Improving on evolution:

Originally posted by wolfgang59
adaptation to environment and selective breeding are evolution

I am so sorry you have been educated wrongly.

Originally posted by Kepler
It's not the turning that convinced Hutton and others. It was the time needed to lay down several miles of sediment, turn it on its side, raise it above the sea, erode it, sink it back below the sea and then lay down another few miles of sediment on top of the erosion surface that did it. Fine grained sediment at that so all the catastrophists couldn't square ...[text shortened]... h biblical floods, mythical ages of fire and ice or even lumps of rock falling out of the sky.

Creationists look at the world through extremely narrow filters. All those arguments slide off them like water off a ducks back. Isn't that so Hinds?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am so sorry you have been educated wrongly.

And I am SO happy to see your so-called religion going down the tubes bit by bit, year by year, less and less relevant in the real world. You are an anachronism, a relic from a thousand years ago, and you lust to return to that dreadful death filled era where you were forced to go to church and any word against the church ended up in death.

If I had a time machine, I would gladly oblige your wish to be put back in that filthy era.

Originally posted by Kepler
That's why it is difficult to observe evolution in action or do experiments on it. Change things fast enough for humans to observe in their lifetime and your experimental subjects are extinct because they can't evolve fast enough. Then you get your funding cut because you did something dubious.

That is simply not true. We can observe evolution and do experiments on it with ease and farmers have been doing so for thousands of years with great success. Even unintentional evolution caused by man changing the environment has been observed in nature in many many instances. The most notable cases being diseases and pests that evolve resistance to whatever we throw at them.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am so sorry you have been educated wrongly.

I am sorry you don't have an education in Biology. I wish it was mandatory world wide, but it seems theists have successfully kept it out of some American schools. Sadly you seem to think you learn't Biology from your pastor. (or was it a youtube video that gave you the incorrect definition of the word 'evolution'?)

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is simply not true. We can observe evolution and do experiments on it with ease and farmers have been doing so for thousands of years with great success. Even unintentional evolution caused by man changing the environment has been observed in nature in many many instances. The most notable cases being diseases and pests that evolve resistance to whatever we throw at them.

True, I was thinking of "evolution according to RJ Hinds", the sort that results in new species. MRSA has evolved but it is still Staphylococcus aureus. Remember, he has difficulty with any use of the word evolution that doesn't fit his narrow definition!

Originally posted by Kepler
True, I was thinking of "evolution according to RJ Hinds", the sort that results in new species.

Well then you should be specific and specify that you are using a non-standard definition made up by a creationist.

MRSA has evolved but it is still Staphylococcus aureus.
I think that is all a matter of convention. When do you decide that a particular life form has speciated? Certainly Dogs are considered a different species from their ancestors (wolves) and the same applies to many domesticated species.
I see that with domesticated plants there are various classification methods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Genetics

I think you will also find that RJ does not dispute the evolution of new species, but rather the evolution of new 'Kinds', where 'Kind' is recursively defined as 'that which not related'. (of course he is so terrified by the word 'evolution' that he will say 'adaptation' instead).

Originally posted by Kepler
That's why it is difficult to observe evolution in action or do experiments on it. Change things fast enough for humans to observe in their lifetime and your experimental subjects are extinct because they can't evolve fast enough. Then you get your funding cut because you did something dubious.

except we see evolution all the time. diseases evolve to be resistant to drugs. white moths in industrial areas turn darker and darker.

the idiotic thing is all fundamentalists allow for small scale evolution, that's one of the ways in which they forcefully try to fit the square story of noah into the round hole that is reality(so to speak).

Here is where it gets even more retarded: they accept that small changes occur in the decades they are actively observing, yet they can't grasp the fact that if you pile enough changes over millions of years, the chimp may evolve into a young earth creationist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is simply not true. We can observe evolution and do experiments on it with ease and farmers have been doing so for thousands of years with great success. Even unintentional evolution caused by man changing the environment has been observed in nature in many many instances. The most notable cases being diseases and pests that evolve resistance to whatever we throw at them.

sorry, didn't see your post, didn't want to rephrase the same idea.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the idiotic thing is all fundamentalists allow for small scale evolution, that's one of the ways in which they forcefully try to fit the square story of noah into the round hole that is reality(so to speak).

Here is where it gets even more retarded: they accept that small changes occur in the decades they are actively observing, yet they can't grasp the ...[text shortened]... le enough changes over millions of years, the chimp may evolve into a young earth creationist.

Actually if they actually thought about it, they would have to accept large scale evolution over very short periods to explain the diversity of life since the time of Noah. Even if they were to dispute which exact species were on the Ark, they have to admit that all the genetic diversity found in man arose from the few humans found on the Ark.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you should be specific and specify that you are using a non-standard definition made up by a creationist.

[b]MRSA has evolved but it is still Staphylococcus aureus.
I think that is all a matter of convention. When do you decide that a particular life form has speciated? Certainly Dogs are considered a different species from their ancest ...[text shortened]... rse he is so terrified by the word 'evolution' that he will say 'adaptation' instead).[/b]

Sorry, I thought it might be clear from the context of a reply to the man himself.

I think the species issue isn't very clear cut which is where the creationists gain traction. There is no truly clear definition of what makes a species, just as there is no clear definition of what makes a living thing alive. I remember my biology teachers saying that species were separate if they could not interbreed and produce fertile young which is OK for the bigger organisms. For bacteria that won't do at all.

It is that definition of species that seems to allow the creationists to talk about adaptation and natural variation not being evolution in the sense of producing new species. As I understand it, populations need to be isolated one from another so that genetic drift can take them far enough apart genetically to ensure they can't breed. Of course, that requires more time than the average human has so it doesn't get observed. Certain events can speed the process up but not enough for our purposes. Then the creationists can say "Well, show us the proof that it happens then! Ever seen a sheep turn into a wolf? No? There, it's all a pack of lies."

My problem lies more with the "How do we gather evidence for this very sensible idea?" rather than "I don't see how it could possibly happen". I can see quite clearly how it would work but the "how" of observational/experimental evidence for speciation is currently a difficulty.

Originally posted by Kepler
I think the species issue isn't very clear cut which is where the creationists gain traction.

Actually that is where they typically fail, because if you make a specific claim about something that isn't actually well defined then your claim is bound to be wrong. This is why RJ is forced to invent a new category he calls 'Kind' which is recursively defined and thus his claim cannot be wrong (but is also meaningless due to the recursion).

There is no truly clear definition of what makes a species, just as there is no clear definition of what makes a living thing alive. I remember my biology teachers saying that species were separate if they could not interbreed and produce fertile young which is OK for the bigger organisms.
In reality, its a much more vague definition and usually more a case of whether or not they typically interbreed in a natural setting. This gives major problems when it comes to domestic animals.

For bacteria that won't do at all.
Which is why I questioned your claim about Staphylococcus aureus. Generally we do not change a species name for something that evolves within a life time. So although we may have breed many breeds of dogs, we will typically not name them as different species, even though if they were found in the wild, we probably would.

It is that definition of species that seems to allow the creationists to talk about adaptation and natural variation not being evolution in the sense of producing new species.
No, it is a lack of education that lets creationists talk nonsense.

Then the creationists can say "Well, show us the proof that it happens then! Ever seen a sheep turn into a wolf? No? There, it's all a pack of lies."
Yet of course most of them accept that a wolf turned into a dog. The sheep into wolf thing is of course either a deliberate strawman on their part, of a total misunderstanding of evolution.

My problem lies more with the "How do we gather evidence for this very sensible idea?"
For large scale change over geological time there is the fossil record and genetic evidence. But as I pointed out, domestic breeding is sufficient to prove the main concepts.

There are in fact a number of plant species that are known to have speciated during domestic breeding, including cases of crossing very different species to form new ones.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are in fact a number of plant species that are known to have speciated during domestic breeding, including cases of crossing very different species to form new ones.

Sshhhh! Don't tell the old guy that, he'll suffer a conniption and drop dead of apoplexy.

Originally posted by Kepler
Sshhhh! Don't tell the old guy that, he'll suffer a conniption and drop dead of apoplexy.

Not even a little will that bother him, he will rationalize it all away and just call it 'adaptation'. ANYTHING but calling it by its right name. What was it now? Let's see, it's right on the tip of my tongue. OH YES. EVOLUTION.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Creationists look at the world through extremely narrow filters. All those arguments slide off them like water off a ducks back. Isn't that so Hinds?

Absolutely! All that could easily happen in a short time because of a world wide flood, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc.