creation of new species and you can rest your case.

Google search "has there been a new species in a lab?" 340 million hits.

From 1st page
Biologists Have Just Created a New Species of Bacteria With ...
ScienceAlert : The Best in Science News And Amazing Breakthroughs : › scientists-have-created-a-li...

Scientists Capture Evolution in the Lab - ABC News
ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News, Headlines & Videos › Technology › story

New species of lizard created in lab that reproduces by ...
https://phys.org › Biology › Biotechnology

New insect species made via genetic engineering - Scienceline
Scienceline › 2020/12 › new-insect-species-...

The world's newest monkey species was found in a lab, not on ...
The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers. › the-worlds-newest-monke...

Simple experiment gives birth to first new species created in ...
New Scientist | Science news and science articles from New Scientist › article › mg17623721-...
Dec 7, 2002 — HUMANKIND has created a new species for the first time. Not by building it from genes, as Craig Venter said he was planning to do last week ...

This one was interesting.
Biologists Watch Speciation in a Laboratory Flask

Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.

In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species—a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution.
“Even though we set out to study speciation in the lab, I was surprised it happened so fast,” said Lenski, a co-author of the study. “

​

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

That is not correct. 'Evolution' describes a physical process while 'creation' ascribes a metaphysical cause. Acceptance or rejection of evolution is independent of belief or disbelief in God.

While I agree that "creation" ascribes a metaphysical cause, I would want to add that it also ascribes purpose and meaning. Although I accept that evolution is a fact and theory, I am first and foremost a creationist precisely because these metaphysical questions—cause, purpose, and meaning—are so much more important and significant in my Christian world-view than the physical questions explored by science. So, in other words, I am not a theistic evolutionist but rather an evolutionary creationist. As Denis Lamoureux put it, we are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists (p. 29):

They believe that the world is a creation that is absolutely dependent for every instant of its existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this category is the adjective "evolutionary," indicating simply the method through which the Lord made the cosmos and living organisms. This view of origins is often referred to as theistic evolution. However, such a word arrangement places the process of evolution as the primary term, and makes the Creator secondary as merely a qualifying adjective. Such an inversion in priority is unacceptable to me and other evolutionary creationists.​

-- Denis Lamoureux, "Evolutionary Creation: Moving Beyond the Evolution Versus Creation Debate," Christian Higher Education 9, no. 1 (2010): 28–48.

Due to my reading of certain scholars (e.g., Greg Beale, John Walton, Joshua Moritz, etc.), I experienced a seismic paradigm shift in my view of origins: It suddenly occurred to me that there is a sharp, categorical distinction between redemptive history and natural history. I no longer consider them to be synonymous. On this view, natural history is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, all things pointing to Jesus Christ for the glory of God. We explore natural history scientifically; we explore redemptive history theologically.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Such a distinction is relevant if evolution is to explain how life came on Earth in the absence of intelligent creation.

First, nobody looks to evolution for how life came on Earth, because evolution is not about the origin of life but rather the origin of species. Second, God is neither included nor excluded because that's a theological matter and evolution is a scientific theory.

(Although there are scientists who exclude God, such as Jerry A. Coyne, it is not a result of any science. It is a presupposition at bottom of their scientific inquiry. In the very same way, there are scientists who include God, such as Denis R. Alexander, which is likewise a presupposition at bottom of their scientific inquiry. "When I walk into my laboratory," Alexander said, "I do not suddenly stop believing in God.")

The origin of life isn't a separate subject. If evolution rather than creation is intended to explain the origin of life, ...

Evolution is not about the origin of life. It's a theory about the origin of species. (Remember the title of Darwin's book?) Evolution takes for granted the origin of the universe, the origin of the solar system, and the origin of life, in order to explain the origin of species. Allow me to use different terms to clearly express the salient point as I understand it: Notwithstanding how life arose, it has nevertheless evolved. Let us assume for the moment that, for whatever reason, we're never able expain scientifically how life first arose. Let's assume it remains forever impossible to explain. Does that mean life doesn't exist? Of course not. Life is everywhere and this vast biodiversity is a scientific curiosity. Evolution is one answer, our best scientific one.

 

[Loudmouth]

If evolution rather than creation is intended to explain the origin of life,

It isn't. Evolution was never intended to explain the origin of life. It was only ever intended to explain how life changes over time. Darwin himself described evolution as descent with modification by natural selection. Descent necessarily implies from life to life, not from non-life to life.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Darwin treated the origin of life separately from the evolution of life. From the very start of the theory the two processes have been separate. If God did create the very first life nothing in the theory of evolution would need to be changed.