Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Since you don't accept science, where do you get knowledge from?

you should take a class on probability and another on statistics.

Never mind all that evolution bollox, the lady testing the tea got it right eight times out of eight! Now that is a miracle!

quote:

---

Since you don't accept science, where do you get knowledge from?

---

I fully support science. I only reject pseudo science.

quote:

---

you should take a class on probability and another on statistics.

---

So you are just another, too dumb to follow or understand a simple question, and support dumb answers to the wrong question.The question has been asked repeatedly:

sensei:

---

If I have a model where every coin toss is 50-50 random, and I find 10 successive coin tosses to be tails, those odds would be less than 0.1%.
​
That does not mean that my model has of 50-50 random, has less than 0.1% chance to be true.

---

sensei:

---

How likely is it that the coin was indeed very close to 50% chance for heads and 50% chance for tails each toss?

---

sensei:

---

We want to know how likely a theory is to be true. As you claim it to be beyond doubt.
​
So in this case, it is about how likely the theory of 50% chance is true.

---

Let me ask a different question, since this one apparently is too difficult for many of you lot.Researcher 1 claims: this coin is fair, with +/- 0.5 chance for tails when we toss again.
Researcher 2 claims: this coin will always land on tails, no matter how often we toss.
Researcher 3 claims: this coin has been tampered with and hugely favors tails.What are the odds for these claims? If you bet 10 dollars on the first researcher, what would be your winning chances? How about if you put 10 dollars on the second researcher? And the third?

The Macroevolution link you provided, unintelligible to most laymen, discusses common materials found across lifeforms, which is as much or more of an argument for a Creator. Much as a refrigerator or bicycle manufacturer would re-use favorable design features across various products.Besides, at issue is the key dynamic of evolution, the linchpin, the one that is foisted ubiquitously on the public, which asserts that one higher lifeform (mammal, reptile) can eventually procreate to a completely different higher life form. Where is the evidence and certainty for that presented, beyond the explanation "Life Form A shares traits with Life Form B and somewhere in-between is where the evolution happened"?

quote:

---

The Macroevolution link you provided, unintelligible to most laymen, discusses common materials found across lifeforms, which is as much or more of an argument for a Creator. Much as a refrigerator or bicycle manufacturer would re-use favorable design features across various products.

---

Then I guess you didn’t understand even the quoted part. It’s not just reused “materials” - it’s the pattern of “reuse”.

quote:

---

Besides, at issue is the key dynamic of evolution, the linchpin, the one that is foisted ubiquitously on the public, which asserts that one higher lifeform (mammal, reptile) can eventually procreate to a completely different higher life form. Where is the evidence and certainty for that presented, beyond the explanation "Life Form A shares traits with Life Form B and somewhere in-between is where the evolution happened"?

---

The quoted material gives strong evidence that it happened. That, added to the evidence that change over time can and does occur as expected seems good enough. We have a very strong pattern. We have processes expected to produce the pattern. Surely we can reasonably extrapolate the processes to say that they did produce the pattern.(And note, of course that we do have intermediate forms for many steps. For instance tiktaalik and Ichthyostega)For comparison, nobody has directly observed Pluto make a complete orbit of the Sun, but I don’t think that anyone can reasonably deny that we can extrapolate its orbit forwards and backwards - and conclude that Pluto has completed many orbits and will complete many more.

My emphasis added:
What the hell are you trying to pull here? It looks like a damned bait-and-switch, a dishonest trick! A FUCKING LIE!You have been trying to deceive us into thinking that you're asking about evolution, which is what we have been directing our answers to, all while you are instead talking about a stupid bullshit creationist strawman invention which has next to nothing to do with evolution!IOW, you've been lying to us! In the more than four decades (40 years) that I've been studying "creation science" and the nearly 40 years that I've been conversing with creationists, the single most prominent distinguishing characteristic of creationists has been their gross and unrepentant dishonesty, including outright and outrageous deliberate lying. All boasting of serving their "God of Truth Personified" with nothing but lies and deception.And here you are revealing yourself to be just yet another dishonest creationist piece of shit.They say that a pessimist must be the happiest person possible: 99% of the time he has the satisfaction of being right and 1% of the time he is pleasantly surprised. With every creationist I encounter, I hope against hope to be pleasantly surprised, but it never happens as each and every creationist always lives down to the worst expectations ... and beyond (eg, from a humor file of purported Royal Navy officer fitness reports: "He quickly hit rock-bottom, and immediately commenced to dig").I had such hopes for you at first. There is a lot that we need to discuss with creationists, but either none of them are capable (mainly because they know nothing about, well, anything, not even their own position nor even why they oppose evolution ... er, what they think evolution to be, assuming that they ever engage in the act of thinking) or they are actively engaged in their campaign of deception, or both. What we need are creationists who are willing and able to present and discuss their position, but sadly none seem to exist. I think the term for such an extremely rare critter is "unicorn", so maybe we need to enlist the aid of the Scots, the only humans capable of taking a unicorn into captivity (the Scottish national animal is the unicorn bound in chains -- check out the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom: the lion represents England while the bound unicorn represents Scotland ... Alba gu brath!.Christianity (which you apparently claim to adhere to despite your allegiance to lies) is supposed to promise redemption, but I very much doubt that you will seek it. Instead, you will continue to promote the growth and spread of atheism:

Conrad Hyers:

---

"It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it."

---

The damage you do in your service to the growth and spread of atheism is that you force believers into atheism (hampered by your lies to them about atheism) rather than just letting them outgrow theism at their own pace. It's never a good idea to force someone into such a decision regardless of how beneficial. What the actual f*** are you talking about? (yes, it's that single most terrifying question for creationists that I told you about in Message 67)Whoever is trying to "refute Biblical Creation"? Nobody that I know of! And most certainly not science, which couldn't care less about the Bible since the Bible, religion, and speculation about the supernatural have no place in science -- only because there is no way in which science can work with the supernatural.From what I've seen, the only ones attempting to refute Divine Creation are the creationists themselves, who maintain that if the Creation is as it actually is, then that disproves God. But then, as with everything else creationists talk about, maybe "Biblical Creation" itself attempts to refute Divine Creation assuming that you define it that way (of which I have no doubt).Let's face it: until you come clean and reveal just what the f*** you are talking about, nobody can possibly have any f***ing idea what the f*** you are talking about.Here's the plain truth:

1. If the physical universe was created by a supernatural Creator, then the characteristics of that physical universe would be what that Creator had created.
2. That Creator would have also created all the physical processes.
3. If part of that act of Creation was accomplished through physical processes, then that would not contradict the Creator because of item #2.
4. Science is the study of the physical universe. Science can only discover what exists in the physical universe.
5. Humans are able to sense, detect, observe, measure, test, etc natural phenomena. Therefore, we humans can deal objectively with the natural.
6. The supernatural is beyond and outside of human ability to sense, detect, observe, or test. Therefore, we humans cannot deal objectively with the supernatural.
7. Science does not include supernatural for the simple reason that it cannot deal with it nor work with it in any manner whatsoever. This is not a position that the supernatural does not exist, but rather that it has no place in science.

So just what is the problem that you have with that?Another plain truth that I will address in another reply (I got off duty around 2300h and it's past midnight now) is what I told you in my Message 51: Evolution is the result of Life doing what Life naturally does.The very slightly expanded version in the meantime before I go through that more exhaustedly would be to point out it's the same as the others have been saying about allele frequencies et alia, but in my case I go through a clear way to derive those definitions.Evolution is the net cumulative result of populations of organisms doing what they naturally do: procreate (producing multiple imperfect copies of themselves), then those offspring must survive to procreate themselves (hence the ones better able to survive have their inherited traits more represented in the next generation), etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.Just think through it this time!Evolution and life are intimately and integrally intertwined. Regard any population of organisms and you will see that each generation produces offspring that are very nearly like the parents, yet each one is slightly different. Some survive long enough to reproduce and come do not; those who survive get to procreate. THAT IS EVOLUTION IN ACTION!Biological evolution depends on replication, so it could not have played any role in the earliest stages of abiogenesis. Until replication has been established, evolution could not ever even happen. BTW, this eliminates evolution from being a part of the origin of life.Once replication was established, then life started evolving. Nothing else could be possible. Copies are made (offspring) which are imperfect, some survive (why some and not others?) to also make copies which are imperfect, rinse and repeat ad infinitum. That's the basis for evolution, pure and simple.Evolution is integral to life. You cannot separate them. Try to separate them; you cannot! The only way to have life without evolution is for every single generation to be exactly identical to their parents, each and every generation forever. That is clearly not how it works.BTW, I am a retired engineer (AKA "intelligent designer" in that I did design work (some engineers only maintain, etc)). My first and foremost everyday question about practically everything is: "How does it work?" In my exploded upstairs toilet tank cleanup that I'm currently in the middle of, the adjuster was using a laser range-finder instead of the steel tape I'm familiar with (plus it Blue-Toothed to her pad, which I immediately caught) and my immediate thought was to try to figure out how it worked (eg, 1 light-nanosecond = 1 foot, some of these measurements were in inches, too fast for digital processing so ¿analog?). A former dance-cruise cabin mate turned out to be an election denier who presented a questionable scenario ("they just took a stack of ballots and ran them through the machines multiple times") despite the fact that the multiple recounts (three in Mariposa County, AZ, as I seem to recall) would have required the exact same malfeasance in the exact-same manner each and every time in order to reproduce the exact-same "wrong" counts. But my own personal question for any election denier conspiracy will always remain my same engineer's question: Just exactly how was that supposed to have happened? First, just what exactly what do you mean by "one life form evolve into another"? Are you trying to sneak in "a dog giving birth to kittens" again?As for the mechanism, there is no external "mechanism" for evolution!As I just described, that "mechanism" is implicit in the very fundamentals of how life works. It's not so much a matter of "prove how evolution is involved" as "prove how evolution could possibly not be involved."As for whether it has been observed, all the time!As for being reproduced in the laboratory, all the time!If you want to claim otherwise, THEN YOU NEED TO DEFINE JUST WHAT THE F*** YOU MEAN BY EVOLUTION!Challenge accepted? Complete and utter bullshit!There is no such thing as "Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence." Never has been, never will be.For the BA Applied Math degree I earned while biding my time waiting out my active duty enlistment (my money degree was my BS Computer Science), I took two semesters of Numerical Analysis. Just about all we ever did was to calculate the upper bound on the error of every single numerical method we examined.Yeah, it's getting very late and I have a workshop to attend tomorrow ... er, later today. So we need to cut to the chase:

Well, to begin with, you're a fucking lying creationist who will lie about anything and everything, so how could anyone possibly believe anything you assert?Also, I am personally a retired intelligent designer. What the fuck are you? What kind of expertise are you personally able to bring to bear?My emphasis added: In another of your stupid posts that I will respond to with the story of Dr Mary Schweizer, a young earth creationist who entered into studying paleontology for the expressed and explicit purpose of examining the evidence in order to disprove evolution, except now she accepts evolution because of the evidence (also, she's really pissed off at the stupid lying creationists who misrepresent her work).The point is that in order to understand the massive evidence of evolution, you need to actually study that evidence. But in order to do so, you need to put in the actual work of studying that evidence. Which requires the dedication to put in that actual work.

We'd love to see your useful contributions.--Percy

As you've been informed uncountable times in your 18 years here, the origin of life, abiogenesis, is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution occurs independently of whether life was put here by God, came here from space, or developed here on Earth. Concerning abiogenesis, there is some evidence, there are some ideas, but nothing resembling a consensus at this point. If that were true then if you don't know how animals are butchered or crops harvested, how could you possibly cook? If you don't know how trees are felled and turned into lumber, how could you possibly build a house? If you don't know how cars are manufactured, how could you possibly drive? If you don't know how cell phones are designed and built, how could you possibly use a cell phone? If you don't know how 4G and 5G work, how could you possibly make a phone call? Well, yes, that's true. Unlike religion, scientific consensuses only develop around phenomena that exist. "2.13 billion critters?" Are you sure about that. There are 7.9 billion humans alone. There are 50 billion birds, 3.5 trillion fish, and 10 quintillion insects (these are rough estimates, of course).Because almost all descent is with modification, and because which modifications are passed on to the next generation is shaped by the environoment, all lineages are in a state of change.--Percy

First, theories aren't proven, only supported by evidence to the point where a consensus develops within the relevant scientific community.Evolutionary biologists think they have a great deal of evidence. Which of that evidence do you believe is not really evidence?--Percy

K.Rose introduced religion into the topic in Message 106 when he admitted a religious motivation by claiming that science was trying to refute Biblical creationism.--Percy

K.Rose has revealed a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding of evolution in this thread. If you can't see that then you're comprehension must be on approximately the same level.Which lies do you think you are seeing?--Percy

As has already been explained, very recently in fact, universal common ancestry is not part of the theory of evolution. The possibility is a natural implication of the theory given that all life appears related when we look at DNA. Just the fact that all life *has* DNA built upon the same four nucleotides (and sometimes a fifth) implies universal common ancestry.But it's not the only possibility. Life could have arisen independently more than once on Earth. Or maybe interdependently. Or maybe it came from space. Or maybe life arose on Earth *and* came from space. Or maybe life required independent contributions from both Earth and space.But however life arose, however many times it arose, the history of life on Earth is one of evolutionary change, and the study of living organisms reveals that descent is prone to error and subject to selection.--Percy

Another appeal to just stick to the facts.--Percy