17 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaHow slight a change do you consider viable (as a rough percentage)?
. Evolution tells us there was a thingo in a puddle and it adapted and adapted and adapted until it was an elephant....this is not how it happens.
Adaptation only allows an already existing species to slightly change due to environmental factors.
And in your expert opinion over what time-scale could that happen?
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThis indicates that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.
I don't think any evolutionary biologist would say Darwin had the last answer on evolution, how could he, given we just discovered DNA in the 20th century?
Here is a new bit about 'epigenitics': Genes are not the full answer to evolution either.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-genes-destiny-hidden-code-dna.html
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I am not sure.....
How slight a change do you consider viable (as a rough percentage)?
And in your expert opinion over what time-scale could that happen?
But change would be affected by the constant type of climate, the constant type of available food source, the constant type of terrain, etc.
Changes might be that their paws might develop tougher pads or their coats will become thinner or thicker
Anyhow I have no interest in what might or might not change but the thing is adaptation is not evolution.
Evolution is saying a tiny squiggly thingo in the muddy puddle turned into a giraffe or into us - and it did this unguided by higher intelligence but by unguided random chance.
Unguided random chance only produces chaos.
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYour definition of evolution would probably include a caterpillar changing
And over millions and millions of years of changing slightly to adapt to the environment the original species has evolved to become several different new species.
You can't have 'adaptation to the environment' without evolution.
into a butterfly. Dasa and I do not consider these type of changes to be
evolution. We require something like perhaps a lizard changing into a
cheetah to prove evolution to us. Also a black man changing into a white
man is not good enough either.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsSay hypothesis, not theory.... its wrong, but at least you would be using the right words.
This indicates that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.
In science theory doesn't mean the same thing as conversational English.
So when you say it's just a theory, you are spouting nonsense by definition.
English is a marvellously complex language with many vagaries and uncertainties in it,
which makes it fantastic for humour.
These same properties however are terrible for science because in science you are trying to
be exact, specific and accurate in your use of language to convey the exact correct meaning
of your research to other people/scientists.
Thus in science words often have very specific meanings, not all of which tally up with common
use definitions of those words.
Theory (as has been explained to you before) is one of those words.
A scientific theory is an explanation for how and why something works, that has been tested and
validated to a high enough degree to no longer be called a hypothesis.
Given this, your statement is, from a linguistic point of view, nonsense.
And on the substance you are wrong again.
Darwin, (and many before him) knew that offspring inherited traits from their parents.
Which was what was needed for evolution.
What he didn't know was HOW offspring inherited traits, because neither DNA nor the
techniques to detect and explain it had been invented yet.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course my definition of evolution would not be a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.
Your definition of evolution would probably include a caterpillar changing
into a butterfly. Dasa and I do not consider these type of changes to be
evolution. We require something like perhaps a lizard changing into a
cheetah to prove evolution to us. Also a black man changing into a white
man is not good enough either.
A lizard would never change into a cheetah, you are just demonstrating you don't understand evolution.
A lizard (or similar) did turn into all snakes though. Some still have vestigial hind limbs.
How about, all land animals (animals not insects) including us evolved from a fish?
Would that, when demonstrated, convince you?
The fact that people who migrated from africa to higher latitudes where there was less sun and thus
developed lighter skins that are better at producing vitamin D is evidence of evolution at work.
18 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgea creationist church leader i had an conversation with a few years back sent out a newsletter stating that one of the claims of evolution is that reptiles fall off cliffs and turn into birds...and of course this could never work because the reptiles will die!
Of course my definition of evolution would not be a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.
A lizard would never change into a cheetah, you are just demonstrating you don't understand evolution.
A lizard (or similar) did turn into all snakes though. Some still have vestigial hind limbs.
How about, all land animals (animals not insects) including us ...[text shortened]... eveloped lighter skins that are better at producing vitamin D is evidence of evolution at work.
when i called him out on it, he banned me from the list...and got off the last word of course, completely "schooling" me on the subject to the other members of the list.
i bring this up only as an example of the things you are dealing with when discussing evolution with creationists.
18 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI know a theory is not law in science or any other accepted definition.
Say hypothesis, not theory.... its wrong, but at least you would be using the right words.
In science theory doesn't mean the same thing as conversational English.
So when you say it's just a theory, you are spouting nonsense by definition.
English is a marvellously complex language with many vagaries and uncertainties in it,
which makes it fa ...[text shortened]... its, because neither DNA nor the
techniques to detect and explain it had been invented yet.
18 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeAccording to the Holy Bible, it was God that condemned the serpent to
Of course my definition of evolution would not be a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.
A lizard would never change into a cheetah, you are just demonstrating you don't understand evolution.
A lizard (or similar) did turn into all snakes though. Some still have vestigial hind limbs.
How about, all land animals (animals not insects) including us ...[text shortened]... eveloped lighter skins that are better at producing vitamin D is evidence of evolution at work.
crawl upon its belly after Satan used the serpent to deceive the woman
in the garden of Eden. So that was not due to evolution as you think.
P.S. You are the one that does not understand what evolution is.
18 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAnybody with any common sense knows that what you are saying is a complete lie.
a creationist church leader i had an conversation with a few years back sent out a newsletter stating that one of the claims of evolution is that reptiles fall off cliffs and turn into birds...and of course this could never work because the reptiles will die!
when i called him out on it, he banned me from the list...and got off the last word of course, ...[text shortened]... as an example of the things you are dealing with when discussing evolution with creationists.
18 Sep 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I believe you don't understand that adaptation is not evolution. So no matter
You're not sure?!!?!?
... but you so vehemently stae what is right and wrong ... got cold feet?
Let me get you stated - what about a 0.01% adaptive change every 100 years - seem reasonable? That would fit with your support of adaptation.
how much adaptation an animal has in adjusting to its envirnonment, the
result is still just adaptation and not evolution.