Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 132 of 205 (547087)
02-16-2010 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
02-06-2010 11:58 AM


The Creo definition is no worse than a subset of the Biological definition
Hi RAZD,
Creolution: - is the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones by various suggested mechanisms.
Evolution: - is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation.
... and see how "creolution" compares with evolution in their ability to explain the diversity of life around us and what biologists study:
*snip table*
Except that definition of biological evolution doesn't explain a single one of those things. You've omitted all the bits that make the Theory of Evolution powerful. Yeah, evolution can be summed up using changes in allele frequency, but the Theory of Evolution can't.
The Theory of Evolution includes (most importantly) natural selection as a mechanism of change, and it includes common descent.
The Creationist definition is weak, because it includes increasing complexity in the definition, which the ToE does explain and does predict but it isn't required or directional. But implying you can boil evolution down to change in allele frequency and still retain it's extraordinary explanatory power is simply untrue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2010 11:58 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 10:23 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 135 of 205 (547190)
02-17-2010 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
02-16-2010 10:23 PM


Equivocation diminishes evolution
The change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation does not explain the observed changes Peppered Moth populations? Really?
Correct, a change in hereditary traits is merely an observation. To explain the observed changes in Peppered Moth populations you have to invoke natural selection.
Yes, but here we are talking about the process of evolution. The theory of evolution and the science of evolution are applications of this process as part of the explanation of the diversity of life.
The definition of the process of evolution does not need to provide the "extraordinary explanatory power" of the theory of evolution, it just needs to explain the difference between one generation and the next: the hereditary traits expressed in the populations have changed.
Sure, but to suggest that this tiny part of evolution is equivalent to the majesty of the ToE is equivocation. Hideous, ugly, equivocation. And it's downright disingenuous to suggest that it's meaningful to use it as the definition when arguing with Creationists. Only the most naive of creos would claim that genetics are static across generations; what they're arguing with are the grander claims of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 4:48 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 1:51 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 137 of 205 (547196)
02-17-2010 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
02-17-2010 4:48 AM


Re: Equivocation diminishes evolution
Hi RAZD,
The course defines Biological Evolution per se much as you do, but it goes on to define the Theory of Evolution to include such things as common descent and natural selection. The problem I have with your definition of evolution is not the definition itself but the equivocation of this small, trivial part with the whole of the Theory of Evolution. When we talk about evolution, we're not usually meaning it in the trivial sense of population change but rather talking about the grand spread of the Theory of Evolution.
Arguing that Creationist definitions are wrong because they're talking about the Theory of Evolution and you're talking about the narrow definition of evolution as mere change is sophistry, and doesn't advance the argument.
And, sure, if you want to include all of evolution you can't sum it up in a sentence or two. But that's just the way it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 4:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 6:40 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-17-2010 2:21 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 143 of 205 (547310)
02-18-2010 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Dr Adequate
02-17-2010 2:21 PM


Re: Equivocation diminishes evolution
But evolution isn't a small part of evolution, it's all of evolution. What else has ever happened that one could describe as evolution?
You'll note I said it was a small part of the Theory of Evolution. And it's the theory of evolution Creationists are talking about.
It's not everything we know about evolution, but it is all the evolution there is. And an example of evolution would still be evolution if it was Lamarckian or front-loaded or Darwinian, and it would continue to be evolution even if it turned out that common descent was the veriest piffle.
Exactly why it's equivocation. You'll note the claims RAZD makes for evolution's explanatory power (in the post I replied to ). The simple change definition of biological evolution has no explanatory power.
To respond to a faulty Creationist definition such as "Evolution, as it is strictly interpreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones" which is clearly talking about the ToE with a definition that applies only to a tiny, tiny part of the ToE - the part of least interest - progresses nothing. It's simply a debating tactic; a cheap one that obfuscates the very thing we're trying to defend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-17-2010 2:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2010 6:25 PM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 146 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2010 8:18 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 147 of 205 (547566)
02-20-2010 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
02-19-2010 6:25 PM


Re: revised
Hi RAZD,
Does that answer your criticism?
Yeah, it's a better definition.
Looks to me like he is talking about the science of evolution, starting with an attempt at a general definition of evolution. I can insert the above definition of evolution into this paragraph and it makes sense:
I think your distinction between the science of evolution and the ToE is one I'm not making.
As I see it if he'd omitted the bit about strict technical terms, what he gave wasn't a bad description of evolution. Evolution does deal with the development of complex forms from simple forms and that is a major part of why it's such an important part of our scientific knowledge. Now, of course, simple-to-complex is not directed, nor is it monotonic or unbounded but it does, and has, happened, and is critically important to scientific explainations of life on Earth.
And I don't really see the point in attacking an article which is such pure, unrelenting bollocks on this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2010 6:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2010 9:23 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2010 5:32 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 152 of 205 (547742)
02-22-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by RAZD
02-21-2010 5:32 PM


Re: Futuyma's definition
As I've said before, I'm not arguing that your definition is wrong per se but that you're equivocating on the meaning of evolution and doing so in a way that is unhelpful to the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2010 5:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 162 of 205 (548303)
02-26-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ICANT
02-26-2010 12:57 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
I thought microevolution produced speciation.
Yes, that's correct: microevolution produces speciation, speciation is macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 12:57 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by DC85, posted 02-26-2010 6:26 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 166 of 205 (548365)
02-27-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by DC85
02-26-2010 6:26 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
which means there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution just evolution
Only if there's also no such thing as an inch and a mile only distance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by DC85, posted 02-26-2010 6:26 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:45 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 170 of 205 (548399)
02-27-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by DC85
02-27-2010 10:45 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
last I checked the the words were only used by creationists. They aren't units of measuring anything and have no use as words in science. Something can't "macroevolve" It evolves.
The terms are used by scientists, just not a great deal - mostly because they don't form natural categories. Although I suspect the Creationist abuse of the terms has helped drive them to the margins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:45 AM DC85 has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 174 of 205 (548423)
02-27-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by DC85
02-27-2010 12:30 PM


Re: I stand corrected
There remains debate whether microevolutionary trends suffice to account for macroevolutionary patterns. For example, it is difficult to see how microevolution can account for the distribution of marsupials or the rise of oxygen metabolising organisms. Gould and Eldridge have (bizarelly, IMO) claimed that special explaination is required for phyla.
Now, personally, I'd argue that treating largely scale processes as deserving of a crudely divided category along speciation lines such as micro/macro but it's not an entirely closed question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 12:30 PM DC85 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024