What is YOUR defenition of evolution?

Question

whenever I get into a debate on evolution I get many different Ideas of what many people think evolution is.There are 6 or 7 different ones.only 1 is proven.That is micro evolution,which is variety within the same KIND of animal.NOONE has seen anything change into some other animal,NOONE can prove the earth is millions of years old either.Carbon Dating does NOT work consistantly,AND,it only gives dates in the thousands,even on LIVE animals.LOL. Go to www.drdino.com for more.

Answer 1

A "fairy tale" kept alive by the gullible segment of society .

It amazes me how people that because students are taught evolution in school that they can go through life defending it , when they don`t know the first thing about the alternative .

Unlike the biblical records , evolution has not one single solitary piece of evidence that can be proved to support it ............ other than a handful of hoaxes over the years .

It`s a case of the blind leading the blind .

Answer 2

I would ask you never ask what someone's definition of something is.
when talking define your terms. If by evolution you mean a dog becomes a giraffe, state it. If you mean life from non-life state that.

One of your posts discuss the decay of uranium. The creationist will tell you that the earth was formed about 7000 years ago, and that God made it as it is, to approximate age.

That is, the stars, at x light years have light reaching the earth now instead of years after our star has burned out.

The belief that life rose from the oceans is a faith beyond my reasonable ability to trust. But for this, lets say it took place.

genetics define the species that are made. plant a carrot get a carrot. This can get real deep in a hurry, but the point of this, while some species can cross with others, apart from rare occurrances, I don't know of the off-spring being capable of reproduction.

In punctuated equilbrium, you have entire species just spring up out of no where. The fossil evidence supports this sudden life. The fossils also show almost complete species destruction also.

It comes down to faith. Do I want to believe life came out of a sterile, lifeless world as the earth had to have been when formed without God, or do I believe that God had his hand in it.

I would only ask one thing of anyone who wants to "prove" evolution. Let me sterilize some organic thing, say a toad. and see life "evolve" from the building blocks there.

I have read much literature on the studies of creating life in the lab, and frankly, it is not life that can exist for a protracted time, or outside the lab.

Sorry to those who believe in evolution, but my faith is weak, I need a God to make life.

Answer 3

Dude, you have serious problems if you believe a word that comes out of Kent Hovind's mouth (the website www.drdino.com belongs to Hovind). You do realize that he's currently serving 10 years in Federal Prison right now, don't you? He's a lowlife liar who manipulates the thoughts of people who don't really know enough about evolution, scientific method, and instrumental techniques to form their own opinions.

From how you worded your question, it is obvious that your understanding of evolution is fairly superficial. I suggest you do some more research to gain a better understanding of evolutionary theory before you presume to criticize it, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, please use some far better sources than Kent Hovind.

Answer 4

A change in allele frequency within a population.

Thanks for asking. By the way, "Dr. Dino" is a worthless resource. Don't bother going to his site, it's a waste of time. Complete bunk.

Edit:
Dino is using wisdom teeth to support Creation. Yeah right. That's one of my favorite examples of Unintelligent Design. An intelligent designer would have given us teeth that fit in our jaws, for crying out loud.

Answer 5

With all due respect for all the hard work put in by biologists (evolutionists), both physically and mentally, I think, as far as actual "human origin" is concerned, they're barking up the wrong tree (no pun intended) and, therefore, just like the creationists, they are adversely affecting (by diversion of 'some' extremely flawed theories) the pursuit and discovery of an alternative, more fitting solution to the true origin of, in particular, us human beings.

Answer 6

You've obviously missed the fact that uranium lead radiometric dating is used for anything over 60,000 years or so. Uranium-Lead dating works back to about 4.5 billion years, since thats the half-life of uranium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

Please check your facts before buying into conspiracy BS, or talk to a real scientist.

Answer 7

Here definitions of term evolution in different contexts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(disambiguation)
and more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28term%29

For me, evolution means `process and progress` in the formation of universe, `change in gene poll and gene frequencies` in population genetics, `development` in terms of society and cultures.
Evolution reminds me when it is used in biology to speciation and transmutation of species. And for ``the variety``, I think it is called ``variety and richness in different forms and composition`` not evolution itself.

Answer 8

There are two main definitions of the word "evolution" as used in biology: it can refer to the *process* of evolution, or to the *theory* of evolution.

You are absolutely correct that it is important to first agree on which of the two you are talking about before proceeding with any discussion.

The *process* of evolution is simply the process of "slow change in an organism at the population level". This is what you seem to call "micro-evolution" but no scientist makes any such distinction betweeen micro- and macro-evolution ... macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a longer timescale. The *process* of evolution is a fact ... it occurrs, it can be measured (as the allele frequencies in a population), it can be induced (by selective breeding, or by isolation), and it can be observed in nature.

The *theory* of evolution is the theory of how that process occurs in nature. That is the theory of natural selection. Creationists also concede that natural selection occurs ... but dispute only how much change it can account for. The theory of evolution says that the process of evolution can produce small change in small time ... and HUGE change in HUGE amounts of time ... to the point that given more than 3.5 billion years of time, the process of evolution can explain the origin of all species on the planet by way of common ancestry.

To address specific points:

> "NOONE has seen anything change into some other animal,"

That depends on just how different they have to be to qualify as a "different animal." If by "different animal" you mean "different species", then In the laboratory we can observe speciation (the splitting of a single species into two). But if you mean fish into reptile, then you are of course stacking the deck ridiculously because such a transition *we know* takes millions of years.

To say that we can't be sure about any process that happens more slowly than a human lifespan is one of the key anti-science fallacies of creationism.

Heck, even a redwood tree grows slower than humans can observe it ... but we have no hesitation in saying that a giant redwood tree we encounter in the woods is the product of 600 years of growth ... we don't just assume that because "NO ONE has seen" a giant redwood's growth from beginning to end that we can therefore conclude that all giant redwoods were created in their current form.

We've also never seen a star form (as that also takes about a million years), and yet we know a *lot* about how stars form. We also can't go to the sun and take a sample to see what it is made of ... but we know from abundant evidence what it is made of and how it is burning. Similarly, there is an abundance of evidence (in fossils, in genetics, in DNA, in morphology, biogeographics, embryology, etc.) that such transitions from one KIND of animal into another *did* occur.

>"NOONE can prove the earth is millions of years old either."

The statement that "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" is no more and no less "proven" than the statement that "the sun is made of hydrogen", or that "the sun is 91 million miles from the earth." In science we don't talk about "proof" we talk about "evidence" ... and all three of those statements have about the same amount of evidence.

>"Carbon Dating does NOT work consistantly,AND,it only gives dates in the thousands,even on LIVE animals.LOL"

Which is precisely why nobody but a creationist (like Dr. Dino) thinks that carbon dating has any relevance at all to the age of fossils or the age of the earth. LOL.

Carbon dating DOES work consistently, but only on once-living matter (which fossils are not, as they are rock), and only on things up to about 60,000 years old .... *MUCH* too short for fossils. Thus it is NOT used to date fossils or the age of the earth. Instead, other types of radiometric dating are used.

That's what happens when you go to www.drdino.com for your science. He fills you full of absurd misunderstandings, and makes you sound as foolish as he is when you go to the science forums. Kent Hovind is not a scientist ... he is a fool and a well-known fraud. People who cite him are doomed to not being taken seriously.

>"Go to www.drdino.com for more."

Even the creationists at Answers in Genesis and Answers in Creation got fed up with Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind ... they just find him an embarassment to the creationist cause.

Answer 9

Dear Coby, please come back to biology answers when you really want to ask a serious question and not lecture those who know better with your misconceptions.

Answer 10

well, a 2 word meaning would be to unfold..another than this according me it means descent with modification.