Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2018 6:11 AM
177 online now:
Faith (1 member, 176 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,792 Year: 13,615/29,783 Month: 1,061/1,576 Week: 2/271 Day: 2/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 166 of 217 (524212)
09-14-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Archangel
09-14-2009 10:35 PM


Creation "science" again
You are a science denier.

You are so far out on the fringe that you couldn't see the mainstream with the Hubble!

And you'd deny it if you could see it. You have to deny science!

Creation "science" and creationism have to deny science because the findings of science contradict their particular religious beliefs.

You are one of the best examples of religious apologetics I have ever seen! Onward rhetoric, evidence be damned.

You make up your own version of science, only to shoot it down--classic strawman argumentation.

But that doesn't mean anything in the real world. And those of us who actually do science know it.

Science is based on evidence, not rhetoric or apologetics, nor tilting at strawmen.

But thanks for playing! [Johnny, what fantastic prizes has this great player won?]


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 10:35 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 167 of 217 (524213)
09-14-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Archangel
09-14-2009 7:01 AM


Hi Archangel, thanks for your response. Sorry for taking so long to reply, but I've been traveling.

I must sincerely compliment you on at least finally posting something that from an evolutionists point of view can be considered evidence of evolution in all of the examples you document here.

Yes, they show the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. What you asked for.

For the sake of time, I will deal with the first evidence you offer and apply it to all of the evidence as my reasoning/criticism remains consistent and the same for all of it. Although I disagree with your sciences definition that this fossil record for Pelycodus is evidence of macroevolution speciation in any way, even according to what evolution generally accepts as a reasonable definition of macroevolution, this example fails since it is still called a Pelycodus, ...

Excuse me? Your objection is that the arbitrary names given by science still refer to the same genus (except at the top where a new genus is arbitrarily assigned, due to the accumulated differences)???

. It doesn't evolve into a different species/type of animal as I asked for.

Curiously, the one example you chose to critique the evidence on shows not one species but ten (10) species in addition to the new genus.

Interestingly this is MORE -- much more -- than what is necessary to show the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- which is what you asked for:

Message 141

subbie writes:

Yes, it is.
Evolution can be described by the phrase "descent with modification." Change in the population of various organisms across generations has been directly observed, both in the lab and in nature. Thus, it is an fact.
Simple as that.


Really? As simple as that? Then by all means prove descent with modification has actually occurred in the real world, ...

Note that - properly anyway - you are (should be) asking for substantiation of what subbie said, and not any additional (moving the goalposts) requirements you can dream up.

This has been done: you can admit it and we can move on. Or you can deny it and we get into looking at your reasons for the denial of the evidence that has been presented.

Your only criticism is that because all mammals are still called mammals, that nothing has been demonstrated about evolution - a rather pathetically weak and obviously false position, if you ask me, for the sum of your response. Gosh, all plants are plants! Wow, all animals are animals! Zowie, all cellular life forms still have cells!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP THE PRESSES ...

It doesn't evolve into a different species/type of animal ...

And here you are ignoring the third example, where we not only have a number of different species involved, and a number of different genera involve, we have the derivation of the mammalian ear from the reptile ear, as we go from reptiles to mammaliforms.

In other words, your complaint is not only weak and petty, it is downright false: you either did not read it, did not comprehend it, or chose to ignore it.

It doesn't evolve into a different species/type of animal as I asked for.

But are you asking the right question? Is you question one based on the natural evidence of life as we know it, from the world around us today, from history, from prehistory, from archeology and paleontology? Or is it one based on a false understanding of evolution as taught\promulgated by creationists?

Now IF you are going to mean a change such as evolution does NOT claim occurs then that is YOUR misunderstanding of what evolution says occurs. To clarify this you need to define what change\type you THINK you can ask for evidence of.

See MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Now here's the problem for you: the evidence has been presented that is more than sufficient to demonstrate evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - AND is is more than sufficient to demonstrate the formation of lineages of descent, including non-arbitrary speciation events and development of novel traits, ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AS USED IN SCIENCE.

If you want to discuss some other meaning, then you are going to have to define what you mean, because what you have been presented is more than sufficient evidence to support macroevolution as the term is used in biology in general and evolutionary science in specific. If you are talking about something else, you need to be specific on what it is.

If you cannot clearly define your "/type" of change as something that is not per the definition of the terms used in science (biology, evolution), and demonstrate that this is indeed part of the fossil record or observable in the world today, THEN you are talking about some fantasy rather than anything involved in the science of evolution in particular and biology in general.

Have fun.

note: If you cannot do this then you cannot complain that the evidence has not been presented that you asked for.

Also, you know that creationists interpret the same evidence you observe differently because we don't accept the old earth standard of life evolving over millions or hundreds of millions of years as evolutionists do.

Fascinatingly, I am well aware of the weaseling done by creationists with the evidence. Do you agree that the evidence is representative of reality? Do you agree that the best explanation of ALL the evidence is more likely to agree with reality than ones that only explain bits and pieces of evidence?

Here's another thread you can peruse to understand that disagreeing with the interpretation is a problem:

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

And now you have and ADDITIONAL problem -- now you not only need to define what kind of change you are talking about, but you need to answer the clear evidence of an old earth, based on multiple correlations that are mutually supportive and confirming of each other.

If you are going to argue for a different interpretation of the fossils based on some pretense of "not accepting" the evidence of an old earth, you now need to show how each of those age measuring systems are individually wrong, and WHY THEY AGREE.

Have fun.

note: If you cannot do this then you cannot use the pretense of "not accepting" evidence as support for a different interpretation.

Here is the creationist explanation for this alleged fossil record and for the increase in size of this animal which I believe is more a case of rapid adaptation than macroevolution. What we have here are a series of fossil finds of the same animal at different ages when they met their unfortunate demise. And I hold up as evidence of how ludicrous your apologetics link is as it attempts to solidify its claims by saying this:
This claim is just incredible for a couple of reasons. ONE, that it implies that every fossil example at every strata level are somehow, miraculously not only complete enough examples, but are all the same approximate age at the time of their individual death.

The problems for you are (1) what you see at every level is the distribution of size of the population from smallest to largest for each level, (2) scientists can tell the age of bones and teeth, and tell that the size distribution is not just age related, (3) it does not explain the division of the populations, (4) it does not explain the fact that the two top branches go on to form more and more different populations (including the ape family), and finally (5) this hand waving exercise (an attempt to deny the evidence) does not work when we look at another fossil record:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/cr.../foram_article3.html

quote:
Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) are the developers of what reportedly is the largest, most complete set of data ever compiled on the evolutionary history of an organism. The two scientists have painstakingly pieced together a virtually unbroken fossil record that shows in stunning detail how a single-celled marine organism has evolved during the past 66 million years. Apparently, it's the only fossil record known to science that has no obvious gaps -- no "missing links."

"It's all here -- a complete record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this organism has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."
...
The study focuses on the microscopic, fossilized remains of an organism belonging to a huge order of marine protozoans called foraminifera. Often heard shortened to "forams," the name comes from the Latin word foramen, or "opening." The organisms can be likened to amoebas wearing shells, perforated to allow strands of protoplasm to bleed through. The shell shapes range from the plain to the bizarre.

"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.

The exhaustive species collection also is exceptionally well-preserved, which accounts largely for the excitement shared by Parker and Arnold. "Most fossils, particularly those of the vertebrates, are fragmented -- just odds and ends," Parker said. "But these fossils are almost perfectly preserved, despite being millions of years old. We have the whole creature, minus the protoplasm."

By being so small, the fossil shells escaped nature's grinding and crushing forces, which over the eons have in fact destroyed most of the evidence of life on Earth. The extraordinary condition of the shells permits Parker and Arnold to study in detail not only how a whole species developed, but how individuals physiologically developed from birth to adulthood.


http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sle.htm

quote:
Well-documented examples of speciation and gradual morphological change in marine microfossils (e.g. forams, radiolarians, diatoms, and coccoliths) are increasingly common, particularly from the Cenozoic but also from earlier periods. For instance, Wei and Kennet (1988) provide evidence for the origin of the foram species Globoconella sphericomiozea from G. conomiozea terminalis about 5ma based on fossil material from sediment cores from four Deep Sea Drilling Project sites (DSDP 284, 207A, 208, and 588). Motoyama (1997) provides evidence for the Pliocene (~2.5ma) origin the radiolarian species Cycladophora davisiana from C. sakaii, and its subsequent morphologic evolution, based on fossil material from DSDP core 192. Sorhannus et al. (1998, 1999) provide evidence for the divergence of the diatom Rhizosolenia praebergonii and and R. sigmoida from R. bergonni at about 3ma, based on fossil records from several Pacific cores. Lazarus et al. (1985) and Lazarus (1986) provide evidence for the origin of the radiolarian species Pterocanium prismatium from P. charybdeum around 4ma, based on fossil material from sediment cores from the northwest Pacific. Kuwahara (1997) document evolutionary changes in the radiolarian genus Albaillella from Japanese chert sections. Raffi et al. (1998) provides evidence for the Miocene origin of several species of nannofossils from western Atlantic sediment cores, ODP Leg 154. They write: "Examination of Middle-Late Miocene sediments recovered during ODP Leg 154 in western equatorial Atlantic has led to identification of evolutionary transitions in some groups of late Neogene calcareous nannofossils. Through analyses of high resolution samples (10-cm sample interval equivalent to average interval of 6 kyr) we were able to document the origin of the genera Catinaster, Amaurolithus, and Ceratolithus, and the nannofossil species Discoaster berggrenii and D. quinqueramus. The presence of intermediate morphotypes between end-members representing distinct species sheds new light on phylogenetic relationships and/or confirms relationships suggested in previous studies. . . Successive branching from Triquetrorhabdulus rugosus is demonstrated for Amaurolithus primus, `Amaurolithus amplificus', and Ceratolithus acutus" (p. 17).

Please note the "they are still forams" (before you haul out that tired complaint) but now we are talking about a "superorder" level evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

quote:
Domain: 	Eukaryota
Kingdom: Protozoa=?Rhizaria
Phylum: Sarcodina
Class: Rhizopoda
Superorder: Foraminifera

and you can compare this to the superorder that humans belong to:

quote:
,pre>Domain: Eukarya
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini

Which also happens to include Pelycodus.

Organisms will ALWAYS be members of the same category as the organisms they evolved from. Dogs are dogs, are canines are mammals. They are members of the same branch of the evolutionary tree because of common descent, no matter how much or how little they appear to evolve.

But even more incredibly, that they were able to extract genetic material in order to test the change in alleles in fossils going back 40 million years, or even 10 million years.

Interestingly, one does not need to extract the DNA to observe the effect of the DNA within a population.

At each level you have a distribution of size from large to small, and the effect of individual age can be ruled out by comparing teeth of the same age development.

The claim is ridiculous and defies scientific reason and current capabilities.

It appears that you fail to comprehend the link between the genetic level allele and the expressed trait in the developed organism. I can measure the number of alleles for eye color without needing to extract the DNA. I can measure the number of alleles for hair curliness without needing to extract the DNA.

Mendel measured the number and frequency of the alleles for different traits in peas before DNA was known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

We see the same kind of distribution of size within a population in all living species and all species of record, and we can study the distribution of size in a population without measuring the actual DNA, although we can ALSO now add this information to CONFIRM that we are seeing the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

So tell me, assuming that this accepted understanding of the limitations of DNA's survivability

... is irrelevant when you can directly measure the variation of the expressed traits in a population from generation to generation, and seeing that - GOSH - the distribution of these expressed traits in the population changes from generation to generation.

Curiously, natural selection operates on the expressed trait. Any genetic difference that is not apparent in the developed individual does not affect selection and thus does not contribute to evolution of the species.

With all due respect to you, I rest my case as a skeptic who must oppose and reject your stated evidence on the grounds that it defies standards and practices which the known science of DNA extraction claims is possible. It also exposes more of the inconsistencies which causes we common sense creationists to reject your claims of being a valid and honest science.

Sadly, your case is weak, contrived, false, based on denial of the evidence presented, and is not based on a full understanding of the evidence, the science, or the terminology being used. That's the best you can do?

As an open-minded skeptic, with all due respect to you, I ask if you are equally skeptical of claims for some different "\type" of change, or of claims for a young earth, when a creationist talks about it? Or are you only skeptical when it is convenient for your beliefs?

Is denial common sense? Or is it just a common response.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 7:01 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 168 of 217 (524214)
09-14-2009 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tanndarr
09-14-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
Hi Tanndarr, welcome to the fray, if I have not said so before.

Are you suggesting that a change in allele frequency can only be measured directly by sampling intact genetic material?

Gregor Mendel did not need no steenkin DNA to make table after table after table measuring and predicting the change in hereditary traits in the populations of peas.

Here's the question: Do populations change over time? We can see it, we can measure it...therefore: evolution is a fact.

Closing your eyes doesn't make it go away I'm afraid

Exactly.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tanndarr, posted 09-14-2009 6:24 PM Tanndarr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Tanndarr, posted 09-15-2009 12:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 594 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 169 of 217 (524215)
09-15-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Archangel
09-14-2009 10:35 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
Hi, Archangel.

Welcome to EvC!

Archangel writes:

Tandarr writes:

Are you suggesting that a change in allele frequency can only be measured directly by sampling intact genetic material?

Uhh, yeah!!! Why, are you suggesting that we can determine a change in allele frequency by looking at the incomplete fossils from animals who lived an ALLEGED 30 to 50 million years ago?

I take it you are also vehemently opposed to the judicial system, which allows juries to determine who committed a murder without any of the jurors having actually seen the murder take place?

There is a basic tenet of science that states that all natural events produce evidence of their occurrence. It is by examining this evidence that we can understand natural events.

The evidence, in this case, is (1) the nested hierarchy of morphological similarities between a series of fossils; (2) the stratigraphy (aging and relative placement) of the rock beds in which the fossils are found; and (3) evidence of similar patterns occurring throughout the entire fossil record, between modern species, and even between individuals within single populations.

To illustrate the point, I give you a series of numbers:

1, 4, _, _, _, _, 19, 22, 25, _, _, _

Can you tell me what the missing numbers in that series are? I bet you can. It's a simple matter of extrapolating the pattern you see into the spaces where you don't see anything.

This is exactly the process used to determine evolutionary relationships based on fossils. There are lots of pieces missing, sure, but there are enough pieces known that we can see the pattern that emerges. And, we can correlate that pattern with other patterns that we see, including genetic patterns.

Can you argue with me that the method is flawed?
Or, do you argue that the pattern in the Pelycodus diagram that RAZD presented does not actually exist?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 10:35 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3079 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 170 of 217 (524216)
09-15-2009 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Archangel
09-14-2009 10:35 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
Uhh, yeah!!! Why, are you suggesting that we can determine a change in allele frequency by looking at the incomplete fossils from animals who lived an ALLEGED 30 to 50 million years ago? I mean, I get the direct impression that you people think that graph RAZD posted represents millions of years of perfectly preserved skeletons of these animals. But only because that's the impression the evolutionists description gives, of course.

Let me correct you...this is the explanation that is currently offered by the teams of scientists that study these fossils. It's not one person spouting some crackpot theory, it's a bunch of well educated folks who have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they are caught fudging their research.

I'm going to inject a little reality into this debate in order to educate you innocents so as to inoculate you somewhat against the pseudo intellectualism these wannabe scientists promote at every turn around here as they bluster with such assurance about things they have absolutely no real and actual clue about. Let's start with decomposition and the survival of the remains of dead animals in the real world. Let's see what happens to a similar sized animal to the Pelycodus after death using high speed time lapse video. This is following this rabbit for 8 days after death in a protected environment where no predators can contribute to consuming it and carry off the bones. It is safe to say that this rabbit wouldn't have lasted even the 8 days it took it to decompose naturally had predators had access to the remains.

So...you're telling me that fossils are only made by god's sparkly pixie magic? Fossilization is a rare but well understood process which can be easily understood with a little study. The only source of bluster here is you scooter.

Given this reality, how do you propose that generation after generation of Pelycodus fossils survived to be slowly and methodically preserved in layers of strata which left us with a perfectly datable record of when they lived and died? Can any of you intellectual giants explain this problem in the face of an actual video which exposes real time reality for once, apart from actual predators carrying off the bones of course,? Any takers???

Do you now how many Pelycodus fossils have been found to date? Why aren't they mixed in with the trilobites, dinosaurs and humans? You have to offer a better explanation; which, by the way, does not mean one in all caps.

WOW, this is quite a rant. When did I say that science attempts to indoctrinate kids even though I know that evolution does exactly that!

We'll accept that as a plea of guilty then.

I AM ANTI-EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT IS A PHILOSOPHY RATHER THAN A PROVABLE OR VERIFIABLE SCIENCE.

No, maybe it'll help if I use caps: YOU ARE AN ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE FOR YOURSELF.

LIE TO YOURSELF IF YOU LIKE, MY DELUDED FRIEND, BUT DON'T YOU DARE EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE OR ACCEPT YOUR LIES. EVOLUTION IS A FALSE SCIENCE WHICH HAS NO FOUNDATION IN FACTS AT ALL. IF IT DID, THEN DISHONEST ASSUMPTIONS AND MISLEADING CONCLUSIONS WOULDN'T BE ITS SOP.

Have I said something that bothers you? Could you please try to act like a big kid when you're among adults?

Do you know opponents have been predicting the death of the Theory of Evolution ever since Darwin. It's still here...and getting stronger.

I mentioned this in an earlier post and I want to try to focus you onto the topic: evolution is change in populations over time. We can see this not only in lab experiments, but in examples of ring species and yes, even in the fossil record. Change is the fact of evolution.

I can only assume that you can prove what you say...we're waiting. The subject is "Evolution is a Fact"...here's your chance to offer evidence that shows populations never change.

Edited by Tanndarr, : Finishing sentences


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 10:35 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3079 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 171 of 217 (524218)
09-15-2009 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by RAZD
09-14-2009 11:32 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
Thanks RAZD, we've traded shots before...I've been lurking here a long time (longer than the registered date by a long shot). Usually I keep my fingers to myself and try to learn things.

Gregor Mendel did not need no steenkin DNA to make table after table after table measuring and predicting the change in hereditary traits in the populations of peas.

Thanks again, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. A change in allele frequency can be deduced from observations other than comparing fully sequenced genomes. It seems Archangel disagrees with us so I'm sure he's out looking up sources that will destroy our misguided preconceptions.

Probably in all caps too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2009 11:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2009 11:39 PM Tanndarr has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 172 of 217 (524221)
09-15-2009 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tanndarr
09-14-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
Again, this is the problem with the evolutionists here. They seem to imply that the term evolution only applys to biological evolution. However this is not the case. The term evolution is used as in Cosmic evolution (nothing to do with a change in allele frequency), Stellar and Planetary Evolution (also nothing to do with a change in allele frequency), Abiogenesis is also seen as a type of evolution, and the term evolution is often associated with it, and Chemical Evolution. note that in all of these other examples of types of evolution that evolution seems to mean "simple to complex" or "order from disorder". This is the way I think the term should be used to be consistent. If you want to only talk about biological evolution then state so. But Evolution with a big E is about order from disorder or simple to complex.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tanndarr, posted 09-14-2009 6:24 PM Tanndarr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Wounded King, posted 09-15-2009 3:59 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Peepul, posted 09-15-2009 8:15 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 177 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 11:48 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 181 by cavediver, posted 09-15-2009 3:55 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 183 by Tanndarr, posted 09-15-2009 6:19 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-16-2009 11:56 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1991 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 173 of 217 (524223)
09-15-2009 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Arphy
09-15-2009 3:02 AM


Re: Allelegorical License
But Evolution with a big E is about order from disorder or simple to complex.

I'd say that in fact it was exactly the opposite way round. Evolution with a small e is used to talk about things like stellar evolution or the evolution of gases. I'd also point out that the evolution of gases is going from a more to a less ordered state as this is commonly understood, i.e. a liquid or solid to a gas. That is because the word evolution predates Darwinian theory by many centuries. As it is used to describe the processes occurring in the lifes of stars or planets it is closer to its original usage, it has also been used to describe the development of embryos, all of these relate to its original meaning of an unrolling as of a scroll, i.e. the linear unfolding of a script.

Evolution with capitalisation is usually used for 'The theory of Evolution' which can encompass various elements of biological evolution connected to Darwin's theories about how populations of living organisms changed over time. Darwin himself was not a fan of the word evolution to describe the process, that usage being coined by Lyell.

If you want to argue about whether the evolution of gases is a fact I think you came to the wrong thread, and probably the wrong site.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Arphy, posted 09-15-2009 3:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 2914 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 174 of 217 (524233)
09-15-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Arphy
09-15-2009 3:02 AM


Re: Allelegorical License
quote:
Evolution with a big E is about order from disorder or simple to complex.

Evolution with a big E would definitely refer to biological evolution and not to anything else.

But also the other kinds of evolution you mention don't fit the definition you suggest.

Stellar evolution is just about the lifecycle of stars. There is not a consistent progression from disorder to order here. In fact, when stars collapse there is a massive increase in disorder.

Cosmic evolution must in fact consistently lead from order to disorder, if we consider the universe as an entire isolated system. Otherwise we violate the second law of thermodynamics. And I mean really violate it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Arphy, posted 09-15-2009 3:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 668 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 175 of 217 (524247)
09-15-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
09-14-2009 11:24 PM


RAZD writes:

Now here's the problem for you: the evidence has been presented that is more than sufficient to demonstrate evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - AND is is more than sufficient to demonstrate the formation of lineages of descent, including non-arbitrary speciation events and development of novel traits, ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AS USED IN SCIENCE.

You evos are very wordy people since it takes a lot of words to sound scientific. Also, everything you post assumes facts NOT in evidence so you must attempt to build a wall of assumptions in order to attempt to convince me that it all adds up to a factual conclusion.

But here's the problem for you RAZD, nothing you promote here is founded in solid evidence that anything you claim is true at all regarding the timing for the events you claim. I don't believe that any of the fossil evidence which you interpret as million to hundreds of millions of years old is the least bit valid or rational as my time lapse video above clearly shows. By that I mean that unless animals were buried via cataclysmic events such as the biblical flood which would have realistically laid down layer after layer of animal rich strata via sedimentation throughout the world in a very short period of time, which offers us a fossil record which your side misinterprets at every level of understanding, can the fossil record be rationally explained at all. Because I have showed in real time video how quickly an animal decays even when it is protected from scavengers.

Place that rabbit in the unprotected wild and its decomposing odor is to animals, equivalent to the inviting odors we sense when passing in front of a restaurant. In other words, that any animals could survive unmolested long enough to become a fossil is a massive and ludicrous assumption which defies logic and observable evidence.

In order for you to build your theory, you must deny and ignore common sense and rational consideration for how the real world actually works. I never denied that evolution doesn't tell a nice story which you have captured in your well written defense. But that doesn't mean that anything you accept as real is true at all in reality. And by that, I mean that it happened when you say it did. If you apply your beliefs to having taken place within the past 10,000 years or so, then all of a sudden the science starts to make sense to me. But when you insist that this is evidence of evolution occurring over the last 40 to 50 million years, you lose me.

I have explained and posted evidence for rapid adaptation which allows the same results that you propose in a much shorter period of time that you presume to have been necessary for the results you assume are accurate. But I assure you that you are completely misinterpreting the evidence which is why evolution is most assuredly a fraudulent philosophy which attempts to justify itself with scientific terms.

It is also a fact that Mendel never asserted in any way that his predictions via observations were evidence of allele changes at all. He studied clear cut inherited traits and anticipated changes but it wasn't until much later that actual molecular science revealed the existence of genes or alleles at all. You just proved once again how you will adopt an unrelated science in order to further defend your original erroneous claim which was blatantly and factually FALSE and can accurately be called dishonest in its conclusions.

But these differences in interpretation of the paleontological evidence and the evolutionists interpretations of nature is why Creationists and Evolutionists will never see eye to eye. Sorry I can't respond to your post point by point, but I don't have all day to spend on a rebuttal which your long winded post would require. But I couldn't leave without responding to this claim also.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200.../090227072739.htm

RAZD writes:

And here you are ignoring the third example, where we not only have a number of different species involved, and a number of different genera involve, we have the derivation of the mammalian ear from the reptile ear, as we go from reptiles to mammaliforms.

In other words, your complaint is not only weak and petty, it is downright false: you either did not read it, did not comprehend it, or chose to ignore it.

You call my complaint downright false, but can you post absolute and undeniable evidence according to DNA which shows that the animals claimed in the two stages of evolution are in fact related? You make incredible claims which you attempt to tie together with so called evidence which cannot be substantiated with actual factual proof at all. No matter what aspect of evolution we are speaking about, we must take it all on faith in mans interpretation of observations which are alleged to have happened millions, to hundreds of millions of years ago. So if your interpretation of the available evidence is so fundamentally wrong from the outset, how can you be expected to come to accurate conclusions at all? The answer is, you can't expect to come to accurate conclusions.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2009 11:24 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Peepul, posted 09-15-2009 11:04 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 178 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 11:59 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 179 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2009 12:05 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-15-2009 3:50 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2009 11:48 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 2:18 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2009 10:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 2914 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 176 of 217 (524254)
09-15-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


quote:
And by that, I mean that it happened when you say it did. If you apply your beliefs to having taken place within the past 10,000 years or so, then all of a sudden the science starts to make sense to me. But when you insist that this is evidence of evolution occurring over the last 40 to 50 million years, you lose me.

Archangel, can I take it that one of your fundamental problems with evolution is the claim made for an old earth? It's not quite clear that's what you mean, but I think it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1758 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 177 of 217 (524263)
09-15-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Arphy
09-15-2009 3:02 AM


Re: Allelegorical License
This is all conjecture, BUT...

arphy writes:

Again, this is the problem with the evolutionists here. They seem to imply that the term evolution only applys to biological evolution


I don't think that scientists use Evolution as a term for much other than biological Evolution (note the big E).

In every other case, it's meant as a progression through various connected states. in biology, IMHO, is where Evolution belongs - it was, after all, where it came from.

It seems to me that only IDists and creationists seem eager to slap the label "evolution" on everything - and I feel it is because they seek to over-inflate the word into something so huge and fantastic that they can claim it is untenable.

"stellar evolution" has nothing to do with Darwin, genetics, DNA, paleontology or anything messy and biological - in short, nothing to do with Evolution. I think that's "cosmology".

"abiogenesis" has nothing to do with Evolution - it is "merely" life from non-life (and yes, I'm being sarcastic in the word "mere"). That's "organic chemistry" - I think.

"cosmic evolution" also has nothing to do with Evolution - cosmology again.

and "chemical evolution" ? I don't even know what this IS - but it's probably "chemistry"

"planetary evolution" also has nothing to do with Evolution - "geology", or "geophysics"?

Evolution with a big E, if you please, is The Theory of Evolution from Darwin.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Arphy, posted 09-15-2009 3:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1758 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 178 of 217 (524264)
09-15-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


Sorry I can't respond to your post point by point, but I don't have all day to spend on a rebuttal which your long winded post would require. But I couldn't leave without responding to this claim also.

Archangel, you got schooled. Elsewhere it would appropriately be called pwned.

your failure to answer everything is not an answer. Your inability to comprehend RAZD' answer is not an answer.

going all oh waily waily because you have no evidence - and then flat-out IGNORING it when it's given to you is pathetic.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8810
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 179 of 217 (524265)
09-15-2009 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


Why continue?
Message 50 Archangels "interpretations" message

You gave up all pretense of science already, Archangel. Why do you continue?

When asked for alternate interpretations that match the facts at hand you ducked to "godditit".

Now you are back saying the interpretations given are wrong. But you offer none that explain all the facts.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 2628 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 180 of 217 (524279)
09-15-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


quote:
In order for you to build your theory, you must deny and ignore common sense and rational consideration for how the real world actually works.

Archangel, please expand on this. I enjoy your challenges, more specifics will help the debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018