Confusing "evolution" with "how life began&qu

[Zzyzx]

.
In these threads the term "evolution" is often equated with "how life began." The two are separate topics.

Since evolution means "genetic change through successive generations", it cannot occur until after life began. That genetic change occurs has been studied and demonstrated since Gregor Mendel, a Franciscan Monk, studied plant genetics during middle 1800s. Selective breeding of plants and animals is an example of that change in operation, bacterial adaptation to antibiotics is another. That those change do occur has been demonstrated thousands of times and is therefore beyond reasonable doubt.

How life began is another matter. No one knows what conditions and events led to the occurrence of self-replicating life forms. Many guesses (hypotheses) have been offered. None have been confirmed.

When a feature of the universe is beyond current knowledge, there is a tendency to guess or speculate. To call those guesses and speculations "theories" is misuse of the term, which in a strict sense means a reasoned guess (hypothesis) that has been tested repeatedly and at least conditionally confirmed, and not disproved.

Why do people continue to insist that evolution hasn't been shown to exist?

[Haven]

Excellent post. I get so tired of the creationist equivocation of abiogenesis (how life began) with evolution (how it reached its current state). It's entirely possible (though not likely) that abiogenesis is false and evolution is true, so criticizing it doesn't count as a refutation of modern biology.

[1213]

Why do people continue to insist that evolution hasn't been shown to exist?

I think the reason is that people have such definition to word “evolution� that it has not shown to exist.

I think people, especially Christians, should be more accurate when they speak about evolution. If evolution is properly defined, there is no problem for Christian. If we take for example humans, according to the Bible all modern humans are offspring of those 8 who survived from the Great flood. Their looks were probably quite similar. However nowadays we have people with quite versatile looks and all of them are allegedly from those 8. So there must have been some kind of “evolution� or “devolution�, because we have for example different sizes and different colors. Also it is possible to breed animals to look more like something else. This is why “evolution� is not totally wrong. Animals can have changes in their appearance and I believe that can be caused by genes.

However if we think those mechanisms could make simple organism to evolve to all species that we can see, it is a different question. And if “evolution� is defined so, then it is maybe in contradiction with the Bible and it is also not proven and I don’t believe it. I don’t think it could be correct even in principle.

[Joab]

Why do people continue to insist that evolution hasn't been shown to exist?

I think the reason is that people have such definition to word “evolution� that it has not shown to exist.

I think people, especially Christians, should be more accurate when they speak about evolution. If evolution is properly defined, there is no problem for Christian. If we take for example humans, according to the Bible all modern humans are offspring of those 8 who survived from the Great flood. Their looks were probably quite similar. However nowadays we have people with quite versatile looks and all of them are allegedly from those 8. So there must have been some kind of “evolution� or “devolution�, because we have for example different sizes and different colors. Also it is possible to breed animals to look more like something else. This is why “evolution� is not totally wrong. Animals can have changes in their appearance and I believe that can be caused by genes.

However if we think those mechanisms could make simple organism to evolve to all species that we can see, it is a different question. And if “evolution� is defined so, then it is maybe in contradiction with the Bible and it is also not proven and I don’t believe it. I don’t think it could be correct even in principle.

There is no genetic bottleneck (8 people) 4000yrs ago or anywhere in our genetic history. Noah's flood didn't happen. The bible is a book of fables.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to 1213]

Even in principle? What's the difference, in principle, between a little evolutionary change and a lot? Or one evolutionary change and another?

Do you find it impossible, in principle, for two isolated groups of a species to accumulate changes such that they can't breed with each other any longer?

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to post 3 by 1213]

Why not try the biologists' definition of evolution. The people who actually study such things are in a better position to define their terms than theists.

Don't you think?

"Genetic change through successive generations"

It happens (as humans have known for 150 yeas). Whether someone's religious beliefs can fit that is immaterial.

When religion conflicts with the real world, change the religion -- just as religion changed (kicking and screaming) when it became obvious that the Earth is not the center of the solar system or universe. Eventually there may be no conflict between religion and real world knowledge (after enough changes are made in religion).

[Artie]

I think people, especially Christians, should be more accurate when they speak about evolution. If evolution is properly defined, there is no problem for Christian. If we take for example humans, according to the Bible all modern humans are offspring of those 8 who survived from the Great flood. Their looks were probably quite similar. However nowadays we have people with quite versatile looks and all of them are allegedly from those 8. So there must have been some kind of “evolution� or “devolution�,

There's no such thing as "devolution". Evolution can be defined as Zzyzx says as "Genetic change through successive generations".

because we have for example different sizes and different colors. Also it is possible to breed animals to look more like something else. This is why “evolution� is not totally wrong. Animals can have changes in their appearance and I believe that can be caused by genes.

However if we think those mechanisms could make simple organism to evolve to all species that we can see, it is a different question. And if “evolution� is defined so, then it is maybe in contradiction with the Bible and it is also not proven and I don’t believe it. I don’t think it could be correct even in principle.

You'd better hope that it is correct because evolution is the only process that can start with a few thousand animals on a boat and end up with 8.7 million species. No evolution, no Noah or flood.

[Danmark]

Also it is possible to breed animals to look more like something else. This is why “evolution� is not totally wrong. Animals can have changes in their appearance and I believe that can be caused by genes.

However if we think those mechanisms could make simple organism to evolve to all species that we can see, it is a different question. And if “evolution� is defined so, then it is maybe in contradiction with the Bible and it is also not proven and I don’t believe it. I don’t think it could be correct even in principle.

It isn't a different question at all. It is the same process. There is a difference between dog breeding by humans and evolution in one sense. The former is artificial selection since man controls which dogs mate. Without man's intervention the process is called natural selection. We can actually see it in our own lifetimes.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... -macroevo/
Shows a very interesting story about how the interaction of a lizard and a plant, the Dead Horse Arum, caused a new species of plant to evolve in just 20 years.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 4 by Joab]


This is somewhat of an ignorant assumption that I doubt you are qualified to make.

.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 5 by FarWanderer]

The problem is when you speculate beyond fact, you create problems and usually end up wrong.

We have a fossil record that proves evolution occurred TO A degree... Transitionals however, between ANYTHING BUT species? ...there is not a single fossil that can be nailed down as a transitional.

So you are left with evidence of evolution, but almost nothing to verify Darwins claim that as we unearthed more of the fossil record, these transitional fossils would be found in abundance.

.