Evolution and its effects.

[chair]

What argument? :idunno:

We're stuck in a semantic rut. It's really boring, but the Darwinists seem to love it.

That would be fine, as long as you respect what I believe.

You've yet to explain what is wrong with my definition of evolution, or whether you hold to it.

Stripe, the idea "that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection." may be a consequence of evolution, but it is not the theory of evolution itself, nor is it the observed facts.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the dictionary definition, or Barb's definition?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, the idea "that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection." may be a consequence of evolution, but it is not the theory of evolution itself, nor is it the observed facts.

I'm not arguing with facts. I deny the theory of evolution.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the dictionary definition, or Barb's definition?

It's been explained to you a thousand times.

 

[ok doser]

Barbie's definition changes with the wind

 

[chair]

I'm not arguing with facts. I deny the theory of evolution.

It's been explained to you a thousand times.

A dictionary definition ought to be acceptable to all sides. You have not explained why you don't accept it. You prefer to argue with the image of evolution in your mind, rather than what it really is.

 

[ok doser]

A dictionary definition ought to be acceptable to all sides. You have not explained why you don't accept it. You prefer to argue with the image of evolution in your mind, rather than what it really is.

Chair - I'll respond to you this evening when I'm in front of my laptop

 

[The Barbarian]

Stripe, the idea "that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection." may be a consequence of evolution, but it is not the theory of evolution itself, nor is it the observed facts.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the dictionary definition, or Barb's definition?

Because the less obfuscation, the less believable the YE creationist belief becomes.

 

[Stripe]

A dictionary definition ought to be acceptable to all sides.

Evolution: The scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms such as natural selection [and random mutations].

You have not explained why you don't accept it.

Of course I have.

You prefer to argue with the image of evolution in your mind, rather than what it really is.

:yawn:

 

[chair]

I'm not arguing with facts. I deny the theory of evolution.

So you admit that evolution occurs, just the mechanism that the theory suggests bothers you?

 

[Stripe]

So you admit that evolution occurs.

Nope.

Just the mechanism that the theory suggests bothers you?

The theory needs to outline the mechanism.

Why do Darwinists struggle so with simple concepts?

 

[chair]

Nope.

Odd. You said that you don't deny the facts. And then you go ahead and deny them. Weird.

The theory needs to outline the mechanism.

And so it does.

Why do Darwinists struggle so with simple concepts?

Someone is struggling with basic concepts here, and it isn't me. Nor am I a "Darwanist". You aren't stupid or nasty by nature, but on this forum you behave both stupidly and nastily. Perhaps that is your way of demonstrating good Christian behavior.

 

[Stripe]

Odd. You said that you don't deny the facts. And then you go ahead and deny them. Weird.

Evolution isn't a fact. It's just a theory.

And so it does.

Then it's not a fact. It's just a theory.

Someone is struggling with basic concepts here, and it isn't me. You aren't stupid or nasty by nature, but on this forum you behave both stupidly and nastily. Perhaps that is your Darwinism.

 

[chair]

Evolution isn't a fact. It's just a theory.

Then it's not a fact. It's just a theory.

Someone is struggling with basic concepts here, and it isn't me. You aren't stupid or nasty by nature, but on this forum you behave both stupidly and nastily. Perhaps that is your Darwinism.

"know where to go"

 

[Stripe]

:AMR:

 

[The Barbarian]

Arguing with some folks about science is like arguing with Donald Trump about ethics.

They don't know anything about the subject, and don't even believe such a thing exists.

 

[Stripe]

Arguing with some folks about science is like arguing with Barbarian.

They don't know anything about the subject, and don't want to learn.

 

[The Barbarian]

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]

Each of the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution.[citation needed] In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

If you don't have much understanding of epistemology, this might be confusing. So here's an easy way to remember:

Evolution is a natural phenomenon, observed daily. It is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. "Allele frequencies" mean pretty much what "population genome" means.

Evolutionary theory is the theory that best predicts what we have found about evolution.

Mutation and natural selection are agents of evolution, But are not evolution. Indeed, as Darwin pointed out, a well-adapted population is prevented from changing very much, by natural selection.

Common descent is a consequence of evolution.

If any of that is unclear, You really need to do some reading.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution is a natural phenomenon.

Nope. It's just a theory.

If you want to learn how to join the discussion in a sensible, rational manner, respect what it is that is being challenged.

Darwinists believe that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. This is the idea that is under scrutiny.

Nobody denies that "things change." Nobody denies that genomes do not remain the same. Calling those things evolution does nothing but insulate your theory from scientific inquiry.

We know that is what you desperately want, but take a risk, why don't you? Who knows: Maybe your ideas can stand up under the weight of evidence.

But we'll never know while we have to spend every discussion chiding you for asserting your religion as a fact.

 

[Stripe]

Imagine if a YEC had asserted that creation is a fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

A very simple description of natural selection:

In spite of its revolutionary philosophic impact, Darwin’s concept of natural selection is quite easy to understand (and to misunderstand). It was based on observations of artificial selection, the results of selective breeding by farmers and animal fanciers. Darwin, for example, referred to all the different breeds of pigeons that had been produced by artificial selection.
...
Presumably, that’s the way birds saw it, too, back in the 1850s. The darker moth stood out, but the lighter one was camouflaged against the mottled gray lichen that encrusted the trees back then. As a result, birds ate mostly dark moths, and light moths made up over 98 percent of the population.

But then pollution killed the lichen on the trees, revealing the dark color of the bark. As a result, the dark moths were more camouflaged than the light ones. Thus, the dark ones had a better chance of surviving and leaving more offspring to grow into dark moths in succeeding generations. Sure enough, just as Darwin would have predicted, the population shifted. The “dark environment” just naturally selected the dark moths as more likely to survive and reproduce.

 

[The Barbarian]

Creationist explains:
For the most part, creationists use the same classification scheme, but they accept common ancestors only to a point. Where the evolutionist sees branches on a single massive tree of life, the creationist sees an orchard of many shorter trees.

Evolution only to a point. Which is quite a journey from insisting that new species couldn't evolve.