Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

quote:

---

If they are different species, then how can we be sure that on descended from another? Where is that evidence, and how do we demonstrate that descent from one species to another is even possible, outside of scholarly explanations?

---

We cannot claim that this is a record of direct descent - the fossil record is not complete at the level of species.However, we see this pattern of similar species - a temporal pattern of change. The species from later times are different from those from earlier times. Evolution is the best explanation we have for such patterns - and indeed most creationists would agree that at least part of it was due to evolutionary change. Thus it is evidence for evolution.

I’ll accept that Evolutionism includes a broad category of studies, but there are a couple of essential components in in the Evolutionary process that go beyond mere natural selection and variance within like lifeforms. The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.My effort here is to understand the evidence showing that this is possible. How does one life form evolve into another? What is the mechanism? Can or has it been observed? Can it be reproduced in the laboratory?Scientists and Engineers understand the importance of observation and experimentation/testing, and the proper presentation of conclusions and their Certainty, including the Margin of Error, Probability, and Confidence, all derived using standard statistical methods. Note that Scientific Fact has a pretty high Certainty bar: Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence.If measurable testing and observation cannot be performed, then there is no opportunity to substantiate the validity-certainty of a technical proposition. Great minds spending great resources on great explanations is a reasonable start, but it cannot supplant repeatable demonstration.These days the Great Deceit of many scientific theories lies in their presentation to the public as implied fact, and in allowing the misconception of factuality to stand.If Evolutionism can meet the high bar of Scientific Fact, then it should be presented as such. If not, then the Certainty of Evolutionary conclusions must be divulged front and center.

What I'm doing is asking questions, prickly though they may be.Confident Engineers and Scientists are generally eager to explain their hypotheses and address questions, if only to show their knowledge and reinforce their ideas. The good ones can break it down to terms their audience can understand, rather than launching into arcane technospeak.I have had some thoughtful responses, some a bit impatient, and a great many disdainful. To paraphrase a few: "you don't know what you're talking about", "your questions are nonsensical", "go take a class", "...usual lying", "go away".The defensiveness and reluctance to engage are quite telling. When you're over the target you'll take a lot of flak.

The questions you are asking can be answered with 5 minutes of googling - prickly or otherwise.
​

quote:

---

Confident Engineers and Scientists are generally eager to explain their hypotheses and address questions, if only to show their knowledge and reinforce their ideas. The good ones can break it down to terms their audience can understand, rather than launching into arcane technospeak.

---

You're not interested is understanding anything regardless of how it's explained. We've seen thousand of people like you here, we can spot you at the first post. We know how this goes. You've finally come out of your closet and told us what your motivation actually is.

K.Rose:

---

The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.

---

The fact that the ToE contradicts what's written by superstitious Iron Age desert tribes many thousands of years ago is of no concern to science. It's just unfortunate for your belief system that it turns out to be a fact. It's very, very easy to establish the facts for yourself, just do a short course in biology.

quote:

---

We've seen thousand of people like you here

---

We've seen even more people like you, full of arrogance, but hardly any useful contribution, almost always hostile.

Cynicism born of experience.There have been a couple of believers that have come here genuinely looking to understand things but a betting man would not bet on the next one here to be one of them.Mr Rose here has finally told us that he's a creationist - there is absolutely nothing that anyone can say here that will make him look at the biology - he's only here to troll. Forgive me Christian, it gets depressing and tedious watching malign stupidity at work over and over again.

No one is trying to refute biblical creation. It is a religious fantasy that its adherents themselves refuted​ over a century ago. No one is going to expend the bandwidth arguing to defeat a religious absurdity. Lifeforms evolve by a complex process involving genetic modification of the gene pool over many thousands of generations. The mechanism is modification of alleles and their selection/deletion from the gene pool by the environment.Yes, the mechanism can and has been observed in operation and reproduced in the lab. BS. You do not understand the conduct of the scientific disciplines in this world. Only the idiocy and stupidity of religion insists on such terms. The deceit is by politically and religiously motivated groups trying to deny what the universe has shown us. It is that deceit to the public that seeks to mar the scientific findings. See the question immediately above.You lie about impossible restrictions on a discipline you know nothing about and then complain when they can't be met. Typical errant religious thinking.Your understandings of evolution and of science are woefully deficient. You need to go back to school (yes, a school where they can give you the semesters of information you cannot get in an internet forum) and pay attention this time. The discipline of Evolution is one of the most well documented well understood mechanisms at work in our universe. Only the desperately religious and the hopelessly ignorant attempt to deny its reality.

I don't see how this is a response to anything i wrote in Message 102, or anywhere else, and just what the hell is evolutionism? Rebranding evolutionary biology as evolutionism just makes you look ignorant, immature, and petty. Well, when are you going to reveal a "couple essential components" that go beyond natural selection and genetic mutations within a species? I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here, what is "continuing common ancestry for all life forms?" Well, the thing is, biblical creation in all its forms has been refuted by all of science for the last 2 centuries. We just object to dimwits and religious nutjobs trying to force it into science classes. You don't actually seem to be trying to understand, you have ignored the questions we've asked you to try and understand what you do know, and you have also ignored every single answer you have been given, so you can drop the act of innocent scholarship.Yes, we can and have observed many different kinds of mutations in wild and captive (laboratory) populations. We observe changes in allele frequency in populations. We observe populations adapt to changes in their environment. We observe species going extinct because selective pressures were greater or more rapid than genetic variability and descent with modification could adapt them to. Yep, that would be a basic part of their training, but you don't seem to be aware that there is far more to scientific publication, the conclusion is usually just a small section near the end. Often the conclusions also include speculation or new hypotheses to be explored. Note that this is just something you just made up. If not, please show your references. I don't know why you are discussing a situation where no observations can be made, if you can't observe something how would you get the idea to study it? This seems to be rhetorical filler and it shouldn't be repeated. Well, you might want to take that up with the non-scientific media. Yeah, since "Evolutionism" is something you made up along with "Scientific Fact" none of us care how you present it.As I mentioned earlier, the conclusions come near the end.

Because the religious stupidity in the face of overwhelming reality is quite boring. You are recycling old creationist arguments that were destroyed decades ago. That's not flak. That's laughter.

Sensei, are you familiar with the psychological concept of "projection"?Mutate and Survive

Now explain PRATTs ("Points Refuted A Thousand Times") to him. FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME!

Hi K.Rose, There really aren't. Not really. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that demands common ancestry. It's just that when we look at the evidence, such as genetics and the fossil record, we see common ancestry. It is perfectly easy to conceive of a world where there were two origins of life and both of those went on to evolve and diversify into two varied but wholly separate biota. Nothing about the ToE would be violated by such a scenario. It's just that that's not what happened here on Earth.The fact that Christian creationists dislike the idea of universal common ancestry as much as they dislike the ToE doesn't mean that the two ideas are inextricable from one another. By random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift... you know, all the stuff that you would find in any basic biology textbook. This information is not a secret. Yes and yes. I'm curious however; what would you consider a satisfactory example of this? What would you have to see to conclude that - for instance - speciation is real? I ask because in a previous post you said this; This is problematic because, as others have already pointed out to you, that is not how evolution works. If we observed a dog giving birth to a non-dog IT WOULD DISPROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.The ToE would be falsified by such a thing, dead in the water, finito, kaput. Bereft of life, it would rest in peace... it would be an ex-theory, etc. So you can see why I'm keen for you to define your conditions for sufficient evidence. It's no use you demanding evidence for something that no-one is claiming. Citation needed I think. Care to share your source for that howler?Spoiler Alert; you won't be able to show any reputable scientific source for that claim because it's not true. What is it with internet Christians and weird capitalisation? It's so odd.Mutate and Survive

AZPaul3:

---

Because the religious stupidity in the face of overwhelming reality is quite boring.

---

Overwhelming reality? How is reality overwhelming to you?

Reality overwhelms religious mythology with real data, that's why we call it reality.

Hi K.Rose, The problem with evolution as I see it is that it is built on a lot of assumptions. Assumptions are not facts as they are only the imaginations of scientist.The biggest problem evolutionist have is how life began to exist from non life.Some propose it rode on stuff from outer space be it dust particles or meteorites.
Some propose it came from clay.
Some propose it came from chemicals.The fact is scientist don't have any information on how life began to exist on earth. There is not one shred of scientific evidence as to how life began to exist or how the universe began to exist. They have a lot of assumptions, a lot of beliefs, and a lot of faith but they deny having any faith.If you don't know how life began to exist how can you describe how it got to where it is today? We know a lot about life on earth because it exists. There are 2.13 billion critters on earth today and no two of them alike and none in a visible process of changing into another species. Why isn't evolution taking place today if it took place in the past? It just boggles my mind all the assumptions that have to be swallowed to believe what is believed today.God Bless,