Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 67 of 936 (802412)
03-16-2017 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by CRR
03-15-2017 5:49 AM


Very Late Reply, and simply wrong
Dunstan's definition is very different because it is referring specifically to micro-vs macroevolution, i.e. it is not intended as a definition of evolution in general.
The way I see it, Durstan's definitions
quote:
Message 47: Kirk Dunstan discussed micro- and macro- and proposes definitions;
- Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.
- Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.
He says "Both statistical significance and functional information are already defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on, ..."
[edit] http://p2c.com/...roevolution-vs-macroevolution-two-mistakes
are very different because (a) they are wrong and (b) they are intended to mislead.
To begin with there is no real definition of "information" or "functional information" that can be used to determine whether or not "statistically significant increase" occurs.
Notice that he says "... so we are ready to move on, ..." but what is curious is that NO such work has been done in the 10 years since the paper cited for the methodology was published ... even though he is one of the authors. This is the misleading part: it sounds good, but it's garbage. That's not how science works, scientists wait until they have the results.
Until there is a scientific way to measure this "information" there is no way it can be used scientifically. It's just a way to deny reality by slathering on layers of obfuscations.
He is also wrong because he claims microevolution is simply variation while ignoring selection: a mistake frequently made by people who are either stupid, ignorant, deceitful, or deluded about how evolution actually works.
Evolution in scientific terms on the other hand is actually quite simple and straightforward and quite scientifically sound by comparison:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next.
The basic mechanisms of microevolution (mutation, selection, drift, etc) are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses. Thus microevolution has been observed and documented to occur.
If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.
An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.
The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is called macroevolution by scientists.
This is often confusing to lay people, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution above the species level over many generations and in different ecologies.
The basic mechanisms of "macroevolution" (anagenesis and cladogenesis) are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations). Thus macroevolution has been observed and documented to occur.
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the mechanism of anagensis, and the mechanism of cladogenesis, 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.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. All the processes listed here are observed and documented, and it is a fact that they have occurred.
It's that simple, and this should clear up the "two mistakes" Durstan makes in talking about evolution.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 49 by CRR, posted 03-15-2017 5:49 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 03-27-2017 1:53 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 69 of 936 (802436)
03-16-2017 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
03-16-2017 12:09 PM


Re: Very Late Reply
It was just a random mutation.
and it propagated to following posts.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 68 by ringo, posted 03-16-2017 12:09 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Pressie, posted 03-17-2017 5:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 83 of 936 (803269)
03-28-2017 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by ICANT
03-27-2017 1:53 PM


Re: Very Late Reply, and simply wrong
If what you just quoted and said is true shouldn't there be a complete trail of the different changes visible today in the fossil record?
Do you have a complete movie of yourself of every minute of every day of your life?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 72 by ICANT, posted 03-27-2017 1:53 PM ICANT has not replied

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


(2)
Message 96 of 936 (803579)
04-02-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by CRR
04-01-2017 6:42 AM


Re: My definition
After reading previous discussion and having a good think on the subject I think the best definition of evolution overall is a slight modification of Kerkut’s;
Why would you not base your definition on the way it is defined by scientists working in the science of evolution? Is that not the only technical basis for a technical scientific definition -- to use it the way it is actually used in the actual science?
There are of course other uses of the word, but the one applicable to the science of evolution is the one used by the evolutionary scientists -- any other definition would just sow confusion and talking at cross purposes. Unless that is your intent.
Evolution is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself arose naturally from an inorganic form.
The key elements of this are abiogenesis and ascent from a last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
The theory of common descent is a prediction of the theory of evolution. As a (sub) theory it makes the prediction that all life can be explained by descent from a common ancestor. Falsifying this (sub) theory would not falsify the theory of evolution, just common descent. We know evolution occurs, we don't know if there was only one source population.
The "last universal common ancestor (LUCA)" is likewise a prediction of the (sub) theory of common descent.
Curiously neither the (sub) theory of common descent in specific nor the theory of evolution in general make any predictions about the origin of life, as they take life as a given and are only concerned with what happens between first life and now.
The definition from population genetics; a change in allele frequency in a population over time; is unsatisfactory because it focusses on only a part of the whole scope of evolution.
Possibly because population genetics is a sub-science within the science of evolution?
I find it unsatisfactory for use with fossils, as genetic material is notoriously difficult to find ... but the bones do tell the effects of genetics in the way they are expressed in the phenotype, and thus in the bones and their fossil record. Those bones can and do show patterns of hereditary traits when the genetics are unknown.
That definition also does not include any reference to driving conditions for evolution, not just natural selection, but the effects of the changing ecological matrix that enmeshes all living species. The evolution of one species affects the species it interacts with, generating evolutionary responses in return.
These are the reasons I use "hereditary traits" instead of alleles, and why I added "in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats" to the definition for (micro) evolution.
Now I know that some people will object to including abiogenesis in the definition but I think it is an essential part of the thinking of most evolutionary biologists and inseparable from evolution.
Possibly, just possibly, because the way the science of evolution does not include the study of abiogenesis, leaving that to the science of abiogenesis. Just like they don't include the study of physics nor the study of chemistry.
It's kind of like saying that you can't study the bible without studying how written language and stories originated.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 87 by CRR, posted 04-01-2017 6:42 AM CRR has not replied

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


(2)
Message 546 of 936 (807153)
05-01-2017 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 532 by Dredge
05-01-2017 12:28 AM


Re: Reality strikes again
What is not evident is any other explanation.
Except special creation.
How does special creation explain the nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors within the spacial-temporal matrix, the fact that each new species arises in close proximity to an ancestral population both in time and space?
It doesn't.
Special creation could happen anywhere anytime without constraint, but the Theory of Evolution is constrained and the evidence and empirical data conform to the constraint, not the lack of it.
This is an epic fail of special creation.
To be good enough to be worthy of actual use as an explanation it must explain ALL aspects of the evidence.
See Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography (1855) for more information. A hundred and fifty years later "The Law of Sarawak" still holds.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 532 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2017 12:28 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 1:58 AM RAZD has replied

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


(2)
Message 596 of 936 (807450)
05-03-2017 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 588 by Dredge
05-03-2017 1:58 AM


Re: Reality strikes again
In Message 582 you ask:
(Taq): Fossils are the facts that verify the theory of evolution
What is the theory of evolution?
(RAZD): How does special creation explain the nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors within the spacial-temporal matrix, the fact that each new species arises in close proximity to an ancestral population both in time and space?
The nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors within the spacial-temporal matrix? Ah yes, I'd remember doing an assignment on this in Grade 5 in primary school. You seem to have overlooked that this is just a theory, so it's a bit much to expect special creation to explain some dubious evolutionary theory.
Actually the "nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors within the spacial-temporal matrix" refers to the fossil evidence for the nested hierarchy and the locations in space and time when speciation occurred, it is not theory but fact. Sorry for not being clearer. Let's expand and review little, first by differentiating the process of evolution from the theory of evolution:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next.
Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis
Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies.
If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.
An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.
With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.
The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.
The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagensis, and the process of cladogenesis, 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.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.
Fossils are tests for the theory of evolution, not just in their stages of evolution from one species to another but in their temporal-spacial distribution. They have to be in the right time and the right place for evolution to explain them.
They do not have to be in those time and space locations for special creation to explain them.
Curiously when we look at their distribution in time and space they fit the evolution expected (predicted) patterns. New kangaroo species appear in Australia and only in Australia, not anywhere else in the world.
Special creation would explain a new kangaroo species occurring anywhere anytime, as on the Island of Denmark in 1850 for example, evolution wouldn't. Thus special creation cannot explain the observed distribution of fossils in time and space and their proximity to older less derived species in time and space.
... You seem to have overlooked that this is just a theory, so it's a bit much to expect special creation to explain some dubious evolutionary theory.
The actual distribution of fossils in time and space is not theory, but fact, so yes it is entirely reasonable to ask how this observed and documented empirical pattern occurs via an arbitrary creation process.
Explanationstemporal-spacial distribution pattern
Evolution1
Special
Creation
0 (fail)
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 588 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 1:58 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:00 AM RAZD has replied

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


(2)
Message 617 of 936 (807597)
05-04-2017 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Dredge
05-04-2017 6:57 AM


Re: If Not, What?
All living organisms are biological machines. DNA provides the instructions for building biological machines.
What has more information:
a royal straight flush?
a hand without even a pair?
Or is the "information" only in the eye of the beholder?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 615 by Dredge, posted 05-04-2017 6:57 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 632 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:11 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 622 of 936 (807668)
05-04-2017 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by Tangle
05-04-2017 3:29 PM


Re: Where are we now?
Idiocy.
That's all really, just 100% stupid. Congratulations.
Actually it's Cognitive Dissonance and the Backfire Effect plus a little Dunning—Kruger effect added for you to
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 621 by Tangle, posted 05-04-2017 3:29 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by Tangle, posted 05-04-2017 4:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 640 of 936 (807728)
05-05-2017 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 629 by Dredge
05-05-2017 6:00 AM


Re: Reality strikes again
... There are factual points (microevolution) mixed in with some evo-speculation by atheist paleontologists (who, of course, can always be relied on to tell the truth). More Darwinism masquerading as science ... y-a-w-n.
Sadly, for you, ignoring reality doesn't make it go away, nor does your opinion affect it in any way. Life goes on, evolution goes on. Reality doesn't need you or your opinion to continue.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 629 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:00 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 641 of 936 (807730)
05-05-2017 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 632 by Dredge
05-05-2017 6:11 AM


Re: If Not, What?
I can't answer your card question as I don't play cards - not intelligent enough. Once I tried to play "Snap!" and it gave me brain damage.
Yet you expound ad nauseum on the "information" quota of amoeba's DNA, fascinating.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 632 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:11 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 645 of 936 (807752)
05-05-2017 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 644 by Coyote
05-05-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Reality strikes again ... and again
Stephen Jay Gould said that the fossil record is characterised by "sudden appearance" and "stasis", which he attributed to Punctuated Equilibrium. However, sudden appearance and stasis can also be attributed to creation.
Except for one little detail: there is a lot of evidence for speciation, while none for deities poofing things into existence.
Except for another little detail: it always shows up in close relation to an older less derived species in location and time. They never occur on the other side of the world, as could happen with special creation. As discussed before this is a major failure of explanation for the special creation advocates, and why it isn't taken seriously by scientists.
Being able to attribute something is not showing cause and effect, not showing a testable hypothesis, rather it is post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and wishful thinking, not science.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 644 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2017 9:21 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 657 of 936 (808324)
05-10-2017 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:42 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
Dredge writes:
Mountains of pseudo-evidence, more like it.
Taq writes:
Care to give an example?
The fossil record.
You mean like this?
quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate
Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.
The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.
Care to show how this is "pseudo-evidence"?
Or do you have some silly example to share?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : Dredge quote added
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 656 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:42 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 3:35 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 659 of 936 (808398)
05-10-2017 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:42 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
The fossil record.
By the way, referencing the topic, I defined evolution as:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
The graphic in my previous post, Message 657, shows this occurring continually with each level of fossils showing a shift in the frequency of the traits for size. Here it is again:
So this is objective empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution (that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the evidence).
Can you explain why you think this is "pseudo-evidence" for evolution?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 656 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:42 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 661 of 936 (808439)
05-10-2017 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 660 by CRR
05-10-2017 6:58 PM


Re: A definition of Evolution
Evolution is the official personal information manager for GNOME. It combines e-mail, address book, calendar, task list and note-taking features. Its user interface and functionality is similar to Microsoft Outlook. Evolution is free software licensed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).
What predictions can that hodge-podge produce?
This is thread is for definitions of Evolution. You don't need to argue about whether it is a valid theory or not.
But for the science forum it has to be scientific and produce useful predictions. Let's at least try to be scientific here.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 660 by CRR, posted 05-10-2017 6:58 PM CRR has not replied

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


(1)
Message 669 of 936 (808869)
05-14-2017 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by Dredge
05-14-2017 6:25 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
In graduate school, all you'll get is the fossil record according to the atheist cult of Darwinism.
So we have a conspiracy theory, where all the paleontologists around the world are agreeing to a fake interpretation ... just to annoy creationists.
Does this also include the molecular geneticists doing all that DNA testing and comparisons between species that somehow end up with the same tree of life pattern as that fake fossil conspiracy crowd produced?
Maybe the geologists that do the analysis on the rocks to determine their relative ages ...?
And the physicists that do the radiometric testing to determine more absolute ages ... ?
Is a significant portion of the whole scientific world involved in some grand conspiracy for the sole purpose of annoying a few creationists?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 668 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 6:25 AM Dredge 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