I can understand the sentiment to express support but it is necessary to actually understand the concepts you want to support and to present those accurately.
The statement in the picture: “… then evolved into what I am today.” is factually incorrect. It is a very clear misunderstanding of what evolution is, and in the wrong hands can be very counterproductive.
Evolution occur in populations. And it involved genetic changes. Individuals within a population each have a given combination of genes – or gene frequencies. Those with gene combination that makes them more likely to procreate will result in a change in gene frequency within that population as their genetic combination becomes more prevalent. That is evolution. If there are environmental, sexual, or other forms of selection acting upon which gene combinations are more likely to result in survival and successful reproduction such changes can be very dramatic.
Changes within individuals are not evolution – the given gene frequency has already been established once you were “… created by Mom and Dad…”. Thus no evolution – changes in gene frequencies – is possible in a single individual. The major changes you do experience are called development. But there are also acclimatization and acclimation – known as physiological plasticity. Development refers to the series of changes you undergo from zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to baby, to toddler, preteen, teenager, young adult, mature adult, middle aged adult, elderly adult, and old coot. Acclimatization are the changes your body undergoes when living in a particular environment – such as the ability to handle cold weather of someone living in Alaska vs someone from Arizona. Acclimation is the physiological changes you undergo when exposed to one particular stress – such as increased muscle mass when constantly lifting weights. These changes can not be passed on to offspring, although the genetic ability to undergo these changes can.
It would be useful if you can conceive of an image or cartoon that actually reflect these concepts accurately and explain the error made in the first.
Ever heard of evolving in the way as is related to psychological development?
Yes. There’s also evolving as related to changes in landforms and continental shapes and size, as there are terms related to stellar and planetary formation. And languages and cultures. Neither those terms, nor the term related to psychological change were under discussion in the Nye-Ham debate.
There the topic was specifically biological evolution. As would occur in populations involving genetic change.
I was just wondering what David Hayward was addressing in the above comment, not the debate itself, at least directly.
Dear God, save us from the literalists! May all words ever have many interpretations!
Well played, Sir… well played!
Or you could say that you were created by a long process of evolution, or that your elements were created in the hearts of giant stars that burst and spread their fusion products into space.