Question for creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

[pitabread]

Some asian cultures near the equator consider pale skin to represent nobility and high social status.

To think regional location is the only relevant variable is a gross oversimplification.

Asia is not an exception to the biogeographic distribution of skin pigmentation. And you're still avoiding the questions.

Let's try again:

Skin pigmentations are largely distributed biogeographically via different climates relative to the equator. Darker skinned individuals tend to occupy more equatorial regions with higher UV exposure. Whereas lighter-skinned individuals tend to occupy regions further from the equators with less UV exposure.

Why do you think that is? What could have led to the geographic distributions we observe in populations re: skin pigmentation?

 

[GallagherM]

The breaking up of Pangea, @pitabread.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

What could have led to the geographic distributions we observe in populations re: skin pigmentation?

Lack of global travel.

 

[pitabread]

Lack of global travel.

Can you elaborate?

Keeping in mind, we see this distribution pattern even within specifically latitudinal regions (e.g. Europe, Africa). We don't need the entire globe to see this pattern; even just a portion of it will do.

 

[Sketcher]

Correct. I defined it as someone who rejects the idea of common ancestry in favor of individually created organisms leading to separate lineages not sharing common ancestry.

I don't come down hard on one side or the other. I believe either of them is very possible. Not sure how that would be counted for your poll.

 

[Bradskii]

Can we prove selection is natural.

Are you suggesting that it's unatural? In what way could it be? The very term 'selection' means that there is a choice made. And it happens within nature. So it would be...natural?

And survival of the fittest doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. It means the survival of those best fitted to their environment.

 

[Frank Robert]

...............

If we're observing human mating patterns. Some humans like skinny mates. Others like curvy mates. Some like fair skin. Others like dark skin.

If natural selection is something that can be clearly defined by science. Which preference is the natural selection for a person to make.

Natural selection doesn't necessarily exist in science or nature. Its a philosophic generalization used in an attempt to interpret data relating to choices. Which invoke free will and countless other variables.

Where this becomes perhaps more obvious is there has never been a single experiment which clearly defined what natural selection is, or a precedence for it existing in nature. Its philosophy. Scientists who tote evolution probably couldn't cite a clear cut example of natural selection in nature. And if they did there could easily be enough exceptions and contradictions for the description to be questionable.

It is not observation of natural selection in isolation but also the ability to make predictions on those observations. Creationism unable to to make consistent predictions from what is observed and therefor must rely on the supernatural.

 

[Ophiolite]

Some asian cultures near the equator consider pale skin to represent nobility and high social status.

To think regional location or UV light are the only relevant variables is a gross oversimplification.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You criticise the theory of evolution for being too general, yet when @pitabread attempts to discuss a detailed aspect of evolutionary theory with you, you respond by saying he is oversimplifying. I can see only two rational explanations: either that is a deliberate ploy to avoid a discussion that would highlight the errors in your position, or your grasp of evolutionary theory is seriously deficient. If it is the latter, the problem can be corrected. If it is the former then I leave that to your conscience.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Can you elaborate?

Keeping in mind, we see this distribution pattern even within specifically latitudinal regions (e.g. Europe, Africa). We don't need the entire globe to see this pattern; even just a portion of it will do.

Being land locked and geographically isolated doesn't allow for selection. The area you cite falls more under adapatation than natural selection.

Inuits and eskimos are dark skinned despite residing far from the equator. It might be argued that average exposure to sunlight is more of a factor than lattitude.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Are you suggesting that it's unatural? In what way could it be? The very term 'selection' means that there is a choice made. And it happens within nature. So it would be...natural?

And survival of the fittest doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. It means the survival of those best fitted to their environment.

For natural selection to be useful as a scientific explanation requires a certain degree of consistency/objectivity.

As a generalization or stereotype, it would not be particularly useful for the same reasons stereotypes would not be considered scientific.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

It is not observation of natural selection in isolation but also the ability to make predictions on those observations. Creationism unable to to make consistent predictions from what is observed and therefor must rely on the supernatural.

If Charles Darwin walked into a divorce court of couples planning to divorce. What consistent predictions could he make relating to natural selection?

Natural selection assumes there are a wide range of potential candidates available for reproduction purposes. In reality, any selection process could be very limited.

Creationism is a completely different topic. I've noticed most naysayers who argue it have not taken 5 minutes to google search: "scientific evidence for God". Yet they want to claim to have overwhelming evidence for evidence of creationism not existing.

 

[Phred]

If Charles Darwin walked into a divorce court of couples planning to divorce. What consistent predictions could he make relating to natural selection?

Natural selection assumes there are a wide range of potential candidates available for reproduction purposes. In reality, any selection process could be very limited.

Creationism is a completely different topic. I've noticed most naysayers who argue it have not taken 5 minutes to google search: "scientific evidence for God". Yet they want to claim to have overwhelming evidence for evidence of creationism not existing.

So here we have evidence of why creationism still exists. This is the Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It is completely overwhelmed by the concepts of the Theory of Evolution and so spews out a noxious spray of garbled namelmarb that makes no sense to anyone but itself. Which is ironic because it's classification translates as "wise man."

If Darwin walked into a courtroom all he would want to know is whether or not those people could still have children or if they had already had children. Their marital status has no bearing on their ability to conceive.

What matters to evolution is that you pass on your genes to the next generation. All your complex handwaving and screaming about what people like or don't like has nothing to do with anything. It's all about genes.

 

[Frank Robert]

If Charles Darwin walked into a divorce court of couples planning to divorce. What consistent predictions could he make relating to natural selection?

False analogy. Evolution allows plenty of time for evidence and predictions.

Natural selection assumes there are a wide range of potential candidates available for reproduction purposes. In reality, any selection process could be very limited.

that is true when there are selection pressures which can increase predictability.[/QUOTE]

Creationism is a completely different topic. I've noticed most naysayers who argue it have not taken 5 minutes to google search: "scientific evidence for God". Yet they want to claim to have overwhelming evidence for evidence of creationism not existing.

What is your definition of evidence?

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

So here we have evidence of why creationism still exists.

Creationism. Off topic. We're discussing evolution here.

Make another thread if you want to discuss it.

I might oblige you. Although I can almost guarantee you would not like where the discussion went.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

False analogy. Evolution allows plenty of time for evidence and predictions.

Are evolution's observations & predictions objective or subjective in nature.

Yes. I am applying secularists morally relativistic arguments back at them here.

 

[Phred]

Creationism. Off topic. We're discussing evolution here.

Make another thread if you want to discuss it.

I might oblige you. Although I can almost guarantee you would not like where the discussion went.

I notice you snipped off the end of my post that was specifically about evolution. I can guarantee you didn't like that.

 

[Phred]

Are evolution's observations & predictions objective or subjective in nature.

Yes. I am applying secularists morally relativistic arguments back at them here.

You have no idea what evolution even is. How would you know?

 

[tas8831]

So, no answer then. As usual.

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma, the sun is the visible form of E/c2.
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

God can change energy to matter... E/c2 (energy)= m (matter)
God can change matter to energy... m (matter) = E/c2 (energy)

All of which took….

1. Mass
2. Intelligence
3. Spiritual motive

I see the theory of evolution as simply false as mass could not re-arrange itself on its own and come to life. And evolution had no motive to break out of the plant kingdom into the animal. This formula also makes mass eternal stuff…

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

 

[tas8831]

Humanity domesticated wolves into dogs and crosbred plants for thousands of years before Charles Darwin was born. All Darwin did was take what everyone already knew and tack his own questionable philosophic views to it.

Quite an assertion. Here - show us where, exactly, he did this:

Darwin Online

A searchable database of all of Darwin's publications. I eagerly await support for your charge.

Ideology like "survival of the fittest" are philosophy rather than science.

Please define "survival of the fittest" as it pertains to Darwin's theory.

I think its political and philosophy elements of evolution most question.

Examples?
Real ones?

Rather than basic science which says parents will bear a resemblance to their children, due to genes and DNA being passed on.

Great science.

 

[tas8831]

And you copied this without attribution from where?

Hello you, to me believe it is always helpful to know the definition of evolution. As someone who believes that God created everything. You should know that for me have no problem with the theory of evolution and find it almost as a useless argument in general.

Definition of evolution


1a: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.— Stephen Jay Gouldalso :

the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.— Nature

In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.— Pamela Weintraub
b: the historical development of a biological group (such as a species) : PHYLOGENY

2a: 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: the extraction of a mathematical root
5: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
6: one of a set of prescribed movements

Synonyms & Antonyms for evolution
Synonyms

• development,
• elaboration,
• expansion,
• growth,
• progress,
• progression

Antonyms

• regress,
• regression,
• retrogression,
• reversion