The phenomenon and the explanation

[Phred]

Things fall. Isaac Newton and his falling apple. That used to be the basic understanding of the phenomenon of gravity and then Newton's explanation of gravity. He didn't understand WHY gravity functioned but he understood HOW it functioned well enough to codify it in equations so that we could capture its effects. So we had a functioning theory of gravity. Then Einstein published the Theory of Relativity and upended the whole thing by redefining what gravity actually was. It wasn't a force but the effect of living in a universe where space-time was curved and matter followed the curve that was created by mass.

Still with me?

So what does this have to do with evolution? I regularly see people proclaiming that the Theory of Evolution is false. If it is then that doesn't change the fact that life evolved. They are two completely separate things. Life evolving is the phenomenon that we have observed and are explaining with the Theory of Evolution. (Things fall, theory of gravity. When you change the theory things still fell.) So by all means, question the Theory of Evolution if you are able. I have no issue with lively discussion. But that doesn't change the basic data that caused us to need it in the first place.

What I believe most creationists are saying and don't know how to say is that they don't accept the basic observational data that life evolves. They don't accept the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of data points that show how life evolves. They don't accept the multiple lines of scientific inquiry that all show evolution taking place. So they say things like, "It's just a theory." That does not matter.

The theory is the explanation for why and how it took place. Not that it took place.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Things fall. Isaac Newton and his falling apple. That used to be the basic understanding of the phenomenon of gravity and then Newton's explanation of gravity. He didn't understand WHY gravity functioned but he understood HOW it functioned well enough to codify it in equations so that we could capture its effects. So we had a functioning theory of gravity. Then Einstein published the Theory of Relativity and upended the whole thing by redefining what gravity actually was. It wasn't a force but the effect of living in a universe where space-time was curved and matter followed the curve that was created by mass.

Still with me?

So what does this have to do with evolution? I regularly see people proclaiming that the Theory of Evolution is false. If it is then that doesn't change the fact that life evolved. They are two completely separate things. Life evolving is the phenomenon that we have observed and are explaining with the Theory of Evolution. (Things fall, theory of gravity. When you change the theory things still fell.) So by all means, question the Theory of Evolution if you are able. I have no issue with lively discussion. But that doesn't change the basic data that caused us to need it in the first place.

What I believe most creationists are saying and don't know how to say is that they don't accept the basic observational data that life evolves. They don't accept the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of data points that show how life evolves. They don't accept the multiple lines of scientific inquiry that all show evolution taking place. So they say things like, "It's just a theory." That does not matter.

The theory is the explanation for why and how it took place. Not that it took place.

Admit, at least, that there is disparity as to what exactly is evolving, or what should be meant by "evolving".

 

[GallagherM]

Phred, would this also allude to the life of the human mind (or soul? Possibly?) and how it can evolve from say being a child, then learning and growing, and becoming through toddler, to teen, to adult?

My real thoughts on evolution is that is a cool thing and who is to say life does not indeed evolve. Creationist, believe that you, me and all others are all created and the world was too.

Do animals evolve or make mistakes? Can not really say for animals they do have to go through the process of growing just like us humans for example that of birds they have to learn how to fly. Lions have to learn how to hunt; you can not just have a lion go be grown up with a bunch of sheep and the lion becomes a sheep in it's manners would it not?

What would your thoughts be on this matter?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Things fall. Isaac Newton and his falling apple. That used to be the basic understanding of the phenomenon of gravity and then Newton's explanation of gravity. He didn't understand WHY gravity functioned but he understood HOW it functioned well enough to codify it in equations so that we could capture its effects. So we had a functioning theory of gravity. Then Einstein published the Theory of Relativity and upended the whole thing by redefining what gravity actually was. It wasn't a force but the effect of living in a universe where space-time was curved and matter followed the curve that was created by mass.

Still with me?

So what does this have to do with evolution? I regularly see people proclaiming that the Theory of Evolution is false. If it is then that doesn't change the fact that life evolved. They are two completely separate things. Life evolving is the phenomenon that we have observed and are explaining with the Theory of Evolution. (Things fall, theory of gravity. When you change the theory things still fell.) So by all means, question the Theory of Evolution if you are able. I have no issue with lively discussion. But that doesn't change the basic data that caused us to need it in the first place.

What I believe most creationists are saying and don't know how to say is that they don't accept the basic observational data that life evolves. They don't accept the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of data points that show how life evolves. They don't accept the multiple lines of scientific inquiry that all show evolution taking place. So they say things like, "It's just a theory." That does not matter.

The theory is the explanation for why and how it took place. Not that it took place.

From personal experience I can say that sometimes it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences of a claim. I'm not going to study all the hundreds of thousands of data points to still believe there was not much confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving (think, "I'm just another animal!"). I still have huge areas of disbelief unanswered in my skepticism toward Darwinian Evolution. Why the huge gaps? Do we even have one line from beginning to present? How do hundreds of thousands of data points begin to prove the nearly infinite numbers of 'possibilities', or rather, 'improbabilities', somehow worked out? I don't see how it is possible for the amount of time they claim it took, to perform the vast numbers of mutations —even if the mutations were as many of them beneficial for survival as harmful.

To me, it seems I should be forgiven when I keep hearing "This new find puts what we have thought about evolution on its ear!" or such, if I sit back and think, "they don't know much". To me, it seems at this point still mostly conjecture.

 

[pitabread]

My real thoughts on evolution is that is a cool thing and who is to say life does not indeed evolve.

Biological evolution simply refers to changes in populations of organisms over time. This is directly observed so the notion that life evolves isn't really in dispute.

What is disputed (by creationists) is the starting point: whether it was a single, universal common ancestor or a bunch of individually created ancestors from which modern species are descended.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Consider this thought.

The environment directed the evolution of flesh until us. Flesh that is no longer determined by external forces. Evolution is an internal matter for us that ends in flesh overcoming the laws of physics. Flesh that is not entropic.

 

[GallagherM]

@pitabread thank you for that information for it was helpful in understanding the arguments that people present when it comes down to the disputation of Creationist. That clears up a lot of things very quickly. Thank you sir.

@Eloy Craft That is a very interesting thought, sir, but do not completely understand it. Would like to expand that or help me understand better?

@Mark Quayle Fair enough, sir.

 

[Phred]

Admit, at least, that there is disparity as to what exactly is evolving, or what should be meant by "evolving".

All life is evolving. There is no disparity about what is meant by evolving. It is clear and concise.

 

[Phred]

Phred, would this also allude to the life of the human mind (or soul? Possibly?) and how it can evolve from say being a child, then learning and growing, and becoming through toddler, to teen, to adult?

My real thoughts on evolution is that is a cool thing and who is to say life does not indeed evolve. Creationist, believe that you, me and all others are all created and the world was too.

Do animals evolve or make mistakes? Can not really say for animals they do have to go through the process of growing just like us humans for example that of birds they have to learn how to fly. Lions have to learn how to hunt; you can not just have a lion go be grown up with a bunch of sheep and the lion becomes a sheep in it's manners would it not?

What would your thoughts be on this matter?

No. Evolution happens between generations. You then die with the genes you are born with and the consequences of those genes.

We are not speaking about the same thing.

 

[Phred]

From personal experience I can say that sometimes it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences of a claim. I'm not going to study all the hundreds of thousands of data points to still believe there was not much confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving (think, "I'm just another animal!"). I still have huge areas of disbelief unanswered in my skepticism toward Darwinian Evolution. Why the huge gaps? Do we even have one line from beginning to present? How do hundreds of thousands of data points begin to prove the nearly infinite numbers of 'possibilities', or rather, 'improbabilities', somehow worked out? I don't see how it is possible for the amount of time they claim it took, to perform the vast numbers of mutations —even if the mutations were as many of them beneficial for survival as harmful.

To me, it seems I should be forgiven when I keep hearing "This new find puts what we have thought about evolution on its ear!" or such, if I sit back and think, "they don't know much". To me, it seems at this point still mostly conjecture.

The fact of the matter is that life evolved. When you hear something like "we just had what we thought turned on its ear" that means "our theory about why life evolved was changed from A to B." Exactly what I explained in the OP. The point of all this is that life evolved whether you want to try and muddy the waters with claims to the contrary or not.

Life evolved. Your skepticism results from your desire to believe in religious stories. Nothing more.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All life is evolving. There is no disparity about what is meant by evolving. It is clear and concise.

Right....

 

[Mark Quayle]

The fact of the matter is that life evolved. When you hear something like "we just had what we thought turned on its ear" that means "our theory about why life evolved was changed from A to B." Exactly what I explained in the OP. The point of all this is that life evolved whether you want to try and muddy the waters with claims to the contrary or not.

Life evolved. Your skepticism results from your desire to believe in religious stories. Nothing more.

As you wish...

 

[Phred]

Consider this thought.

The environment directed the evolution of flesh until us. Flesh that is no longer determined by external forces. Evolution is an internal matter for us that ends in flesh overcoming the laws of physics. Flesh that is not entropic.

What type of crystal should I buy?

 

[Phred]

Right....

The constant hum from the creationist corner doesn't change reality. Life evolved and is still evolving. Your deliberate misunderstanding of the process in no way changes that reality.

 

[GallagherM]

@Phred thank you for your response.

 

[durangodawood]

Things fall. Isaac Newton and his falling apple. That used to be the basic understanding of the phenomenon of gravity and then Newton's explanation of gravity. He didn't understand WHY gravity functioned but he understood HOW it functioned well enough to codify it in equations so that we could capture its effects. So we had a functioning theory of gravity. Then Einstein published the Theory of Relativity and upended the whole thing by redefining what gravity actually was. It wasn't a force but the effect of living in a universe where space-time was curved and matter followed the curve that was created by mass.

Still with me?

So what does this have to do with evolution? I regularly see people proclaiming that the Theory of Evolution is false. If it is then that doesn't change the fact that life evolved. They are two completely separate things. Life evolving is the phenomenon that we have observed and are explaining with the Theory of Evolution. (Things fall, theory of gravity. When you change the theory things still fell.) So by all means, question the Theory of Evolution if you are able. I have no issue with lively discussion. But that doesn't change the basic data that caused us to need it in the first place.

What I believe most creationists are saying and don't know how to say is that they don't accept the basic observational data that life evolves. They don't accept the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of data points that show how life evolves. They don't accept the multiple lines of scientific inquiry that all show evolution taking place. So they say things like, "It's just a theory." That does not matter.

The theory is the explanation for why and how it took place. Not that it took place.

My sense is that creationists challenge the history of evolution as much as the theory.

Both of them are problem for literalizing the creation myth.

 

[Phred]

@Phred thank you for your response.

You're welcome. Have you been exposed to much of this? It can be rather overwhelming. On one side you have a complicated scientific subject and on the other you have a bunch of people doing their best to make it even more confusing.

 

[GallagherM]

No not really Phred, because really do not care for it that much honestly. People have their ideas and beliefs and everything, that is fine with me. To me people have to live their life by their own choice of what they believe. Do appreciate you making it very clear we were totally talking about two separate subjects.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Admit, at least, that there is disparity as to what exactly is evolving, or what should be meant by "evolving".

What is not evolving, or what is the disparity?

 

[Eloy Craft]

That is a very interesting thought, sir, but do not completely understand it. Would like to expand that or help me understand better?

The evolution of life has been guided by forces external to it. Changing climates wiping out these and offering opportunity for others and such. But human life, because of the introduction of intellect is not subject to external forces. Human life adapts to external forces.and masters them. Human evolution is internal. Human life isn't perfecting the sensitive powers but the powers of it's intellect. Which is itself not produced by the powers of nature. Perfecting the powers of the human soul leads to the next evolutionary leap demonstrated by those who were translated body and soul to immortal life and then made complete by the resurrection of Jesus to eternal life body and soul.