Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-14-2018 5:49 AM
197 online now:
Meddle, PaulK, Pressie (3 members, 194 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,910 Year: 16,733/29,783 Month: 721/1,956 Week: 224/331 Day: 2/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19663
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 1 of 205 (545501)
02-03-2010 10:23 PM


why use a wrong definition?
In Message 93 of the abiogenesis thread, marc9000 asks:

IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them, and tried to discredit an entire webpage because of it. That webpage’s opening summary used far fewer words than you did, to explain a general, layman’s understanding of how the word evolution is thought of, and used in society. For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not “require” progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done?

This was my response:

quote:
Sorry, but it is not that simple. The definition given by the website is not just a rewording to make it easy to understand, it is wrong. To repeat:

Message 84: No I don't consider it a credible link, because it portrays a false impression of evolution at the very start:
quote:
your creationist website:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

Evolution, as it is "strictly interpreted in technical terms" within science is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation.

It looks to me like my version is maybe a couple of letters shorter than your website version, so no it has not "abbreviated" a valid explanation. Nor is my version difficult to understand, so it does not need to be interpreted, especially by someone not part of the scientific community studying evolution. We don't ask mechanics to define law or banking or physics or science to make it "appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way" ... we ask the people involved to explain it.

The problem is not only is this "explanation" not a shorter easier to understand version, it is false, and it gives an entirely false impression of what evolution is about.

For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not “require” progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done?

See? You fell for it.

IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them ...

I gave you a brief synopsis of why your website version was wrong, but apparently you fail to see the error involved.

Let's call your website definition by a more appropriate name: "creolution" (the creationist misinterpretation of evolution)

Creolution: - is the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones by various suggested mechanisms.

Evolution: - is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation.

... and see how "creolution" compares with evolution in their ability to explain the diversity of life around us and what biologists study:

Comparison by ability to explain:CreolutionEvolution
Peppered mothsnoyes
Galapagos finch beaksnoyes
Wing/wingless/wing/wingless walkingsticksnoyes
Pelycodus speciationnoyes
Asian greenish warbler ring speciesnoyes
Therapsids with two jaw jointsnoyes
Whalesnoyes
Parasitesnoyes
Why apes are still livingnoyes
Why cyanobacteria are still livingnoyes
Human eye versus octopus versus combinationnoyesThe human appendix & vestigial organsnoyes
Convergent evolutionnoyes
Hominid bipedality before brainnoyes
Chronological stratigraphic layers of foraminiferanoyesCommon descentnoyes
Nested hierarchies of descentnoyes
Neutral driftnoyes
Coelacanthsnoyes
.........
Direction to evolutionyesno
Purpose for lifeyesno
Abiogenesisyesno

I could go on, and I expect many people here can provide many additional examples where creolution fails to explain what evolution explains, but I think that should be sufficient to demonstrate the absolute failure of creolution as a viable alternate formulation of evolution.

Now if you think creolution can explain any one of those items where a "no" is in the creo column, then proceed to do so ... without using the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. If you have any doubts about evolutions ability to explain any of the items where there is a "yes" in the evo column, then ask.

If you think that evolution should explain items where there is a "no" in the evo column, then ask. Note that the actual lack of direction and purpose in biological systems shows that, not only is a system that explain direction and purpose unnecessary, it gives the wrong impression.

Any explanation of the diversity of life as we know it, from the life around us, to history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record that fails these simple tests to the extent that your website definition does, does not qualify as "statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way," but either evidence of a poor grasp of reality, intentional falsehoods, delusional distortions of reality, or profound ignorance. Your choice.


That pretty succinctly shows that the creolution definition is incapable of producing the correct results that evolution produces, and as such is a false and misleading definition.

We can do the same thing with other definitions found on other creationist websites.

These false definitions are part of the problem creationists have in understanding the truth about evolution. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for a discussion on why using proper definitions is necessary for honest debate.

Creationists frequently misdefine evolution. This was the subject of a recent exchange between Marc900 and myself beginning with Message 93 of the abiogenesis thread. Marc900 offered this definition of evolution from The Myth of Abiogenesis (a creationist) webpage:

quote:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

But the actual definition of evolution as used in the science of biology says nothing about progressive development or increasing complexity. There is more than one way to properly define evolution, but this isn't one of them.

Another common creationist misrepresentation is this:

quote:
(Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True?" by A. J. Monty White of AiG):
Evolutionists often say that evolution simply means “change.” However, in reality it means a certain kind of change. The word is now accepted to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humans—what might be called from-goo-to- you-via-the-zoo.

This is even worse that the one provided above. One wonders why creationists don't use the definitions used by scientists instead of these hackneyed versions.

One good definition is that evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation.

Other good definitions used by biological scientists can be found at:

quote:
(Berkeley University):
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.

quote:
(University of Michigan):
Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

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


The creationist misdefinitions of evolution cited above carry with them implications that are not shared by the actual definition, while omitting aspects that are crucial to a proper understanding of the science, and this is why they are so wrong, and why creationists continue to misunderstand evolution. In this thread I would like to discuss those implications in greater detail.

Enjoy.

ps - Also see Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for a discussion on why using proper definitions is necessary for honest debate, and "What is Evolution?" by Laurence Moran TalkOrigins for another discussion on this issue.

Edited by RAZD, : original hidden, inserted shorter version for more likely debate per admin suggestion, then added material to provide more information

Edited by RAZD, : debolded


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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-04-2010 4:49 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2010 10:59 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 6 by misha, posted 02-05-2010 11:18 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 11:46 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 17 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2010 10:39 AM RAZD has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12561
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 205 (545529)
02-04-2010 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-03-2010 10:23 PM


Hi RAZD,

This seems akin to hitting a nail with a sledge hammer so as to finish the job in just one blow, or message in this case. Could I suggest something shorter and more introductory:

Creationists frequently misdefine evolution. This was the subject of a recent exchange between Marc900 and myself beginning with Message 93 of the abiogenesis thread. Marc900 offered this definition from The Myth of Abiogenesis webpage:

Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

But the actual definition of evolution says nothing about progressive development or increasing complexity. There is more than one way to properly define evolution, but this isn't one of them. One good definition is that evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation.

The creationist misdefinition of evolution carries with it implications that are not shared by the actual definition, and this is why it so wrong. In this thread I would like to discuss those implications in greater detail.

What do you think?

Edited by Admin, : Change background color.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2010 7:00 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19663
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3 of 205 (545666)
02-04-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-04-2010 4:49 AM


revised
added some to your suggestion, thanks
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-04-2010 4:49 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12561
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 4 of 205 (545753)
02-05-2010 7:36 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 52 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 205 (545789)
02-05-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-03-2010 10:23 PM


In debate: Accuracy: good. Pedantry: bad.
First let me sweep my hands and say "I agree.".

However - allow me Wittgenstein the thread a little and suggest the problem with language might be to do with a problem with language and that it all boils down to a language game.

A creationist objects to the notion that we (and let's face it - it's us humans they are most concerned about in this picture) descended from ooze and monkeys (hence, from goo-to-you via the zoo). If there were to ask a biologist 'what's that thing called which says we evolved from monkeys', after considering whether a pedantic correction was merited the biologist would likely answer, 'do you mean, evolution?'

And that's what they are trying to express a dislike for. And while precise terms are good - especially with the nature of the arguments creationists try to raise which often rely on woolly terms - we have to occasionally get over semantics and examine what the person intends to communicate in an attempt to progress.

And this is important because there is a rhetorically serious issue here. If everytime a creationist says 'Evolution didn't happen, cats aren't related to dogs' we get bogged down defining evolution in terms of allele frequency variations - it's going to look (quite justly) like we're avoiding the argument (for what it's worth).

And if a creationist tries to be more accurate and says, 'Macroevolution didn't happen, cats aren't related to dogs' it does no good to start harping on about how macroevolution is change beyond the species (speciation and upwards) so that technically even AiG now accepts macroevolution.

This kind of word game just makes it look like we're being elitist, snobbish pedants who avoid creationist's concerns as if we're frightened they've undone us...which is exactly what a lot of them are saying!

Of course - we should call bullshit if a creationist website, claiming authority on the subject at hand says

quote:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

because it's plain false given it's claim for it being a strict interpretation in technical terms both of which are not true of what follows.

But let's be honest - a lot of people, and not just creationists have a brief bit information about evolution and we should certainly inform them of the technical terms. But I think we should be making an effort not to prove them wrong by showing how the technical definition of the words they are using undermine their argument, but by trying to convert their argument into technical terms explaining what you are doing, and then show how it is technically false even if it looks intuitively true in lay terms.

This is easy if the person is humble - and is very difficult if they are the kind to proclaim to have a killer argument that slays the beast of evolution once and for all.

Applying the same logic to your post - it isn't necessarily creationists per se that are your problem I presume but the ultimate source of their problems the -Authoritative Sounding Sources - That Aren't Really. So, given your problem is ultimately with ASSTAR allow me to address that briefly:

Many of these 'authorities' know they aren't defining things correctly or accurately. I know this because I know they've been told many times.
Whether those authorities are deliberately being loose with the language to allow coherent looking arguments to follow, or whether they genuinely think they are adequately translating from the technical to the layfolk is another issue. Given some of the definite acts of deliberate deception we've seen from ASSTAR, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the former.

I think the best way to rid creationist's minds of the stuff ASSTAR puts in, is as described at the start of this post. Patience and a genuine attempt to understand the meaning behind the words rather than pedantic derision at the particular words being used.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
misha
Member (Idle past 2576 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


(1)
Message 6 of 205 (545792)
02-05-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-03-2010 10:23 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
I like the American Heritiage Dictionary's definition

3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

I believe it has all the necessary components and doesn't leave much room for obfuscation.

So let's break it down.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations

This is an essential component. We must have successive change to the DNA over generations. These changes should be passed down by reproduction. The reproductive rates of the parent generation determine the statistical saturation of these changes in the offspring generation.

as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals

Notice, evolution is stated as the result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals. Evolution is a consequence of the reproductive rates of the parent generation holding these genetic variations. The reproductive rates are a consequence of the organisms' ability to reach reproductive maturity and to produce offspring while challenged by natural selective pressures. By understanding evolution as a consequence rather than a goal we can see that there is no requirement to move to increased complexity. In some cases simplicity may be more advantageous.

and resulting in the development of new species.

Of course, this is where most creationists will be held up. They will claim that small changes are incapable of developing new species.

However, the idea of a new species is entirely based on boundaries instituted by the scientific community. Linnaean Taxonomy is largely qualitative. It is the collaboration of scientists studying these organisms which determines classification. Now, there are guidelines, but the classification of species has always been a qualitative human endeavor.

As in any qualitative classification system, there will always be some overlap and heated discussions on the deliniations within this overlap. It happens in music, it happens in science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2010 7:44 PM misha has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 02-06-2010 3:31 AM misha has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19663
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 7 of 205 (545864)
02-05-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by misha
02-05-2010 11:18 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi misha, and welcome to the fray.

I like the American Heritiage Dictionary's definition

3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

I believe it has all the necessary components and doesn't leave much room for obfuscation.

And 3b talks to the development of trees of life based on common ancestry:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

quote:
3. Biology
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations
This is an essential component. We must have successive change to the DNA over generations.

Agreed. This is essentially the same as the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, a definition that I commonly use here, and the normal "frequency of alleles" definition found in the literature.

One of the reasons I use "hereditary traits" rather than genetic terminology is that the genetics are hard to determine in fossils, but traits can be tracked from species to species.

as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals

And as a result of neutral drift. There are some other factors involved as well, so I am reluctant to specify only natural selection.

Notice, evolution is stated as the result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals.

I like to think of evolution as being opportunistic, taking advantage of opportunities that variation (mutation) and ecology provide.

and resulting in the development of new species.

Except that evolution does not always produce new species, it can produce varieties that have different hereditary traits in their subpopulations, but still be able to breed with the other variety subpopulations.

However, the idea of a new species is entirely based on boundaries instituted by the scientific community.

When we use the biological definition of species as a population of potentially interbreeding organisms, and then note that speciation has occurred when interbreeding is no longer possible, then we have a non-arbitrary criteria that can be applied. The problem is to define species change when this does not occur.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

quote:

The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

Here we see a speciation event in fossil record, as there is a clear division of the parent population into two non-interbreeding daughter populations, so this is a non-arbitrary speciation event.

You also see a number of species classifications that are arbitrary, and based on the accumulation of change over many generations. At some point the species becomes noticeably different from the basal population (Pelycodus ralstoni), but these divisions are arbitrary.

Of course, this is where most creationists will be held up. They will claim that small changes are incapable of developing new species.

And yet non-arbitrary speciation has been observed in the field, in the lab, and in the fossil record.

What the creationists will say is that the resulting new species are still members of the "kind" that included the parent population. Dogs will always be dogs, etc.

I like the American Heritiage Dictionary's definition

The problem here, though, is not about what you, or I, or Creationist Joe like as a definition, but which one/s best represent how the term is applied in science by the biologists doing the application.

If you want to see how fruitless an argument about preferred definitions can get, see Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone). Few hours there I'd like to get back.

As a result of that experience I now refer to the definitions given on the BerkeleyU and UMich sites (see why use a wrong definition? (Message 1)) as examples of definitions used to teach biology to biology students by biologists.

And the other point is that this thread is not so much about what definition biologists and evolutionists use, but what is used on many creationist websites and why these creationist versions are so wrong.

By understanding evolution as a consequence rather than a goal we can see that there is no requirement to move to increased complexity. In some cases simplicity may be more advantageous.

And this is one of the reasons why both creationist definitions given in Message 1 are wrong.

Enjoy.

I see you are using HTML, and as you are new here, here are some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


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 6 by misha, posted 02-05-2010 11:18 AM misha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 02-05-2010 11:02 PM RAZD has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 205 (545888)
02-05-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
02-05-2010 7:44 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
And the other point is that this thread is not so much about what definition biologists and evolutionists use, but what is used on many creationist websites and why these creationist versions are so wrong.

A goal of science, vis-a-vis these definitions, is to promote better communication and understanding through carefully defining the terms used.

Creationists are more often attacking science, though they may pretend otherwise. It is not in their best interests to further better communication and understanding in science--or for that matter to further science in any way. Science contradicts their beliefs, so science is the enemy.

Obfuscation, misrepresentation, and outright falsehoods are some of the tactics used on creationist websites in order to support their beliefs and to reassure their flocks that science is all wrong, and that scientists are nothing but a bunch of atheists anyway so you can't trust a thing they say.

The bottom line: scientists do science, and so they get to define the terms they use.

Creationists who try to confuse the issues by obfuscation and misrepresentation, or outright falsehoods, expose themselves as absolutely dishonest by those actions. But then, if they had empirical evidence they wouldn't have to resort to those tactics, would they?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2010 7:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2010 12:11 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 181 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 3:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 9 of 205 (545891)
02-05-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-03-2010 10:23 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi RAZD,

Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at Berkeley

It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection—can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument.

And is the part that they can not accept as having happened.

There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions.

Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2010 12:04 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 02-06-2010 12:40 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2010 4:52 AM ICANT has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 205 (545893)
02-06-2010 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ICANT
02-05-2010 11:46 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at Berkeley
It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection—can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument.

And is the part that they can not accept as having happened.


They cannot accept it based on religious belief, not empirical evidence.

There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions.

There is a lot of evidence--although nobody was there to see it. But nothing, and no amount of evidence, will be sufficient for creationists because they do not rely on evidence. They rely on belief. (You really should end all your posts with "Amen" or "Hallelujah," as what you are presenting us is nothing more than catechism and witnessing. You make no effort to present a rebuttal based on empirical evidence.)

Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption.

No, that paragraph summarizes the results of a lot of scientific investigations. It is a conclusion, not an assumption. Being a scientific conclusion it is subject to revision if new evidence is found, but that is vastly different from an assumption.

And what evidence do you present that that paragraph is incorrect? Calling it an "assumption" does not show that it is incorrect. Where's your evidence? If you can't present empirical evidence your opinion is of no value.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 11:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2010 9:36 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 85 by IamJoseph, posted 02-14-2010 1:03 AM Coyote has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 205 (545895)
02-06-2010 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ICANT
02-05-2010 11:46 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
ICANT writes:

When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument.

And is the part that they can not accept as having happened.

There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions.

Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption.


I never understood why creationists like to make such a distinction between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution.

Let's look at other things that have evolved through time. Have you ever seen a society macroevolve? Have you any evidence at all that a society macroevolved from sword fighting in the battlefield to fighter jets?

Have you ever seen a language evolve into other languages? Can you connect all the dots, every little change that happened to ancient latin that resulted in modern day spanish?

Your attempts at desperately trying to draw distinctions between macro and micro evolution is like drawing distinctions between different expressions in latin in different regions and it's eventual evolution into the modern day romance languages.

Edit.

Did you miss my thread about the power of accumulation?

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 11:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2010 9:55 AM Taz has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 12 of 205 (545898)
02-06-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by misha
02-05-2010 11:18 AM


Why Creationists are ALWAYS wrong
However, the idea of a new species is entirely based on boundaries instituted by the scientific community. Linnaean Taxonomy is largely qualitative. It is the collaboration of scientists studying these organisms which determines classification. Now, there are guidelines, but the classification of species has always been a qualitative human endeavor.

This points us in the direction of explaining why creationists ARE ALWAYS wrong.

It's about perspective.

They think that everything in the world has little labels and that everything fits into specific categories.

They think that there is a "seagull" box and that ALL seagulls are in it. They think that that box was created by a Jew Wizard and that the sides are magic.

This is also why they hate homosexuals and transgendered people. They don't fit nicely into their box.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how language and thought work.

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that Creationists were overwhelmingly against reclassifying Pluto.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by misha, posted 02-05-2010 11:18 AM misha has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 13 of 205 (545902)
02-06-2010 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ICANT
02-05-2010 11:46 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument.

But it should not be included in their definition.

Yes, we know that you object to the proposition that evolution has wrought large-scale changes. But that does not make the fact that it has done so part of the definition of evolution. That is merely a historical fact about what evolution has brought about.

Let me offer you an analogy. If you believed that Columbus crossed the Atlantic in a plane instead of a ship, then the fact that he did go by ship would not (and should not) by mere virtue of your objection to that fact, become part of the definition of the word "ship" --- the definition would not become "A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation which Columbus crossed the Atlantic in", just so that you could have the dubious luxury of saying "I don't believe in ships" instead of "I don't believe that Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic in a ship".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 11:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2010 10:11 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 14 of 205 (545912)
02-06-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coyote
02-06-2010 12:04 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

They cannot accept it based on religious belief, not empirical evidence.

They don't accept it based on a lack of empirical evidence.

Coyote writes:

They rely on belief. (You really should end all your posts with "Amen" or "Hallelujah," as what you are presenting us is nothing more than catechism and witnessing.

Would you please point out which sentence is catechism and which is witnessing?

ICANT writes:

Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at Berkeley

When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument.

And is the part that they can not accept as having happened.

There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions.

Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2010 12:04 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 15 of 205 (545915)
02-06-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
02-06-2010 12:40 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi Taz,

Taz writes:

I never understood why creationists like to make such a distinction between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution.

"Micro"evolution is a fact.

"Macro"evolution is an assumption.

It was not observed and no experiment can be run to reproduce the claimed results. Thus there is no empirical evidence.

Taz writes:

Let's look at other things that have evolved through time. Have you ever seen a society macroevolve? Have you any evidence at all that a society macroevolved from sword fighting in the battlefield to fighter jets?

You got a good example there if the sword evolved into the fighter jet. Instead of the jet being created by mankind.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 02-06-2010 12:40 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2010 11:18 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 02-06-2010 11:53 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018