What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

You misunderstand.

I am not saying evolution is a code or a padlock. I am trying to show you how a non-random selection process acting upon a random event works and how small cumulative changes made this way can add up to huge results.

The coded padlock is a perfect analogy, its a system
The problem is the system doesnt work in nature beyond species.

The huge results are not proven to show a dinosaur turning in to a bird or vice versa, just a larger beak, different colour or size difference etc

a reply to: borntowatch

The problem is the system doesnt work in nature beyond species.

How would it know to stop as soon as it nears a new species? What mechanism would there be to do this?

Furthermore - taxonomy is still an evolving study. Many of the lines we draw in the sand and say "This is species A, this is species B, this is the genus, these are the sub-species, these are the variants" these delineations are often arbitrary and are subject to change and revision the more we learn about the genetic and evolutionary relationships.

So why would evolution stop at an arbitrary barrier which may change on the whim of the scientific community?

a reply to: borntowatch

Sorry for the snippy tone, frustration will do that to a person... I do sincerely apologize for that. I was attempting to preemptively disarm a common argument, and I do suppose I should have waited for that argument instead of assuming to come...

As for the choice of words, you can call those things evolutions. It is legitimate to say "I studied the evolution of the cosmos." Same with chemical evolution, as long as we are talking something like fusion reactions inside a star. What is important is to note that it is not the same thing as biological evolution, THE evolution which is assumed when people say evolution unless otherwise predefined or stated. This is called operationalizing your terms. All other "evolutions" are analogous to, not synonomous with, biological evolution. Scientists can use context when they operationalize terms, which is why it is so important to actually define what you want to talk about. As for organic evolution, no. Biogenesis for reproduction within living organisms and cellular organelles and abiogenesis for life from organic molecules of non-living origin. As for the distinction between macro and micro evolution, I know of no biologist/paleontologist who make this distinction... It's just a matter of time.

The sun isn't actually a closed system... By saying it isn't you demonstrate that you haven't thought this through or simply don't know. I'll assume the first. The sun has a large gravitational pull. It will and does pull in anything that gets too close. For sake of simplicity, let's say cosmic debris. The universe is a trickier question, I don't know the answer to that. I'm not a theoretical physicist though...

You said in this thread that "The huge results are not proven to show a dinosaur turning in to a bird or vice versa, just a larger beak, different colour or size difference etc"
I'm not sure what you think evolution is... I mean, you're describing it, but you're not calling it evolution. You're thinking too human-centric. The distinction between the taxa of dinosaurs and birds is one created by man. That's taxonomy (and cladistics nowadays...). Imagine a dinosaur population splits. One group develops and grows independent of the other. It grows a larger "beak". Eventually, after several adaptations, the big beak group can no longer reproduce with the smaller beak group. That's speciation. That's evolution. What do you think evolution is?

Also, that's a great argument attacking me instead of my issue ("why I can't accept God did it"). I never said I couldn't. I said I didn't see the need to invoke such a claim. Also, please stop calling people evolutionists. That's also not a thing. Also also, a lot of my friends are creationists believe it or not. I understand the perspective. They're just more scientifically literate than you seem to be.

Sorry, frustrated again. Point stands, but I do apologize for tone.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

The problem is the system doesnt work in nature beyond species.

How would it know to stop as soon as it nears a new species? What mechanism would there be to do this?

Furthermore - taxonomy is still an evolving study. Many of the lines we draw in the sand and say "This is species A, this is species B, this is the genus, these are the sub-species, these are the variants" these delineations are often arbitrary and are subject to change and revision the more we learn about the genetic and evolutionary relationships.

So why would evolution stop at an arbitrary barrier which may change on the whim of the scientific community?

Thats the point, we see change in species not in kind.
Scientists state we see change over time to new species, they cant even categorise species yet.
It is guesswork as far as I see

Fitting the science to the guess

originally posted by: borntowatch

Thats the point, we see change in species not in kind.

There's not even a point of comparison here. Species is a legitimate classification used in science. Kind is a complete crock and not used as any type of descriptor, and in an over generalized sense at that, in Christian and Hebrew texts.

Scientists state we see change over time to new species, they cant even categorise species yet.
It is guesswork as far as I see

Again, a drastic over simplified generalization. Nw science is wrong r bad because it recognizes when it is in error and corrects for that? And just because the lines maybe ever so slight,y blurred doesn't mean change doesn't happen or can't be witnessed. It's a ludicrous and ignorant notion.

Fitting the science to the guess

And you're not discounting the science because it doesn't fit with your preconceived biblical notion? Surrrrrreeee.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch


Also, that's a great argument attacking me instead of my issue ("why I can't accept God did it"). I never said I couldn't. I said I didn't see the need to invoke such a claim. Also, please stop calling people evolutionists. That's also not a thing. Also also, a lot of my friends are creationists believe it or not. I understand the perspective. They're just more scientifically literate than you seem to be.

Its disappointing that you perceive my statements as an attack, it was never intended as an attack.
What I was trying to explain simply, I understand you dont accept God(or whatever your view is)
Why cant the average evolutionist accept some people cant accept evolution based on questions that still stand unanswered

As for speciation, you might want a better sales pitch, not on board just yet, like many others

As for the suns gravity, hmmmm.
I think the simple fact of you not being able to answer my issues leaves me in the position I started in.
I dont accept any type of evolution because the answers are not adequate

Sorry to frustrate you

originally posted by: peter vlar

And you're not discounting the science because it doesn't fit with your preconceived biblical notion? Surrrrrreeee.

Ahh so I deny all sciences then, simplification much.

You dont know how much you in the western world owe to the bible, to how it changed society for the better.
Pick all the worlds poor and corrupt countries and see how much influence the bible had on them

Then compare them to the western countries and how the bible influenced them.

The bible was the foundation of Western sciences.

Evolution is not a science I accept because it doesnt have enough answers.

30 pages and no answers, just a lot of patronising

a reply to: borntowatch

You would refuse all the evidence even if jesus showed you it.

a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,
Again, apologies for tone if it seems a bit crass. I don't mean to be a rude fellow. I do apologize for the frustration, it's not your fault. Entirely my own, to be honest. I thought I'd clearly stated the basics of concepts here.
Species on the macroscopic scale are usually well defined, especially for living organisms. There are issues with certain cryptic species which are closely related but hard to classify... But DNA and lifestyle can usually help determine the finer points of relatedness.
Perhaps you mean the issues with bacterial hierarchies? I'm not an expert, but I do know that most bacteria reproduce asexually, which is indeed a problem... Why? Because the definition of a species is usually something like "the highest level of taxonomical classification of a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring." (The fertile offspring thing is important. Boundaries between donkeys and horses, which can breed to create a sterile hybrid...) This shows the age of the science, as it uses macroscopic organisms, which would have been the majority known at the time...
Regardless, we're talking kinds now, and kinds refers to things put on the Ark. This means macroscopic life, animal life. For that, cladistics, DNA, and ability to actually or potentially reproduce and birth a fertile offspring are usually enough to define a species. So, instead of "species" being a poorly defined term here, I ask you to operationalize the term "kind" to such a clear degree.

To respond my "sales pitch," I do confess it was a quick example and I am not an expert. I highly recommend Dawkins's video series. It addresses the blind watchmaker, "randomness" issue, and other problems you might have with the theory.

Also, thanks for reminding me about the sun, I meant to post more about the fusion process... Again, I am no expert in this field. It is well understood scientifically, though, so please consult another source for better details. See, the sun can be thought of as a nuclear reactor. Lighter elements are fused into heavier elements, releasing energy and heat. Hydrogen gets smashed into helium and all the way up to some of the higher metals. When the elements get to heavy to fuse, the sun can no longer sustain the reactions. This is how you can see entropy is preserved in total. The sun is producing energy, it cannot based on models, sustain that forever. Perfectly in line with the second law of thermodynamics. But like I said, the universe is trickier. No one currently has an answer, although I have heard of theoretical physicists having a few hypotheses and models...

Please remember, science is a process of taking data and observations and producing explanations for phenomena. If something is a theory in science, there is a lot of evidence and a lot of experimentation that backs it up.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: peter vlar

And you're not discounting the science because it doesn't fit with your preconceived biblical notion? Surrrrrreeee.

Ahh so I deny all sciences then, simplification much.

You dont know how much you in the western world owe to the bible, to how it changed society for the better.
Pick all the worlds poor and corrupt countries and see how much influence the bible had on them

Then compare them to the western countries and how the bible influenced them.

The bible was the foundation of Western sciences.

Evolution is not a science I accept because it doesnt have enough answers.

30 pages and no answers, just a lot of patronising

No, 30 pages of actual answers - and you refusing to read anything, let alone accept that your arguments have been shot down ages ago. There's no point in debating you, you refuse to ever admit that you are wrong about anything.

originally posted by: borntowatch


Ahh so I deny all sciences then, simplification much.

Did I say ALL? No.

You dont know how much you in the western world owe to the bible, to how it changed society for the better.

You're absolutely right, I don't know because it hasn't had any positive affect in my life or the society I live in while religious bigots hide behind a holy book that they ignore the real message of while cherry picking select verses to support their ignorant, hateful and very unchristlike behavior. I know far more agnostics and atheists who live their lives in a way Jesus would be proud of than I do Christians.

Pick all the worlds poor and corrupt countries and see how much influence the bible had on them

Yes, excellent idea. Lets start with India and Mother Theresa. What an amazing job that woman did helping the poor. I almost managed to type that without gagging. What a wonderful catholic she was don't you think? I especially loved how she raised tens of millions of dollars that went directly to the Vatican while the sick and dying people in her care were denied the most basic medical treatments. So yes... The bible had a horrible influence on those who came in contact with its message, by force usually.

Then compare them to the western countries and how the bible influenced them.

please, feel free to list some positive things the bible has done for western society, I sure as hell can't think of any.

The bible was the foundation of Western sciences.

You mean like how Europeans were using the power of prayer, leeches and bloodletting to cure disease while Persia was pioneering new surgical procedures that eventually became the basis for a lot of western surgeries as well as advances in science, Astronomy, inventing algebra and on and on...

Evolution is not a science I accept because it doesnt have enough answers.

No evolution is a science you don't accept because you refuse to look at the answers.

30 pages and no answers, just a lot of patronising

My point exactly, people have been bending over backwards providing you with copious amounts of evidence to support evolutionary theory, you refuse to even look at it and then patronize those who are silly enugh to waste their time trying to help you out of your own dark ages thinking you might have wanted to learn something as opposed to utilizing confirmation bias to ignore everything that doesn't jive with your bible. It's OK though, that's the beauty of science, you don't have to believe it for it to be real.

a reply to: borntowatch

The problem is you don't even know enough about the issues you bring up to recognize the answers you CLAIM to seek.

as for complexity increasing, no i dont see that in nature eitrher without design, you know, entropy

For instance, "Entropy" is often stated as "disorder" by scientists. Religious critics, like yourself, who have no idea about the actual science behind it think this means some sort of "arrangement" and that "entropy" implies "chaos". As in, how things are "put together". You keep referring to this as "design". The 2nd law is about heat (energy) transfer . . . that is all. Not "order" to "chaos". The word is in the actual title of the law "THERMO" (HEAT) "DYNAMICS" (MOVEMENT). When physicists use the term "disorder" they simply mean a "change" from the original . . . "entropy" is simply a measurement of this change. "Chaos" is never part of the equation . . . systems work toward equilibrium, that is an even disbursement of heat (same temperature).

You also seem to have no idea that this "law" does not apply to all things equally. It applies to "closed systems", which means it can exchange "energy" (heat) with its surroundings, but not matter.

The 2nd law merely states that in a "closed system", heat (thermo) always moves (dynamics) from a warmer to colder source . . . never from a colder to warmer source. Yet, depending on how we define the system it can appear that the 2nd law is violated often . . . refrigerators make ice from warm water . . . whole lakes and rivers freeze in winter . . . . food goes from cold to hot and back to cold. None of these examples are violations . . . as you are not considering the whole system. The 2nd law also describes nature in probability rather than with certainty. For example, water molecules may lose enough heat to stick together and form an ice crystal, but the chances (probability) of an ice cube spontaneously forming in a glass of water is incredibly small. However, it does not mean it is impossible. So, the 2nd law doesn't mean anything (stars, biological life) is "impossible" or can't happen.

IF we view a star as a "closed system" . . . it is a perfect example of a system OBEYING the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Faster moving particles (hotter/lighter/ . . . say hydrogen) are fusing with slower moving particles (colder/more dense . . . say helium) and the resulting increase in energy (heat) is released to the colder space surrounding it. However, it is technically not a "closed system" as it can exchange matter with it's surroundings. Objects constantly fall into the sun, adding elements. And, the sun constantly emits matter in the form of plasma and highly energized photons . . . That's what you lay folk call "light". Their formation has nothing to do with thermodynamics, until the gathered matter (elements) transform from gas to plasma. You may see this as "disorder" to "order" or even "colder" to "hotter" and a violation. However, just the examples above (refrig/ice) you are not seeing the complete "system". In the case of formation, it is a simple phase change and well understood. Gravity waves compress gasses, until ionization occurs. It's almost the same as creating a neon sign . . . only instead of gravity, we use electricity.

Just face facts . . . You don't know what you are talking about or even understand what an "answer" to your questions would be. Let alone, if they are the correct answer. Everyone of your arguments or "questions" rests in a complete ignorance of the stated principles or science you claim "makes no sense" or "can't happen".

The reason you see any scientific explanations as "guesswork" is because you have NO idea about any science or its methodology and refuse to properly educate yourself, even though you have the wealth of information that the internet provides at your fingertips. Instead, you cling to silly superstitions and archaic philosophical beliefs. When confronted by those that actually believe in your sincerity to "understand science", you resort to the typical Christian tactics of creating straw men, claims of being attacked, or that others won't "just accept your beliefs". However, it was YOU who made the thread and asked for those that understand said science to "explain it to you and answer your questions". We all understand your beliefs . . . they rest in an appeal to emotion and have no baring on the actual workings of nature or the universe.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: peter vlar

And you're not discounting the science because it doesn't fit with your preconceived biblical notion? Surrrrrreeee.

Ahh so I deny all sciences then, simplification much.

You dont know how much you in the western world owe to the bible, to how it changed society for the better.
Pick all the worlds poor and corrupt countries and see how much influence the bible had on them

Then compare them to the western countries and how the bible influenced them.

The bible was the foundation of Western sciences.

Evolution is not a science I accept because it doesnt have enough answers.

30 pages and no answers, just a lot of patronising

No, 30 pages of actual answers - and you refusing to read anything, let alone accept that your arguments have been shot down ages ago. There's no point in debating you, you refuse to ever admit that you are wrong about anything.

Well show me the answers over the last thirty odd pages
I cant find them

As Mr Hydeman stated above
"But like I said, the universe is trickier. No one currently has an answer"
there are many unanswered questions, these unanswered questions are my issue

simple

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: peter vlar

And you're not discounting the science because it doesn't fit with your preconceived biblical notion? Surrrrrreeee.

Ahh so I deny all sciences then, simplification much.

You dont know how much you in the western world owe to the bible, to how it changed society for the better.
Pick all the worlds poor and corrupt countries and see how much influence the bible had on them

Then compare them to the western countries and how the bible influenced them.

The bible was the foundation of Western sciences.

Evolution is not a science I accept because it doesnt have enough answers.

30 pages and no answers, just a lot of patronising

No, 30 pages of actual answers - and you refusing to read anything, let alone accept that your arguments have been shot down ages ago. There's no point in debating you, you refuse to ever admit that you are wrong about anything.

Well show me the answers over the last thirty odd pages
I cant find them

As Mr Hydeman stated above
"But like I said, the universe is trickier. No one currently has an answer"
there are many unanswered questions, these unanswered questions are my issue

simple

Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a classic example of what I was talking about. (Shakes head) Go back and reread everything. It's there - you're still refusing to believe any of it. Which is why there's no point in debating you. You have a closed mind. Bit sad really.

a reply to: peter vlar
You know what Pete, I dont think there is any value explaining anything to you relating to the bibles impact on the Wester world.....so I wont

Here is a thought though, think about this statement just a little more than you would normally before replying.

Did I post this thread to be won over by evolutionists and become one or did I post this thread to explain why I dont believe in evolution.

Consider that statement before replying, or better yet, dont reply


The saddest part of this whole thread is how most evolutionists dont understand the counter argument.
Yes I may not know the ins and outs of evolution and all its side sciences but I have a reasonable understanding.
You on the other hand have no idea of my beliefs, so base your understanding of my opinion on......???? nothing at all.

Thats not a great position to argue from.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a classic example of what I was talking about. (Shakes head) Go back and reread everything. It's there - you're still refusing to believe any of it. Which is why there's no point in debating you. You have a closed mind. Bit sad really.

Please explain away, in dot form if you like, I await with baited breath, keep it simple

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a classic example of what I was talking about. (Shakes head) Go back and reread everything. It's there - you're still refusing to believe any of it. Which is why there's no point in debating you. You have a closed mind. Bit sad really.

Please explain away, in dot form if you like, I await with baited breath, keep it simple

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

No, I'm not going to play your little game. You either don't understand the principles involved and have no intention of learning or you are now wilfully stringing us all along. There are 30 pages of answers in this thread. For you to claim that 'evolutionists' (that word still doesn't exist by the way, so I have no idea why you keep using it other than you think that you know something that the rest of us do not) haven't provided any proof is untrue and actually rather insulting.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

No, I'm not going to play your little game. You either don't understand the principles involved and have no intention of learning or you are now wilfully stringing us all along. There are 30 pages of answers in this thread. For you to claim that 'evolutionists' (that word still doesn't exist by the way, so I have no idea why you keep using it other than you think that you know something that the rest of us do not) haven't provided any proof is untrue and actually rather insulting.

Good idea
Best to leave it alone

Like every one else, see those are the questions I want answered not the ones many have answered in previous posts

and no, I am not stringing anyone along, you are here by your choice, there is no force or manipulation involved by me here.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

No, I'm not going to play your little game. You either don't understand the principles involved and have no intention of learning or you are now wilfully stringing us all along. There are 30 pages of answers in this thread. For you to claim that 'evolutionists' (that word still doesn't exist by the way, so I have no idea why you keep using it other than you think that you know something that the rest of us do not) haven't provided any proof is untrue and actually rather insulting.

Good idea
Best to leave it alone

Like every one else, see those are the questions I want answered not the ones many have answered in previous posts

and no, I am not stringing anyone along, you are here by your choice, there is no force or manipulation involved by me here.

But you ARE manipulating people. You keep claiming that other posters on this thread haven't answered your questions. They have. You just keep denying it.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg



But you ARE manipulating people. You keep claiming that other posters on this thread haven't answered your questions. They have. You just keep denying it.

Ok I am manipulating people, twisting their arms and forcing them to reply, to come to this thread and prove evolution, oh wait, I didnt ask for proof of evolution, just explained why I dont believe it

Why I choose to not accept evolution as a valid science.

You know if I wasnt a Christian I would still question evolution, those very questions I have listed.

I am assume there are many non Christians who dont accept evolution as it is now portrayed

I suppose you will just have to deal with the fact I dont believe in your belief

Hope that doesnt bother you to much