Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 4:06 AM
446 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 445 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,907 Year: 6,513/21,208 Month: 2,274/2,634 Week: 462/572 Day: 9/70 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 301 of 356 (500704)
03-01-2009 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by alaninnont
03-01-2009 10:03 PM


Clarification of your points
Evolution is an increase in complexity and organization through incremental change leading from one species to another. The evidence for this is substantially weaker.

You are completely wrong on this. Evolution is not an increase in complexity--that is a misconception that is spread by creationists, and it is completely wrong. Evolution is change from one generation to the next. Period.

The second is your reference to factual evidence. There are no facts in science. We form a hypothesis based on empirical evidence with the understanding that it may need to be changed if additional evidence comes forward. The closest thing to a fact in science is a reasonable probability. Claiming evolution as a fact is misleading and harmful to the reputation of science.

There are indeed facts in science--billions and billions of them. Empirical evidence, which you mention, actually consists of billions and billions of facts. Facts are something that can be observed and/or quantified in some manner.

What may change "if additional evidence comes forward" are the hypotheses and theories that seek to explain those facts.

Due to the way the English language names things, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact part is change from one generation to the next--you are not exactly like either of your parents or your grandparents. There is change in each generation. There are also mutations, and the whole mess is combed over by natural selection.

That is where the evolution as theory comes in: the theory of evolution seeks to explain all of the observed facts.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by alaninnont, posted 03-01-2009 10:03 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2064 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 302 of 356 (500705)
03-01-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by alaninnont
03-01-2009 10:03 PM


Hi New Guy
Type [qs]The material to quote[/qs] and you'll get:
The material to quote

You can also look at the peek button to see how other folks did other things. And to add to that there's dBCode help next to the message box I'm typing in right now.

One is that you are confusing evolution with natural selection.
Are you confusing natural selection with natural history? Natural selection is the second half of evolution according to the ToE.

This is like a dog breeding program. It is not evolution.

Dog breeding is evolution. Just not natural evolution because the selection process is artificial.

Evolution is an increase in complexity and organization through incremental change leading from one species to another.

No, it's not. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Nothing about an increase in complexity or organization or speciation. The ToE states that evolution through mutation and natural selection is adequate to explain the natural history of life on Earth.

There are no facts in science.

A fact in science are the empirical bits and pieces like rabbits and compass readings. We do in fact see rabbits. And we can read compasses — some better then others.

Claiming evolution as a fact is misleading and harmful to the reputation of science.

No. Evolution is one of those observable bits and pieces — a fact. The ToE is a theory — not a fact. A theory tentatively explains the facts. A hypothesis is a well educated guess put forward for testing.

This argument has been done a gazillion times. Look around a bit and you'll find other response that get into depths well beyond anything needed to convince all but the intentionally perverse.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo. Dang! two people beat me to the answer while I mis-proof read.

Edited by lyx2no, : Another typo.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by alaninnont, posted 03-01-2009 10:03 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 303 of 356 (500736)
03-02-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by alaninnont
03-01-2009 10:03 PM


alaninnont writes:

Evolution is an increase in complexity and organization through incremental change leading from one species to another.

While there's more than one way to define evolution, this isn't one of them. Evolution does not require an increase in complexity or organization. All it requires is change over time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by alaninnont, posted 03-01-2009 10:03 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2785 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 304 of 356 (500847)
03-02-2009 5:42 PM


Here is the dictionary definition;
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection cannot lead from single cell organisms to humans. Natural selection does not lead to an increase in complexity. The industrial revolution caused soot on trees that made white butterflies more visible and therefore easier prey. Their population decreased but there was no increase in the complexity of the genetic code of the darker coloured butterflies to create a more advanced organism.


Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 6:14 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 306 by Percy, posted 03-02-2009 6:20 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 307 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 6:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 308 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2009 7:21 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 309 by bluescat48, posted 03-02-2009 11:48 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5700
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 305 of 356 (500853)
03-02-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by alaninnont
03-02-2009 5:42 PM


Have you heard of logical fallacies?
You are using the logical fallcy of equivocation

The word evolution has many definitions. The one we are using is for the Theory of Evolution. The Evolution we are discussing is this is from a dictionary
Evolution - Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Here is the what the Theory of Evolution is technically.
1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.

2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors).

3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.

4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by alaninnont, posted 03-02-2009 5:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 306 of 356 (500856)
03-02-2009 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by alaninnont
03-02-2009 5:42 PM


alaninnont writes:

Here is the dictionary definition;
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

Dictionaries have a number of definitions of evolution, and you've managed to choose one of the ones that is not the definition of biological evolution. If you look at Merriam-Webster's definition of evolution you'll see that they include the correct definition of evolution when used in a biological context:

  1. a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny;
    b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory

Darwin defined the process as a combination of descent with modification and natural selection. A more precise modern definition is the change in allele frequency of a population over time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by alaninnont, posted 03-02-2009 5:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2064 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 307 of 356 (500864)
03-02-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by alaninnont
03-02-2009 5:42 PM


Who's Arguing

Here is the dictionary definition;
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

Yeah…well, ya' see, the thing with dictionary definitions is that they are generally written for laymen such as ourselves, while the EvC debate can't work with layman definitions because we would be arguing straw men. You want to argue real evolutionary theory you have to use grown-up definitions. Evolution is change over time. Chucking in "more complex" or — even worse — "better" detract from the meaning; even making it wrong. Many things can evolve to become simpler: i.e., troglobite shrimp and fish, snakes, glass snakes and Rhode Islanders.

Natural selection is not evolution.

One point for you. Natural selection is not evolution. Who said it was? I specifically said it wasn't few posts back. (BTW, in the lower, right hand corner of each post is a reply button that will tie your response to that post and alert that poster if they have selected that option.)

Natural selection cannot lead from single cell organisms to humans.

Another point for you.

Natural selection does not lead to an increase in complexity.

Hat trick!

The industrial revolution caused soot on trees that made white butterflies more visible and therefore easier prey. Their population decreased but there was no increase in the complexity of the genetic code of the darker coloured butterflies to create a more advanced organism.

I hear it happen with the moths too; but there's that pesky word complex again. I'm starting to think your argument depends upon it. That makes wonder who you're arguing with.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by alaninnont, posted 03-02-2009 5:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 308 of 356 (500875)
03-02-2009 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by alaninnont
03-02-2009 5:42 PM


alaninnont writes:

Natural selection is not evolution.

That's right. It's one of the mechanisms that drives it.

Natural selection cannot lead from single cell organisms to humans.

Not on its own, certainly.

Natural selection does not lead to an increase in complexity.

Not on its own, certainly.

Humans are made of single celled organisms, which is, when you think about it, very strong evidence that we evolved from them in itself. We are elaborate colonies of them. What's required is mutation, symbiosis, and natural selection; and lots of all three over a very long time.

It is very common for single-celled organisms to form into colonies when they can gain advantage from it.

So, in the future, think of yourself as a colony. One big happy family. And don't knock natural selection and the other mechanisms, because without them you wouldn't exist. :)

Welcome to EvC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by alaninnont, posted 03-02-2009 5:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1538 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 309 of 356 (500898)
03-02-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by alaninnont
03-02-2009 5:42 PM


Dictionary definition
You gave a dictionary definition so try this one:
Evolution
In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Your definition only scratches the surface. It does not matter whether the resultant organism is more complex or not, only that a change has take place in many cases allowing the population of that organism to better survive.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by alaninnont, posted 03-02-2009 5:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2785 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 310 of 356 (501027)
03-03-2009 7:26 PM


Due to the way the English language names things, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

So if hypothetically evolution is proven wrong as is possible, does that mean it was never a fact or that facts are not actually facts and can change?


Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Blue Jay, posted 03-03-2009 7:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 311 of 356 (501032)
03-03-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by alaninnont
03-03-2009 7:26 PM


Hi, Alaninnont.

alaninnont writes:

Coyote writes:

Due to the way the English language names things, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

So if hypothetically evolution is proven wrong as is possible, does that mean it was never a fact or that facts are not actually facts and can change?

No, that's not what Coyote is saying.

There are two things that are called "evolution" in the English language: (1) the genetic changes that occur between populations and the relative fitness advantages that result; and (2) the scientific theory that explains how this process occurs.

Think of a documentary: there's a wasp laying its eggs, and then there's David Attenborough telling you that the wasp is laying its eggs. One is a fact, and one is an aid in learning about the fact.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by alaninnont, posted 03-03-2009 7:26 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2785 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 312 of 356 (501055)
03-03-2009 10:22 PM


I think we're worrying too much about the semantics here. I think that nagging question behind the verbal volleyball is; Did the progression from a one-celled organism to an extremely complex multi-celled organism happen with the help of a creator or not? A precussor to this question is; Did the nucleic acids together with their phosphates and sugars along with the very specific enzymes, the ATP molecules, and intact semi-permeable membrane (which are ALL necessary for life according to experience so far) come together as freak chance or did a creator set them up? Looking at valiant efforts of evolutionists trying to reproduce the first cell and the second law of thermodynamics where in an open or closed system, all things tend toward entropy, not increasing complexity, I'd say it is more probable that a creator was involved.
Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2009 11:00 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 314 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2009 10:15 AM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 315 by Percy, posted 03-04-2009 10:33 AM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 316 by onifre, posted 03-04-2009 4:04 PM alaninnont has responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 313 of 356 (501060)
03-03-2009 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by alaninnont
03-03-2009 10:22 PM


Looking at valiant efforts of evolutionists trying to reproduce the first cell and the second law of thermodynamics where in an open or closed system, all things tend toward entropy, not increasing complexity, I'd say it is more probable that a creator was involved.

Perhaps you could do a bit of studying in fields scientific, and avoid the creationist websites for a bit.

All of your points of have been refuted ages ago, and your conclusion that there was a creator involved does not follow.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by alaninnont, posted 03-03-2009 10:22 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5700
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 314 of 356 (501106)
03-04-2009 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by alaninnont
03-03-2009 10:22 PM


Thermodynamics? are you serious?
and the second law of thermodynamics where in an open or closed system, all things tend toward entropy, not increasing complexity

Do I need to provide you the links to show what utter bs this is? Please do some research on things before you recite creationist claptrap.

The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution and does not say what you think it does.

Well maybe we need to know what you think the second law of thermodynamics says. Before you answer I want you to think about a some things; snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites.

Ok. Thought about them? Now tell us what the Second law of Themodynamics says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by alaninnont, posted 03-03-2009 10:22 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 315 of 356 (501108)
03-04-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by alaninnont
03-03-2009 10:22 PM


alaninnont writes:

Looking at valiant efforts of evolutionists trying to reproduce the first cell and the second law of thermodynamics where in an open or closed system, all things tend toward entropy, not increasing complexity, I'd say it is more probable that a creator was involved.

You're barking up one of the more ridiculous creationist trees.

Speaking of trees, huge trees of great complexity and organization manage to grow from tiny seeds without any help from a "creator". How do you reconcile this with your rule of "all things tend toward entropy." Hint: it has something to do with the snowflakes and other things it was suggested you think about.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by alaninnont, posted 03-03-2009 10:22 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017