Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(5)
Message 106 of 936 (804358)
04-08-2017 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Dr Adequate
04-08-2017 10:14 AM


Why do you keep telling this lie? Whom do you hope to deceive?
The most important person to deceive. That one person who absolutely must be deceived at all cost. The same person that every creationist spends all his time working so hard to deceive.
Himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2017 10:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 107 of 936 (804479)
04-10-2017 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 1:11 AM


Luck & Chance
While evolution does rely a lot on luck and chance the theory proposes rather more than this. Natural selection filters what comes to it to produce non-random results. Your definition does not describe either what evolution does, and has done, or how it works.
In my definition I have tried to say what it does rather than how it works.
Some people are ready to criticize without providing a definition of their own. Feel free to comment on my definition at Message 87; EvC Forum: How do you define the word Evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 1:11 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Pressie, posted 04-10-2017 6:49 AM CRR has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 108 of 936 (804480)
04-10-2017 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by CRR
04-10-2017 5:45 AM


Re: Luck & Chance
It's easy. Your defintion sucks because it doesn't provide any way of measuring genetic information. Yet, your models depend on measuring genetic information. Which can't be measured. Circular. That's why it sucks.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by CRR, posted 04-10-2017 5:45 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 2:26 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2328 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 109 of 936 (804557)
04-11-2017 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Pressie
04-10-2017 6:49 AM


Re: Luck & Chance
The basis of luck and chance is luck.
Nothing stimulates mutations. These supposed magical mutations or explosions or mis-reads or new combinations do not appear because of a need for them, or because the species thought them up as an improvement, they supposedly only arrive by sheer luck and chance.
So evolutionists knowing this and admitting this whole basis of luck on their beloved mutations, try to suggest, its the lucky envirorment that magically selects these mistakes and abberations, or misreads that then produce the magic result. As if a lucky mutation gets even luckier when its compounded by a lucky envirorment.
And if it doesnt succeed in the short term, or the life span of that living organism, then they say, try, try again, as it is bound to get lucky if given enough lucky years. Lets say a million or billion years of lucky misrereads and waiting for the right selection process in the right lucky conditions.
Yes, I would definitely say Evolution can be summarized or defined as 'LUCK'. Luck waiting for the right chance.

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Pressie, posted 04-10-2017 6:49 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by vimesey, posted 04-11-2017 7:33 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 8:28 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 141 by CRR, posted 04-12-2017 6:52 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(2)
Message 110 of 936 (804561)
04-11-2017 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Davidjay
04-11-2017 2:26 AM


Re: Luck & Chance
These supposed magical mutations
Let's be honest here - mutations are not magical are they - they happen, they're demonstrable - they're observed. My father was a veterinary surgeon and once delivered a kitten with two heads fused into one. I saw it. That was a mutation - mutations are real, not magical. Honesty, please.
These...mutations...they supposedly only arrive by sheer luck and chance.
Well, it appears that it is in the nature of DNA to mutate. That tendency to mutate, I guess (I defer to the genetic scientists on here for this), would itself be a survival trait in a changing environment, enabling a population to adapt and survive.
So whilst the particular mutation itself can be seen as random, the fact that there will be mutations within a population is a statistical certainty. So evolution will follow a path, the precise shape of which will be unpredictable, but the general direction of which will be influenced significantly by the selection pressures imposed by the environment and changes to it. Where creationists go wrong is thinking that evolution at any one time dictates the precise shape of the path which happens to have led today to hearts, eyes, lungs etc.
Nature ran a lottery - it was virtually certain that some form of life would win it - and the form of life which has won it to date, is the form we see today.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 2:26 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 11:28 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 936 (804567)
04-11-2017 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Davidjay
04-11-2017 2:26 AM


Re: Luck & Chance
So evolutionists knowing this and admitting this whole basis of luck on their beloved mutations, try to suggest, its the lucky envirorment that magically selects these mistakes and abberations ...
No, you silly liar, they do not say that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 2:26 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dredge, posted 04-13-2017 2:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2328 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 112 of 936 (804586)
04-11-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by vimesey
04-11-2017 7:33 AM


Re: Luck & Chance
Yes, bad mutations and misreads happen, but where are your beneficial mutations.
Why is the original still with us. Where is the advantage of two heads ? Where is the advantage of radioactive mutations, bringing on better normal organisms and animals.
There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation that luckily just mutated in time to magically improve a species ? Do answer
Evolution is straight out luck and chance, whether one goes to the local gambling casino or one out of state. Magical selection in the envirorment does not change the luck of evolutionary gambling. Its LUCK

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by vimesey, posted 04-11-2017 7:33 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 12:42 PM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 117 by Diomedes, posted 04-11-2017 1:26 PM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 118 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2017 5:53 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2328 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 113 of 936 (804587)
04-11-2017 11:32 AM


Nature ran a lottery ????
Good comparison, Nature ran a lottery and eventually if given enough time, a KIND should mutate and hit the jackpot is their total motivation and ploy and con. It keeps evolutionists gambling and sitting at their mindless tables, wasting their lives away.
Meanwhile real scientists are working and studying and finding principles and laws and marveling at how all things fit together perfectly and EXACTLY.
Jesus wins, evolutionists are mere gamblers, gambling away their lives, hoping in Mother Nature Providence to deliver them.

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 04-11-2017 11:58 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 12:40 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 114 of 936 (804592)
04-11-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Davidjay
04-11-2017 11:32 AM


Re: Nature ran a lottery ????
Davidjay writes:
Meanwhile real scientists are working and studying and finding principles and laws and marveling at how all things fit together perfectly and EXACTLY.
Can you name two or three hundred of those "real" scientists who don't accept evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 11:32 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Davidjay, posted 04-12-2017 12:56 AM ringo has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 115 of 936 (804597)
04-11-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Davidjay
04-11-2017 11:32 AM


Re: Nature ran a lottery ????
Good comparison, Nature ran a lottery and eventually if given enough time, a KIND should mutate and hit the jackpot is their total motivation and ploy and con. It keeps evolutionists gambling and sitting at their mindless tables, wasting their lives away.
And winning Nobel Prizes, they do that quite a lot.
Meanwhile creationists make fools of themselves on the internet. Ah well, each to his own.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 11:32 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 936 (804598)
04-11-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Davidjay
04-11-2017 11:28 AM


Re: Luck & Chance
Yes, bad mutations and misreads happen, but where are your beneficial mutations.
Were you literally asleep during science class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 11:28 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 117 of 936 (804599)
04-11-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Davidjay
04-11-2017 11:28 AM


Re: Luck & Chance
There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation that luckily just mutated in time to magically improve a species ? Do answer
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
quote:
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection (Summary)
1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
2.) Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.
3.) Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas
4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast
5.) Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations
6.) Adaptation of yeast to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
7.) Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome
8.) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
10.) 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.
By the way, getting an answer to your question required a two second internet search and a quick view of the results.
I think this calls for another facepalm:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 11:28 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 118 of 936 (804615)
04-11-2017 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Davidjay
04-11-2017 11:28 AM


Re: Luck & Chance
Dredge writes:
There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation that luckily just mutated in time to magically improve a species ? Do answer
Well, I just reminded Faith of this one so you might as well see it too. Beneficial mutation tracked to the specific gene. So now you have proof. Have you changed your mind?
quote:
Gene mutation that causes phenotype change followed by selection which changes the population has been shown. That's the basic model for all evolutionary change demonstrated in real life today.
Message 1 of 76 (785287)
Thursday, 02-06-2016 3:38 AM
After 15 years of analysis and experimentation the gene mutation that was responsible for the change in colour of the peppered moth from white to black has been found.
This is a really important conformation of the theory of evolution - it demonstrates not only the process of natural selection but also the role of beneficial, random, genetic mutation.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 11:28 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 119 of 936 (804637)
04-11-2017 8:16 PM


When scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to the theory that complex life as we know it today evolved from less complex life - a single-cell organism, to be exact. So if a evolutionary scientist offers an example of evolution, one would reasonably expect an example of one organism giving rise to another organism that is more complex, more evolved.

Alas, this reasonable expectation is asking too much in Darwin World. Take antibiotic resistance, for instance, which is commonly cited by evolution science as a sterling example of "evolution".
Antibiotic resistance involves nothing more natural selection, in the form of a cull of most the various strains of a certain species. So antibiotic resistance doesn't produce a more complex, more evolved organism than what was already there. The bugs that survive the antibiotic don't undergo any change to "become" resistant - they were already resistant.
Evolution requires more than just natural selection, soit is erroneous to cite antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution.
Evidently, the definition of evolution need some clarification. How about dividing it into micro- and macro-evolution? Micro' can be the tangible aspects of the theory that are observable, testable and factual; macro' can be the rest of the theory that no one can observe, test or establish as a fact.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 8:26 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 121 by jar, posted 04-11-2017 9:00 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 04-12-2017 12:28 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 129 by Meddle, posted 04-12-2017 12:45 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 132 by Pressie, posted 04-12-2017 5:42 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 120 of 936 (804639)
04-11-2017 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dredge
04-11-2017 8:16 PM


When scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to the theory that complex life as we know it today evolved from less complex life - a single-cell organism, to be exact.
No.
Antibiotic resistance involves nothing more natural selection, in the form of a cull of most the various strains of a certain species.
No. Stop making stuff up.
Evidently, the definition of evolution need some clarification. How about dividing it into micro- and macro-evolution? Micro' can be the tangible aspects of the theory that are observable, testable and factual; macro' can be the rest of the theory that no one can observe, test or establish as a fact.
But the word "macroevolution" is already being used for things that people can test and establish as a fact. If you want to talk about a different concept, find a different word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dredge, posted 04-11-2017 8:16 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dredge, posted 04-13-2017 2:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 192 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2017 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024