Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

No.Think on it, Phat. Humans sans emotions means no sex. No real sex. OK so maybe a world without sex might solve a mountain-full of problems, but just, somehow doesn’t seem much worth it. Besides, as I read our history there may be some major advancements that were achieved with the aid of post-nut clarity. Powerful intellectual stuff there. Bad bad phrasing. I am human. Of course, my personal default is human thinking. But I think I know what you were trying to say.No I can’t present my own thoughts as representative of anything but me.On evidence, however, science has already aggregated a consensus for me. Being a good little acolyte, I latch on to that tool and use it. We know what evidence is. A lot of our discoveries are based on looking for the evidence that should be there if right. By the same token we reject hypothesizes that don’t leave the trail of evidence that should be there if they were right. I am in awe of her power. There is no other. She could fry our world with a gamma-ray burst. She throws mountains at us. We have seen a hundred different ways she kills entire star systems, planets, populations, people. She cannot feel. She cannot care. We are at the mercy of the most dispassionate, most violent, most creative master of all there is. Until her will be done with me I’ll eat her strawberries; I’ll drink her sweet wine. And I will be forever thankful for the experience. I am alive.

Yes, I read Message 146. Unfortunately, bacterial mutations are still bacteria, and statistical organization of microbiological data does not demonstrate a macroevolutionary process.From the evidence and explanations I've encountered in my quest for understanding evolutionary theory, I've concluded that evolutionary theory is an elaborate house of cards, a delicate hypothesis built on other delicate hypotheses (ages of rock sediment, locations of ancient seas, ancient weather patterns, etc.). If any element in any theory is incorrect, down comes the house of cards.

Your bible has been subject to a lot of science. It fails the test of reality. It is known to be myth.The only thing in this universe that is subject to your bible is you.

Amen.

Hi Tangle, Yes I have observed quite a bit of evolution take place in my lifetime.In the 1940's we plowed our fields with horses, and mules, then 1 row tractors, then two row tractors, then to 6 row tractors.Our primary mode of transportation was horseback or horse and wagon. We had two Tennessee walking horses. It was 14 miles to town and we could make it with them in 2 hours. Now the same trip can be made in 14 minutes, less if you speed.
I seen our hogs improved from averaging 175 lbs. to 700 + lbs. by selective breeding.
I saw our tobacco that produced 1500 lbs. per acre to 3200 lbs. per acre by using certain tobacco seeds.But I don't know of any experiment that can cover the time frame that is required for all the critters we have today much less all those that disappeared in the 3 big extinction events. After each extinction event all of a sudden there were a bunch of different brand new species. No time for evolution to take a long, long, long time. I can't see “adaptive radiation” producing all those fully developed critters. It is not a problem, if you can ignore the elephant in the room. The one where you got to have life before it can evolve.I know what science can do, just skip how life got here and just go from there.
Oh that is what they do. That means they have been evolving everyday for 65 million years since the last extinction event.So why is it that everything I see is just like it has always been?God Bless,

How would you know? Were you there 65 million years ago to see the population that survived? That's just what Tangle said. You evolve into a parrot, Reverend?You make it sound like since we don't know everything therefore we cannot know anything, especially evolution.No, we don't know how life came to be, but once it raised its first replicant we have a good, evidenced and reasonable, path from there to here. Evolution.We're still working on the rest. Be patient. Nature had billions of years to get a recipe for life. We've only been at this a few decades.

quote:

---

Yes, I read Message 146. Unfortunately, bacterial mutations are still bacteria, and statistical organization of microbiological data does not demonstrate a macroevolutionary process.

---

The basic processes are mutation and natural selection, and both are demonstrated. The idea that macroevolution requires additional processes is controversial, hardly something to rely on (and I doubt that you know what the suggested processes even are)

quote:

---

From the evidence and explanations I've encountered in my quest for understanding evolutionary theory, I've concluded that evolutionary theory is an elaborate house of cards, a delicate hypothesis built on other delicate hypotheses (ages of rock sediment, locations of ancient seas, ancient weather patterns, etc.). If any element in any theory is incorrect, down comes the house of cards.

---

That’s far from obviously true. Minor errors in any of the above would seem to be easily accommodated and major errors seem implausible. Perhaps you consider Young Earth Creationism to be better because it ignores falsifying evidence?Indeed, can you come up with errors in any of the above which might plausibly occur and would suffice to falsify evolution?

quote:

---

Scientific proof is something else entirely. Until you can prove something through repeated demonstration you have an argument that is indeterminate - the yes/no urgency isn't there. Evolutionary Theory is mired in this indeterminate stage.

---

That’s not the standard of proof for theories. And I note that your only objection to the evidence so far is to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Also note that we can have very good evidence that something did happen without understanding the details of how it happened.In short none of your questions below are sufficient to cast doubt on evolutionary theory. Things we don’t know are not evidence. You need to deal with the things we do know.

quote:

---

Discussing the evidence at a DNA level is pointless because 99% of the population that is aware of evolution is thinking at the macroevolution level: How did land creatures turn into whales, how did apelike creatures evolve into humans, etc. These are the big questions of evolution.

---

And we do have good evidence that both of these things happened.

quote:

---

1. What was/were the initial lifeform(s), i.e., what organism(s) are at the root of the evolutionary tree?

---

Let us note that this question is completely irrelevant to the questions you mention above. It’s really only relevant to very early stages. We don’t have to know how the planets were formed to calculate their orbits or measure the composition of their atmospheres.Or, for another comparison we don’t know when or where Jesus was born, nor do we know much of his ancestry. But no sensible person concludes that Jesus didn’t exist based on those facts.

quote:

---

2. How did the eyeball evolve? How did all of the eyeball sub-components develop concurrently through random mutation to eventually create such a profoundly useful feature? Without these sub-components working in tandem the eyeball would be entirely useless and would be naturally de-selected

---

Maybe you should actually do some research? The eye of the nautilus has neither a lens nor cornea, but is still useful. You could start with Wikipedia

quote:

---

3. In the cardiovascular system which developed first - The organs that required oxygen, the blood that carried the oxygen, the lungs trat oxygenated the blood, or the heart that pumped the blood?

---

You do know that most fish don’t have lungs?
You may find this
paper informative. Or you may reject it on the basis that you personally can’ t understand it.

quote:

---

4. Any number of unique features, like the chameleon's tongue, whose development through gradual mutation defies comprehension?

---

Again, this is a mere detail compared to the overarching theory. Nor does it pose any clear problems. Chameleons have modified versions of structures common to vertebrates - rather odd if you think that their tongues are a unique design.

“All of a sudden” was millions of years. The extinction event that allowed the diversification of mammals from their existing forms was 66 million years ago. Apes only appeared 30 million years ago. There's none so blind that will not see.And of course every organism throughout time is "fully developed" at the time that they lived. T. Rex was "fully developed." An amoeba is "fully developed". But species change over time, hence the name 'evolution'. Science is very interested in how life began, but the likelihood is that we'll never know. It was too long ago and involved stuff that would have been little more than molecules. But that does not in any way interfere with what we do have knowledge of and that's how life, once it got established, grew into the variable forms we see today.We now have mountains of evidence for it in several different disciplines - there is no alternative theory. Everything is not how it's always been. Organisms evolve over time. We have the evidence. I'm baffled how you could say that???

Tangle:

---

... we conclude that the coin is very unlikely (1 chance in 1024) to be fair and that the original prediction of p=0.5 for that coin was highly unlikely to be correct.

---

Wrong answer, same as Taq. But at least you tried and understood the question it seems.

PaulK:

---

My point is that your argument does not address Taq’s actual point.

---

Again, your point is not even about anything that is up for discussion. Try to keep up with the discussion or move on!

Taq’s claim is what we are supposedly discussing. If you want to go off on pointless rabbit trails that’s up to you.Now I have explained why your diversion is irrelevant to Taq’s original point and you have offered no answer to that - except for being arrogant and insulting. So it seems that I’m more on-topic than you are.

Percy:

---

That question makes sense, your question makes no sense to anyone here.

---

If a question in simple english is too hard for you, then move on and leave the discussion to others.Why do you think we test hypotheses? And you think it makes no sense to aks what the probability is that a hypothesis correct or not after making observations?Answer me this question directly, instead of trying to guess my point or making comments about who knows what you come up with again. As I did not even ask you anything about primates.

quote:

---

Now I have explained why your diversion is irrelevant to Taq’s original point and you have offered no answer to that - except for being arrogant and insulting. So it seems that I’m more on-topic than you are.

---

Lol, keep on being delusional.Taq made a claim about all primates, including humans, sharing a common ancestor, being beyond any doubt.Then how is it irrelevant to ask how he determined this level of doubt?

quote:

---

Lol, keep on being delusional.

---

You actually think your lies are working? They haven’t in the past.

quote:

---

Taq made a claim about all primates, including humans, sharing a common ancestor, being beyond any doubt.
​
Then how is it irrelevant to ask how he determined this level of doubt?

---

And this attempted deception fails as well. Taq did indeed answer that. And then you went off on your rabbit trail trying to discredit the answer. Because you didn’t bother to understand what you were talking about. And I think you know that now, which is why we all we see from you is bluster with no substance.