What is evolution, not what some think

Those are just childish wishes... just as kid hope fairies are real, because he found a coin bellow pillow or Santa got him gift... both are proof of existence of those awesome creatures... but I am most astonished by proof of Dragons, Goblins, Goblets, Wizards, snake-like-creatures and many other fascinating creatures in both Harry Potter and Bible, except first one has some literature value in it. Not to mention proof of Vampires we can see in works of Anne Rice or even those new sparkling vampires...

It is somewhat scary as well sad that grown people can believe in stories such as virgin birth, wine out of water, walk on water, 3 days in whale and many more fairy tales... while disregarding all other fairy tales such as 3 piglets, red riding hood etc... Not sure why... but sad and scary for sure...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Those are just childish wishes... just as kid hope fairies are real, because he found a coin bellow pillow or Santa got him gift... both are proof of existence of those awesome creatures... but I am most astonished by proof of Dragons, Goblins, Goblets, Wizards, snake-like-creatures and many other fascinating creatures in both Harry Potter and Bible, except first one has some literature value in it. Not to mention proof of Vampires we can see in works of Anne Rice or even those new sparkling vampires...

It is somewhat scary as well sad that grown people can believe in stories such as virgin birth, wine out of water, walk on water, 3 days in whale and many more fairy tales... while disregarding all other fairy tales such as 3 piglets, red riding hood etc... Not sure why... but sad and scary for sure...

Couldn't agree more SuperFrog.

In fact the story of Robin Hood and his merry men is far more likely, in any historical sense. For starters we don't have to wade through the obvious supernatural mythology that we know couldn't happen and didn't happen. Unlike Jesus (if we discount obvious forgery and wishful thinking), at least there are genuine historical documents of the time showing people that could well have been Robin Hood, or at least "based on".

So far we have seen just about everything we understand about our universe discredited...because science relies too heavily on "faith", yet..."Jesus (who might not have even existed) proves God" (who also has no known tangible existence) requires less faith apparently lol. Something not quite congruent what would normally be called "logic" there. That's before we get to explanations of exactly how this being managed his feat of somehow spontaneously generating a universe and everything in it, no evolution, our understanding of cosology too heavily based on "faith"...

a reply to: SuperFrog
funny, I place evolution with all those fairy storys and myth, no matter how many times i say it, i still get your faith in evolution preached at me.
Your faith in evolution is as solid as mine in God. You push your beliefs harder than I push mine. I dont understand why

I wonder why evolution is so important that it has to be preached, it has to be forced, it has to be pressured.
Why cant you just hear I dont accept it and move on.
If I die a believer in Christ, what is your fear.

Why the fear, why the preaching
Why do your legitimate assumptions outweigh mine
I am not trying to win you over to God, why are you trying to win me over

Evolutionists have decided the evidence suits their theory, I believe the evidence isnt strong enough to suit any theory.
Deal with that statement
Nothing has changed, only that I think the average evolutionist has a flaw in their thinking. A serious flaw


This is a fun website aimed at children explaining a link from cosmic evolution to biological evolution
cmex.ihmc.us...

They get it, why cant you

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: SuperFrog
funny, I place evolution with all those fairy storys and myth, no matter how many times i say it, i still get your faith in evolution preached at me.
Your faith in evolution is as solid as mine in God. You push your beliefs harder than I push mine. I dont understand why

I wonder why evolution is so important that it has to be preached, it has to be forced, it has to be pressured.
Why cant you just hear I dont accept it and move on.
If I die a believer in Christ, what is your fear.

Why the fear, why the preaching
Why do your legitimate assumptions outweigh mine
I am not trying to win you over to God, why are you trying to win me over

Evolutionists have decided the evidence suits their theory, I believe the evidence isnt strong enough to suit any theory.
Deal with that statement
Nothing has changed, only that I think the average evolutionist has a flaw in their thinking. A serious flaw


This is a fun website aimed at children explaining a link from cosmic evolution to biological evolution
cmex.ihmc.us...

They get it, why cant you

Erm, your link is a flag-waver for evolution. As for your remarkable statement, I think that you have it backwards. There is no fear, there is just a need to teach in order to make sure that people properly understand where we all come from. What's wrong with that? If there is any fear then it seems to be on the part of Creationists, who seem to think that their theory of the original of life is viable or even scientific. Look at it another way - in past centuries various established churches have censored, threatened and even executed scientists and other people who have an alternate view of the universe. We must never return to those barbaric times, when information was controlled by men with such tiny minds.
The science is clear, it is testable, it is repeatable, it is.... science. It's a fact. Shouting that your faith says that god did it is your right, as you have free speech. But don't try to claim that your view is scientific.

Just jumping in randomly as there didn't seem to be any one good person to reply to so please don't take offense.

So I think evolution as a theory makes some sound sense. creatures, plants, people, whatever respond to a certain environmental challenge in a particular way in order to overcome a challenge and continue existing. I know its not the quote on quote defintion of evolutiona perse but I haave tended to lean towards to opponents in my more recent years and for some good reason.

The fossil record - Where's the transitionary species? I don't mean the start and then the finsihed new species, I mean where is the dinosaur thats starting to grow feathers ? Where is the mouse that is starting to protrude wings? Why do humans have " vestigal " organs if we " evolved" Something like that. From what I can tell from limited research, there aren't any which deals a big blow there, but also not saying there aren't any

Why do humans squint in the sunlight when the neanderthal had the rigid browline and sturdier bones and other physical adaptations that made them physically superior to us living here on THIS earth? Yes i understand the word is we " evolved " alongside them and had better brains which is why we " won " out as it were. Basically we are unfit to live on this planet is the sum of that part.( Lloyd Pye had some interesting observations if you care to pay attention )

Why for the last 100+ years have scientists not been able to make Methusulah flies, bacteria, worms, and other organisms spawn new species to overcome the dozens of challenges they have imposed on them? We're talking 1000's of generations of incredibly short lived organisms. Surely 1000's of generations of organisms exposed to some environmental hardship would start to show

I have heard people explain how evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics but i confess I'm not smart enoug hto understand how exactly. My understanding is that physcial things cannot and will not get better over time as evolution suggests, everything physcial declines overtime is what I think they are trying to say via entropy. I've tried and still don't quite understand that part but im sure someone here could explain it.

I see all kinds of evidence of God around but no evidence of evolution. I don't feel dumb for feeling I'm a created being. Evolution is still a theory, I think after almost 200 years thats all its going to be. Charles Darwin was a Eugenicist, so was his brother, Aldous Huxley and their whole gang. He was also not a scientist so I am mostly confused as to why anyone would take advice about their car from someone who knows nothing of a car ( bad comparison I know )

Does my argument have holes? sure, I didn't come to present a perfect argument but to me, Evolution is just a way to explain away your creator, God. You may see otherwise and i resepct that

reply to: Prezbo369

a reply to: borntowatch

You got my remarks about being scary wrong, my lost friend. I am not scared about you belief in supernatural things that no one on earth has any proof off, and there is no single shred of evidence that such supernatural things ever occurred - I am scared about you teaching your nonsense to your and other kids, about religious people agenda to add ID in schools, about your inability to understand history of humans is much more than what bible said.

One thing where your belief and more particularly disbelief in science and scientist, as well scientific experiments is very dangerous, is that you doubt everything scientific world has to say. For example - there are clear signs that we are messing up earth atmosphere, popping CO2 at an alarming rate, much faster than what earth is able to sustain - this creating green house effect - everything points to stronger and more severe weather patterns - yet all of those who don't believe scientists around the world, such as your self - doubt all those warnings and think that business as usual will not change...

This bring us to Dr. Tyson, who once said - every scientific truth has to go through 3 phases: “There’s a saying in the scientific community, that every great truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say that it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say that they’ve known it all along.”

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
The fossil record - Where's the transitionary species?

Here let me google that for you...

I don't mean the start and then the finsihed new species, I mean where is the dinosaur thats starting to grow feathers ?

I'll google it for you again...

Where is the mouse that is starting to protrude wings?

Birds didn't evolve from mice or even mammals....they evolved from the dinos, hence feathered dinos...

Why do humans have " vestigal " organs if we " evolved"

We have them because we evolved, we needed them at one point and they then they were no longer required and became vestigial

Something like that. From what I can tell from limited research, there aren't any which deals a big blow there, but also not saying there aren't any

Limited research excludes a single google search?...

Why do humans squint in the sunlight when the neanderthal had the rigid browline and sturdier bones and other physical adaptations that made them physically superior to us living here on THIS earth?
Yes i understand the word is we " evolved " alongside them and had better brains which is why we " won " out as it were. Basically we are unfit to live on this planet is the sum of that part.( Lloyd Pye had some interesting observations if you care to pay attention )

We were better able to adapt and survive, its that simple. 'Superior' doesn't automatically mean you're better suited to survive an environment.

If you want to learn anything about anything, Lloyd Pye was one of the last people you should've paid attention to...

Why for the last 100+ years have scientists not been able to make Methuselah flies, bacteria, worms, and other organisms spawn new species to overcome the dozens of challenges they have imposed on them? We're talking 1000's of generations of incredibly short lived organisms. Surely 1000's of generations of organisms exposed to some environmental hardship would start to show

8 Examples...

I have heard people explain how evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics but i confess I'm not smart enoug hto understand how exactly. My understanding is that physcial things cannot and will not get better over time as evolution suggests, everything physcial declines overtime is what I think they are trying to say via entropy. I've tried and still don't quite understand that part but im sure someone here could explain it.

Evolution doesn't suggest 'things' get better, or worse. Just more adapted to an environment. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not mean order cannot come from chaos, to claim otherwise is to show a misunderstanding of physics and in this context, biology...

I see all kinds of evidence of God around but no evidence of evolution.

Right you see sunsets, babies and kittens right? but not worms burrowing into childrens eyes, leukemia, starvation, smallpox, ebola virus etc etc. God-tinted glasses won't give you clear vision...

I don't feel dumb for feeling I'm a created being. Evolution is still a theory, I think after almost 200 years thats all its going to be.

If you want to know anything about science, you should learn the difference between a layman's usage of the word 'theory' and how scientists use it as this is a very typical creationists error that belies their ignorance on the scientific method.

Scientific Theory

Charles Darwin was a Eugenicist, so was his brother, Aldous Huxley and their whole gang. He was also not a scientist so I am mostly confused as to why anyone would take advice about their car from someone who knows nothing of a car ( bad comparison I know )

Charles Darwin wasn't a scientist?....who's been telling you these things? Because (/bryan cranston voice) they're lying to you...

Does my argument have holes? sure, I didn't come to present a perfect argument but to me, Evolution is just a way to explain away your creator, God.

Your 'creator god' is completely and utterly irrelevant in regards to evolution.

The fact that theists and religious people have problems with it is due to them perceiving it as a threat to their chosen mythology, and is entirely their problem and one of their own making.

Hope this helps!

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: borntowatch

You got my remarks about being scary wrong, my lost friend. I am not scared about you belief in supernatural things that no one on earth has any proof off, and there is no single shred of evidence that such supernatural things ever occurred - I am scared about you teaching your nonsense to your and other kids, about religious people agenda to add ID in schools, about your inability to understand history of humans is much more than what bible said.

One thing where your belief and more particularly disbelief in science and scientist, as well scientific experiments is very dangerous, is that you doubt everything scientific world has to say. For example - there are clear signs that we are messing up earth atmosphere, popping CO2 at an alarming rate, much faster than what earth is able to sustain - this creating green house effect - everything points to stronger and more severe weather patterns - yet all of those who don't believe scientists around the world, such as your self - doubt all those warnings and think that business as usual will not change...

This bring us to Dr. Tyson, who once said - every scientific truth has to go through 3 phases: “There’s a saying in the scientific community, that every great truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say that it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say that they’ve known it all along.”

ahhhhhh, a climate doomer. that would explain a lot of your attitude against religion and blind allegiance to science.

have you done any experiments yourself? published your work for "peer review"?
or do you just read something and believe it?

originally posted by: tsingtao
ahhhhhh, a climate doomer. that would explain a lot of your attitude against religion and blind allegiance to science.

Aaaah a climate change denier (in the true sense of the word)......explains your attitude towards facts, reality and your blind faith towards religious claims...

have you done any experiments yourself? published your work for "peer review"?

Damn you must produce a lot of those yourself?

or do you just read something and believe it?

Belief ain't got nothing to do with it, that fact that it has a proven track record and can reproduce its findings does....whereas every superstition that has ever been drummed up?...

a reply to: Prezbo369

The simplest refutation of the "defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics" dispute is to just say that Earth isn't a closed system. It receives much of its energy from the sun. The 2nd law applies to closed systems where no new energy is being supplied to the system.

originally posted by: tsingtao
ahhhhhh, a climate doomer. that would explain a lot of your attitude against religion and blind allegiance to science.

have you done any experiments yourself? published your work for "peer review"?
or do you just read something and believe it?

What Prezbo369 has said and a little info about scientific research. Reading scientific paper means you are 'researching'. You don't have to publish anything and/or do experiments your self and still be able to do scientific research. Also, you don't have to be a part of any academic team, as long as, if you decide to publish anything, write down your sources and give everyone credit for their research. (or simply just review someone's research)

There are many good sources for scientific papers, also you can subscribe to list for new papers, but somehow I doubt you have interest in doing so. Just in case you are interested, let me know, I can give you some good references.

As for climate change, we can study green house effect within our solar system - Venus. What happens with all heat that can't escape and where that will get us... but global warming would be whole new topic...

Borntowatch, have you ever been given a vaccine in your life?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

You haven't offered up any scientific research to support any of your claims. If these "alternatives" truly supersede evolution it should be trivial as there should be a wealth of scientific research and evidence to support them. Where is it?

You haven't offered up any scientific research in support of your claims either.

Saying the same thing over and over to people who just don't want to "get it", gets tedious after a while, so I slipped.

You could look up Wikipedia for yourself, perhaps with search terms like "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", "Punctuated Equilibrium", "Hologenome", "Genetic Recombination", "Adaptive Radiation", "Hox Genes", "Catastrophism", "Horizontal Genetic Transfer" and "Saltation" are good starting places for alternatives to classical Biological Evolution mediated only by the trio of mechanisms; mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.

None of it is secret.

However, the fact that the MSM and educational institutions still seem to be teaching that there is only one unassailable scientific theory would be the REAL conspiracy. Why should we allow them to dumb us down? We need to deny a little ignorance here and spread the word. - Stick it to "the man" for science!

Oh, and I forgot to mention Epigenetics or Panspermia. That's a couple of other big ones not covered in the current Classical Biological Evolutionary theory, and which would be good for you to Google.

a reply to: chr0naut

Epigenetics is not orthogonal to evolution and panspermia has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

originally posted by: Barcs
Borntowatch, have you ever been given a vaccine in your life?

Some people make the choice to refuse immunization (which I personally believe is irresponsible to the community).

Many of the people who make this choice may, for instance, believe that immunization contributes to, or causes autism (I have yet to see a study rigorous enough to clearly indicate that such is the case).

This topic thread is now quite large and it is easy to loose track of each point and who said it. As you have not quoted what Borntowatch has said, or provided any indication of what you were implying by your comment, I might easily assume that it is a personal attack, which would make it off topic (amongst other things).

Please clarify your post if it was on-topic.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Epigenetics is not orthogonal to evolution and panspermia has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

But they are mechanisms which may have an effect on Biodiversity, for instance:

Epigenetics may cause changes to biological populations which may seem Evolutionary (I recall a recent paper on yeasts which made claims of proof of evolution, but the specifics of the experiment indicated that the changes were more likely Epigenetic. Or perhaps the whole 'Drosphilia-Citron Kinase' example assumed to show evolution in action, was merely an Epigenetic change that was misunderstood?).

Panspermia may introduce a microbe from an environment which contains natural predators, but in its new environment, it has no similar selection pressures and so, blooms in population. This has repercussions in resources available for native species and changes the selection pressures for those native species.

That they are excluded from Evolutionary theory, when they may play a vital role, is precisely my point.

a reply to: chr0naut

Panspermia is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. You cannot include a hypothesis into a theory. It would invalidate the theory. If Panspermia were to be upgraded to a theory then MAYBE it could be included into the theory of Evolution. But really, Evolution starts with the premise that life is already present. Panspermia is about the origin of life.

a reply to: borntowatch

I dont believe in the big bang or how planets or stars form in order from chaos, I dont believe the big bang could have happened and created different elements, nor from all these theories, abiogenesis

Science doesn't care whether you believe or not. That's the great thing about it. Facts are facts, and will continue to be facts until long after you grow old and senile and forget your own name.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Panspermia is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. You cannot include a hypothesis into a theory. It would invalidate the theory. If Panspermia were to be upgraded to a theory then MAYBE it could be included into the theory of Evolution. But really, Evolution starts with the premise that life is already present. Panspermia is about the origin of life.

While it is true that, in scientific terminology, a hypothesis and a theory are different, it should be noted that a scientific hypothesis is one with no evidence supporting it. Once evidence is found, it becomes a scientific theory.

Since the discovery of nanobacteria in the Martian Meteorite ALH 84001, Panspermia is no longer a scientific hypothesis, but a scientific theory.

In the hypothetical example that I gave, Panspermia affected existing biological populations. Panspermia is about the distribution of life, not origin.

We could play semantics for hours.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Panspermia is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. You cannot include a hypothesis into a theory. It would invalidate the theory. If Panspermia were to be upgraded to a theory then MAYBE it could be included into the theory of Evolution. But really, Evolution starts with the premise that life is already present. Panspermia is about the origin of life.

While it is true that, in scientific terminology, a hypothesis and a theory are different, it should be noted that a scientific hypothesis is one with no evidence supporting it. Once evidence is found, it becomes a scientific theory.

That is an overly simple account of how a hypothesis becomes theory. The evidence needed to for a hypothesis to become a theory is quite extensive. The evidence needs to go through substantial peer review as well as the experiments/observations that led to this evidence. The panspermia hypothesis isn't anywhere close to this amount of evidence.

Since the discovery of nanobacteria in the Martian Meteorite ALH 84001, Panspermia is no longer a scientific hypothesis, but a scientific theory.

No it is still a hypothesis. There is just more evidence available to corroborate its claims, but the abiogenesis hypothesis is currently leading in the evidence category.

In the hypothetical example that I gave, Panspermia affected existing biological populations. Panspermia is about the distribution of life, not origin.

We could play semantics for hours.

Sure whatever, it's still a hypothesis:

Panspermia

Panspermia (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all" and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids.[3] and, perhaps most recently, by spacecraft, in the form of unintended contamination by microbes, like Tersicoccus phoenicis, that may be resistant to methods usually used in spacecraft assembly clean rooms.[4]