Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 12:15 PM
452 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,862 Year: 6,468/21,208 Month: 2,229/2,634 Week: 417/572 Day: 34/99 Hour: 4/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 3463 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 91 of 121 (407209)
06-25-2007 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
06-24-2007 5:10 PM


Re: Move forward.
YOU GOT OWNED Raz - razzeled-dazzeled
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 5:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 6:56 AM shiloh has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 92 of 121 (407224)
06-25-2007 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by shiloh
06-25-2007 1:59 AM


Do you want to debate something?
YOU GOT OWNED Raz - razzeled-dazzeled

Think so?

One, your perception is false: you are not looking at the evidence, but what you want to see. Murk has just presented the same falsified position he has before, and which has been refuted. He has not shown that the definition needs to be more than change in species over time. Volume of misrepresented definitions and conflations of discussion with definition does not begin to refute the fact that definitions used by universities teaching evolution are simply that the theory of evolution is the change in species over time. Berkeley's single line definition is enough to refute his position. Murks post was a waste of his time because he did not address that issue.

Funny how, IF murk is right, he is afraid to move forward using just my definition. Petrified. Runs screaming every time it is suggested.

Two, your comment does not contribute to the debate. This is not a normal thread but a Great Debate Thread, and all posts are expected to contribute to the debate. One purpose of the Great Debate thread is too keep non-contributory posts out of the thread. I have invited other creationists to participate in order to move the debate forward from the stonewalling of Murk on the issue of definitions, but I expect them to contribute to the debate on other issues. Perhaps you would like to try to move it forward? If so what topic from the initial thread do you want to discuss?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : and it's PWND


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by shiloh, posted 06-25-2007 1:59 AM shiloh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by shiloh, posted 06-25-2007 3:05 PM RAZD has responded

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 3463 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 93 of 121 (407292)
06-25-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
06-25-2007 6:56 AM


Re: Do you want to debate something?
No, I was waiting for you to arise out of your primordial goo of obfuscation and debate Merky Waters. And since you failed, in my est. to do so - you got owened. But here is my contribution.

RAZD said:
"...the theory of evolution is the change in species over time."

To quote Michael Behe:

"Evolution is a flexible word. It can be used by one person to mean somthing as simple as change over time, or by another person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full-throated biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community." Preface of Darwins Black Box.

Why not change OF species over time - at least you would be getting closer to the truth.

Lets see YOUR theory:

Prediction - Change in species over time
Observation - Darwins finches beaks changed over time
Conculsion - MY theory of evolution is established.

WOW thanks for the obvious.

If this is your definition there is no need to debate.

And the word "obfuscation" was used intentionally seeing you have have muddied the waters with that definition.

Creationist believe in micro-evoulution - you are the one who needs to move forward.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 6:56 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 4:09 PM shiloh has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 94 of 121 (407297)
06-25-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by shiloh
06-25-2007 3:05 PM


Re: Do you want to debate something?
But here is my contribution.

RAZD said:
"...the theory of evolution is the change in species over time."

To quote Michael Behe:

Seeing as Michael Behe is not teaching the science of evolution his "definition" is irrelevant: he is not using the definition used by scientists so he is de facto talking about something else. This is called a straw-man fallacy in logic. Your failure to understand this simple principle is not my fault, as this has been extensively explained on this thread: it is WHY murk is wrong as well, no matter how he complains and whimpers about it.

Lets see YOUR theory:

Prediction - Change in species over time
Observation - Darwins finches beaks changed over time
Conculsion - MY theory of evolution is established.

WOW thanks for the obvious.

If this is your definition there is no need to debate.

So then we can move on to show how applying this theory produces the diversity we see in life on this planet. Cool. Proceed to Message 25 and Message 50 to see the next levels of application of this theory to the evidence, evidence that shows that change in species over time is sufficient to explain the diversity produced in those examples.

I have said before that the argument creationists have is not with evolution per se but with the concept of common ancestors and how many starting species are needed to explain the diversity of life we see on this planet. All you have done is confirm that position.

No, I was waiting for you to arise out of your primordial goo of obfuscation and debate Merky Waters.

The only one wallowing in goo is murk. I've been very clear and consistent. I've even proposed using my definition for just microevolution, but even there murk ran screaming from the debate. I've been ready and willing and able to move on.

You will note that I provided the evidence in the above linked messages and more to move the debate forward from murks stonewalling on the definitions, and he refused to discuss anything but his misperception of evolution.

Do you care to take up the challenge of talking about the science of evolution as done by the scientists and leave behind your misunderstandings and face reality?

{abe}

Creationist believe in micro-evoulution - you are the one who needs to move forward.

So you have no problem with my using this definition for a working definition of evolution and seeing how far we can get with the diversity of life as we know it:

Message 17
"Micro"evolution
  • refers to speciation and
  • nothing beyond the causes up to and including speciation,
  • has been observed to occur and is
  • thus a fact.

    That it involves

  • change in species over time,
  • mutation as an observed fact,
  • natural selection as an observed fact, and
  • some other minor mechanisms such as genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer by viruses and the like.

    That it does NOT involve

  • sudden large scale change or
  • sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities.
  • You will note this was proposed to murk back in message 17 in order to move forward. {/abe}

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : abe


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 93 by shiloh, posted 06-25-2007 3:05 PM shiloh has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 95 by shiloh, posted 06-26-2007 1:08 AM RAZD has responded

    shiloh
    Junior Member (Idle past 3463 days)
    Posts: 28
    Joined: 06-21-2007


    Message 95 of 121 (407388)
    06-26-2007 1:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
    06-25-2007 4:09 PM


    Re: Do you want to debate something?
    Hey RADZ

    I would hope this debate goes further but honestly I dont have the time, which is why I wanted to sit back and read what both of you had to say.

    Obviously, I think your going to try and est. microevolution as a mechanism for the occurence of macroevolution.

    I wish I new what your full position is - like:

    From what did microeveloution begin and how did it arrive. If you want to use microevolution as a means of macroevolution; what is the foundation of microevolution?

    Do you hold to a common ancestor of all life?

    How do you define species? - I ask not to quibble about another word but that term is really arbitrary in that it does not reflect nature adequately - seeing that hybridyzation occures among different species and even above that category. The range of micreoevolution is not known unless we have absolutely est. the range of what is a species, as well as the totality of the different genomes. Also, even if microevolution can increase genetic info that info is of a certain type and will be constrained by those genomes and the category to which they belong. Hence, your not going to get the info for a "wing" if the genome never had any type of wing to begin with and if the genome had info for a wing the info increase would code for another type of wing - a wing that needed more information, but that would fall within the catergory of genomes that are allowed to interact with each other - where that line is we have yet to establish. And I dont think any amount of microevolution will cross that boundary.

    I do not say these things as a rebutal nor to furhter the debate - I honestly do not have the time or the effort to engage in it.

    Sorry, I do not quite understand where you are coming from. Just wanted to know.

    I will read your material and links - I am enjoying what I am able to get to - Hope some will cont. the deabte though.

    Thanks for your replies, and best wishes to you and your family at this time.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 94 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 4:09 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 96 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2007 9:39 AM shiloh has not yet responded

      
    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 96 of 121 (407436)
    06-26-2007 9:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 95 by shiloh
    06-26-2007 1:08 AM


    Re: Do you want to debate something?
    I would hope this debate goes further but honestly I dont have the time, ...
    I do not say these things as a rebutal nor to furhter the debate - I honestly do not have the time or the effort to engage in it.

    Another creo refuses to take up the gauntlet. Curious position if you have the side with the answers.

    I wish I new what your full position is - like:

    From what did microeveloution begin and how did it arrive. If you want to use microevolution as a means of macroevolution; what is the foundation of microevolution?

    Do you hold to a common ancestor of all life?

    Microevolution is the (genetic) change in species over time. For it to begin you first need life, an process that produces genetic (inheritable) change - such as mutations - an environment that selectively benefits or inhibits individuals based on there fitness\adaptation to the environment - natural selection - and a changing environment.

    How that life arose is open to debate. Was there one such or several? We don't know for sure: the first evidence we have of rocks capable of showing fossil life 3.5 billion years ago show life was already in existence, so we don't have any evidence that can show how it arose.

    How do you define species?

    Good question. I would define species as reproductively isolated and environmentally isolated populations. This is easiest applied to sexual species, more difficult with asexual (each individual is sexually isolated, but not environmentally isolated from those nearby; in different environments they will have different selection pressures and change in different ways over time; those within each population will undergo similar changes, those in different populations may undergo different changes depending on their opportunities). Asexual species are also known to exchange genetic material with horizontal gene exchange, even between different species, and this can tend to homogenize local populations in the same way that sex operates in sexual species where members within a population interact. This process may also have been at work on early life forms to homogenize them from several initial starts.

    Species are often declared as different after a period of time has elapsed and the number of changes observed in the individuals add up to a certain threshold of noticeable difference from some original starting point. This is often referred to as "arbitrary speciation" because that's what it is: an arbitrary decision by someone to declare a different species.

    Places where speciation is not arbitrary are where speciation events are observed that result in two (or more) daughter population that no longer interbreed\interact: two daughter species are different from each other so at least ONE must have become a different species from the parent species.

    These are useful distinctions, because a lot of speciation is arbitrary, but SOME is definitely non-arbitrary.

    Both are evidence of evolution -- the change in frequency of alleles in a population \ (genetic) change in species over time \ descent with modification -- just as the Darwin Finch beak change was. Both are seen in the evidence from the foraminifera record, but Pelycodus is a non-arbitrary speciation event. Pelycodus shows the end result of microevolution: the separation of two populations that no longer interbreed and share genetic material, and thus each is free to continue to evolve within their separate populations in different directions, not just in size but in other selected adaptations to their changing environments.

    The range of micreoevolution is not known unless we have absolutely est. the range of what is a species, as well as the totality of the different genomes. Also, even if microevolution can increase genetic info that info is of a certain type and will be constrained by those genomes and the category to which they belong. Hence, your not going to get the info for a "wing" if the genome never had any type of wing to begin with and if the genome had info for a wing the info increase would code for another type of wing - a wing that needed more information, but that would fall within the catergory of genomes that are allowed to interact with each other - where that line is we have yet to establish. And I dont think any amount of microevolution will cross that boundary.

    What you think, and what you understand, have no effect on inhibiting nature. It has been shown that either evolution has "increased information" or that the concept of "information" as applied is useless in predicting what evolution can and cannot do. The bat wing does not need new information to use and adapt previous parts of bone and skin to form a flying surface. The evidence is that dinosaurs had feathers before they had wings, and thus they too adapted existing parts of bone and skin and feathers to form flying surfaces. There is no problem here for evolution.

    Sorry, I do not quite understand where you are coming from. Just wanted to know.

    The best way to find out is to continue the debate.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : /i


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by shiloh, posted 06-26-2007 1:08 AM shiloh has not yet responded

    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 3393 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 97 of 121 (408747)
    07-04-2007 1:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
    06-24-2007 5:10 PM


    Re: Move forward.

    GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

    And still no change. The concept is simple: two universities that teach the science of evolution specifically define evolution as change in species over time. Everything else is from discussion of the effect of evolution over time: diversity, "macro"evolution are effects.

    And still no change. They teach nothing of the sort. Even if they did, this is the complete basis of your argument? I can produce universities which teach something different. The truth is not dependent on how many people believe something. The fact that you think 2 universities (references which I initially produced), agree with you is irrelevant to what the correct statement of the theory of evolution is. I have already shown that there are plenty of references including textbooks used in schools that indisputably demonstrate that CISOT is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution. It is a process that supposedly produce the results stated in the theory.

    The concept of the debate is also simple: if my definition is inadequate, then challenge it to produce the goods. Failure to do that is refusal to move the debate forward.

    Indeed, the concept of the debate is very simple. You are deathly afraid of defining the theory of evolution as molecules to man because this would invalidate observable evidence as well as evidence from the fossil record as providing any support to the theory.

    Please read my posts. I have demonstrated that your definition is inadequate with almost every breath. You are the one that has refused to debate the logical merits of the definitions and instead have made the whole basis of your argument to be a few sources which you have cherry picked in an attempt to support your position, ignoring the majority which state otherwise.

    Failure to debate the merits of the definitions is a refusal to move the debate forward.


    We are not looking for something that is “not change over time”, we are looking for something that is in ADDITION to change over time.

    Define that "something" and we can proceed. Insisting on "something" that you leave undefined does not move the debate forward nor resolve the issue, it is just stonewalling. If you cannot define it then it does not exist except as a figment of your imagination.

    {abe} Without "something" being defined it cannot be tested and thus it is <>NOT a scientific concept. As such it has no place in a scientific definition. You are "looking" for something that does not exist in the science of evolution. It is also unnecessary. {/abe}

    Are we in the same debate? Take off your blinders! If this isn’t an example of someone who sees only what they want to see, then I don’t know what is. “Something” is anything other than “change in species over time”. I have demonstrated what those “something’s” are over and over and over again. The definitions clearly include “greater information content” (stated in various ways), “long ages” (millions or billions of years), “New Kinds” (not just simple speciation), and “all life arising from a common ancestor”. These are qualifiers to the TYPE of change which is being discussed and are NECESSARY. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that any change is evolution just because they state or imply change is occurring.

    And you have made my argument again. The theory of evolution is based on presuppositions which are not part of the realm of testable science because they deal with historical origins studies. The supposed “process” of evolution can be studied. However, it turns out that this is simply adaptation which supports creation theory. The extrapolation of observable science to the past is the THEORY.


    The Definition:
    Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

    There is no main part, there is THE definition and then a discussion of how it is applied in the SCIENCE of evolution. It is typical of every other misrepresentation of the scientific theory of evolution.

    It is silly to rehash every individual reference again, when it has clearly been demonstrated that there is wide diversity in the way in which evolution is referred (ie process or theory) and how each is defined. The best approach, therefore, would be to debate the definitions on their merit, not simply argue about what a single source is attempting to convey.

    However, just so your misrepresentation is not ignored, this entire paragraph is labeled as “THE DEFINITION”. The first sentence is not put in quotes or separated out as another paragraph. The following section which you conveniently left out is labeled as “THE EXPLANATION”. Therefore, the first part cannot be the explanation; it is part of the definition. And in fact, as I have stated previously, an explanation of the definition is also deservedly part of the definition as well by simple substitution rules. The reason that there is an explanation is that something which is “simply put” CANNOT STAND ON ITS OWN.

    The rest of your post is just more of the same and has already been refuted. Stop wasting bandwidth and deal with thie issue: can the theory of evolution as change in species over time explain the diversity of life we see?

    Yes. That has already been demonstrated with the Foraminifera and Pelycodus and several other examples: diversity happens as a result of change in species over time. Every speciation event has resulted in a new species, that is a diversification.

    The rest of your posts is just more of the same: regardless of what the definition states, we can ignore that and just call it change over time. This has been refuted over and over again. Stop wasting bandwidth and deal with the issue – which definition accurately and comprehensively states the theory of evolution? Debate the definitions on their individual merits.

    If you continue to refuse to debate the definitions are their merits, then we can summarize our positions (positively without negative accusations) and move forward.

    If you want to talk about how change in species over time has allowed the original created Kinds to diversify in changing environments as you state above, I’m fine with that. However, none of that supports the theory of evolution. You have been unable to provide any evidence which supports the theory of evolution. The fact remains is that there is no evidence in observable operational science which supports molecules to man evolution. The only arguments ever presented are interpretations of historical evidence based on the circular reasoning and presupposition that evolution is true.

    Can the theory of evolution as the change in species over time explain the diversity of life we see with our classification system? I say yes. It is just more diversity over more time.

    If you disagree all you need to do is say "show me" and anything else is a waste of time at this point.

    I say NO. More of the change we observe today (a PROCESS of adaptation), does NOT produce the changes required by the theory of evolution. That’s why the type of change is included in the definition. If you’re dying to “show me” evidence that this is possible, with your propensity for the evidence, I’d have thought that you would have done it by now. Instead, you have provided evidence in support of creation theory (adaptation within kinds). If we have observed one kind of creature changing into another, then “show me”.

    And since you are complaining that this is "a waste of time" and your posts have been repetitive with no attempt to move forward in a positive direction perhaps I should invite other evolutionists that might be willing to debate the merits of the definitions.


    (2) The theory of evolution, on the other hand, can be stated as “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form.” This can be equated with the commonly used terms “macroevolution” (used by evolutionist) or simply “theory of evolution” (used by creationists).

    This is the result of the theory not the theory. You are conflating the science of evolution with the theory of evolution. Your whole argument is based on a false premise and thus your conclusions are necessarily invalid.

    No, this is the theory. You are conflating the process of evolution with the theory. Your whole argument is based on a false premise and thus your conclusions are necessarily invalid.

    You have already admitted that “Change in species over time” is the “process of evolution (PoE)” to distinguish it from both the science of evolution and the theory of evolution (see your post 22). Are you now waffling on what you have already argued to be a fact? Seems like you are the one that is doing the “conflating”.

    You have offered no compromise at all but acceptance of your position without modification and with complete denial of evidence to the contrary. It appears all you are interested in doing is rehashing old ground. The simple thing to do to move the debate forward is to APPLY the theory and see if it works. That is how science is done.
    Anything less is stonewalling. Stop wasting bandwidth and start applying science.

    And you have offered no compromise at all but acceptance of your position without modification and with complete denial of evidence to the contrary. It appears that all you are interested in is avoiding the real arguments which do not support your position. All you want to do is re-hash references. I want to explore NEW ground by debating your definition and my definition on their actual merits, apparently something you want to avoid.

    How can we move forward to “apply the theory” if we have not agreed on what the theory is and we are not using the theory used in science? That’s elementary logic. You are the one stonewalling by insisting that you are on the side of some magical “science” which you cannot define or “scientists” which you cannot identify and have insisted that every definition is change over time when they clearly state otherwise. You will not only admit that you may be wrong, but cannot even recognize that they could be another viewpoint. Stop wasting bandwidth and let’s debate the definitions are their merits.


    you have insisted that "Change in species over time" is a statement of the theory of evolution. This definiton is NOT used in science or in any dictionary, encylopedia or scientific reference. This is a cute slogan made up by you in order to deceive yourself and others into thinking that real evolution has occurred.

    Prove it. Let's proceed to application of "my" theory to see where we end up. That is how science works. It's that simple.

    I’ve already proved it. See my long post 87. So let’s proceed to the application of the theory of evolution (molecules to man) used by science and scientists and see where we end up. That’s how science works. It’s that simple.

    ps - I'm considering inviting other evolutionists to participate in the debate due to your unwillingness to move forward.

    GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 90 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 5:10 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 98 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2007 12:00 PM MurkyWaters has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 98 of 121 (409110)
    07-07-2007 12:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by MurkyWaters
    07-04-2007 1:58 PM


    Re: Move forward.
    Just the high points:

    “Something” is anything other than “change in species over time”. I have demonstrated what those “something’s” are over and over and over again. The definitions clearly include “greater information content” (stated in various ways), “long ages” (millions or billions of years), “New Kinds” (not just simple speciation), and “all life arising from a common ancestor”. These are qualifiers to the TYPE of change which is being discussed and are NECESSARY. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that any change is evolution just because they state or imply change is occurring.

    They are only necessary in your personal view -- in order to say that they cannot be explained by the hereditary change in species over time you have to eliminate that possibility by evaluation of the facts, not just by blind assertion and rejection. You have not done that.

    You need to define "information" in a way that it can be evaluated and measured. Without such a definition it cannot be a scientific concept that can be applied in any honest and impartial evaluation of the data.

    You need to demonstrate that "'long ages' (millions or billions of years)" are necessary rather than just claim it.

    You need to define "kind" in a way that can be applied to any individual organism with clarity and no confusion or equivocation. Without such a definition it cannot be a scientific concept that can be applied in any honest and impartial evaluation of the data.

    You need to demonstrate why “all life arising from a common ancestor” is necessary for evolution to occur today or at any time in the past.

    For these to be "NECESSARY" parts of the definition you need to show that they cannot be excluded from the definition without changing the ability of the theory to explain all the evidence. You have not done this.

    If we have observed one kind of creature changing into another, then “show me”.

    Every time there is a non-arbitrary speciation event there is at least one new species that did not exist before: whether one or both differ from the parent species does not matter, as the difference between the two daughter species means that at least one is new. This is a new kind of creature using any standard definition for "kind" anyway.

    Kind –noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
    2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
    3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.
    4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.
    5. Archaic.
    a. the nature, or natural disposition or character.
    b. manner; form.
    6. Obsolete. gender; sex.

    If you want to use a different definition then you will need to provide one, one that can be used honestly and impartially.

    The first sentence is not put in quotes or separated out as another paragraph. The following section which you conveniently left out is labeled as “THE EXPLANATION”. Therefore, the first part cannot be the explanation; it is part of the definition. And in fact, as I have stated previously, an explanation of the definition is also deservedly part of the definition as well by simple substitution rules.

    I did not say the rest of the paragraph labeled "THE DEFINITION" was explanation, and the rules of substitution mean you can use the definition in place of the word defined and get the same meaning: it says NOTHING about any explanation of the definition being used in place of the definition. Please stop misrepresenting the truth.

    I’ve already proved it. See my long post 87.

    You proved nothing except your stubborn adherence to falsifying information. To prove that hereditary change in species over time does not explain the evidence you have to evaluate it and eliminate it as a possibility. You have not done this: all you have done is continued to assert a (false) position.

    ps - I'm considering inviting other evolutionists to participate in the debate due to your unwillingness to move forward.

    We can take this out of the Great Debate forum and put it in the Biological Evolution forum with the question limited to the definition for the theory of evolution -- your call (you were the one that wanted it in Great Debate to begin with).

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-04-2007 1:58 PM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-10-2007 12:27 AM RAZD has responded

    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 3393 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 99 of 121 (409517)
    07-10-2007 12:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
    07-07-2007 12:00 PM


    Re: Move forward.

    “Something” is anything other than “change in species over time”. I have demonstrated what those “something’s” are over and over and over again. The definitions clearly include “greater information content” (stated in various ways), “long ages” (millions or billions of years), “New Kinds” (not just simple speciation), and “all life arising from a common ancestor”. These are qualifiers to the TYPE of change which is being discussed and are NECESSARY. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that any change is evolution just because they state or imply change is occurring.


    They are only necessary in your personal view -- in order to say that they cannot be explained by the hereditary change in species over time you have to eliminate that possibility by evaluation of the facts, not just by blind assertion and rejection. You have not done that.

    Wrong. They are necessary because the definitions include them, because SCIENCE includes them! It has nothing to do with my personal view. However, your decision to ignore them is due to your personal view. You need to explain why they should not be included, not just by blind assertion and rejection. You have not done that.

    For these to be "NECESSARY" parts of the definition you need to show that they cannot be excluded from the definition without changing the ability of the theory to explain all the evidence. You have not done this.

    They are necessary parts of the definition because they are included in the definitions. They cannot be arbitrarily removed by you because you think they are unnecessary in your fantasy definition. You need to show why they can be excluded without changing the ability of the theory to explain all the evidence. You have not done this.

    Besides this, you continued to confuse the evidence for the truth or falsity of the theory with the evidence for the correct statement of the theory. The theory includes these features whether you like it or not. If you are removing them, then you are the one that needs to offer the explanation as to why that would be a valid thing to do.


    If we have observed one kind of creature changing into another, then “show me”.

    Every time there is a non-arbitrary speciation event there is at least one new species that did not exist before: whether one or both differ from the parent species does not matter, as the difference between the two daughter species means that at least one is new. This is a new kind of creature using any standard definition for "kind" anyway.

    This is just you being obstinate and argumentative. A 5 year old can tell you that the various species of cats and dogs are still cats and dogs or that a finch with a beak that is 0.1 mm longer is still a finch even though it may be classified as a new species. These are not new kinds of creatures, just variations within a kind. If we get into a detailed discussion of the evidence, it may be appropriate to discuss the difficulties of the classification system that all scientists face, but for the debate regarding the statement of theory itself, the definition of “kind” I have already provided should suffice, which is no less arbitrary than what you have provided for the definition of “species”.

    And how hypocritical (again)! You lambaste me for suggesting that the general definition of evolution should not be used. However, when it suites you, you go ahead and suggest that some general definition of “Kind” (which is not even talking about the same thing) should apply. Use the definitions that are used in the science.


    The first sentence is not put in quotes or separated out as another paragraph. The following section which you conveniently left out is labeled as “THE EXPLANATION”. Therefore, the first part cannot be the explanation; it is part of the definition. And in fact, as I have stated previously, an explanation of the definition is also deservedly part of the definition as well by simple substitution rules.

    I did not say the rest of the paragraph labeled "THE DEFINITION" was explanation, and the rules of substitution mean you can use the definition in place of the word defined and get the same meaning: it says NOTHING about any explanation of the definition being used in place of the definition. Please stop misrepresenting the truth.

    This is laughable. This definition says NOTHING about just the first sentence being the definition and yet you cherry pick it out. PLEASE stop misrepresenting the truth.

    On the other hand, the second part labeled “Explanation” is obviously an explanation of something. Since the first part is labeled “definition”, it must be explaining the first part, which is the definition. You, again, are the one attempting to misrepresent the truth.

    Regarding substitution, if “Joe is tall” and “tall” is defined as anything “over 7 feet”, then “Joe is over 7 feet” is a true statement. This is more applicable in definitions which reference micro and macro and then explain what micro and macro is later.

    Regarding your first sentence (descent with modification), we see that they refer to this as a “PROCESS”, NOT a statement of the theory. The theory is a statement of the theoretical RESULTS of the known processes or the “Central Idea” which is in the rest of the definition and the explanation. So again, you are the one misrepresenting the truth by substituting the definition of a “process” for a statement of the theory, which you have already admitted in prior posts, is a process, NOT the theory.

    Lastly, you have said “After the highlighted part is discussion of this definition”. “Discussion” and “Explanation” are synonymous. So you did say that the rest of the paragraph labeled “the definition” was a further explanation.


    I’ve already proved it. See my long post 87.

    You proved nothing except your stubborn adherence to falsifying information. To prove that hereditary change in species over time does not explain the evidence you have to evaluate it and eliminate it as a possibility. You have not done this: all you have done is continued to assert a (false) position.

    I’m not the one being stubborn or falsifying information. I’ve proved that not a single source (0%) define the theory of evolution as “change in species over time”. That is because CISOT is simply a factual observation. It is certainly not a statement of a theory. There is nothing theoretical about it.

    So, have you decided to change your definition to “hereditary change in species over time”? If so (and if we were discussing the evidence for or against the theory), you would need to show that this process can produce the theoretical results stated in the theory of evolution – namely, that it is sufficient to produce all the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor which arose billions of years ago from non-life. You have not done this: all you have done is simply insist that it is true.

    We can take this out of the Great Debate forum and put it in the Biological Evolution forum with the question limited to the definition for the theory of evolution -- your call (you were the one that wanted it in Great Debate to begin with).

    I did not “want” it here. I was invited to participate. I had not even heard of a “great debate” at that time. I don’t want to make it “my call”. Unlike you, I would prefer mutual agreement on changes to the debate structure. The implication would be that I’d drop out of this one and move the argument to another open forum with multiple participants. It seems that we have hit an impasse. Most of your bandwidth is spent accusing others of misrepresenting the truth (YOUR “truth”) instead of providing evidence for your position and it doesn’t appear that is going to change. I wish we could have spent more time honestly trying to understand each other’s positions, but it does not appear you are interested in doing that either. Perhaps in an open forum there might be others that are more interested in a real pursuit of truth.

    I honestly wanted to hear what possible evidence there could be for someone to even mildly entertain the notion that evolution could be true. Instead, all I have gotten from you is semantics, self deception, denial about what evolution is and refusal to answer my questions and arguments. It is obviously more important for you to be right than to seek the truth. So perhaps a change in venue would be welcome. However, if it’s done, it needs to be by mutual consent so that I don’t hear any misrepresentation later regarding the reasons for the change.

    My position is solid, backed by all of the evidence as well as logic and reasoning. You have provided nothing to suggest otherwise except the same falsified position that has been refuted over and over again which has you ignoring components of the definition that are clearly included by all of the sources cited. To Suggest that a single source, which you erroneously feel supports your position (ie a university website), allows you to ignore all of the other sources which state single sentence definitions in support of my position is preposterous.

    Funny how, IF murk is right, he is afraid to move forward using just my definition. Petrified. Runs screaming every time it is suggested.

    What’s funny is that you are the one that is petrified and runs screaming every time I have suggested we move forward using my definition. If there is any evidence at all in your favor, you should not be afraid to define evolution properly. Instead you stick your head in the sand and deceptively define evolution as an observable fact that no one disagrees with so that you need not produce any evidence at all.

    The only one wallowing in goo is murk. I've been very clear and consistent. I've even proposed using my definition for just microevolution, but even there murk ran screaming from the debate. I've been ready and willing and able to move on.
    You will note that I provided the evidence in the above linked messages and more to move the debate forward from murks stonewalling on the definitions, and he refused to discuss anything but his misperception of evolution.

    You have been neither clear nor consistent and the definition you have proposed is ambiguous and misleading. You have waffled on whether change in species over time is a process or a theory and now you are waffling on the definition itself. It’s obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about and clearly have no clue as to what the science or scientists mean by evolution since you ignore leading sources and even some of the most respected evolutionists of our time who disagree with you.

    On the other hand, my definition has been unwavering since the beginning. It is clear, concise, complete and is supported by the majority of references we have cited as well as leading evolutionists and scientists. Yet, you stubbornly insist on using YOUR definition in order to move forward and refuse to debate the merits of the definitions themselves, choosing instead to stick your head in the sand and ignore the evidence. You are indeed ready and willing to move on because you have totally lost this debate and refuse to admit it. You continue to stonewall and refuse to discuss anything unless it is YOUR definition, on YOUR terms. Sorry, but that is not a debate, it is you talking to yourself to make you feel good about your unsupportable position.

    …mw


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2007 12:00 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2007 9:55 AM MurkyWaters has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 100 of 121 (409574)
    07-10-2007 9:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 99 by MurkyWaters
    07-10-2007 12:27 AM


    ADMINS: please move to {Biological Evolution} forum
    Just the high points again.

    Wrong. They are necessary because the definitions include them,

    This claim has previously been falsified. The Berkeley definition alone is sufficient to show this. You have also yet to show that a definition without them is insufficient.

    ... , the definition of “kind” I have already provided should suffice, which is no less arbitrary than what you have provided for the definition of “species”.

    I asked for a definition: where is it? Note that I have been through the whole thread and NOT ONCE have you defined this term. What you have done is equivocate on "kind" per my definition (and as used in other definitions of evolution) with "biblical kind" which you use elsewhere: this is another logical fallacy.

    So stop dancing around the issue and clarify it: give us a concise, usable definition for what you mean "kind" -- one that can be used in an unbiased manner.

    Regarding substitution, if “Joe is tall” and “tall” is defined as anything “over 7 feet”, then “Joe is over 7 feet” is a true statement. This is more applicable in definitions which reference micro and macro and then explain what micro and macro is later.

    Thank you for making my point: the definition can be substituted for the word and have the same meaning by the rules of substitution. This does not apply to bits and selected parts of extended encyclopedic explanations of the definitions, which is what you keep attempting to do (specifically with the Berkeley definition).

    So, have you decided to change your definition to “hereditary change in species over time”? If so (and if we were discussing the evidence for or against the theory), you would need to show that this process can produce the theoretical results stated in the theory of evolution – namely, that it is sufficient to produce all the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor which arose billions of years ago from non-life. You have not done this: all you have done is simply insist that it is true.

    Actually (1) I have not changed: I have always said that the change was genetic, and (2) I have suggested moving in that direction several times, and I have produced evidence for it: you have consistently refused to pursue this aspect. You cannot hold your failure to pursue this aspect of the debate to my account: it is all yours.

    On the other hand, my definition has been unwavering since the beginning.

    Which does not stop you from being wrong.

    Your first "definition" was in Message 8: "Evolution Theory - Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means." This is not the same as what you are now claiming.

    But I agree with your being "unwavering" as this is just as I have said: you have been completely unwilling to compromise. I have suggested several compromises to use as a working definition for further debate, all of which you have rejected while you continue to stonewall.

    Your "definition" does not include a process by which evolution occurs, and all it amounts to is a list of observations of what has been accomplished by evolution and the time frame that we see in the evidence around us. That is not what a theory is. You seem to think you have "caught me out" in a "big mistake" by saying change in species over time is a process and a theory, when the theory applies the process to the evidence. Your failure to include a process that explains the phenomena leaves your "definition" empty at the core.

    I did not “want” it here. ... Perhaps in an open forum there might be others that are more interested in a real pursuit of truth.

    As you wish, we will have this moved to an open forum. Biological Evolution is the logical one.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : added comments.

    Edited by RAZD, : clarified


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-10-2007 12:27 AM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-11-2007 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 101 of 121 (409576)
    07-10-2007 9:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNWR
    07-29-2006 6:46 PM


    Please move to {Biological Evolution}
    See previous two messages. Also remove "(RAZD v MurkyWaters & ?)" from the title.

    Thanks.

    Edited by RAZD, : title change


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 07-29-2006 6:46 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 3393 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 102 of 121 (409813)
    07-11-2007 12:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
    07-10-2007 9:55 AM


    The theory of evolution is not CISOT

    Wrong. They [concepts other than change in species over time] are necessary because the definitions include them,

    This claim has previously been falsified. The Berkeley definition alone is sufficient to show this.

    Just keep telling yourself that. Repeat a lie often enough and someone will believe it including yourself. Stating something doesn’t make it true. I have irrefutably shown by the evidence that your claim is false and mine is true. This is obvious by your lack of attempts to refute it. Instead, you want to cherry pick one definition among the 60 which you think agrees with you and ignore the rest. This is the same technique you use in attempts to demonstrate evolutionary evidence. Find one thing you can desperately cling to and ignore all the other evidence crashing down around you. It’s not going to work here. Two can play at that game, but I’ll be more comprehensive. Consider the following 8 definitions (any emphasis mine):

    (6) - (Modern Biology, Its Conceptual Foundations” by Elof Axel Carlson
    “Evolution: a theory of complexity in the organization of life from the origins of life to the present with the premise that all life is related by common descent to the first forms of life on earth.”

    (7) - Barnes and Noble Thesaurus of Biology
    “Evolution: the process by which more complex forms of life have arisen from simpler forms over millions of years.”

    (8) - Concise Dictionary of Biology (Oxford University Press)
    Defines evolution as “The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believe to have been continuing for at least the past 3000 million years.”

    (29) - Dictionary by Labor Law Talk
    http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/biological%20evolution
    “This theory [modern theory of evolution] states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.”

    (48) - Biology, Campbell, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Addison-Wesley, 1993: “Evolution - All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today. “

    (52) - Concise Encyclopedia of Biology
    “Evolutionary theory: a theory founded in particular by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), that the variety of living forms on the Earth is the result of a lengthy and complicated process known as evolution, and that this process still continues today. In the course of evolution, the numerous and various modern living forms descended from a few primitive forms with a low level of organisation. The E.t. is now accepted by all serious scientists.

    (54) World Book Encyclopedia, 2004, World book, Inc.
    “The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed through the ages to produce millions of species is known as the theory of organic evolution. Most people call it simply the theory of evolution. “

    (59) – “Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia”, 8th Edition by Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995
    “EVOLUTION (Biological): the theory that life on earth developed gradually from one or several simple organisms (appropriate molecules) to more complex organisms. Sometimes call organic evolution.”

    These 8 definitions from universal and well respected sources are sufficient alone to refute the silly notion that evolution can be boiled down to a cute but useless slogan of “change in species over time”. Give it up Raz.

    You have also yet to show that a definition without them is insufficient.

    I have shown this with almost every breath. It doesn’t need to be repeated. Please either read my posts or give up this debate if it is too much work for you.


    ... , the definition of “kind” I have already provided should suffice, which is no less arbitrary than what you have provided for the definition of “species”.

    I asked for a definition: where is it? Note that I have been through the whole thread and NOT ONCE have you defined this term.

    See post 87. I have repeatedly asked for a definition of species. Where have you defined species in any response to me?

    What you have done is equivocate on "kind" per my definition (and as used in other definitions of evolution) with "biblical kind" which you use elsewhere: this is another logical fallacy.

    I’ve done nothing of the sort. You are the one using a logical fallacy but equivocating the general definition with the one used by science.

    So stop dancing around the issue and clarify it: give us a concise, usable definition for what you mean "kind" -- one that can be used in an unbiased manner.

    If you need further clarification when we discuss evidence, I’d be glad to oblige. It is unnecessary to go into further detail to determine the correct statement of the theory of evolution which is what this debate is about.

    Actually (1) I have not changed [the definition of evolution]: I have always said that the change was genetic, and (2) I have suggested moving in that direction several times, and I have produced evidence for it: you have consistently refused to pursue this aspect. You cannot hold your failure to pursue this aspect of the debate to my account: it is all yours.

    You may have “said” that change was genetic but you have not included it in your definition. Do you expect those consuming your false definition to be mind readers? Actually, I suspect not, since the objective of the definition is clearly to deceive people into thinking that evolution could be possible. You’ve left heredity out just as you have left out all the other necessary components of the theory. You failure to include them in the definition IS to be held to your account.


    On the other hand, my definition has been unwavering since the beginning.

    Which does not stop you from being wrong.

    Neither does it stop me from being right.

    Your first "definition" was in Message 8: "Evolution Theory - Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means." This is not the same as what you are now claiming.

    Wow. I’m shocked. This is an outright bald-faced lie. You are stooping to incredible and desperate attempts to misrepresent the facts of this debate in order to move the focus from your failed position. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised since your entire position has been intended to misrepresent what evolution actually is.

    But I agree with your being "unwavering" as this is just as I have said: you have been completely unwilling to compromise. I have suggested several compromises to use as a working definition for further debate, all of which you have rejected while you continue to stonewall.

    You have suggested nothing of the sort. Your supposed compromise has been to use your definition! That is NOT a compromise. On the other hand I have suggested numerous compromises which you have refused to accept and continue to stonewall.

    Your "definition" does not include a process by which evolution occurs, and all it amounts to is a list of observations of what has been accomplished by evolution and the time frame that we see in the evidence around us. That is not what a theory is. You seem to think you have "caught me out" in a "big mistake" by saying change in species over time is a process and a theory, when the theory applies the process to the evidence. Your failure to include a process that explains the phenomena leaves your "definition" empty at the core.

    Wrong. You have purposely turned things around to hide your errors. My definition DOES NOT include a list of observations. It includes THEORETICAL components for which evidence and proof is sought. That is EXACTLY what a theory is. On the other hand, your “definition” is simply an observation of FACT. This is NOT a theory; there is no theoretical component involved with it at all. It does not include any of the processes such as mutations or natural selection (and others) which are proposed to account for the theoretical results that the theory states are possible. Therefore, why would you insist that mine should? You have already admitted that change in species over time is a process and NOT a statement for the theory of evolution, and yet you continue this charade that somehow it is. Your failure to include a theory in your definition leaves it empty at the core.


    I did not “want” it here. ... Perhaps in an open forum there might be others that are more interested in a real pursuit of truth.

    As you wish, we will have this moved to an open forum. Biological Evolution is the logical one.

    It is not as I wish. As I have stated many times, my wish was for us to explore the truth in a spirit of openness and cooperation. Instead you have chosen to approach this debate from a position of arrogance, disrespect and belittlement of other’s positions. Since you have clearly lost the debate and any respect for the truth, I’m open to you getting help from others by moving the debate.

    …mw


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2007 9:55 AM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 103 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2007 8:56 PM MurkyWaters has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 103 of 121 (409868)
    07-11-2007 8:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 102 by MurkyWaters
    07-11-2007 12:36 PM


    Still stonewalling -- time to move thread.
    Only the stuff worth replying to.

    I have shown this with almost every breath. It doesn’t need to be repeated. Please either read my posts or give up this debate if it is too much work for you.

    You don't do this by listing more definitions, you do this by showing that a definition without them is inadequate. This you have not even begun to do -- rather you have run from it every time.

    See post 87.
    If you need further clarification when we discuss evidence, I’d be glad to oblige.

    Nope -- there is no definition of "kind" there.

    Until you provide a working definition of what you mean, the standard definition is the only one that CAN be used, and by it's definition a new species is a new kind of animal: speciation has occurred, ergo one kind of animal has evolved into another.

    And no, you do not get to decide what your definition will be as the evidence is discussed: put it up or admit you have no working definition that is usable.

    Wow. I’m shocked. This is an outright bald-faced lie.

    So you are saying that

    Message 8
    Evolution Theory - Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means.

    (which is just abiogenesis, btw) and

    Message 87
    (2) The theory of evolution, on the other hand, can be stated as “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form.” This can be equated with the commonly used terms “macroevolution” (used by evolutionist) or simply “theory of evolution” (used by creationists).

    Are exactly the same? You have changed "life" to "all the living forms" and you have inserted "a single common ancestor" that was not there originally. Plus you have added the term "macroevolution" which implies something else as well - IF your ARE going to equate it with what evolutionists call "macroevolution" (which is different from your definition). Yes it is different in several key aspects.

    Note that your latest definition does not include a LOT of the things on your list of elements that you deem absolutely necessary in your review of definitions (where is complexity, diversity, etc?): thus you also disregard your own arguments to stick to your false preconceptions. That is stonewalling.

    Neither does it stop me from being right.

    The fact that you do not include any elements used in the Berkeley DEFINITION means you are DE FACTO wrong. It is that simple: you are not an authority on what the theory of evolution is, Berkeley is: they teach the science.

    Since you have clearly lost the debate and any respect for the truth, I’m open to you getting help from others by moving the debate.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : fixed quote box


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-11-2007 12:36 PM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-12-2007 10:57 AM RAZD has responded

    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 3393 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 104 of 121 (409940)
    07-12-2007 10:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
    07-11-2007 8:56 PM


    Re: Still stonewalling -- time to move thread.
    Only the stuff worth replying to.

    What you really mean is “only the stuff that you have an answer for”. You refuse to answer my questions or respond to any arguments for which you have been shown to be false. THAT is stonewalling.

    You don't do this [show that CISOT is insufficient] by listing more definitions, you do this by showing that a definition without them [additional elements] is inadequate. This you have not even begun to do -- rather you have run from it every time.

    The many definitions is the evidence that YOU have chosen to focus on in this debate. Now you are abandoning them because they have shown you to be false in your assertion. From the beginning and throughout this debate I have insisted on wanting to address the definitions on their merits and have presented volumes of evidence other than the definitions to demonstrate that CISOT is insufficient without additional elements included. You are the one that has run from it by refusing to respond or engage in those arguments because they have shown you to false as well.

    See post 87.
    If you need further clarification when we discuss evidence, I’d be glad to oblige.

    Nope -- there is no definition of "kind" there.

    And no, you do not get to decide what your definition will be as the evidence is discussed: put it up or admit you have no working definition that is usable.

    There is as much a usable definition of “kind” there as you have provided for “species”. And yes, I do get to decide when we discuss it in more detail, because it is irrelevant to our current topic of determining a correct statement for the theory of evolution. If you are ready to admit you are wrong about the definition we can move on to applying the definition to the evidence including species and kinds. And no, you do not get to divert the discussion to irrelevant topics to avoid admitting you are wrong about the definitions.


    Wow. I’m shocked. This is an outright bald-faced lie.

    So you are saying that…


    Message 8
    Evolution Theory - Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means.

    No, I’m saying that I have never defined evolution as “life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means”. That is the lie that you are now attempting to propagate to divert attention from your own waffling on the definition.

    Note that your latest definition does not include a LOT of the things on your list of elements that you deem absolutely necessary in your review of definitions (where is complexity, diversity, etc?): thus you also disregard your own arguments to stick to your false preconceptions. That is stonewalling.

    The definition used by science and scientists (All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form) contains all of the elements that I have said are necessary to explain the theory. They need not be stated explicitly. I’ll repeat those factors again for your reading pleasure which I listed in post 87 if you were paying attention:

    1) Change which occurs over long ages (millions/billions of years) – this is explicitly stated in the definition.
    2) Change which produces new “Kinds” – Kinds (forms) are explicitly stated in the definition
    3) Change which is responsible for all life found on earth from a common ancestor – this is explicitly stated in the definition.
    4) Change which produces greater information content (complexity) – This is implied since the definition states that all living forms today arose from a common ancestor. You do agree that a human being is more complex than some primordial goo, don’t you?

    You have again been shown to misrepresent what has been said in this debate. It is getting difficult to trust anything you say at this point.

    The fact that you do not include any elements used in the Berkeley DEFINITION means you are DE FACTO wrong. It is that simple: you are not an authority on what the theory of evolution is, Berkeley is: they teach the science.

    I include all of the elements in the Berkeley definition. You are the one that is removing them to leave only CISOT. Neither are you an authority on what the theory of evolution is. Berkeley is just one of many authoritative sources we have referenced which in total show that you are DE FACTO wrong. It is that simple.

    …mw


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2007 8:56 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2007 4:08 PM MurkyWaters has responded
     Message 108 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2007 8:24 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 105 of 121 (409988)
    07-12-2007 4:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 104 by MurkyWaters
    07-12-2007 10:57 AM


    Re: Still stonewalling -- time to move thread.
    What you really mean is “only the stuff that you have an answer for”. You refuse to answer my questions or respond to any arguments for which you have been shown to be false. THAT is stonewalling.

    No, the rest of your posts are generally whining and continued misuse of information. Wasted bandwidth.

    The many definitions is the evidence that YOU have chosen to focus on in this debate. Now you are abandoning them because they have shown you to be false in your assertion.

    On the contrary: I have shown how they support my definition, and how you misrepresent information to arrive at your lists. I don't need to keep doing this every time you present another false list that continues to make the same errors.

    From the beginning and throughout this debate I have insisted on wanting to address the definitions on their merits and have presented volumes of evidence other than the definitions to demonstrate that CISOT is insufficient without additional elements included.

    No, all you have done is ASSERTED it is insufficient, you have not SHOWN it to be so. You have also RUN from every discussion of evidence.

    There is as much a usable definition of “kind” there as you have provided for “species”. And yes, I do get to decide when we discuss it in more detail,

    In other words you admit that Message 87 has no definition of "kind" as you are using it and neither does any other message: contrary to your assertion that you had presented a definition. Another falsehood you are caught in and trying to cover up.

    No you do not get to "tailor" your definition to suit when it comes to evidence: you put it up to be tested fairly or admit that you are playing a hid-the-pea shell game with your "definition".

    Btw, you may want to read Message 96 before you assert that I have not defined species again. You will find it fairly similar to definitions used by scientists. For another definition you can use the one from the forum glossary:

    http:///WebPages/Glossary.html#S

    quote:
    A basic taxonomic category for which there are various definitions. Among these are an interbreeding or potentially interbreeding group of populations reproductively isolated from other groups (the biological species concept) and a lineage evolving separately from others with its own unitary evolutionary role and tendencies (Simpson's evolutionary species concept). Employing the terms of population genetics, some definitions can be combined into the concept that a species is a population of individuals bearing distinctive genes and gene frequencies, separated from other species by biological barriers preventing gene exchange.

    That last sentence would apply equally to sexual and asexual species. It can be applied to any group of individuals to see whether they comply with the definition or not. It can be applied to humans and it can be applied to bacteria. It doesn't help us with ancient species where there is no genetic material available, such as fossils: all we can do there is look at the number of similarities between previous and following fossils and the pattern of life in each environment. Thus non-arbitrary speciation events (such as pelycodus) that show a separation over time of a common ancestor population into two distinct and different daughter populations does show two species existing where one had before. Arbitrary speciation would involve feature modification over time to the point where the resulting descendant is noticeably different from the ancestor -- such as longer leg bones.

    No, I’m saying that I have never defined evolution as “life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means”.

    Sorry your Message 8 says otherwise.

    The definition used by science and scientists (All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form) contains all of the elements that I have said are necessary to explain the theory.

    You are now claiming that "(All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form)" is your definition, but it is not the one you gave that I quoted Message 87. Please. I (anyone) can read what you said:

    Message 87
    (2) The theory of evolution, on the other hand, can be stated as “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form.” This can be equated with the commonly used terms “macroevolution” (used by evolutionist) or simply “theory of evolution” (used by creationists).

    Pretty sad when you have to misrepresent even what YOU have said. Funny how it does NOT match with the definitions from Berkeley and U of Mich AT ALL.

    They need not be stated explicitly. I’ll repeat those factors again for your reading pleasure which I listed in post 87 if you were paying attention:

    1) Change which occurs over long ages (millions/billions of years) – this is explicitly stated in the definition.
    2) Change which produces new “Kinds” – Kinds (forms) are explicitly stated in the definition
    3) Change which is responsible for all life found on earth from a common ancestor – this is explicitly stated in the definition.
    4) Change which produces greater information content (complexity) – This is implied since the definition states that all living forms today arose from a common ancestor.

    I've said before these are a series of observations of the results of evolution. A list. It does not show how evolution OCCURS, which is what a theory would do.

    Tacking them on now and claiming they are parts of your definition that need not be stated explicitly is really hilarious when that is part of your claim for including them. You can't have it both ways Murk, you've been caught out again.

    And again you are equivocating between KIND as used in the STANDARD definition (as given in Message 98) and your implied "special" but undefined "KIND": kind here is just a different group or type of animals, there are different KINDS of DOGS. Evolution of different KINDS of species HAS OCCURRED and it has been observed.

    Several definitions use descent from common ancestors (plural), and not descent from a single common ancestor: you have continued to conflated these together to misrepresent this element as well. All those definitions mean is that several generations back two daughter populations had a common ancestor population: this refers to speciation events and nothing more. This too has been observed.

    For something to be explicitly necessary it needs to be included in every single scientific definition. What you claim as explicitly necessary is curiously missing from both the Berkeley and U of Mich Definitions: This PROVES they are not explicitly needed.

    Finally definitions don't IMPLY elements, they include them or they don't.

    You continue to misrepresent the facts. The facts of what the definitions really are and the facts of even what you post.

    You do agree that a human being is more complex than some primordial goo, don’t you?

    I repeat: give me a metric to measure the complexity by so that we can ascertain the specific level of complexity of every individual species, as without such a metric all this amounts to in an argument from incredulity. That is certainly not an element of a USABLE definition without such a metric.

    I include all of the elements in the Berkeley definition. You are the one that is removing them to leave only CISOT.

    quote:
    The Definition:
    Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

    That is the entire paragraph labeled DEFINITION. Note the specific reference to (hereditary) change in species over time. Note that A single common ancestor is NOT included, "long time" is NOT included, "complexity" is NOT included, "kinds" is NOT included (although speciation IS, being more specific and being part of the change is species over time). Certainly your "All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form" is NOT included anywhere in that definition. Stop misrepresenting the facts MURK.

    You misrepresent the facts, you even misrepresent what you previously said. You run from any application of theory to the evidence, and you try to use undefined terms in definitions as though they would mean something. You seem to think parroting what I say is cute, but all it shows is an inadequacy on your part to make your own argument.

    Yeah, that's wasted bandwidth.

    You want to debate in good faith, then start by defining "kind" in the way you mean it, and in a way that can be applied to the species present and past in a clear and unbiased manner.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : s

    Edited by RAZD, : forum glossary species definition and discussion added.


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 104 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-12-2007 10:57 AM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-13-2007 12:31 AM RAZD has responded

    Prev1
    ...
    456
    7
    89Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017