Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 136 of 235 (647195)
01-08-2012 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 6:42 AM


Re: One by one
Chuck77 writes:
Can you provide the evidence that natural selection is responsible for this?
That's not one of the 15 questions. But the answer to it is "yes".
Chuck77 writes:
Show the evidence that supports Natural Selection as the mechanism for this.
That's not a question. It's a command.
Chuck77 writes:
May as well do #2 also since you respond with the same unsupported answer.
Chuck77 writes:
Also explain chemical evolution too. How where when did it start?
That's not one of the questions either. The claim of those creationists is that they can stump evolutionists with 15 questions. If you have to keep adding more, then you're showing them to be wrong.
Anyway, question 17 from Chuck. How?: by chemical reactions. Where? On earth. When? About 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.
Now, ask me another question if you want to prove that evolutionists cannot be stumped by 17 questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 6:42 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 137 of 235 (647197)
01-08-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Butterflytyrant
01-08-2012 7:27 AM


Re: Poor form
BT writes:
*Panda, I hope I have not stolen your thunder here but his reply was to my post.
You stole my thunder and added a lovely cadence to it.
Looking at the length of reply you made to but a single question (and even then you skipped a lot of the detail), I doubt Chuckles would ever have the stamina to read a full and complete set of answers for all 15 questions.
tbh: he didn't even understand the 'short answers' I gave.
But you are welcome to try and teach those who refuse to learn.
Have at them!

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-08-2012 7:27 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 138 of 235 (647323)
01-09-2012 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Percy
01-08-2012 8:31 AM


Re: Poor form
hey Percy,
I think you meant to say, "Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as *natural selection*?"
Nope. The CMI website and the 15 questions use this definition of evolution -
CMI’s definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree withand this is what the dispute is about!
(Source:15 questions responses 1 - creation.com)
The first question for evolutionists is - How did life originate?
This question is based on their belief that the General Theory of Evolution and Biological evolution are the same thing.
They believe that if they can discredit the General Theory of Evolution, it disproves biological evolution.
The General Theory of evolution and biological evolution are two different animals.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 01-08-2012 8:31 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2012 7:18 PM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2012 8:10 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(1)
Message 139 of 235 (647392)
01-09-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Anel Vadren
01-07-2012 7:54 PM


SPAM
ban this spam

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-07-2012 7:54 PM Anel Vadren has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 140 of 235 (647432)
01-09-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 5:48 AM


Re: Poor form
Either way is good. Tho, the way you are both handling the 15 questions speaks volumes.
Then let's see how you handle this question.
Chuck, why do you molest children?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 5:48 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 141 of 235 (647434)
01-09-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:05 AM


Re: One by one
I'm asking for someone anyone to explain the 15 questions and not give one word answers without supporting evidence.
We will do that once CMI supports the assertions in their questions. For example, they claim that "living fossils" are identical to their fossilized bretheren. Where did they support this? They also claim that there are no transitional fossils. Where did they support this assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 142 of 235 (647437)
01-09-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 4:21 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
If all of the available evidence supported evolutio, you would be making a LAW of evolution.
Like others have said, laws and theories are different things. I would suggest you read Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory". It is short and easy to understand. Here is my favorite quote from the essay:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
Scientific laws are the facts. A law is a formalized description of the observations. A law is a description of the world's data. Theories attempt to explain the observations. The law of gasses tell us that as temperature increases so too will pressure. The theory of atoms attempts to explain why we observe this relationship. We observe that humans and chimps are different while still sharing a common ancestor. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how this can be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 4:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 143 of 235 (647452)
01-09-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 3:21 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
Please show where I said that a theory will become a law. Please quote.
Lol
Mikey writes:
If all of the available evidence supported evolutio, you would be making a LAW of evolution.
Message 66
Your still saying it after you deny it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 3:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 5:35 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 144 of 235 (647456)
01-09-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Theodoric
01-09-2012 5:31 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
Your still saying it after you deny it.
I think Mike is being misunderstood here. I don't think he' arguing that the Theory of Evolution should be elevated to the status of a Law. I think he's saying that if laws are simply facts of the universe, evolution, the fact, should be considered a law.
And I think that could be true. Law of Evolution: Populations change over time.
Theory of Evolution: The change is created by the changes in alleles due to mutation in the genetic code filtered through natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Theodoric, posted 01-09-2012 5:31 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Theodoric, posted 01-09-2012 5:41 PM Perdition has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 145 of 235 (647459)
01-09-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Perdition
01-09-2012 5:35 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
Well that would be plain silly. If he feel this way then why arent these laws?
1. The Atomic Theory
2. The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy
3. The Cell Theory
4. The Germ Theory
5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics
To name a few.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 5:35 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 5:52 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 146 of 235 (647464)
01-09-2012 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Theodoric
01-09-2012 5:41 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
Well that would be plain silly. If he feel this way then why arent these laws?
I agree, but I'd like to see people caling his ideas silly for what they are, rather than what they may be misunderstood to be.
Laws pretty much are no longer made, as far as I know. Maybe every theory should have a law made out of it to show that what the theory is explaining is in fact a real phenomenon.
Of course, the only theory people need to be reassured on is evolution...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Theodoric, posted 01-09-2012 5:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 147 of 235 (647477)
01-09-2012 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Butterflytyrant
01-09-2012 9:10 AM


bad definitions again
Hi Butterflytyrant
Nope. The CMI website and the 15 questions use this definition of evolution -
CMI’s definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree withand this is what the dispute is about!
(Source:15 questions responses 1 - creation.com)
This is typical equivocation of meanings. The process of evolution (change in hereditary traits and the frequency of their distribution within breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological challenges and opportunities is not the same as the Theory of Evolution (ToE).
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
Neither of these are a "General Theory of Evolution".
Curiously, doing a google on ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) does not get me to pages dedicated to biological science, but to pages dedicated to creationist misrepresentations. The top contender there is conservapedia . . .
and when I use google scholar I get Safarti not science.
Reference is made once again to Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. and Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Then I looked up Gerald Kerkut
Gerald A. Kerkut - Wikipedia
quote:
Controversy
Kerkut's book The Implications of Evolution pointed out some existing unsolved problems and points of concern for evolutionary studies. He referred to seven evolutionary assumptions which he felt lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Creationists have taken these points as evidence against evolution and interpreted them to support their own claims [1]. They claim that he distinguished between the Special Theory of Evolution (often referred to as microevolution) and what he termed the General Theory of Evolution (often referred to as macroevolution).[2]
It looks to me like quote mining in progress, and an author that may have been careless. In any event this is the fallacy of appeal to authority, and a book written in 1960 is hardly an up-to-date reference even if it had been peer reviewed or used as a text book.
Amazon.com
quote:
Implications of Evolution. (International series of monograps on pure and applied biology, vol. 4), G.A. Kerkut (Author), Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Pergamon Press Oxford. (1960)
It appears to be online at
Implications of evolution : Kerkut, G. A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
But I am having trouble downloading it. More later.
By contrast I offer these definitions of evolution:
University of Michigan definitions of evolution:
quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
and Berkeley University definition of evolution:
quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
The sources here are universities teaching biological evolution.
Also see Introduction to Evolution (not yet promoted)
Enjoy
References
  1. Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide
    An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
  2. U. of Michigan on-line course material
    The Process of Speciation

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 138 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-09-2012 9:10 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-09-2012 7:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 148 of 235 (647482)
01-09-2012 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by RAZD
01-09-2012 7:18 PM


Re: bad definitions again
Hey ZD,
You are preaching to the choir.
My whole point in my original message that Percy was replying to Message 127 was that CMI was using a (deliberately) confusing definition of evolution.
I went on pretty much the same journey chasing the definition they used as you did.
I dont agree with thier interpretations. My (thus far unanswered) question to Chuck77 - Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution?
He seems to be supporting the 15 questions so I wanted to know if he had learnt so little in his time here that he supported the CMI definition.
It was a question specifically for Chuck77.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2012 7:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2012 8:32 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 149 of 235 (647485)
01-09-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Butterflytyrant
01-09-2012 9:10 AM


yeah, it looks like quote mining and misrepresentation
Hi again Butterflytyrant,
I've had some time now to review the book online from
Full text of "Implications of evolution"
quote:
PREFACE
May I here humbly state as part of my biological credo that I believe that the theory of Evolution as presented by orthodox evolutionists is in many ways a satisfying explanation of some of the evidence. At the same time I think that the attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an evolution from a unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence. It may in fact be shown ultimately to be the correct explanation, but the supporting evidence remains to be discovered. We can, if we like, believe that such an evolutionary system has taken place, but I for one do not think that " it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt." In the pages of the book that follow I shall present evidence for the point of view that there are many discrete groups of animals and that we do not know how they have evolved nor how they are interrelated. It is possible that they might have evolved quite independently from discrete and separate sources. There are only a limited number of chemical elements that are capable of forming stable polymerisation compounds and it is not at all surprising that the same compounds have been formed on several occasions. Quite complex materials such as carbohydrates, peptides and even nucleic acids can be formed by irradiating water containing simple salts and gases.
It may be suggested that the problem we are examining here, namely that of the evolution and interrelationship of the basic living stocks is a major problem and one that will test the strength and ability of many hundreds of research workers. If this book merely indicates to some of the readers that certain lines of thought are still open to examination, then I shall consider that it has done its allotted task.
That doesn't look controversial, especially for 1960. A lot has happened in the field of abiogenesis, and a lot has happened the field of cladistics of early life forms, and we have much more evidence than was available in 1960.
Curiously, searching for the phrase "General Theory of Evolution" it get all the way to the end (p157) before I get to the quote in question:
quote:
CONCLUSIONS
There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the " Special Theory of Evolution " and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the " General Theory of Evolution " and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.
This is the quote mine (underline and color added for emphasis).
There is only one other place that this phrase is mentioned:
quote:
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. These are as follows.
(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.
The other assumptions all follow from the second one.
(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.
(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.
For the initial purposes of this discussion on Evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of Evolution hold that all these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the " General Theory of Evolution."
The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. ...
The assumption that life arose only once and that therefore * all living things are interrelated is a useful assumption in that it provides a simple working basis for experimental procedure. But because a concept is useful it does not mean that it is necessarily correct. The experimental basis for this concept in particular is not as definite and as conclusive as many modern texts would have us believe.
Now "not capable of experimental verification" would mean that this "General Theory of Evolution" that he alone proposes is not a testable scientific theory.
Certainly this is not a theory "that secular scientists would agree with" -- in fact even HE does not agree with it. He says these assumptions are questionable and may not be true.
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 138 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-09-2012 9:10 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 150 of 235 (647487)
01-09-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Butterflytyrant
01-09-2012 7:49 PM


Re: bad definitions again
and hi again, Butterflytyrant,
You are preaching to the choir.
Understood: I was adding my 2¢ worth.
Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution?
I've seen a number of creationists argue that there is a "General Theory of Evolution" or a "Grand Theory of Evolution" but I've never seen a version accepted by a group of biological scientists.
See Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone), Message 8 (09-19-2006) where Murkywaters was quite adamant that he had a valid definition\approach for evolution:
quote:
Finally, the "General Theory of Evolution" (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." This I believe should be our goal, to define a general theory of Evolution and Creation, not merely their components.
Wot a surprise. It seems there is one and only one source for this wondrous theory ...
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 148 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-09-2012 7:49 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-10-2012 3:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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