What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[Speedwell]

so you consider any such variation as evolution. but again: its just a variation, so why call it evolution?

it's evolution if the variation is selected and remains in the population.

 

[sfs]

so you consider any such variation as evolution. but again: its just a variation, so why call it evolution?

Because it's not just a variation, it's a particular kind of variation. We call that particular kind of variation "evolution". We don't call other kinds of variation "evolution". Using different words for different things helps us keep track of them. That's how language works.

We could just call everything "thing", after all, but that wouldn't improve communication very much, would it?

 

[Almost there]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes but not science.

The force is strong with this one.

 

[xianghua]

Because it's not just a variation, it's a particular kind of variation.

so you agree that its a variation. but again: variation isnt evolution. a change of color is also a particular kind of variation. but its not realy evolution since its still the same creature basically.

 

[Speedwell]

but its not realy evolution since its still the same creature basically.

"Still the same creature basically" is a meaningless assertion.

 

[sfs]

so you agree that its a variation

Yes, I agree that evolution is a kind of variation. It's also a kind of process, and a kind of thing.

a change of color is also a particular kind of variation.

True.

but its not realy evolution since its still the same creature basically.

No, it's not really evolution if the change in color is not a heritable trait that changes in frequency in the population. If it is a a heritable trait that changes in frequency in the population, then it really is evolution.

Asking the same question in different ways is not going to change the answer, by the way. Peppered moths were an example of evolution. Different car colors are not.

 

[xianghua]

If it is a a heritable trait that changes in frequency in the population, then it really is evolution.

yep. so as i said: according to this criteria any heritable new trait that changes in frequency in the population is evolution. so according to this if human will stay as human for about billion years, is still be evolution by definition. see the problem?

 

[sfs]

yep. so as i said: according to this criteria any heritable new trait that changes in frequency in the population is evolution. so according to this if human will stay as human for about billion years, is still be evolution by definition. see the problem?

No, I don't see the problem.

 

[xianghua]

No, I don't see the problem.

according to your criteria even if all creature were created at once by a designer (without a common descent), evolution will still be true. you realy dont see any problem with that situation?

 

[Skreeper]

according to your criteria even if all creature were created at once by a designer (without a common descent), evolution will still be true. you realy dont see any problem with that situation?

Maybe your creator did it that way? Created all inital species and let evolution take over from there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

a better term will be variation rather then evolution. such variation can heppen even in a non-living object such as car, that can change its color during the time.

That analogy does not work. Not at all.

 

[sfs]

according to your criteria even if all creature were created at once by a designer (without a common descent), evolution will still be true. you realy dont see any problem with that situation?

No, I really don't see any problem with that situation. Evolution is a process that happens. We can observe it happening, as species change genetically from generation to generation. It happens whether species were specially created, came from a common ancestor, or were constructed by aliens. Evolution can lead to multiple species branching off from one species, but it doesn't have to.

It so happens that on this planet, all the life forms we know have arisen by the process of evolution from a common ancestor (or a common ancestral pool of organisms). That happens to have been the result of evolution here.

 

[xianghua]

No, I really don't see any problem with that situation. Evolution is a process that happens. We can observe it happening, as species change genetically from generation to generation. It happens whether species were specially created, came from a common ancestor, or were constructed by aliens. Evolution can lead to multiple species branching off from one species, but it doesn't have to.

It so happens that on this planet, all the life forms we know have arisen by the process of evolution from a common ancestor (or a common ancestral pool of organisms). That happens to have been the result of evolution here.

so evolution is true even if special creation (without a common descent) is true. at least according to your criteria.

 

[Aman777]

No, I really don't see any problem with that situation. Evolution is a process that happens. We can observe it happening, as species change genetically from generation to generation. It happens whether species were specially created, came from a common ancestor, or were constructed by aliens. Evolution can lead to multiple species branching off from one species, but it doesn't have to.

It so happens that on this planet, all the life forms we know have arisen by the process of evolution from a common ancestor (or a common ancestral pool of organisms). That happens to have been the result of evolution here.

Amen, except its called "evolution" by those who have rejected God's "descent with modification". Descent with modification happens but godless evolution goes beyond descent into fantasy land, which they force teach to our children as fact. That's the provably false ToE and its religion/belief that Humans descended from Apes. That is a satanic Lie and in the end, many will be lost because of it. Amen?

 

[sfs]

so evolution is true even if special creation (without a common descent) is true. at least according to your criteria.

Evolution is a process. It can't be true or false any more than rainfall or eating are true or false. It is true that evolution occurs, even if special creation occurred. It is also true that existing species share a common ancestry. Two different statements.

 

[xianghua]

. It is true that evolution occurs, even if special creation occurred.

thanks. but this berkeley source disagree with that statement:

An introduction to evolution

"Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales"

and: "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"

so evolution cant be true if special creation is true.

It is also true that existing species share a common ancestry.

if you refer to all species on earth then no- its just a belief.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

thanks. but this berkeley source disagree with that statement:

An introduction to evolution

"Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales"

and: "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"

so evolution cant be true if special creation is true.

How do you know it can't?

if you refer to all species on earth then no- its just a belief.

Wrong.

 

[pitabread]

if you refer to all species on earth then no- its just a belief.

If by "belief" you mean a well evidenced conclusion based on the available evidence, then sure.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There you go again - "almost", "must have" - either it did or didn't. If it did, the experiment successfully proved it. If it didn't, the experiement successfully proved that it didn't. There is no "almost". At least, there isn't in the scientific method. It's quite binary.

I conclude (with P< .005) that you don't understand science experiments.

 

[Speedwell]

and: "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"

Right. Common ancestry is a reasonable inference form the way we know evolution works.

If it is common ancestry you are trying to disprove then you have three possible approaches:

1. Show that it is not a reasonable inference.
2. Show that mechanism of the evolutionary process doesn't work.
3. Present evidence of special creation.

so evolution cant be true if special creation is true.

Not quite. We know that the mechanism of evolution works. So even if special creation was true, there is no reason to suppose that the process of evolution would not cause the specially created creatures to evolve. Many creationists believe this. They contend that the many species alive today evolved from the relatively few "kinds" Noah took with him in the Ark.

Thus, we know--and creationists agree--that evolution has taken place from some starting point. The creationists believe this starting point to be the creatures of special creation. Evolutionsists theorize that the starting point was the first self-replicating life form.

Consequently, IF there had been no special creation, then common ancestry would remain a reasonable inference (unless you can show otherwise) from the evolutionary mechanism which we know works.

You might say, "Wait! I can show that the evolutionary mechanism doesn't work."

But that won't help you. If you show that the evolutionary mechanism doesn't work, then all you have is an evolutionary mechanism which doesn't work. But that does nothing to prove special creation, because that is not the only possible alternative to the evolutionary mechanism as we understand it.

What this boils down to is that at some point you are going to have to present evidence of special creation. Just showing that evolution won't work isn't going to do it.