What is evolution, not what some think

I am a creationist so let me first apologise for my stupidity.
Yes I am aware that many think that, it is though my choice

One of the issues I am tired of having to explain is what evolution is, not just to me but recognised by the scientific community

Here is a list
The Different Types Of Evolution

The Different Types Of Evolution
The following types of Evolution are described:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.


www.freechristianteaching.org...

Seemingly every argument between the creation believers and the atheist groups, the issue of evolution comes up and the anti creationists resort to a common "abiogenesis is not evolution" stance.

Sorry, abiogenesis is a reason I dont accept evolution, organic evolution or abiogenesis is a reason.
Cosmic evolution is another, stellar and planetary evolution as well, yes even chemical evolution.
I dont take these aspects of evolution as separate issues

To me its like building a house
Cosmic evolution is the ground the house is built on, stellar evolution the foundation of the house, organic, the walls and finally the roof is your pet subject macro evolution.
See without explaining the first 4 issues, the 4th issue becomes irrelevant.

Yes I agree with Micro evolution.

Anyway you are welcome to believe in anything you want to, just please dont say abiogenesis is not evolution.
It is, obviously just not the evolution you want to talk about.

Maybe if you want to specify in future you only want to discuss macro evolution and define it as such, then fair enough

Now this isnt an argument just explanations of the types of evolution.
Thanks for reading

The Theory of Evolution is only concerned with biodiversity. End of story. None of the rest has any bearing whatsoever on the TOE.

a reply to: borntowatch

You mean you're tired of attempting to change the definition of the theory of evolution to suit your creationist beliefs.

It's the classic kent hovind straw man, and is to be expected from the most desperate creationists....

a reply to: borntowatch

Sorry, abiogenesis is a reason I dont accept evolution, organic evolution or abiogenesis is a reason.

That's like saying, you don't like green m&m's because: red m&m's

It doesn't make sense. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different princinples.

a reply to: borntowatch


Micro and macro are the same thing and a part of the theory of evolution, not a seperate breakdown. All the cosmic stuff has no bearing on the Theory of evolution. Its like reading a dictionary. When a word has multiple definitions and uses......

a reply to: borntowatch

Your source has gotten it wrong I think they do it on purpose to confuse. You should really try using trusted sites for such information. Creationist sites can not be trusted.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

No ,wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolution is not about the origin of life. There are many hypothesis for the origin of life but evolution is a scientific theory. Check my signature for that.

For Evolution of biology start here.en.wikipedia.org...

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

Origin of the term

Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation". Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories.[6]

A more practical definition of the term describes it as changes occurring on geological time scales, in contrast to microevolution, which occurs on the timescale of human lifetimes.[7] This definition reflects the spectrum between micro- and macro-evolution, whilst leaving a clear difference between the terms: because the geological record rarely has a resolution better than 10,000 years, and humans rarely live longer than 100 years, "meso-evolution" is never observed.[7]

As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhard Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who did were generally working within the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, Richard Goldschmidt, and Otto Schindewolf were) and those who didn't were generally working within the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not.[6]
en.wikipedia.org...

As for the term being used with the other things you have there. This is the definition of evolution being used.

2.


the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

By using that definition it can be aplied to a great many things. Evolution of TV, computer, car, clothing, phone, travel.

The creationist sites mix those terms IMO to confuse and mudy the waters to those who do not know any better in an attempt to dicredit Biological evolution. Honestly though it only makes them look dumb. If you want to understand evolution you need to stay away from sites like those they will only give you bad information.

What the... You can't just make up things and attach the evolution label to them. All of those things are COMPLETELY separate ideas. They aren't and can't all be lumped under one umbrella called "evolution". That is just incorrect science.

This OP was painful to read...

a reply to: borntowatch

I personally see nothing wrong with being a creationist, nor do I feel someone is "stupid" for being one. Both of my parents are, and after almost 42 years of interactions with them I fail to find them "stupid". I do have one simple honest question for you though OP.

"One of the issues I am tired of having to explain is what evolution is, not just to me but recognised by the scientific community."

The definitions you list are not what is recognized by the scientific community. I searched each one only to find the definitions you listed above are used by creationists in support of their ideals. So my question is simply this: Why aren't you using the actual scientific definitions? Since your referring to them and the terms recognized by them would it not be prudent to point out the correct ones?

The theory of cosmic evolution
www.extension.harvard.edu...

The theory of planetary evolution
www.umich.edu...

The theory of Chemical evolution
en.wikipedia.org...

I will stop there

So as you can see, these theorys are labelled as evolution, so when I say i dont believe in evolution I am not just talking about biological evolution.
Understand

originally posted by: borntowatch
The theory of cosmic evolution
www.extension.harvard.edu...

...has nothing to do with The TOE.

The problem seems to be that the OP has never taken the time to look up the definition of evolution outside of creationist sites.

ev·o·lu·tion [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, esp. British, ee-vuh-] Show IPA

dictionary.reference.com...
noun

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.


2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.


3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.


5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

That or the OP has looked up the definition before and his/her reading comprehension is extremely low.

A third option is "willful ignorance" and that would be a choice.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: borntowatch
The theory of cosmic evolution
www.extension.harvard.edu...

...has nothing to do with The TOE.

From the article itself

Eric J. Chaisson, an astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, discusses the theory of cosmic evolution with Jenny Attiyeh of ThoughtCast.

Maybe you should be a little more specific and state "Biological" evolution

Evolution can not be linked to just biological evolution, its just a smoke screen to baffle people

It might clear up any confusion

originally posted by: borntowatch
The theory of cosmic evolution
www.extension.harvard.edu...

The theory of planetary evolution
www.umich.edu...

The theory of Chemical evolution
en.wikipedia.org...

I will stop there

So as you can see, these theorys are labelled as evolution, so when I say i dont believe in evolution I am not just talking about biological evolution.
Understand

No, no, there's a significant difference there. Stellar evolution is the lifespan of a star. The star changes according to age and its physical characteristics. The Theory of Evolution is totally different. Please don't conflate the two - it makes it easy for people to claim that you don't understand science.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The problem seems to be that the OP has never taken the time to look up the definition of evolution outside of creationist sites.

ev·o·lu·tion [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, esp. British, ee-vuh-] Show IPA

dictionary.reference.com...
noun

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.


2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.


3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.


5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

That or the OP has looked up the definition before and his/her reading comprehension is extremely low.

A third option is "willful ignorance" and that would be a choice.

Isnt that so nice, you have to attack me personally

You obviously have a very clever mind and reasoned argument as to stoop to saying I am "willfuly ignorant"

But look at point 1
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Clearly point 1 is not biological evolution, in fact it states very clearly growth or development, planes are not biological.
Thanks that helps me no end

Thats it for me, attack away.

a reply to: borntowatch

The TOE has nothing to do with your link, no matter how much you try and conflate the two. I'm not particularly shocked that a creationist is struggling to grasp the not-exactly-subtle nuance here.

Separating Evolution like that is only done by the opposition. Why?

Because when Science finds an evidence of change.. The Creationist are like "oh shiii!!! we better separate it into different category, this way we can still argue evolution is false but accept the newly discovered evidence as some stand alone change.


All the types of evolution you mentioned are part of the evolution, logical person would look at it together.

From my humble understanding of your OP post - you don't like word 'evolution' because it us used in more then one field to explain things...

Wonder, if evolution of religion and religious thoughts has to do anything with you not likening. You know from belief in many gods to belief into single God and whole fairy tales that goes with belief.



On serious side - scientist use word evolution to show change in something, but you mix that with Darwin's ToE.

If you really interested in science, stop reading creationist propaganda. All its purpose is just to confuse you...

Sorry I have been up for 30 hours....what toe are we on about? the big one? or a pinky?.

a reply to: borntowatch

I gave three scenarios as to why you may not understand the term evolution and how it is applied. You seem to have decided the third option applies to you which is why you take offense.

The saying goes if the shoe fits.

The third option would be a conscious choice on your part to be that way it is also your choice to be offended.

However it seems it is both willful and a bit of reading comprehension which you may not be aware.

If you notice there is a separate definition specifically for biology that is separate from the other definitions. The TOE is an of itself by itself and does not mix with the other definitions. Using a definition is an "either or" not an "and" process.

This is as simple as I can explain this to you I do not know how much good it will do considering you seem to be saying remaining ignorant on the matter is willful on your part after all that is the scenario you choose for yourself.

a reply to: borntowatch

the problem is :

your list

it is not " accecpted by the scientific community "

it is a fantasy created - by creationists

and to demonstrate this - the terms micro / macro evolution are not used by real scientists only creationists .

so your thread has failed from the get-go

you have not defined evolution scientifically - you have parroted creationist clap-trap - bravo