ToE for Steve

TeabagSalad

Active member
Hi Steve,
Before I get started trying to teach you about Evolution I need to get an idea of what you currently understand about the Theory. If you could give a brief answer to each of these questions it will help me to understand what you already know so I can better prepare some explanations for you.
- What do you understand the “Theory of Evolution” to be? (I’d just like a brief summary)
- What does the ToE seek to explain?
- What do you understand the term “mutation” to mean?
- What do you understand the term “natural selection” to mean?
Thanks,

TeabagSalad
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Hi Steve,
Before I get started trying to teach you about Evolution I need to get an idea of what you currently understand about the Theory. If you could give a brief answer to each of these questions it will help me to understand what you already know so I can better prepare some explanations for you.
- What do you understand the “Theory of Evolution” to be? (I’d just like a brief summary)
It's not actually a theory. Rather, it's an hypothesis which requires a worldview that presupposes the data used validates it to the level of being a theory.
Once that worldview is stripped away, the data shows nothing of the sort.



- What does the ToE seek to explain?
I think it depends on who you talk to.
But as I recall, it seeks to explain how life came to be, as it is.
It pieces together the "evidence" to "give an explanation for what doesn't make sense" to the minds who believe the aforementioned worldview.
- What do you understand the term “mutation” to mean?
A "natural" modification in the creatures so affected.
Eg., cancer is a mutation of a healthy cell, to a cell whose "off-switch" is now broken, and is replicating itself beyond that which is normal.

- What do you understand the term “natural selection” to mean?
Randomly occurring outcomes due to interactions with creatures of the same species.


Thanks,

TeabagSalad

Over all, I think that the languages has become conflated.
What you guys call evolution, people like me call adaptation.
And there's nothing in the bible that says adaptation isn't real.
Eg., My body has adapted to the colder environment I now live in, after having grown up in warmer climes.
This does not however mean that I've evolved. People, and animals have been adapting for millennia.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
It's not actually a theory. Rather, it's an hypothesis which requires a worldview that presupposes the data used validates it to the level of being a theory.
Once that worldview is stripped away, the data shows nothing of the sort.
Heh. Didn't take the troll long to show he has no interest in learning about actual evolutionary theory, just preach his Creationist science-free nonsense. Not that anyone is surprised.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
It's not actually a theory. Rather, it's an hypothesis which requires a worldview that presupposes the data used validates it to the level of being a theory.
Once that worldview is stripped away, the data shows nothing of the sort.




I think it depends on who you talk to.
But as I recall, it seeks to explain how life came to be, as it is.
It pieces together the "evidence" to "give an explanation for what doesn't make sense" to the minds who believe the aforementioned worldview.

A "natural" modification in the creatures so affected.
Eg., cancer is a mutation of a healthy cell, to a cell whose "off-switch" is now broken, and is replicating itself beyond that which is normal.


Randomly occurring outcomes due to interactions with creatures of the same species.




Over all, I think that the languages has become conflated.
What you guys call evolution, people like me call adaptation.
And there's nothing in the bible that says adaptation isn't real.
Eg., My body has adapted to the colder environment I now live in, after having grown up in warmer climes.
This does not however mean that I've evolve
So why are hairy apes wearing fur coats in Africa and Eskimos are just not pumping out fur coats?

Dawkins is stumped about adding information to the genome. it just has not been observed.

He twists and turns like a used car salesman.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Heh. Didn't take the troll long to show he has no interest in learning about actual evolutionary theory, just preach his Creationist science-free nonsense. Not that anyone is surprised.
There you go. You announced your losing the argument when you start slander and name calling.

Show us how you can take 4 building blocks and create from scratch a yeast cell.

You can't even copy a yeast cell.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIST living today that understands macroevolution. All the wizards of smart have is labels.
 

rossum

Active member
It's not actually a theory. Rather, it's an hypothesis
This is incorrect. It was a hypothesis when Darwin proposed in in 1859. His hypothesis was tested in the usual way: experiments, predictions, observations etc. The hypothesis passed the tests and became a theory. As with all theories it has been modified over time, but it is still a theory. It has been over a century since it was merely a hypothesis.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
This is incorrect. It was a hypothesis when Darwin proposed in in 1859. His hypothesis was tested in the usual way: experiments, predictions, observations etc. The hypothesis passed the tests and became a theory. As with all theories it has been modified over time, but it is still a theory. It has been over a century since it was merely a hypothesis.
Correct of course, but a waste of time. Some posters just don't understand what a scientific theory is. I predict a post with the phrase "only a theory" within 24 hours.
 

TeabagSalad

Active member
Hi Steve,
First let me apologise for taking so long to reply to your post, who’d have thought toddlers can take up some much time?!
Secondly, thanks very much for taking the time to answer my questions. From the answers that you have given I am sorry to say that it appears your understanding of evolution is almost entirely incorrect.

It's not actually a theory. Rather, it's an hypothesis which requires a worldview that presupposes the data used validates it to the level of being a theory.
Once that worldview is stripped away, the data shows nothing of the sort.

You and I have both studied physics, the theories that we accept (quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.) are all supported by far less evidence than the Theory of Evolution. The evidence that supports Evolution eclipses the evidence for any theory in physics by several orders of magnitude.
Whoever has told you this was lying to you. It doesn’t require a specific worldview, apart from accepting physical evidence as valid.

I think it depends on who you talk to.
But as I recall, it seeks to explain how life came to be, as it is.
It pieces together the "evidence" to "give an explanation for what doesn't make sense" to the minds who believe the aforementioned worldview.

You are almost correct here, but your insistence on it requiring a specific worldview is incorrect.

But, yes, the Theory of Evolution seeks to explain how the diversity of life came to be. It doesn’t tell us how life started, but how it developed once it had started.

A "natural" modification in the creatures so affected.
Eg., cancer is a mutation of a healthy cell, to a cell whose "off-switch" is now broken, and is replicating itself beyond that which is normal.

Not really correct. While cancer may be cause by the mutation of a cell or its function this is not an evolutionary mutation – mutations that cause cancer won’t generally affect all of a creature’s DNA thus these sorts of mutations won’t be passed on to a creature’s offspring.
Generally speaking a mutation in Evolution is, to give a definition:

"the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes. "



Randomly occurring outcomes due to interactions with creatures of the same species.

This is incorrect. Here is another definition:

"the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring."

Over all, I think that the languages has become conflated.
What you guys call evolution, people like me call adaptation.
And there's nothing in the bible that says adaptation isn't real.
Eg., My body has adapted to the colder environment I now live in, after having grown up in warmer climes.
This does not however mean that I've evolved. People, and animals have been adapting for millennia.

Just no. Adaptability is an evolved trait, but it isn’t evolution.
Evolution happens to populations not to individuals. You have the same DNA now that you had when you were born. Mutations that occurred when your parent’s DNA combined at your conception will have stayed with you for your entire life – and you may have passed them on to any offspring you may have had. Your adaption to colder environs will not be passed on to your children, but the ability to adapt will.

To finish off I have a couple of questions:

Do you understand the two definitions I gave?

Do you accept and understand that the information you have been given about evolution is generally incorrect?

Is there anything in what I have said that you would like me to go over again or explain in another way or with more detail?

As you have studied physics do I correctly presume that you are familiar with the process of doing a “thought experiment”? (it’s a really good way of explaining evolution).


Thanks for your patience, and again, sorry for taking so long to reply.

Cheers – TeabagSalad
 

SteveB

Well-known member
This is incorrect. It was a hypothesis when Darwin proposed in in 1859. His hypothesis was tested in the usual way: experiments, predictions, observations etc. The hypothesis passed the tests and became a theory. As with all theories it has been modified over time, but it is still a theory. It has been over a century since it was merely a hypothesis.
Well, considering that it only takes one counter result to overthrow it, it seems to me that it's exactly what I've stated.

But you go right ahead.
 

rossum

Active member
Well, considering that it only takes one counter result to overthrow it, it seems to me that it's exactly what I've stated.
A single counter result is unlikely to overthrow a well established theory. It would be more likely to modify the theory than overthrow it.

A case in point. Professor Behe made the claim that Irreducibly Complex systems could not evolve. Evolutionary theory said they could. After further investigation, a change was made to evolutionary theory to incorporate Professor Behe's insight. Irreducibly Complex systems cannot evolve by direct paths. They can only evolve by indirect paths. Professor Behe was half right, and the correct half of his idea was incorporated into the modern theory.

That is more typical of science. Theories are amended or tweaked as new ideas and results are found.
 

Harry Leggs

Active member
Hi Steve,
First let me apologise for taking so long to reply to your post, who’d have thought toddlers can take up some much time?!
You believe your toddler is a little ape. That is not science theory. It is belief, speculation, basically nonsense. Yet that is what you believe. Has it ever occurred to you your toddler is not an ape, there was no biological connection with apes and humans via a mystery common ancestor since such a creature never existed in the first place and all these speculations are unobserved? if observation is the standard, common descent is not even science.
Secondly, thanks very much for taking the time to answer my questions. From the answers that you have given I am sorry to say that it appears your understanding of evolution is almost entirely incorrect.
It has to do with common descent. More specifically the belief apes and humans share a biological connection with a mystery common ancestor, a hybrid or sorts, a theoretical creature now extinct. This is not science, it is fantasy. No more scientific than Maleficent 2 Mistress of Evil.
You and I have both studied physics, the theories that we accept (quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.) are all supported by far less evidence than the Theory of Evolution.
You mean common descent? This is nothing more than a claim by a true believer. You are saying your belief that all sexual reproduction from asexual duplication is more sure than relativity? They are not even the same type since you are making unobserved historical claims, not things that can be observed and repeatedly tested in the present.
The evidence that supports Evolution eclipses the evidence for any theory in physics by several orders of magnitude.
Yawn.
Whoever has told you this was lying to you.
Claims. You need to show how two different tracks developed for the two sexes with compatible body parts from an asexual ancestor all unplanned and natural. This is faith, not science. While you are at it perhaps you can enlighten us by showing how many anatomical changes are required to convert a land animal into a whale. :ROFLMAO:

Dr. Berlinksi's videos. He said:

“The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all, is that if its origins where land-based originally…what do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change a cow into a whale?...Virtually every feature of the cow has to change, has to be adapted. Since we know that life on earth and life in the water are fundamentally different enterprises, we have some sense of the number of changes…I stopped at 50,000, that is morphological changes, and don’t think that these changes are independent. What’s interesting about the cow-to-whale transition is that you can see that a different environment is going to impose severe design constraints on a possible evolutionary sequence…and what does this suggest about what we should see in the fossil record?”
It doesn’t require a specific worldview, apart from accepting physical evidence as valid.
If it does not then why rule out a designer? Isn't that viewpoint discrimination? What about viewpoint diversity as opposed to your viewpoint prejudice?
But, yes, the Theory of Evolution
It is not a theory.
seeks to explain how the diversity of life came to be.
by inventing fairytales?
It doesn’t tell us how life started, but how it developed once it had started.
What do you believe about how life got started? This is falsified by viewing any textbook in which the origin of life is included with evolution. It is an artificial stipulation. Most of you all believe life came about unplanned via thermo vents on the ocean. God is ruled out from the get go. What a joke. We do not need to understand all the intricacies of dungeons and dragons to rule it as a fantasy game, not actuality.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Active member
You need to show how two different tracks developed for the two sexes with compatible body parts from an asexual ancestor all unplanned and natural. This is faith, not science.
You are the one relying on faith, not science. You have faith in sources that lie to you. Have you never learned of the existence of hermaphrodites among both plants and animals? Have you never even bothered to look at the Evolution of Sexual Reproduction? If you do you will learn a lot of things that those lying sources don't tell you.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
Dr. Berlinksi's videos. He said:

“The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all, is that if its origins where land-based originally…what do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change a cow into a whale?...Virtually every feature of the cow has to change, has to be adapted. Since we know that life on earth and life in the water are fundamentally different enterprises, we have some sense of the number of changes…I stopped at 50,000, that is morphological changes, and don’t think that these changes are independent. What’s interesting about the cow-to-whale transition is that you can see that a different environment is going to impose severe design constraints on a possible evolutionary sequence…and what does this suggest about what we should see in the fossil record?”
LOL! Thanks for reminding me about Berlinski's lies and stupidity. Berlinski claimed he sat down one night and though of 50,000 changes required to evolve a cow into a whale. Never mind the fact whales didn't evolve from cows. If Berlinski though up one "change" every 30 seconds his list of 50,000 would have taken him over 17 days nonstop. Yet Creationists swallow this kind of blustering dishonesty from Creationist websites every day.
 

Harry Leggs

Active member
LOL! Thanks for reminding me about Berlinski's lies and stupidity.
Dude you are not fit to carry his briefcase. What makes you think name-calling is impressive to anyone here except your group of bottom feeders. Your assessment (unwelcome and off-topic) is less than zero.
Berlinski claimed he sat down one night and though of 50,000 changes required to evolve a cow into a whale. Never mind the fact whales didn't evolve from cows. If Berlinski though up one "change" every 30 seconds his list of 50,000 would have taken him over 17 days nonstop. Yet Creationists swallow this kind of blustering dishonesty from Creationist websites every day.
We agree they did not evolve from cows but the model says they evolved from land animals so it is a distinction without a difference. It could be that whales did not evolve from any land animal and their origins are solely in the ocean. None of it is observed all if it is speculated and speculation is not science.
 

rossum

Active member
It could be that whales did not evolve from any land animal and their origins are solely in the ocean.
You are correct. Whales have their origins in solely aquatic animals closely related to modern Coelacanths and Lungfish. All life on earth started in the oceans and only later moved onto land. Some later moved back from the land into water again: otters, seals, sea-lions, walrus, penguins, manatees, dolphins and whales for example. The transition between land and water has happened more than once and in both directions; the same for plants as well. I am not aware of any ocean-dwelling fungi, though I could be wrong there.

Has Dr. Berlinksi thought about manatees?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
This is incorrect. It was a hypothesis when Darwin proposed in in 1859. His hypothesis was tested in the usual way: experiments, predictions, observations etc. The hypothesis passed the tests and became a theory. As with all theories it has been modified over time, but it is still a theory. It has been over a century since it was merely a hypothesis.

Point us to the "experiment" where scientists have formed both apes and man from a common ancestor. I'm not aware of it.

I'd be impressed if you could even experimentally breed dachshunds and end up with collies (which should be far easier in comparison, since they are the same species).
 

rossum

Active member
Point us to the "experiment" where scientists have formed both apes and man from a common ancestor. I'm not aware of it.
1. Argumentum ad quote marks does not a strong argument make.

2. Point us to any experiment or observation of any deity creating a new species.

3. We have observations of new species evolving, see Tauber and Tauber (1977).

4. We have sequenced DNA from ourselves, chimps and Neanderthals. The results are as predicted by evolution. See here.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
1. Argumentum ad quote marks does not a strong argument make.

Irrelevant and ad hominem.

2. Point us to any experiment or observation of any deity creating a new species.

I'm not aware of any.
But then I never claimed that there WERE any such "experiments".

However, YOU claimed that evolution has been confirmed through experiment.
Yet you seem to be running away from defending this claim.

4. We have sequenced DNA from ourselves, chimps and Neanderthals. The results are as predicted by evolution.

I'm aware of DNA sequencing.
I'm a biology teacher.
The commonality between them doesn't suggest "evolution" any more than it suggests a grand designer.

Where is the EXPERIMENTATION?

If there is none, it's okay to simply be honest and admit it.
 

Harry Leggs

Active member
You are the one relying on faith, not science.
Opinion and wrong.
You have faith in sources that lie to you. Have you never learned of the existence of hermaphrodites among both plants and animals? Have you never even bothered to look at the Evolution of Sexual Reproduction? If you do you will learn a lot of things that those lying sources don't tell you.
Look, it is known viewpoint bigots view any dissent from their orthodox model of common descent as blasphemy because of all the small minds that occupy their cult of reality misfits preferring myth to reality. These pathetic cherry-picked responses are a joke. Just go and repeat the mantra i am an ape 100 times a day. 🤪 It does not one good thing for science. Matter of fact, common descent overall value to science is in the negatives and that is best-case scenario. IOWs science is better off without common descent.
 
Top