Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8135 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-01-2014 4:18 PM
122 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tali_Zorah
Post Volume:
Total: 736,901 Year: 22,742/28,606 Month: 43/1,786 Week: 232/384 Day: 43/69 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 5720
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 121 of 215 (658651)
04-07-2012 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Cat Sci
04-04-2012 10:53 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:
You're not talking about the same thing I'm talking about: it takes place over periods of time that are too long to witness in the lab.

No, it's not. How many times do you need to have the evidence put in front of you before you realize your error? We have seen macroevolution happen right in front of our eyes, multiple times, both in the lab and in the field.

quote:
There isn't only one definition of "macroevolution".

No, there isn't. While creationists use the word to mean "evolutionary processes I don't think can happen," that isn't an actual definition of the word. Every single time they drew a line in the sand to define what "kind" was in order to claim that "evolution can't produce changes between kinds," they had to then move the goalposts as to what a "kind" was when we were able to show just that: Changes in species, genera, even families and orders.

We've witnessed them directly.

Why do you insist we lie about that?

quote:
I linked to the definition from Biology Online and their's seems to be even higher than that.

You need to read that definition again. It's "at or above the species level." That's the definition I've been using all along.

Now, you're probably going to play dumb and insist that the comment about "geologic time" is part of that, but if you're going to do that, then you need to go whole hog and read the entire definition, including the supplement, and pay attention to what "macroevolution" is compared against:

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Supplement

Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

Catch that last part? "Macroevolution" is compared against "microevolution" which is about evolutionary processes within a species or population. And let's take a look at how your source defines "microevolution":

Evolution involving small-scale changes, i.e. within the species level, occurring over a short period of time that results in the formation of new subspecies.

Supplement

Example of small-scale change is the relatively small genetic variations or mutations leading to new varieties within a species. Other factors of change include natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift.

Microevolution differs from macroevolution in its approach to the analysis of the evolution process. Microevolution is reductionist whereas macroevolution is holistic.

Thus, it is clear to all but the most obstinate observer that the "geologic time" is more of an indicator of the typical rather than an insistent part of the definition. That is, it is rare for macroevolutionary events to happen quickly (especially for taxonomic changes high up the clade diagram), but not impossible. The defining characteristic of macroevolution is not the amount of time it took but rather the effect: Did you get a new species? Great...you've got macroevolution. Did you only get variations or a sub-species? Then that's microevolution.

quote:
But if other people are talking about how we haven't really witnessed things above the species level, then its beside the point to say that this here speciation event that we've witnessed counts.

But we have. We have witnessed directly with our own eyes changes above the species level. We have seen new genera and even a few new families and orders.

Why would you have us lie about that?

quote:
Which genera?

I've posted the links to the original papers before. Here's a chance for you to do some homework. Go to PubMed and look them up. Here's a start:

PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32198. Epub 2012 Mar 19.

Meloneis gen. Nov., a new epipsammic genus of rhaphoneidaceae (bacillariophyceae).

Louvrou I, Danielidis DB, Economou-Amilli A.

Source

Department of Ecology and Systematics, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.

Abstract

The diatom family Rhaphoneidaceae is characterized by high generic diversity and low species diversity with most genera known to have long stratigraphic ranges. The genera within this family are neritic marine, and mostly epipsammic. A new modern and epipsammic genus, Meloneis gen. nov., is described herein and is compared to all genera within Rhaphoneidaceae and especially to Rhaphoneis Ehrenberg s.l. Within Meloneis three new species and one variety are distinguished and described herein: M. mimallis sp. nov., M. mimallis var. zephyria var. nov., M. akytos sp. nov., and M. gorgis sp. nov.

PMID: 22442663 [PubMed - in process] PMCID: PMC3307707

quote:
What kind of gross morphological changes?

I've posted the links to the original papers before. Here's a chance for you to do some homework. Go to PubMed and look them up. There's morphology in snails such as venom glands, for example.

Do not confuse your ignorance with a universal trait. This is a common problem among creationists. They seem to think that because they don't know something, nobody else does, either. It never occurs to them that perhaps they aren't in a position to make a blanket statement about what we have and have not seen. Consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you need to spend more time in the stacks of your local science library doing some research before making a statement about what the state of the science is.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Cat Sci, posted 04-04-2012 10:53 AM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Cat Sci, posted 04-11-2012 10:20 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 11:34 PM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2012 1:06 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9448
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 122 of 215 (658949)
04-11-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rrhain
04-07-2012 6:07 PM


Why do you insist we lie about that?

Why are you lying about me?

Is it because you're just an asshole who's only interested in gainsaying? or are you just trolling?

That's too bad because there could have been an interesting conversation here about the kinds of gross morpholical changes we've observed and how they mean that we've witnessed macroevolution.

Thus, it is clear to all but the most obstinate observer that the "geologic time" is more of an indicator of the typical rather than an insistent part of the definition. That is, it is rare for macroevolutionary events to happen quickly (especially for taxonomic changes high up the clade diagram), but not impossible. The defining characteristic of macroevolution is not the amount of time it took but rather the effect: Did you get a new species? Great...you've got macroevolution. Did you only get variations or a sub-species? Then that's microevolution.

I've already explained to you what I'm talking about: When people are talking about witnessing macroevolution, they're not talking about a speciation event in a lab.

I've posted the links to the original papers before. Here's a chance for you to do some homework. Go to PubMed and look them up. Here's a start:

PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32198. Epub 2012 Mar 19.

Meloneis gen. Nov., a new epipsammic genus of rhaphoneidaceae (bacillariophyceae).

Louvrou I, Danielidis DB, Economou-Amilli A.

Source

Department of Ecology and Systematics, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.

Abstract

The diatom family Rhaphoneidaceae is characterized by high generic diversity and low species diversity with most genera known to have long stratigraphic ranges. The genera within this family are neritic marine, and mostly epipsammic. A new modern and epipsammic genus, Meloneis gen. nov., is described herein and is compared to all genera within Rhaphoneidaceae and especially to Rhaphoneis Ehrenberg s.l. Within Meloneis three new species and one variety are distinguished and described herein: M. mimallis sp. nov., M. mimallis var. zephyria var. nov., M. akytos sp. nov., and M. gorgis sp. nov.

PMID: 22442663 [PubMed - in process] PMCID: PMC3307707

Rule 6: Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 04-07-2012 6:07 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2012 1:42 AM Cat Sci has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12778
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 123 of 215 (658976)
04-11-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
03-25-2012 10:39 AM


You should try using it to see, instead.

I use my eyes for that, and would you like to actually reply to the point in my post? According to you ideas, it seems that someone looking at a thing can suddenly change from seeing one thing to seeing another, this change being all unknown to him and corresponding to absolutely identical qualia.

Another example: it seems that when I look at a photograph which I and you both know to be faked I am seeing the Loch Ness Monster. Now, consider me sitting and staring at that photograph, at the exact same time at which someone catches an actual monster in Loch Ness. At that point, although I am sitting staring at the same faked photograph, and there is no change whatsoever in my visual sensory impressions, there is a moment (perhaps when they haul the monster on board --- or if not perhaps you could tell me exactly when this moment occurs) when I go from seeing the Loch Ness Monster to not seeing the Loch Ness Monster, even though the photograph which I am seeing stays exactly the same throughout this momentous event.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2012 10:39 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 04-11-2012 5:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 215 (659010)
04-11-2012 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dr Adequate
04-11-2012 12:50 PM


According to you ideas, it seems that someone looking at a thing can suddenly change from seeing one thing to seeing another, this change being all unknown to him and corresponding to absolutely identical qualia.

Yes, now you're getting it! And yet, despite that logical ambiguity in language, people are able to communicate completely effectively with it, to the point that almost nobody bats an eye at asking their blind friend "hey, are you seeing anyone?"

"I can still see her face", says the poet of his lost love, despite that face having oh-so-dramatically cast itself down the bottom of a well, or some such, and therefore completely hidden from his eyes. And I doubt you would object in any other context. You're just being a tiresome asshole, and it's beneath the level of completely enjoyable assholeness we've come to expect from you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 12:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 11:28 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12778
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 125 of 215 (659023)
04-11-2012 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by crashfrog
04-11-2012 5:36 PM


Yes, now you're getting it!

Then "it" is profoundly silly, and no-one talks like that except you.

And yet, despite that logical ambiguity in language, people are able to communicate completely effectively with it ...

I prefer the English language to "it". Now, in the English language as spoken, I would not "communicate completely effectively" the fact that I have seen a cartoon of the Loch Ness Monster by saying that I have seen the Loch Ness Monster. People would not, in fact, understand what I was saying. The English language does have some permissible ambiguities, but this is not one of them.

... to the point that almost nobody bats an eye at asking their blind friend "hey, are you seeing anyone?"

"I can still see her face", says the poet of his lost love, despite that face having oh-so-dramatically cast itself down the bottom of a well, or some such, and therefore completely hidden from his eyes. And I doubt you would object in any other context.

Sure --- the only context in which I'd quibble with customary metaphorical uses of the word "see" is if we're discussing whether something can literally be seen, in which case pointing out that something can be seen in a metaphorical sense is beside the point.

"Can Stevie Wonder see?" someone asks me. I do not reply "yes" on the grounds that he has a girlfriend and is therefore "seeing someone". That would also not be "communicating completely effectively". Conversely, if I replied "no", no-one would take me as meaning that he is unable to get a date.

You're just being a tiresome asshole, and it's beneath the level of completely enjoyable assholeness we've come to expect from you.

As you are an interested party, I suggest that we leave that one to a jury of our peers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 04-11-2012 5:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2012 12:26 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12778
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 126 of 215 (659024)
04-11-2012 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rrhain
04-07-2012 6:07 PM


Meloneis gen. Nov., a new epipsammic genus of rhaphoneidaceae (bacillariophyceae).

They don't mean that it's "new" in the sense that it's just evolved and they know this because they've watched it happen, they mean that it's "new" in the sense that no-one had previously discovered it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 04-07-2012 6:07 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 215 (659098)
04-12-2012 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
04-11-2012 11:28 PM


Then "it" is profoundly silly, and no-one talks like that except you.

Um, no, that's clearly false. "Seeing someone" is a common expression for "dating" regardless of one's eyesight, or the fact that a lot of what you're eventually doing, you're doing in the dark. This whole thing started because you took it upon yourself to "correct" several people who asserted that using an IR visualizer constituted "seeing" in IR. Nobody flinches at the notion that millions of people saw Janet Jackson's exposed breast during Super Bowl XXXVIII, even though Reliant Stadium seats only 71,000 people. A google search for the phrase returns on the order of 37 million hits, suggesting that the use of "see" in this regard is not unusual.

Since all senses are prosthetic anyway, it's clearly not an unusual usage to talk about "seeing" something through a prosthesis. Millions of children and adults will tell you that of course they've seen Mickey Mouse, even though there's no such person.

I prefer the English language to "it".

"Language" is the antecedent of the pronoun "it" in the sentence you quoted. I would have expected a speaker of English to know that. You might want to schedule some grammar classes before you crown yourself the arbiter of the English language, since you appear to know fuck-all about it.

"Can Stevie Wonder see?" someone asks me. I do not reply "yes" on the grounds that he has a girlfriend and is therefore "seeing someone".

Exactly. Because despite the inherent ambiguity in language, people are able to communicate effectively with it, completely contrary to your assertions otherwise.

As you are an interested party, I suggest that we leave that one to a jury of our peers.

Well, ok. Who thinks Dr. Adequate is still being funny or amusing? Who thinks he isn't? If people are really getting a charge out of this I'm perfectly happy to keep going, but doesn't it seem like we've bored everybody away?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 11:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2012 1:35 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12778
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 128 of 215 (659110)
04-12-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
04-12-2012 12:26 PM


Um, no, that's clearly false. "Seeing someone" is a common expression for "dating" regardless of one's eyesight ...

Which is why I did not in fact object to this colloquialism.

This whole thing started because you took it upon yourself to "correct" several people who asserted that using an IR visualizer constituted "seeing" in IR. Nobody flinches at the notion that millions of people saw Janet Jackson's exposed breast during Super Bowl XXXVIII, even though Reliant Stadium seats only 71,000 people.

Nor to those.

As I say, I have no objection to the sloppy and metaphorical ways of the English language --- I am, after all, a poet. What I would object to is if by a fallacy of ambiguity someone took these metaphorical usages to bear on the literal question --- if, for example, someone maintained that since a blind man was "seeing someone", he could see and was therefore not blind.

"Language" is the antecedent of the pronoun "it" in the sentence you quoted. I would have expected a speaker of English to know that. You might want to schedule some grammar classes before you crown yourself the arbiter of the English language, since you appear to know fuck-all about it.

But as you used the word "it", "it" apparently refers not to the English language but to a patois of your own invention in which it is correct to say that one has seen the Loch Ness Monster based on the fact that (in English as it is spoken) one has seen a cartoon of the Loch Ness Monster.

Exactly. Because despite the inherent ambiguity in language, people are able to communicate effectively with it ...

Only if "it" is the actual English language, rather than your bizarre creole.

Normal people can communicate effectively because they are capable of distinguishing between metaphorical and literal uses of the word "see", and so do not suppose that if Stevie Wonder is "seeing someone", he is therefore able to see and so not blind. But it is this very distinction between colloquial metaphorical and technical literal usage that you seem to be trying to chip away at, or indeed smash into tiny pieces with your Mighty Sledgehammer Of Nonsense.

Well, ok. Who thinks Dr. Adequate is still being funny or amusing? Who thinks he isn't? If people are really getting a charge out of this I'm perfectly happy to keep going, but doesn't it seem like we've bored everybody away?

It does not in fact seem like that, since I note that there are still people "cheering" my posts. Perhaps their lack of participation otherwise is due to the fact that they are content to stand back and applaud me as I do what I do so very well --- namely offering a fool any amount of rope he chooses and a pamphlet, written in words of few syllables, on how to tie a noose.

Really, after you asserted that I have seen the Loch Ness Monster, we're done for all practical purposes. The only remaining questions are how much longer you will assert this position and how much fun the rest of us can get out of watching you do so.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2012 12:26 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2012 8:26 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 215 (659287)
04-14-2012 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2012 1:35 PM


Nor to those.

Wait, so now you don't object that an IR visualizer allows you to see in IR?

Then we are done, because you've accepted my position on language.

Really, after you asserted that I have seen the Loch Ness Monster, we're done for all practical purposes.

Then surely you can answer the question you keep ignoring:

By what basis can you claim that you've seen Mickey Mouse but not the Loch Ness Monster?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2012 1:35 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2012 11:59 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12778
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 130 of 215 (659306)
04-14-2012 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
04-14-2012 8:26 AM


Wait, so now you don't object that an IR visualizer allows you to see in IR?

I don't object to the sloppy metaphorical usage. I object to people conflating it with accurate literal usage. As I said:

Dr A writes:

As I say, I have no objection to the sloppy and metaphorical ways of the English language --- I am, after all, a poet. What I would object to is if by a fallacy of ambiguity someone took these metaphorical usages to bear on the literal question.

By what basis can you claim that you've seen Mickey Mouse ...

I don't, see my previous posts.

... but not the Loch Ness Monster?

I can claim not to have seen the Loch Ness Monster because I haven't seen the Loch Ness Monster.

The English language has a certain amount of flexibility, but not so much that I can claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster. I just can't. 'Cos I haven't.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2012 8:26 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6341
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


(2)
Message 131 of 215 (659309)
04-14-2012 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rrhain
04-07-2012 6:07 PM



No, it's not. How many times do you need to have the evidence put in front of you before you realize your error? We have seen macroevolution happen right in front of our eyes, multiple times, both in the lab and in the field.

When creationists say we have not witnessed macroevolution, they are not using the word 'macroevolution' in the sense that scientists typically do. What they mean by macroevolution when they use the word is quite different.

They are talking about something akin to witnessing a population of pakicetids become blue whales.

We should address what creationists mean when they say macroevolution rather than addressing what a scientist would mean if they said the same thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 04-07-2012 6:07 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by angletracks, posted 04-24-2012 9:07 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 135 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2012 2:04 AM Modulous has responded

    
angletracks
Junior Member (Idle past 797 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 04-24-2012


Message 132 of 215 (660357)
04-24-2012 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Modulous
04-14-2012 1:06 PM


What I See
I have not spent the time to read all the posts in this thread, but I think the original topic was a comment from the Alabama SBE that since no one was present when life first appeared on earth, statements about that origin should be regarded as theory, and not fact. Subsequent posts about witnessing and seeing and evolutionary generations seem to have missed one important aspect of the statement as I read the statement, it says nothing about evolution of species, though that may have been the intent, I cant say. What I see is that the statement addresses the issue of the origin of life, not its subsequent development. And while the No one was present phrase begs for a tu quoque response, I wonder if there is still something to talk about here. If a process cannot be repeated, or measured in its singular occurrence, and if there is in fact no validated model to support it, can it be considered a fact? Please understand, I am not referring to the origin of species or to the diversity of biological life, but to the origin of the first living cell. Is there a body of factual evidence that describes the transition from non-living to living material?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2012 1:06 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 04-24-2012 9:11 PM angletracks has not yet responded
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-25-2012 3:22 AM angletracks has responded
 Message 138 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2012 7:52 AM angletracks has not yet responded
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 04-25-2012 12:29 PM angletracks has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24678
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 133 of 215 (660359)
04-24-2012 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by angletracks
04-24-2012 9:07 PM


Re: What I See
There is a growing body experiments that show transitions from non-living to approaching life.

But the important point is that there is a virtually unending body of evidence of natural causes and zero evidence of non-natural or supernatural causes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by angletracks, posted 04-24-2012 9:07 PM angletracks has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 5720
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 134 of 215 (660379)
04-25-2012 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Cat Sci
04-11-2012 10:20 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:
When people are talking about witnessing macroevolution, they're not talking about a speciation event in a lab.

Then they're moving the goalposts. A speciation event is "macroevolution" by definition.

That it happens in a lab is immaterial.

quote:
Rule 6: Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes.

(*chuckle*)

I give you the reference, the title, the author, the source, the abstract, and the PMID so that you can go look it up yourself and ensure that you have no reason to complain about the source being insufficient, and you have gall to complain that it's "lengthy"? You sit here and whine about how we've never seen it and when the book floats off the shelf of its own accord to your hand, opens itself to the correct page, and the important phrase glows and sparkles to catch your attention, you decide to complain that it's too much? So it seems you'll bitch when I don't do your homework for you and then you'll moan when I do.

It would appear that all you really want to do is be angry.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Cat Sci, posted 04-11-2012 10:20 AM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Cat Sci, posted 04-25-2012 11:39 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 5720
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 135 of 215 (660380)
04-25-2012 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Modulous
04-14-2012 1:06 PM


Modulous responds to me:

quote:
When creationists say we have not witnessed macroevolution, they are not using the word 'macroevolution' in the sense that scientists typically do.

Why are we beholden to people who don't know what the word means, then?

Since Catholic Scientist doesn't like "lengthy cut-and-paste," let's see if he can do his own homework:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Creationist Claim CB910: No new species have been observed.

There are plenty of examples of speciation happening both in the lab and in the wild. Speciation, by definition, is macroevolution. If we're going to let the creationists move the goalposts, then what is the point? After all, this is the entire point: Creationists don't know what a "kind" is. In fact, it is so bad that the functional definition of "kind" seems to be "a taxonomic group that I don't think any scientist has ever documented a transition within." When we show them new species of fruit flies appearing (section 5.3 of the first speciation link), they respond with, "But it's still a fly!"

Indeed. A new "kind" of fly. So then they say that "kind" doesn't mean species.

Why would we ever allow someone to move the goalposts?

quote:
We should address what creationists mean when they say macroevolution rather than addressing what a scientist would mean if they said the same thing.

No, we shouldn't. We don't let the people who don't know what they're talking about to define the terms.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2012 1:06 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2012 7:47 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014