Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 6:45 AM
434 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 433 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,997 Year: 6,603/21,208 Month: 2,364/2,634 Week: 27/525 Day: 2/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 3397 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 106 of 121 (410055)
07-13-2007 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
07-12-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Still stonewalling -- time to move thread.
This debate is now getting pretty ridiculous. Your total wasted bandwidth is spent on nothing other than misrepresenting information, making false and misleading allegations, and then accusing others of misrepresentation which then needs to be defended. For example, I have clearly shown how you have misrepresented the definitions and that they support my position. You contend the opposite. That is called a stalemate. However, unless you are willing to defend my most recent post, I have to assume that you cannot defend it.


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.

Yes I have SHOWN it to be so. If you are actually willing to defend the logical arguments involved, I’d be willing to start over and restate them. By the way, is this debate moving? If so, perhaps it would be more appropriate to start over at that time.


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.

Who’s been caught is you making false allegations again, which occurs in almost every paragraph now. Where did I admit that I did not define “kind”. Nowhere. That’s you making things up again, just as you have regarding the statement of evolution.

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:

I said that you have never defined it in any response to ME. Please read more carefully (although I guess that something that you really don’t do), before you make more false allegations.


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.

Sorry, it doesn’t. This is very serious. Anyone can read this post. You know very well that this is not true. Please stop lying about this. I have given you several posts now to correct this error and you have not. I refuse to debate someone who has been caught in an out and out lie and refuses to acknowledge the fact. If you don’t retract this error, I am simply going to end my participation. I have better things to do than simply defend misrepresentations and lies about what has been said in this debate, which is what this post and if fact the entire debate has boiled down to.


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.

Are you on something? How is:

“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 the elements…

Different from:

Message 87 -
“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.”

Pretty sad when you begin to see differences in two identical items. Probably similar to the problems you have imaging things about the theory of evolution. Please. I (anyone) can see what I said.

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.

Saying something doesn’t make it true. They are NOT observations. Did someone observe the first life forming in some primordial slime? Has someone observed a monkey changing into a human? No, these are THEORETICAL parts of the statement. Change in species over time does NOT show how the change OCCURS. By your own words you are admitting that CISOT is NOT a theory.

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.

I been caught at nothing of the sort and you are not reading again. I have shown that 3 out of the 4 elements shown to be included in the referenced definitions are explicitly stated in mine. I could certainly include the 4th one if I wished, but it is simply redundant because it is already implied in the rest of the definition so it does not make sense to state it twice. You would think that you would appreciate that since you are the king of boiling things down to just a few words. You are the one that has been caught since you need to imply the entire theory of evolution from CISOT.

For something to be explicitly necessary it needs to be included in every single scientific definition.

No it doesn’t. This is exactly your problem. What we have seen is that sources define things many different ways, not all of them necessarily the correct way. Even your friends at talk origins insist that not all definitions found in universal sources are correct. That’s why the definitions should be debated on their merits. “Change in species” is not explicitly stated in all the definitions. Therefore, how can you insist that this is the correct definition! You have implied and rationalized “change in species” all over the place, just look at your post. You cannot take all the definitions (incorrect and correct) and boil it down to the simplest element. The result is a useless nothing which bears no resemblance to the theory. The correct approach is to look at what the MAJORITY of definitions are telling us.

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.

No it doesn’t. These are only 2 definitions out of 60. I have already pointed this error out. Plus I don’t agree that they are missing. However, it’s pointless to continue to re-analyze one or 2 definitions when there are 60 unless you want to go at it with every one of them again. I posted 8 definitions out of the 60 in my last post that clearly contradict your notion that evolution is CISOT alone and yet you choose to ignore these. That is being dishonest.

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

Again, you IMPLIED that many definitions contain “change in species” when they don’t use these words at all. You are implicating yourself with this statement. It is perfectly valid to say that a definition implies “long ages” when it mentions “billions of years” or that different kinds have been produced when they say that all life arose from a common ancestor.


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.

Now I’ve heard everything. To contend that a human being is no more complex than a single cell is the highest argument from incredulity that I’ve ever seen. If anyone has blinded themselves from the truth it is you.

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.

I may parrot your insults, but I make my own arguments, ones apparently you are incapable of defending. This post is enough to demonstrate who is misrepresenting the facts and who is misrepresenting what was previously said and that is YOU. Your accusations are made to cover up your own inadequacies. I have never run from the application of the theory to the evidence. It is you that refuses to use the correct statement of the theory. Therefore, how can it be applied to the evidence? A fantasy definition applied to the evidence produces more fantasy. And who is misrepresenting the facts? I don’t use the term “KIND” in my definition! “All the living forms in the world” include ALL life – every subspecies, every species, every kind. It is irrelevant to the statement of the theory. Since Kinds are included in all life, it comes into play when the theory is applied to the evidence. This is just you running away from your failed arguments by attempting to move the debate in another irrelevant direction.

…mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2007 4:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2007 12:52 PM MurkyWaters has responded

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


Message 107 of 121 (410148)
07-13-2007 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by MurkyWaters
07-13-2007 12:31 AM


STILL no definition for "kind" -- still misrepresenting the facts.
By the way, is this debate moving? If so, perhaps it would be more appropriate to start over at that time.

I am perfectly willing to move the debate and have asked admin to do so -- I don't have the authority to do this.

This debate is now getting pretty ridiculous. Your total wasted bandwidth is spent on nothing other than misrepresenting information, making false and misleading allegations, and then accusing others of misrepresentation which then needs to be defended. For example, I have clearly shown how you have misrepresented the definitions and that they support my position. You contend the opposite. That is called a stalemate.

Funny how I DOCUMENT your misrepresentations -- even of your own posts. This is not allegation, it is FACT. Yes it is stalemate because you are stonewalling, holding on to a false definition. I have done this with your use of definitions, and I have done it with your claims.

However, unless you are willing to defend my most recent post, I have to assume that you cannot defend it.

I don't defend your posts -- you do (or are supposed to). I refute them. With evidence that they are false or misleading or misrepresentative.

Yes I have SHOWN it to be so. If you are actually willing to defend the logical arguments involved, I’d be willing to start over and restate them.

False. All you have shown is an unwillingness to look at the evidence and actually SEE if the hereditary change in species over time is inadequate to explain what we see. Rehashing false representations of definitions doesn't do that, looking at the evidence does. You have RUN from the evidence issue every time I have brought it up: this is YOU stonewalling.

Who’s been caught is you making false allegations again, which occurs in almost every paragraph now. Where did I admit that I did not define “kind”. Nowhere. That’s you making things up again, just as you have regarding the statement of evolution.

Pathetic. You claimed you defined "kind" and I demonstrated that you had not. Rather than point to where you actually did define the term you made a false allegation that you had in Message 87 and when challenged on THAT claim you fall back on dodging the issue of definition altogether: THAT is an admission that you have not provided such definition -- you cannot produce it in past posts.

I said that you have never defined it in any response to ME. Please read more carefully (although I guess that something that you really don’t do), before you make more false allegations.

I went back to look for where you actually asked for such a definition. Surprise - I could not find it anywhere. What I did find was Message 50:

RAZD writes:

There are several definitions of "species" that make this "dividing line" a little muddy. Most of the muddiness involves asexual species, species that reproduce only by cell division. In essence each individual is a sub-population that does not interact genetically with the other sub-populations (except by horizontal gene transfer, which is not necessarily species inter-specific either). Thus in asexual species the definition is fairly arbitrary: they are classed into species by the degree of similarity within groups. This is similar to the classification of species into higher taxons in traditional taxonomy.

The real issue for "macro"evolution with creationists apparently involves sexual species, so the species definition for asexual species is not that big an issue. For sexual species it is fairly well accepted that the failure to breed between two populations is sufficient evidence of speciation -- whether the two population can breed and produce viable hybrids is not considered relevant when the two populations by behavior don't breed. Certainly using sexual species and this definition of speciation to show speciation occurs will avoid any concern that the definition involved is arbitrary.

Thus I volunteered the information before you even asked. Time for you to volunteer your definition of "kind" -- IF you have one.

Sorry, it doesn’t. This is very serious. Anyone can read this post. You know very well that this is not true. Please stop lying about this. I have given you several posts now to correct this error and you have not. I refuse to debate someone who has been caught in an out and out lie and refuses to acknowledge the fact. If you don’t retract this error, I am simply going to end my participation. I have better things to do than simply defend misrepresentations and lies about what has been said in this debate, which is what this post and if fact the entire debate has boiled down to.

Message 8

Comparison of Creation and Evolution Theory


I think things can be made much clearer by comparing Creation Theory and Evolution Theory side by side.



Creation Theory Evolution Theory
God created the first living kinds approximately 6000 years ago. Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means.

Did you or did you not post that in Message 8? The evidence of your own post says you did. The context makes it very clear that you are listing what you think the theory of evolution is. That is your post and those are your words. Face it.

Are you on something? How is:
“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 the elements…
Different from:
Message 87 -
“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.”
Pretty sad when you begin to see differences in two identical items. Probably similar to the problems you have imaging things about the theory of evolution. Please. I (anyone) can see what I said.

Strangely that was my exactly point -- that they are the same definition when you seemed to be claiming otherwise -- and that you had somehow excluded all those elements you felt were so important to the theory of evolution in Message 87 in discussing the definitions, and which you then hurriedly tacked on in Message 105 with some lame excuse about them not being necessarily explicit in your definition when that is your whole argument in going over the definitions.

Your "definition" still fails to explain how it happened, which is what a theory does. Hereditary change is species over time is how life has evolved on earth. The science of evolution applies that theory to the evidence we see, from the first known life to the diversity of life we see today over the course of 3.5 billion years. Your "definition" is not of the theory but of the science.

Saying something doesn’t make it true. They are NOT observations. Did someone observe the first life forming in some primordial slime? Has someone observed a monkey changing into a human? No, these are THEORETICAL parts of the statement. Change in species over time does NOT show how the change OCCURS. By your own words you are admitting that CISOT is NOT a theory.

First off you keep referring to abiogenesis for the origin of the first life. What we observe - what the evidence shows - is the first known life occurred at least 3.5 billion years ago and that life has evolved since. Your "monkey changing into a human" is an observation but not the way your think (or imply with this statement): what is observed is the evolution of humans from monkey like primates over the course of many generations of speciation events that build up changes. There is no lump change as you imply - that is a creationist fantasy or a total misunderstanding (your choice). Hereditary change in species over time does indeed explain all those little changes along the way from monkey like primate to ape like primate to human.

No it doesn’t. This is exactly your problem. What we have seen is that sources define things many different ways, not all of them necessarily the correct way. ...
No it doesn’t. These are only 2 definitions out of 60.

Two definitions that happen to come from universities teaching the science of evolution, two definitions that are curiously similar and which also - curiously - include hereditary change in species over time. Two definition that also curiously make no mention of the origin of life OR billions of years OR the evolution of all life from a single common ancestor.

There are many other similar definitions as I have previously demonstrated, but I only need these two to refute your position.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

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.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html

quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

Note specifically that these are NOT anything like your definition in any way, shape or form. Note that both of these are hereditary change in species over time. Note that these are scientific definitions of the theory of evolution by universities teaching the science of evolution.

You cannot take all the definitions (incorrect and correct) and boil it down to the simplest element.

That's not what it is: it is eliminating all the unnecessary elements to focus on those that are necessary -- this is known in science as the principle of parsimony, or Occam's razor. You then TEST the theory against the FACTS to check that it is adequate. This is how science operates.

Again, you IMPLIED that many definitions contain “change in species” when they don’t use these words at all.

No, what I have consistently said is that hereditary change in species over time can be stated several different ways: descent with modification, change in frequency of alleles in populations and the like. You can see this is the very first time I introduced this terminology with you:

Message 1
RAZD writes:

Message 9:
Evolution is change in species over time


And I also gave the dictionary definition of evolution:
For instance - dictionary.com defines evolution as:
ev·o·lu·tion
3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

My definition matches the standard biological definition 3a, albeit a trifle simplified, so I in fact have not changed it to suit my argument -- you can insert definition 3a into my argument and it remains the same.

Stating the same thing different ways is not saying that something is implied.

Now I’ve heard everything. To contend that a human being is no more complex than a single cell is the highest argument from incredulity that I’ve ever seen. If anyone has blinded themselves from the truth it is you.

Except that is NOT what I said -- you are misrepresenting the issue again (big surprise). What I said was that for this concept (complexity) to be usable in science it has to be measurable. Science uses objective measures so they can be repeated by others to obtain similar results. Without a metric to measure it what you have is a subjective element that has no place in science.

I have never run from the application of the theory to the evidence.

Here we go again:

In Message 20 I suggest using microevolution (with a rather complete description) as a starting point to look at the evidence and see how it applies. You ignored this.

In Message 22 I introduced the information of horse evolution and the evolution of man from a common ancestor with other apes, and I suggested AGAIN that we start with microevolution. You dismissed the evidence and still refused to take up the issue of microevolution -- your response was

Message 23
I would be happy to start with the precept that evolution is only macroevolution. We already know that what keeps microevolution from becoming macroevolution is the fact that it is not evolution.

That is failure on your part to address the issue of the evidence and what is shown by microevolution. All you have is your assertion, NOT evidence.

In Message 24 I introduced the evidence of Tiktaalik and your response was

Message 26
All that Tiktaalik appears to be is another example of a lobe-finned fish.

Further failure on your part to address what the evidence shows, an intermediate form, and one that was predicted before it was found.

In Message 25 I introduced the evidence of microevoution as shown by the foraminifera and your response was

Message 26
Regarding the Foraminifers, I’m surprised you have raised this example. ...
The Chalk beds (consisting of forams, among others) were laid down during and shortly after the flood in “blooms” ...

my reply was

Message 27
You would also have to compress 500,000 years of evolution into one year. That's 1370 years worth per day, 57 years worth per hour or about one years worth per minute. Their lives aren't that short.
...
I notice that you did not address the issue of the forams being evidence for "micro"evolution. This is another whole level above the issue of "changes in moth, bacteria and finch populations" as it involves multiple speciation events within an order of organisms.
Do you admit that the forams show "micro"evolution occurred?
Note that I have specified that we can agree on an interim definition that "micro"evolution is change in species over time, and then proceed on that basis to see where it leads. The post on foraminifera is on that basis.

You ran from the issue of the evidence of forams being evidence for microevolution. You failed to explain the sorting of the forams with your model -- all you do is deny the depth of evidence and try to divert the issue to something else: run away.

In Message 28 I introduced initial evidence for the age of the earth being substantially greater that the creationist model.

Your response was:

Message 30
This post is completely irrelevant to my quote regarding “Billions of years” dating methods as this is not one. Plus it is completely irrelevant to our topic regarding definitions, so I will not respond further except to say that there are different interpretations of this data.

In Message 33 I document further evidence that the world is older than the creationist model.

Your response was

Message 38
Thankfully, this post is another on the evidence which is irrelevant to our topic of definitions.

and

Message 42
I'll be happy to refute this evidence when we've finished our prior discussion on definitions. ...

Run run away. As you continue to do in Message 34

I’m not shying away from the evidence. I’d just like to do it in an organized and fair fashion AFTER we’ve defined what we are providing evidence FOR via the definitions.

Run away.

In Message 39 I say

Then let's discuss how far microevolution can get us and see where we are when that is done.
Refusing to make any move forward is not helping this debate. All you have done is stone-wall on the first topic and refuse to move forward on either path I have suggested that can help resolve the issue from a different angle:
Microevolution, and
Age of the Earth.
From you response to microevolution it appears that we need to discuss the age of the earth first before proceeding with that as well.
Then we can come back to microevolution and THEN proceed with the discussion of macroevolution.

No response on the issue of evidence for microevolution and the age of the earth. None. Run run away.

I don’t use the term “KIND” in my definition!

Yet here in Message 105 you claim:

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?

So you include it but you don't include it. You include it in your list of "must be included" elements for the definition, exclude it from your definition but then claim that it is included in your definition and now say you are not using it when clearly you listed it.

You specifically modify "Kinds" with "(forms)" even though this is not part of the standard definition and this shows your equivocation on this term between the standard definition and something else that you have yet to define.

You still fail to provide a usable definition of "kind" - running away again? Or is the reality that you have no definition that can be used and want to waffle on the issue and change your definitions to suit your argument (as you have done with the theory of evolution)?

Your failure to produce a definition for "kind" is just the latest example of your failure to debate honestly. Run run away.

Or you can accept the standard definition of "kind" previously given in Message 98:

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.

From which it is evident that different "kinds" of dogs have evolved and that this means nothing higher than variety. This would be the meaning in the many definitions that you have quoted yet try to misrepresent as something larger in meaning.

So which is it Murk? A usable definition of kind or more stonewalling and more running from the debate?

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 106 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-13-2007 12:31 AM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-27-2007 9:46 PM RAZD has responded

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


Message 108 of 121 (410555)
07-15-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by MurkyWaters
07-12-2007 10:57 AM


On the merits of your definition ...
The requirements for a general definition for the theory of evolution would be that it be able to be applied from time {A} to time {B} regardless of whether the interval is a day, a year, a million years of the full known history of life on earth, 3.5 billion years minimum.

On this basis we can evaluate your definition on it's merits by it's ability to do this -- including all your hastily tacked on list items from your previous "must have" elements from your bogus review of definitions:

Message 104
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?

Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week immediately shows that including "over billions of years" makes it inadequate for this task. Strike one.

This also means your conflation (your #1) of "millions" of years with billions of years is also irrelevant, as even including only millions of years means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike two.

This also means your conflation (your #1 again) of "long ages" with billions of years is also irrelevant, as even including only "long ages" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike three.

Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week immediately shows that including "a single common ancestor" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike four.

You also conflated (your #3) common ancestor for new species with the concept of a single common ancestor at the dawn of time -- this aspect of heredity can be used to help define species, as each species would come from a common ancestral pool of genes when that species came into existence. Being able to talk about natural selection and variations between individuals within a species population is useful, seeing as evolution occurs within species. This aspect of common ancestor can be applied to any time period, whether it is a day or a week or millions of years or billions of years. We'll be generous and call that easy lob a ball (it's not a hit for your definition anyway, and you certainly didn't swing at it).

Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week immediately shows that including life coming "from an inorganic form" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike five.

You have also conflated origin of a new species with origin of all life, when this is just speciation. This too is useful in talking about natural selection and variations between individuals within a species population is useful, seeing as evolution occurs within species. This aspect of the origin of a species can be applied to any time period, whether it is a day or a week or millions of years or billions of years. We'll be generous and call that easy lob a ball (it's not a hit for your definition anyway, and you certainly didn't swing at it).

Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week immediately shows that including produces new “Kinds” (forms) means this element is inadequate for this task -- IF you use "Kinds" to only mean macroevolution development of major taxons or the identifying characteristics used to determine those taxons. Strike six.

But you have again conflated (your #2) the use of new "kinds" in definitions where they are talking about nothing more than new varieties with your preconception of macroevolutionary change. When we use THIS definition of "kind" (the common dictionary definition given before), then this can be applied to any time period, whether it is a day or a week or millions of years or billions of years. We'll be generous and call that easy lob a ball (it's not a hit for your definition anyway, and you certainly didn't swing at it).

The concept (4) of "greater information content (complexity)" does not show up in your summary definition anywhere. Strike seven.

Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week, or the time it takes, say, the galapogos finches to grow large beaks and then to grow small beaks (thus reversing and "information" content "increase") immediately shows that including "greater information content (complexity)" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike eight.

Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week, or a million years, or the time it takes, say, for the full history of life (3.5 billion years minimum) for the evolution of cyanobacteria must evolve into something "more complex" and yet there they are today as relatively "complex" as they were at the begining of known history, thus immediately showing that including "greater information content (complexity)" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike nine. Your side is retired without a single hit.

And you are out of concepts to evaluate for a general theory of evolution.

To be generous we can look at it as a special theory of evolution -- similar to the difference between general relativity and special relativity -- and see what it can do. Your theory claims it must apply from the whole period complete from day zero to the present, thus the only special condition it can apply to is the full history of life on earth (3.5 billion years minimum) and not a second less. It does not, however, talk about any intermediate steps. That's a bunt, and you get to take off for first base, but you can't get there and turn around to run back to home: your theory only works at home plate and you can't cover the bases. You can't explain normal population variation, speciation, selection, diversity between species and the different effects of different environments\ecologies. You are out of players and forfeit the game, this with you throwing all the pitches to your own batters.

That's purely on the merits of your definition in being able to be applied to the actual field of evolution and any study of different parts and aspects of it.

Now let's review those instances where you were given balls ...

(1) using "a common ancestral pool of genes" as a definition of species allows us to talk about the changes to those genes over time - any period of time. This is hereditary change in species over time (a hit for me).

(2) using "origin of a new species" as a point for defining a species allows us to talk about the changes to that species over time - any period of time. This is hereditary change in species over time (another hit for me).

(3) using the common dictionary definition of "kind" means we are talking about a new variety or a new species occurring within the time period of the study. This is hereditary change in species over time (and another hit for me).

In fact you can easily apply hereditary change in species over time to any time period from a day, to the oscillating pattern of the galapogos finches, to the evolution of cyanobacteria over the full 3.5 billion year history of life to study the amount of change and the pattern of evolution over that time period. That's a home run ... with the bases loaded.

Looks like a clean sweep for hereditary change in species over time as a general theory of evolution.

You lose on merit as well as on misrepresenting the facts about your definition.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : cyanobacteria

Edited by RAZD, : bunt to home


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 not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 3397 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 109 of 121 (413147)
07-27-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
07-13-2007 12:52 PM


Logical Merits of the Definitions
Funny how I DOCUMENT your misrepresentations -- even of your own posts. This is not allegation, it is FACT. Yes it is stalemate because you are stonewalling, holding on to a false definition. I have done this with your use of definitions, and I have done it with your claims.

Yes, it is funny since you have not documented a single instance where I have misrepresented the facts, only groundless allegations to hide your own misrepresentations. I don’t need to look back at past comments to document your misrepresentations. I will document the most egregious of them, in fact an outright lie, in this very post. Those are the facts. Your accusations of stonewalling are simply childish. If I am stonewalling, you certainly are, by holding on to your false definition.

I don't defend your posts -- you do (or are supposed to). I refute them. With evidence that they are false or misleading or misrepresentative.

However you haven’t even attempted to refute it, which is the point I intended to make.


Yes I have SHOWN it to be so. If you are actually willing to defend the logical arguments involved, I’d be willing to start over and restate them.

False. All you have shown is an unwillingness to look at the evidence and actually SEE if the hereditary change in species over time is inadequate to explain what we see. Rehashing false representations of definitions doesn't do that, looking at the evidence does. You have RUN from the evidence issue every time I have brought it up: this is YOU stonewalling.

Evidence for or against evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how evolution is defined. This is just YOU stonewalling by attempting to change the topic and refusing to defend the merits of the definitions. You have RUN from doing this every time it is brought up. We need not rehash false representations you have made of the definitions to look at the merits of the definitions themselves. You are the one that chose that path. However, your false misrepresentations seem to be all the evidence you have been able to produce and therefore run screaming from the notion of actually defending your definition on it’s merits.

Pathetic. You claimed you defined "kind" and I demonstrated that you had not.

What’s pathetic is that you have NEVER demonstrated that I have not defined “kind”, you simply stated another one of your misrepresentations that I had not. If a detailed dissertation on kinds had any relevance to our debate, I would be glad to redefine it for you. However, as it stands, that is not the case. This is just another attempt by you to distract the conversation into another area to avoid debating the definitions on there merits.


Comparison of Creation and Evolution Theory


I think things can be made much clearer by comparing Creation Theory and Evolution Theory side by side.



Creation Theory Evolution Theory
God created the first living kinds approximately 6000 years ago. Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means.

Did you or did you not post that in Message 8? The evidence of your own post says you did. The context makes it very clear that you are listing what you think the theory of evolution is. That is your post and those are your words. Face it.

I cannot believe you are continuing to propagate this lie. I am now demanding an apology or this debate is over as far as I’m concerned. If you cannot even budge on something as obvious as this, there is no point in continuing anyway. Let me make this perfectly clear. This is the statement you have made in post 100:

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.

This is completely untrue. I defined the theory of evolution in the section of message 8 labeled “definitions” as the following:

“Evolution (hypothesis) - The {hypothesis/belief} 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.“

This is exactly how I’ve continued to define it throughout this debate. You are doing the same thing here with my posts as you have done with the definitions – you are cherry picking from a complete explanation to purposely misrepresent what has been said, so I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

You have hit upon one of many logical arguments that I have made against using CISOT as a statement of evolutionary theory, one that you have never responded to. This is simply the first entry of a complete TABLE which compares the individual COMPONENTS of evolutionary theory with those of creation theory (all of which reside in this section labeled “comparison of creation and evolution theory”). The clear context is that this is only one of several components of the theory. The others immediately follow.

I make this clear by stating “Now that we are at the same starting point, we can continue with our comparison” which then proceeds to a continuation of the table as listed below:






Creation Theory Evolution Theory
Initial created kinds reproduce after the flood to populate the earth, “adapting” to their environments quickly through natural selection to produce much variability but only within their kinds. Overall, however, life is deteriorating from its initial perfection through mutations, re-shuffling and loss of genetic information. All life we see today arose from a common ancestor (original “prototype”) by purely natural means. This occurred through a very slow and gradual process of natural selection coupled with mutations which has produced completely new and more complex genetic information in subsequent generations.





Creation Theory Evolution Theory
The change in species over time. The change in species over time.

Nowhere did I say that any of these individual components were the “definition” of evolution. The point that was being made is if you remove the essential components of evolution theory from the definition as you have been attempting to do, then it is also valid for the creationist to remove the corresponding components from creation theory. We are then left with 2 identical statements. I notice that you were not insisting that I was defining evolutionary theory as “the change in species over time” using the last table instead of the first one. Since you cherry picked the first table from the clearly visible remaining ones, ignoring both my explanation and the section labeled definitions where I do indeed define the theory of evolution, I can only conclude that you have done this purposely to distract from the fact that you have waffled on the definition and I have not. This was completely unnecessary since I’m perfectly willing to have you modify your definition if you so desire. I understand that people make mistakes. None of us are perfect. You ought to be man enough to admit when you are wrong.


Are you on something? How is:
“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 the elements…
Different from:
Message 87 -
“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.”
Pretty sad when you begin to see differences in two identical items. Probably similar to the problems you have imaging things about the theory of evolution. Please. I (anyone) can see what I said.

Strangely that was my exactly point -- that they are the same definition when you seemed to be claiming otherwise -- and that you had somehow excluded all those elements you felt were so important to the theory of evolution in Message 87 in discussing the definitions, and which you then hurriedly tacked on in Message 105 with some lame excuse about them not being necessarily explicit in your definition when that is your whole argument in going over the definitions.

No. The point you were making is that I had changed my definition. However these definitions are identical, so I have NOT changed my definition since the beginning of this debate or tacked anything onto it. All of the major factors necessary to explain evolutionary theory and which are contained in nearly all of the sources are explicitly stated in my definition except one and I gave a full explanation as to why since it is merely a restatement of another factor. However, being implicit makes it no less important. “Change in species over time” is not explicitly stated in any of the sourced definitions and yet you insist that this is what they are saying implicitly. So if any one has a lame excuse, it is you.

Your "definition" still fails to explain how it happened, which is what a theory does. Hereditary change is species over time is how life has evolved on earth. The science of evolution applies that theory to the evidence we see, from the first known life to the diversity of life we see today over the course of 3.5 billion years. Your "definition" is not of the theory but of the science.

You have no idea what you are talking about. We can get distracted and start a completely new debate about what a theory is. However, there are a few facts that we know for sure. The first is that there is no requirement for a theory to explain HOW something has happened. If it did yours would fail miserably since CISOT says nothing about HOW the change has occurred. The second is that a theory is NOT a fact, otherwise it would not be classified as a theory (this is not to say that theories cannot contain facts). Your definition also fails miserably on this account since CISOT is simply a factual observation and nothing else.

You’ve turned things on their head. HOW the theory works and HOW it is possible and HOW it happened is what the SCIENCE of evolution investigates and attempts to explain. The SCIENCE can simply be defined as the body of work which attempts to validate the theory by proposing mechanisms and performing experiments. CISOT is one of many factual observations which the science applies to explain the THEORY that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor billions of years ago. If you don’t have a theory to investigate, you don’t have a science.

Lastly, you have not answered my question. You have appeared to start using H-CISOT in place of CISOT. Are you or are you not formally changing your definition to H-CISOT? I need to know in order to respond properly to your comments.


Saying something doesn’t make it true. They are NOT observations. Did someone observe the first life forming in some primordial slime? Has someone observed a monkey changing into a human? No, these are THEORETICAL parts of the statement. Change in species over time does NOT show how the change OCCURS. By your own words you are admitting that CISOT is NOT a theory.

First off you keep referring to abiogenesis for the origin of the first life. What we observe - what the evidence shows - is the first known life occurred at least 3.5 billion years ago and that life has evolved since. Your "monkey changing into a human" is an observation but not the way your think (or imply with this statement): what is observed is the evolution of humans from monkey like primates over the course of many generations of speciation events that build up changes. There is no lump change as you imply - that is a creationist fantasy or a total misunderstanding (your choice). Hereditary change in species over time does indeed explain all those little changes along the way from monkey like primate to ape like primate to human.

We have NOT observed the formation of the first know life 3.5 billion years ago. If we did we would know exactly when it occurred, not “at least” 3.5 billion years. This is pure speculation (hypothesis or theory) which is in opposition to all known scientific laws and the evidence. On the other hand, creationists DO have an eyewitness account of the creation from the Bible.

I have implied no “lump change”. I said nothing about the length of time it may have taken to change a monkey into a human. You are again constructing an imaginary straw-man simply to denigrate creationists. Evolutionists are the ones that have proposed hopeful monsters and completely new species hatching from another’s eggs to explain the lack of evidence, NOT creationists. CISOT explains the change from monkey to human ONLY if you specify that this is the type of change you are talking about in the theory. Otherwise, you would have no clue.

There are many other similar definitions as I have previously demonstrated, but I only need these two [berkely and umich] to refute your position.

First, I contest your assumption that these definitions support your position. Ignoring that however, if you only need these 2 to refute my position, than I need only quote 2 of the remaining definitions (even though I supplied 8 of them in a recent post) to refute your position. Since I have more definitions refuting your position than you have, then I win. In addition, you seem to think that somehow these 2 particular universities are more authoritative than other sources or other universities which teach something else simply because you think they support your position. I don’t and they’re not.

Note specifically that these are NOT anything like your definition in any way, shape or form.

Not true. Definition 2 from Umich (macro evolution, which both sources insist are part of the definition of evolution) is very similar to mine. Note specifically however, that the 8 definitions I supplied in post 102 are NOT anything like your definition in any way, shape or form.


You cannot take all the definitions (incorrect and correct) and boil it down to the simplest element.

That's not what it is: it is eliminating all the unnecessary elements to focus on those that are necessary

That’s a joke. And who decides what is unnecessary or necessary? I would contend that it is NOT you. It would be the person who formulated the theory and/or the sources that state the theory by including the elements in their definitions. You have no right to remove them except for you own entertainment in your fantasy world.


Again, you IMPLIED that many definitions contain “change in species” when they don’t use these words at all.


No, what I have consistently said is that hereditary change in species over time can be stated several different ways: descent with modification, change in frequency of alleles in populations and the like. You can see this is the very first time I introduced this terminology with you:

You are missing the point. None of the definitions use the words “change in species over time”. This is a cute slogan that you have made up that says absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution. You boil down the definitions to this by excluding essential and necessary components of the theory. Since “change in species over time” is not EXPLICITLY stated in the definition, then it must be derived IMPLICITLY. So you cannot fault me if any way if part of my definition is implicit as well.

But since you brought it up, it makes absolutely no difference what you “mean” by your definitions. “Change in species over time” is obviously different from “Hereditary change in species over time”. The second definition contains the word “Hereditary”. Will you accept my definition of evolution as “fish stink when they are washed up on the beach” if I tell you that what I really mean by that is “species change over time”? Sorry, people aren’t mind readers. You have to state what you mean in the definition. If it requires some interpretation not evident from the words in the definition, you’d better include it in the definition.


Now I’ve heard everything. To contend that a human being is no more complex than a single cell is the highest argument from incredulity that I’ve ever seen. If anyone has blinded themselves from the truth it is you.

Except that is NOT what I said -- you are misrepresenting the issue again (big surprise). What I said was that for this concept (complexity) to be usable in science it has to be measurable. Science uses objective measures so they can be repeated by others to obtain similar results. Without a metric to measure it what you have is a subjective element that has no place in science.

You are completely skirting the issue because you know you are incorrect. If I’m misrepresenting something, then make it clear rather than your usual groundless allegations. Is a human being more complex than a single cell (representative of the supposed first life) or not?


I have never run from the application of the theory to the evidence.


Here we go again:
In Message 20 I suggest using microevolution (with a rather complete description) as a starting point to look at the evidence and see how it applies. You ignored this.

This is not running from the application of the theory to the evidence because micro evolution alone is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution (by definition). On the other hand, I have suggested starting with applying the real theory of evolution to the evidence and you have ignored this and run screaming every time. “Micro evolution” is an essential component of creation theory. Since our subject is to determine the correct statement of the theory of evolution, discussing evidence in support of creation theory is irrelevant at this time. As I have stated too numerous times to count, you cannot apply the theory to the evidence if we have not agreed to what the theory is! As many times as I have not agreed to apply your definition to the evidence you have refused to apply my definition to the evidence. You have failed to supply even a single piece of evidence in support of real evolution. There should be tons of it out there if evolution were indeed true.

In Message 28 I introduced initial evidence for the age of the earth being substantially greater that the creationist model.
Run run away. As you continue to do in Message 34

This is a complete misrepresentation that I have addressed many times. This is not me running away, it is YOU running away. The age of the earth is completely irrelevant to the discussion of definitions. This is YOU running away from the definitions since you have completely lost the argument. You have to talk about something else because you cannot defend your failed definition. I have asked on too numerous occasions to count that you debate the definitions on their merits but you have refused. Run run away…Find any topic to discuss except to address your failed definition…run run away. So which is it RAZ, do we discuss the definitions on their merits or are going to continue to run?

On the merits of your definition ...
________________________________________
The requirements for a general definition for the theory of evolution would be that it be able to be applied from time {A} to time {B} regardless of whether the interval is a day, a year, a million years of the full known history of life on earth, 3.5 billion years minimum.

This next post is complete waste. This has nothing to do with debating the definitions on their merits. You have now introduced a new and completely bogus concept. There is absolutely NO such requirement for the theory of evolution that dictates that it must be able to be applied across any interval of time. You are again conflating a proposed process of evolution with a statement of the theory. The theory of evolution is what it is BY DEFINITION. You cannot change it on your own whim to meet an imaginary requirement. That makes this post completely bogus.

However, the definitions from authoritative sources have shown us that the statement of the theory of evolution has 4 requirements – long ages, development of new kinds, responsibility for all life on earth and greater information content (complexity). This is 4 clear strikes against “change in species over time” since it includes none of these requirements.

Looks like a clean sweep for “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” as a general theory of evolution.

You lose on merit as well as on misrepresenting the facts about your definition.

Now, if you are really sincere about debating the definitions on their merits, I’ll re-introduce just a few of my past arguments to get things started which up to this point you have ignored. Discussing the definitions on their merits means that we logically show why one definition is either misleading or insufficient to describe what it is supposed to be defining and why another definition may be better or more appropriate. Again, here are just a few of the reasons CISOT cannot be considered as a valid statement of the theory of evolution.

1 – Is it a Valid Statement of Theory?
Most fundamentally, CISOT is NOT a statement of a theory. It is an observation of fact. There is absolutely nothing theoretical about it. Everyone, including a 5 year old, knows that this is true. In fact, it has always been known to be true from the beginning of creation and it is certainly nothing a creationist would disagree with. If you mean something else by it that is not in the definition, you would need to state that in the definition. CISOT is a cute little slogan but is absolutely and utterly useless in telling someone anything whatsoever about the theory of evolution. If you need to explain what it means, then the elements of that explanation need to be included in the statement of the theory in the first place. Now, what you DON’T need to include is an explanation of all the processes involved that might produce the results proposed by the theory.

2 – Is it referring to a “Process” or the “Theory”
A significant number of definitions made it clear that the word evolution can be used to refer to the “process” of evolution or the “theory”. It is easy to understand that if the theory of evolution is true that the processes involved should be occurring today. You have already admitted in a prior post that “change in species over time” refers to this process, not the theory and the definitions which differentiate between process and theory, define the process as something similar to “change in species over time”. As such, it is an observation or fact involved in the science. Whether this factual and testable observation in the present supports the theory of evolution or not depends on whether the observed changes can be shown to produce the results dictated by the theory (ie change in kinds and/or information content). Of course, this has never been shown to be the case.

The theory of evolution must be ASSUMED to be true in order to speculate that these processes could produce the results dictated by the theory over any 2 points in the past (or future) since the past is neither repeatable nor testable. The same facts (rock layers, fossils, etc) related to the past are available to both creation scientists and evolutionists, but are interpreted differently based on the presuppositions or assumptions that are used. In a nutshell, both of us have agreed that “change in species over time” is referring to the process, not a statement of the theory. In addition as noted earlier, CISOT cannot be a theory since it is an observed fact.

3 – What does it say about the type of change?
CISOT says nothing about the type of change predicted by the theory. Everyone knows and has always known that creatures change, but what kind of change? Is it the type of change that occurs as creatures grow old? Does it apply to populations or individuals? Would it include factors like eye-color or genetic diseases? Is it change that can happen quickly or does it take a very long time? Is it the type of change that can create novel information or features that are new to the biosphere? Is it a type of change that could be responsible for all of the life on earth from a common ancestor? NONE of these questions are answered by CISOT. In short, it is useless as a definition.

4 – The definition used by “Science”
A survey of 60 definitions taken from a wide variety of authoritative sources and analyzed in Post 87 undeniably demonstrate that any statement of the theory of evolution must include the following 4 elements to be valid. A sampling of 8 of these definitions which show no resemblance to “change in species over time” can be found in post 102.

1) Long ages (millions or billions of years) are necessary for evolution to have “created” the life we see on earth today. This was supported by the vast majority of the definitions (82%) which included this concept. To quote one source (LaborLawTalk) - “Since abiogenesis is rare or impossible under modern conditions and common descent (especially macroevolution) is a slow process, global biological diversity requires that the Earth is very old”. In other words, the earth is very old NOT because our scientific measurements say it is (since the majority of dating methods show that the earth is young), but because evolution requires it to be old in order to be true. Therefore, since a young earth invalidates the theory of evolution, this needs to be part of the theory (which is also why many evolutionists don’t want it to be). You would be hypocritical to argue this shouldn’t be part of the evolutionary theory since you have been insisting that a young earth be part of creation theory. If an old earth has nothing to do with evolutionary theory as you have repeatedly insisted, then I need not deal at all with your arguments supposedly disproving a young earth since by your same reasoning, I can insist that it makes no difference to creation theory. After all, creation theory is simply “change in species over time”.

2) Change which produces completely new and different “Kinds” or forms of life (not simple variations). This concept was included in 75% of the definitions.

3) Change which is responsible for all life found on earth from a common ancestor. This was supported by 65% of the definitions.

4) Change which produces greater information content (complexity). This was supported by 85% of the definitions.

These factors specifically qualify the type of change referenced in the theory to make it perfectly clear what we are talking about without the need for further explanation.

Not a single definition used CISOT, if you include heredity this percentage goes up to 7%.

This analysis shows that a valid statement for the theory of evolution supported by the majority of scientific and universal references is the following - “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”

So far you have been unable to dispute this fact without deceitfully cherry picking or misrepresenting the definitions in a variety of ways which have been clearly documented in prior posts.

5 – Does it provide differentiation from competing theories?
“Change in species over time” provides no differentiation from the primary competing theory of creationism. A fundamental tenant of creation theory is that species change over time. However, this change cannot produce the results dictated by evolutionary theory (all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor billions of years ago which itself came from non-life). However, the observed facts we know today support the contention that the diversity of life we see today arose from the original created kinds approximately 6000 years ago. A few that come to mind are the numerous young earth dating methods, radioactive dating methods correctly interpreted by the scientific RATE group, evidence for rapid deposition of geological layers, distribution of fossils around the world, rapid speciation, observed changes within kinds, the law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, observed mutations, loss of functionality and degradation of genetic information and many others too numerous to mention.

Nevertheless, the point of this section is to compare creation and evolution theories. The information regarding evolution from the table below with the exception of abiogenesis is supported by any comprehensive evolutionary source or text. Abiogenesis is supported as part of evolutionary theory by all sources I’ve ever seen and so it’s safe to say that it is included in nearly all evolutionary sources. For example, one of your favorite 2 sources (UMICH) includes abiogenesis as part of evolutionary theory, and this is a university which teaches evolution! In other words, the components included in evolutionary theory below (regardless of how they state the theory of evolution or define evolutionary process in an abbreviated way) are included as an essential part of the theory of evolution in the discussions of the theory. This is an indisputable fact.


Creation Theory Evolution Theory
Religion or Faith God exists and created the universe out of nothing There is no God. The universe exploded into existence out of nothing by purely naturalistic means
Fundamental Presupposition God Created the different kinds of life (according to his written eyewitness account) approx 6000+ years ago Abiogenesis occurred in a primordial slime by purely naturalistic means approx 4 billion years ago
Theory based on Origins research (NOT Operational Science) The created kinds diversified within their kinds to adapt to changing environments after the catastrophic worldwide flood All the diversity of life we see today evolved from a single common ancestor
Science Fact Species are observed to change within their kinds due to natural selection and mutations Species are observed to change within their kinds due to natural selection and mutations

Let me point out the significant issues that this comparison raises. Notice that both theories have a religious component, a theoretical component and a scientific component. All but the scientific component (bottom row) are the basic presuppositions that are essentially immovable on both sides. Evolutionary proponents are fond of deceitfully comparing the “science” of evolution (bottom right) with the “religion” of creation (top left). This is despite the fact that both creationists and evolutionists agree on the evidence and facts of science. It is only valid to compare science with science, theory with theory or religion with religion.

It is also significant to note that the scientific evidence that we observe today in the bottom row, (which can be tested and repeated) SUPPORTS creation theory, NOT evolution. We never observe one “kind” changing into another “kind”. However, evolutionists must falsely extrapolate what we observe today (without scientific evidence) to not only insist that one kind changed into another, but that all the diversity we see today arose from a single common ancestor. This is an interpretation based on an atheist (naturalist) religious belief. However, creationist theory is based on real scientific and observable facts. I would therefore contend that the more religious of the theories is evolution.

The bottom line is this – Removing the major tenants of evolution from the theory to reduce it to “Change in species over time” (bottom row) results in the identical definition if we remove the corresponding tenants from creation theory. Therefore, CISOT is useless as a definition of evolutionary theory since it provides no differentiation from competing theories, contains no theoretical components and cannot explain the type of change involved. Finally, it is not supported by the vast majority of reliable scientific sources.

…mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2007 12:52 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2007 5:46 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2007 9:42 PM MurkyWaters has responded

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


Message 110 of 121 (413393)
07-30-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by MurkyWaters
07-27-2007 9:46 PM


More logical failures and inability to deal with reality
I cannot believe you are continuing to propagate this lie. I am now demanding an apology or this debate is over as far as I’m concerned. If you cannot even budge on something as obvious as this, there is no point in continuing anyway. Let me make this perfectly clear. This is the statement you have made in post 100:

So you are now claiming that the section where you are starting out to compare "Creation Theory and Evolution Theory side by side" and where you then place a box labeled "Evolution Theory" and which contains your phrase "Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means" is NOT the theory of evolution? I'm glad you cleared that up, Murk, because it sure looks exactly like that is what you were claiming there.

This would be less humorous if you still had a case for your "definition" being true. Instead this can be seen as a pathetic attempt to divert attention from the failure your definition and to claim some kind of moral victory before leaving the field at a run (desperately avoiding reality).

However you haven’t even attempted to refute it, which is the point I intended to make.

First, I contest your assumption that these definitions support your position. Ignoring that however, if you only need these 2 to refute my position, than I need only quote 2 of the remaining definitions (even though I supplied 8 of them in a recent post) to refute your position. Since I have more definitions refuting your position than you have, then I win.

Nope. You need to answer the refutations of YOUR theory: it is wrong. Whether you can show that my definition is wrong or not is irrelevant to the logical validity of your definition. This is a typical creationist blunder, and I expected better of you. It would appear from this statement of yours that you do not understand how logic works. This is not surprising given your many misrepresentations of other definitions.

Your use of "All the living forms in the world have arisen" in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).

Your use of "billions of years" in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).

Your use of "from a single common ancestor " in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).

Your use of "which ... came from an inorganic form " in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).

Here are the university definitions again for reference:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
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.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/.../speciation.html

quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

Conclusion: YOU ARE WRONG.

We can do the same thing for you list of "must have" items (that you claim are included by implication now that it was pointed out that they were missing):

Your use of "1) Change which occurs over long ages (millions/billions of years) – this is explicitly stated in the definition" in your addendum item list is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).

Your use of "2) Change which produces new “Kinds” – Kinds (forms) are explicitly stated in the definition." in your addendum item list is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones) unless you concede that "kind" doesn't means anything other than the standard dictionary definition of "kind" above (in which case this defaults to the same as change in species over time). Also for extra credit show where "kinds (forms)" is explicitly stated in your definition. For bonus points provide a definition of what you mean by "kind" ... which you still have not done. :rolleyes:

Your use of "3) Change which is responsible for all life found on earth from a common ancestor – this is explicitly stated in the definition." in your addendum item list is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).

Your use of "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." in your addendum item list is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones). For extrsa credit show how this has occurred in the evolution of cyanobacteria since they first appeared on earth 3.5 billion years ago. For bonus points define "information" in a way that can be quantified and compared from one organism to another.

Conclusion: YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

That’s a joke. And who decides what is unnecessary or necessary? I would contend that it is NOT you.

Not you Murk. Who decides what is necessary and unnecessary are those applying the theory to the evidence to see if it can explain the evidence: the point that I have been trying to make for many posts now, but which you keep stonewalling on and avoiding. Scientiests decide what is necessary and what is unnecessary by testing the elements against the evidence.

We can do this with your latest version of your "theory" as another demonstration of why it is totally inadequate:

Message 104
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?

Does this explain evolution observed in Galapagos Finches? It does not occur over billions of years, there is no tie to the origin of a first common ancestor or to inorganic forms, and the amount of change in information cannot be measured, and it does not demonstrate change responsible for all life found on earth: these elements are a total failure when applied to this specific case of actual evolution. Change that produces new "kinds" DOES in fact occur -- IF you use the standard definition of "kind:

kind –noun1. 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.

But then this also means that what you are talking about is change in species over time -- unless and until you provide a different definition of "kind" that can be used in an impartial and scientific manner.

We can do the same for the peppered moths, foraminifers, pelycodus, horse evolution and other examples of evolution already presented on this thread. In each case the ONLY part of your theory that works is the part that equates to (hereditary) change in species over time with the use of the common definition of "kind". This means that your definition is invalid ... except for the change in species part.

Conclusion: YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

Lastly, you have not answered my question. You have appeared to start using H-CISOT in place of CISOT. Are you or are you not formally changing your definition to H-CISOT? I need to know in order to respond properly to your comments.

I did answer that by referring to the very first time I used change in species over time. The change in question is hereditary and it is due to mutation and natural selection and a number of other mechanisms that operate on populations of species under ecological pressures. It just seems that you keep ignoring this aspect of the change in question so I have made it more visible. As noted in the previous message:

Message 1
RAZD writes:

Message 9:
Evolution is change in species over time


And I also gave the dictionary definition of evolution:
For instance - dictionary.com defines evolution as:
ev·o·lu·tion
3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

My definition matches the standard biological definition 3a, albeit a trifle simplified, so I in fact have not changed it to suit my argument -- you can insert definition 3a into my argument and it remains the same.

Change in hereditary traits was specifically discussed in the FIRST presentation of the definition. So I have not suddenly added it now Murk - it has been there all along. The evidence is there, you have just blindly ignored it.

You can also compare this definition to the Berkeley and U of Mich definitions and see that both of them discuss (hereditary) change in species over time. If I were looking for a slogan I would go with something like "evolution happens, deal with it" which is true, but doesn't tell you much else.

I could also be much more explicit on what is involved, essentially including all the different theories regarding mutations and selection mechanisms, however this would get cumbersome. I can also be a little more explicit on what the change is that is involved:

The theory of evolution is that species change over time, that the change is enabled by the available variations (diversity) within populations due to accumulations of different mutations in hereditary traits, and the changes made within each generation are those selected by the differential response of organisms to passing on their hereditary traits under prevailing ecological pressures.

This added information explains how the hereditary traits are both derived and selected, but the overall theory is still change in species over time.

This next post is complete waste. This has nothing to do with debating the definitions on their merits. You have now introduced a new and completely bogus concept.

What you cannot deal with is that Message 108 totally and completely refutes your definition. Once again your definition is refuted six ways to sunday, and the only response you have is that it has "nothing to do with" or it introduces something "new" to the debate. LOL.

There is absolutely NO such requirement for the theory of evolution that dictates that it must be able to be applied across any interval of time.

It is how science is done Murk. A general theory applies to general conditions. Evolution Science covers time intervals from single generations to the full 3.5 billion year span of known life on earth. Therefore a general theory of evolution covers the same time frames. For reference to reality I give you the Berkeley definition again:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

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.

And the U of Mich definition:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html

quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

Color yellow mine for emphasis. Small scale time and large scale time. In the definition by two universities teaching evolution. Guess what that means? That both these theories apply to any time interval where change can be observed.

Conclusion: YOU ARE - ONCE AGAIN - WRONG.

Your inability to deal with the arguments of Message 108 just shows how bankrupt your argument has become.

However, the definitions from authoritative sources have shown us that the statement of the theory of evolution has 4 requirements – long ages, development of new kinds, responsibility for all life on earth and greater information content (complexity). This is 4 clear strikes against “change in species over time” since it includes none of these requirements.
Looks like a clean sweep for “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” as a general theory of evolution.
You lose on merit as well as on misrepresenting the facts about your definition.

This is pathetic. You haven't even begun to apply the theory to the facts, but you jump to a conclusion that it is wrong, based on invalidated information. This is not logic or reality.

Most fundamentally, CISOT is NOT a statement of a theory. It is an observation of fact.

It is based on observed fact: that is how scientific theories are made. Theory also makes predictions. The theory that species change over time makes a prediction that if you change the ecological pressures on a population that the hereditary mutations that are differentially selected for will be different from the current ones in the population. Thus drought on an island will produce a response change to the population -- larger beaks to open harder seeds -- and return to normal weather will produce another response change to the population -- smaller beaks again.

It will also predict intermediate forms between known fossils of any line of descent. Thus it will predict Tiktaalik -- intermediate in time between previous and later fossils, intermediate in environment inhabited between previous and later fossils and intermediate in form between previous and later fossils.

Message 26
All that Tiktaalik appears to be is another example of a lobe-finned fish.

Your inability to deal with the differences that make it intermediate between previous and later fossils does not mean that it is not a transitional, just that you are in denial of the evidence.

Change in species over time passes the test of a scientific theory -- the ability to make predictions that can then be validated or invalidated.

CISOT says nothing about the type of change predicted by the theory. Everyone knows and has always known that creatures change, but what kind of change? Is it the type of change that occurs as creatures grow old?

Seeing as Message 1 - as noted above - gives you this information this is not a problem. This blindness on your part is why I've added hereditary when stating it. It's a good question and one with an answer, as noted in the more explicitly above:

quote:
... the change is enabled by the available variations (diversity) within populations due to accumulations of different mutations in hereditary traits, and the changes made within each generation are those selected by the differential response of organisms to passing on their hereditary traits under prevailing ecological pressures.

I can get even more specific when we get into details of what kinds of traits\mutations and what kinds of selection mechanisms are involved with specific cases ... but that should cover the basics.

A survey of 60 definitions taken from a wide variety of authoritative sources and analyzed in Post 87 undeniably demonstrate that any statement of the theory of evolution must include the following 4 elements to be valid.

Your survey, in which you misrepresent many definitions, facts and use false logic. Your "survey" is invalidated by the facts of what evolution is, what the biological evolution science involves and what the universities teaching evolution say. Your inability to deal with this refutation does not make your position correct, it just means you are in denial.

“Change in species over time” provides no differentiation from the primary competing theory of creationism.

LOL. Another logical fallacy. The theory of Lamarkism is more competition to the theory of evolution than creationism. The fact that creationists have come to accept most facts of evolution doesn't make what they call a theory credible. What makes a theory credible is the ability to make predictions and to be falsifiable -- and then to be tested by experiment and further observations. Creation "theory" does not meet these criteria, thus it doesn't amount to anything of concern to science. Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief.

Nevertheless, the point of this section is to compare creation and evolution theories.

Nope. The point of this section is to use the definition of evolution and of the theory of evolution that is used by science, and not one dreamed up by creationists in a desperate attempt to hide the pea and delude themselves that evolution is not occurring. Evolution happens -- deal with it.

The bottom line is this –

You are --- still --- wrong.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : change

Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.


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 109 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-27-2007 9:46 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 111 of 121 (413928)
08-01-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by MurkyWaters
07-27-2007 9:46 PM


Murky Predictions ... and theoretical validity.
If we take your definition as a synthesis of valid modern theories -- your argument based on your "survey" of various definitions eh? -- and evaluate the validity of this "synthesis theory" by it's ability to make usable and accurate predictions for the further study of evolution (as a way to evaluate the validity of your definition as a scientific theory) we get the following:

Message 104
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?

Then we get these results:

All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years ...

(A) Predicts that new forms\species\varieties\etc will take billions of years to evolve.

New species and varieties have been observed to evolve in modern times, and evolution of other species\families\genera\etc. have been seen to evolve in the fossil record in less time.

This part is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

All the living forms in the world have arisen ... from a single common ancestor ...

(B) Predicts that new forms\species\varieties\etc will be related to a single common ancestor.

Current thinking on this issue is divided, with some thinking there were multiple original ancestor species. This theory does not predict that happening, thus it would be falsified by such a finding.

As this has not been determined yet this cannot be considered as a tested part of the theory. It is at best an untested hypothesis. As such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

(C) Does NOT predict that new forms\species\varieties\etc will be related to a recent common ancestor.

This means that nested hierarchies of species are not necessary and new species could evolve from the single common ancestor (should one exist). As such this does not have any value to the study of on-going evolution.

Thus it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

... which itself came from an inorganic form.

(D) Cannot make any predictions about modern evolution based on this element, and as such it does not have any value to the study of on-going evolution.

In addition this has not been confirmed it cannot be considered as a tested part of the theory. It is at best an untested hypothesis. As such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

1) Change which occurs over long ages (millions/billions of years) ...

(E) Same response as (A) to "billions of years" above: this part is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

2) Change which produces new “Kinds” ...

(F) Predicts that new "Kinds" will be produced by any level of evolution. This either:

- (1) Refers as a minimum to variations within existing species (using the dictionary definition of "kind"):

kind –noun1. 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.

In which case we are talking about change in species over time ... such as Galapogos Finches to the evolution of modern horses from Hyracotherium and more.

This part does make valid predictions, but they are no different from those made by "change in species over time" and thus does not make any additional predictions to differentiate it from that definition of the theory. The rule of parsimony would go with the simpler definition as a statement of the theory.

OR

- (2) This refers to some other level of change which is left undefined by the theory.

As this type of change is undefined it cannot be studied, nor can it be predicted, and as such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

In addition, evolution of the level discussed in (1) above for Galapogos Finches and the like invalidates any prediction that change must be at some other level to be evolution.

As such it is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

3) Change which is responsible for all life found on earth from a common ancestor ...

(G) Same responses as (B) and (C) to "single common ancestor" above: this does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

Change which produces greater information content (complexity ...

(H) Predicts that "information content" will always increase.

As there is no metric for measuring "information content" provided in any scientific literature on biological evolution there is no way to ascertain whether "information content" is actually increasing or decreasing or remaining the same. Without a means to measure this element there is no way to validate or invalidate this prediction.

As such this does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

In addition there are a number of instances where evolution has gone one direction and then reversed itself. According to the above element both of these should be an increase in "information content" and thus the conclusion is either:

- (1) This has been invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

OR

- (2) The concept of "information content" is irrelevant to evolution. As such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

CONCLUSIONS

The only part of the "Murky Definition of the Theory of Evolution" that produces valid predictions of evolution that can actually be tested is the part that is the same as the theory of (hereditary) change in species over time (see Message 110:

... Theory also makes predictions. The theory that species change over time makes a prediction that if you change the ecological pressures on a population that the hereditary mutations that are differentially selected for will be different from the current ones in the population. Thus drought on an island will produce a response change to the population -- larger beaks to open harder seeds -- and return to normal weather will produce another response change to the population -- smaller beaks again.

It will also predict intermediate forms between known fossils of any line of descent. Thus it will predict Tiktaalik -- intermediate in time between previous and later fossils, intermediate in environment inhabited between previous and later fossils and intermediate in form between previous and later fossils.

The rest of the elements are either invalidated or do not belong in a synthesis of validated theories of how evolution occurs. As such they need to be removed from any proper statement of a synthesis of validated modern theories of evolution.

Note: any statement of a synthesis that includes invalidated and untested theories of evolution would have to include all the invalidated and untested ones, from Lamarkism to Darwin's "blended inheritance" and the like ... and then it should include a discussion of those that are invalidated and why, and a discussion of those that are not yet tested and what those tests would entail. This would be cumbersome and counterproductive.

The bottom line is that your definition fails the test of comparison to valid scientific definitions of the theory of evolution, it fails the test on the merits of the definition elements applied to the study of evolution, and it fails the test of making usable predictions that are any different from the "change in species over time" definition.

The bottom line is that this "Murky Definition of the Theory of Evolution" is a failure.

Enjoy.

ps - If I were going to formulate a "synthesis definition" it would be based on what evolutionary biology covers as a field of science and various subcategories of the science (genetics, natural history, embryology, ecology, epigenetics, heterochrony, etc); it would be something like:

(1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.

OR

(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.

OR

(3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.

OR

(4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:

  • theories on how change is enabled
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
  • theories on how changes made within each generation are selected
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate)

    ... etc

As you can see there are different levels of detail involved, and that the more detail you include the more cumbersome the definition gets.

Either way it's a usable theory that can be applied to on-going studies of evolution and to make predictions for change. But it is still - at the heart - change in species over time.

Edited by RAZD, : genus not genius

Edited by RAZD, : updated synthesis theory

Edited by RAZD, : clarity

Edited by RAZD, : again

Edited by RAZD, : one more tweak

Edited by RAZD, : final tweak


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 109 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-27-2007 9:46 PM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by MurkyWaters, posted 08-18-2007 1:17 AM RAZD has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 3397 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 112 of 121 (416823)
08-18-2007 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
08-01-2007 9:42 PM


"The RAZ theory of evolution"
Response to Post 110:

So you are now claiming that the section where you are starting out to compare "Creation Theory and Evolution Theory side by side" and where you then place a box labeled "Evolution Theory" and which contains your phrase "Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means" is NOT the theory of evolution? I'm glad you cleared that up, Murk, because it sure looks exactly like that is what you were claiming there.

Why would you falsely assume it is a statement of the theory when you admit above that I am only “starting out” to compare them? Did you even bother to read my response to your lie? I’m not “claiming” anything. It is what it is, plain as day in black in white for all to see. You are purposely ignoring the other sections of the table ALSO labeled “Creation Theory” and “Evolution Theory” side by side and my concluding definition which includes all of the components so you do not have to admit that you are wrong. Misrepresentations are one thing, but when an error has been clearly and irrefutable pointed out and you refuse to acknowledge this fact, it is simply debating dishonestly and yes, without morals.

But this raises another issue that you’ve never responded too. What exactly do you think is part of evolutionary theory? Something being part of the “definition” or “statement of theory” is a completely different issue from something being part of the theory. For example, your definition says nothing about natural selection, but it cannot be denied that natural selection is an essential part of evolutionary theory. In the same way, whether you agree that they should be in the definition or not, evolutionists include life from non-life, billions of years, change in kinds and all life arising from a common ancestor as part of evolutionary theory. If you disagree with this then you are simply brain dead.

For example, here is a sampling of quotes from UMich and Berkeley discussing each of these concepts:
1) Life from non-life (Berkeley) – “within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from”.
2) Billions of years (Berkeley) – “Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago.” Notice it says that evidence “suggests”, not evidence “proves”.
3) Kinds (UMich) – “The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution”, as opposed to species – “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another”.
4) Common ancestor (Umich) – “Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor”, an oak tree and man for instance.


However you haven’t even attempted to refute it, which is the point I intended to make. First, I contest your assumption that these definitions support your position. Ignoring that however, if you only need these 2 to refute my position, than I need only quote 2 of the remaining definitions (even though I supplied 8 of them in a recent post) to refute your position. Since I have more definitions refuting your position than you have, then I win.

Nope. You need to answer the refutations of YOUR theory: it is wrong. Whether you can show that my definition is wrong or not is irrelevant to the logical validity of your definition. This is a typical creationist blunder, and I expected better of you. It would appear from this statement of yours that you do not understand how logic works. This is not surprising given your many misrepresentations of other definitions.

LOL, you are the one that has completely no clue regarding logic, which is probably why you refuse to engage in a logical defense of your definition. I am supposed to answer refutations of my theory while you refuse to address refutations of your theory? What makes you so special? You have attempting to refute my theory with 1 or 2 definitions out of 60 and yet it is not valid for me to refute your theory with many more?

I will use MTM (Molecules to Man) to refer to the definition that I and many sources have supported so I don’t have to spell it all out each time. You are implying with your brilliant logic that even if 1000 sources define evolution as MTM, you need only find one definition of CISOT to refute them all. “Yes, I’m right. The whole world is crazy except me!” RAZ exclaims! In addition, if I cannot refute this single definition than I am wrong even though 1000 other definitions agree with me! That’s what you call logic? No wonder your religious belief is evolution. Whether you can show that my definition is wrong or not (by these 1 or 2 definitions), is irrelevant to the logical validity of YOUR definition. This is a typical evolutionist blunder, but I did not expect better of you.

The simple fact of the matter is that I have proposed a definition (MTM) and you have proposed a definition (CISOT or HCISOT, I know not which yet). Logic tells us that if we are neither both right nor both wrong, then you would need to show that one definition is right AND that the other definition is wrong. However, it is not as simple as you’d like to make it since it has already been firmly established that there are many varied definitions of the word “evolution” which do not all agree. Some (most) support MTM and some (a small fraction) support HCISOT (while none support CISOT). Therefore, you can find a definition that agrees with you (if you are using HCISOT) and I can find a definition that shows I am right. If we agree that both cannot be right, than how can we determine the correct definition? One way is to show which definition is most prevalently used in the literature. It has been clearly shown that the vast majority of sources use MTM, therefore you loose by this method – YOU ARE WRONG.

Another way to determine the correct definition would be to debate them on their merits. I have proposed many logical arguments which demonstrate that CISOT is completely and totally insufficient as a statement for the theory of evolution by its inability to describe the basic tenants of evolution, its inability to describe the type of change and its inability to differentiate it from competing theories. In addition, it contains no theoretical components and is a definition of the evolutionary process, not the theory. Your refusal and inability to refute these logical arguments is you admitting that you are wrong in this case as well – YOU ARE WRONG.

Now, if you have another way to determine the correct definition, I’d like to hear it. However, it is NOT picking out one definition and, simply because you think it agrees with you, insisting that it trumps all others. I would be happy to refute your interpretation of these particular definitions if the debate hinged on this. However, it does not. I would also be happy to refute your interpretation of these if you would be willing to refute sources which I have proposed support my definition.

Your use of "All the living forms in the world have arisen" in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).

Wrong. You may feel that Berkeley and UMich support your definition, but they do not refute mine. There are many more definitions which support my statement of the theory. You need to show that these other definitions which use those words (or equivalent ones) are invalid. You have not even attempted to do this. The same goes for the other elements of my definition. On the other hand, your use of only “Change in species over time” is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the 8 definitions I have proposed in post 102 do not include any other elements except “change in species over time” (which, btw, also goes for Berkeley and Umich if you would agree to debate the definitions honestly).


That’s a joke. And who decides what is unnecessary or necessary? I would contend that it is NOT you.

Not you Murk. Who decides what is necessary and unnecessary are those applying the theory to the evidence to see if it can explain the evidence: the point that I have been trying to make for many posts now, but which you keep stonewalling on and avoiding. Scientiests decide what is necessary and what is unnecessary by testing the elements against the evidence.

Again, you are failing to even read my response. I clearly stated it was NOT me. YOU are the one that is contending that it is the omnipotent RAZ who decides what is necessary or unnecessary by ignoring what scientists have clearly included in their definitions. You admit that scientists are the one’s to decide and yet you ignore what they say both in the definitions and in scientific journals. One of the greatest evolutionary minds, Ernst Mayr, who has been called the “Darwin of modern times” says that change in frequency of alleles is NOT evolution and therefore not a part of the definition. You don’t apply the theory to the evidence. This is circular reasoning. Rather, you apply the evidence to the theory to test if it is valid. What is necessary or unnecessary is already stated as part of the theory.

Does this explain evolution observed in Galapagos Finches? It does not occur over billions of years, there is no tie to the origin of a first common ancestor or to inorganic forms, and the amount of change in information cannot be measured, and it does not demonstrate change responsible for all life found on earth: these elements are a total failure when applied to this specific case of actual evolution.

Do you even hear what you are saying? This is the same logical fallacy that all dishonest evolutionist use. You are assuming evolution to be true in order to prove evolution. This is a typical evolutionist blunder, but I did not expect better of you. It would appear from this statement of yours that you do not understand how logic works. This is not surprising given your many misrepresentations of other definitions. You assume that Galapagos Finches is an example of evolution to contend that it invalidates my definition, but you have it completely backwards. The elements in my definition are a complete SUCCESS when applied to the Galapagos finches because it indicates that this is NOT an example of evolution BY DEFINITION. This is the point I have been making from the very first words entered in this debate. You just don’t get it. Your mind is so polluted by evolutionist propaganda you can’t see the truth when it’s staring you in the face.

Change that produces new "kinds" DOES in fact occur -- IF you use the standard definition of "kind:

Again, you are being hypocritical. Use the definition used by Science and scientists, NOT the “general” definition.


Lastly, you have not answered my question. You have appeared to start using H-CISOT in place of CISOT. Are you or are you not formally changing your definition to H-CISOT? I need to know in order to respond properly to your comments.

I did answer that by referring to the very first time I used change in species over time. The change in question is hereditary and it is due to mutation and natural selection and a number of other mechanisms that operate on populations of species under ecological pressures. It just seems that you keep ignoring this aspect of the change in question so I have made it more visible.

Not to imply that all politicians are dishonest, but you would make a great one. Are you incapable of answering any question directly? I have not ignored anything. However, you have again failed to read my response. This is a second strike against continuing this debate. If I’m going to spend the time responding to someone, the least I should expect in return is to have them read what I have written. If it’s too much trouble for you than just quit so we can end this farce of yours. Can you please answer the question YES or NO?

If I were looking for a slogan I would go with something like "evolution happens, deal with it" which is true, but doesn't tell you much else.

It happens to be false, but it says a great deal more than CISOT.

What you cannot deal with is that Message 108 totally and completely refutes your definition. Once again your definition is refuted six ways to sunday, and the only response you have is that it has "nothing to do with" or it introduces something "new" to the debate. LOL.

Message 108 does absolutely nothing whatsoever to refute my definition. It’s just you saying it does. If 100 sources say that Martians are green, and you insist that one of them says that Martians are red, how does that refute the other 99 sources? Scientist do not agree on many things. According to your logic, the minority must always be right. I’ve already quoted Ernst Mayr as saying that CISOT is NOT evolution. Therefore, by your logic, your definition has been totally and completely refuted. I’ve already provided definitions that are identical to mine. By your logic then I’ve refuted your definition six ways to Sunday. Get real. You are grasping at every straw imaginable and still find yourself drowning in your own spittle. Now you are resorting to imaginary requirements to make your case since you’ve failed everywhere else. Hey, a requirement for the theory of evolution is that all evolved creatures must be pink. I’ve just invalidated your definition. Whoop-de-do!


There is absolutely NO such requirement for the theory of evolution that dictates that it must be able to be applied across any interval of time.

It is how science is done Murk. A general theory applies to general conditions. Evolution Science covers time intervals from single generations to the full 3.5 billion year span of known life on earth. Therefore a general theory of evolution covers the same time frames.

You know nothing of Science. You can’t even keep your own facts straight. When I introduced the “general theory of evolution” this was your response – “The fact that this is presented as a "GTE" rather than a normal ‘theory of evolution’ leaves me unimpressed that his [sic] has to be included in the list until I can see what he is talking about.” However, now that you think a GTE is to your benefit, it’s ok. The statement of the theory of evolution is what it is. You don’t add imaginary requirements to it or remove valid requirements from it at a whim so you can deceive yourself and others.

The theory says nothing about the validity of evolution across any specific time interval. As I have stated many times now, it is implicitly understood that if evolution is true, some process must be responsible. Not all evolutionists agree whether that process is continuous or whether it occurs in spurts especially since the fossil evidence does not support gradual evolution. However, the still accepted norm is that the changes are very gradual over long periods of time (specifically because changes were never observed even over many lifetimes). When this is found to be untrue, it has come as a great surprise to evolutionists.

Nevertheless, whether a change takes 2 minutes or a billion years, it is or is not evolution only if it meets the specific requirements of the theory. This applies to the fossil record as well as observations in the present. If the change adds novel information, produces new kinds or moves in a direction which supports the notion that all the diversity of life arose from a common ancestor, then it is evolution. No observed change to date in the present has met these requirements. Therefore, the evidence does NOT support evolution.

And why should I debate the Berkeley definition, when you refuse to debate the majority of sources that agree with my definition? Tell me how the 8 definitions that I have specifically pointed out in post 102 agree with your definition and do not agree with mine. And by the way, I don’t even need to refute Berkeley or UMich. Even if I were to concede that both of them agree with your definition, it makes little difference. They a just 2 out of 60 definitions. I have already stated that 7% agree with H-CISOT (while NONE agree with CISOT). Even if 50% of the definitions agreed with you, that’s still an even split worth debating on actual merits which is what I have been willing to do all along. Nevertheless, I’m being overly generous by looking at merits with only 0-7% in your favor (depending on what definition you finally decide on).

Your inability to deal with the arguments of Message 108 just shows how bankrupt your argument has become.

I have responded to every argument you have ever made regarding the definitions. Since you have failed to logically refute any of my arguments (making your position bankrupt), this is simply a smokescreen by you to invent some imaginary requirement that is then supposed to be refuted. If you simply read my prior response, which doesn’t seem to be your forte, then you would see that I did indeed refute your argument. Also see my response again in this post. If you don’t like my refutation, then you are free to respond to it. Instead, as usual, you simply react with demeaning comments.


However, the definitions from authoritative sources have shown us that the statement of the theory of evolution has 4 requirements – long ages, development of new kinds, responsibility for all life on earth and greater information content (complexity). This is 4 clear strikes against “change in species over time” since it includes none of these requirements. Looks like a clean sweep for “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” as a general theory of evolution. You lose on merit as well as on misrepresenting the facts about your definition.

This is pathetic. You haven't even begun to apply the theory to the facts, but you jump to a conclusion that it is wrong, based on invalidated information. This is not logic or reality.

What’s pathetic is your refusal to face reality. CISOT has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Scientific sources have proven this as well as cold hard logic. You have it backwards. We need to establish what the theory is first and then we can look at the evidence (facts) to determine if they support it. You don’t twist around the wording of the theory when the facts don’t support it so that you can continue to deceive yourself and others that it is true. You are using circular reasoning again. You so desperately want evolution to be true, you redefine the theory so that it must be true, regardless of what it really states or what the evidence shows. We “know” Galapagos finches demonstrate evolution, so let’s re-word the theory so it supports our contention!


Most fundamentally, CISOT is NOT a statement of a theory. It is an observation of fact.

It is based on observed fact: that is how scientific theories are made.

It is not based on facts, it IS a fact. Deal with it. What part of CISOT is NOT a fact?

Theory also makes predictions. The theory that species change over time makes a prediction that if you change the ecological pressures on a population that the hereditary mutations that are differentially selected for will be different from the current ones in the population. Thus drought on an island will produce a response change to the population -- larger beaks to open harder seeds -- and return to normal weather will produce another response change to the population -- smaller beaks again.

This is natural selection, NOT evolution. And again, it is fact, not theory.

It will also predict intermediate forms between known fossils of any line of descent. Thus it will predict Tiktaalik -- intermediate in time between previous and later fossils, intermediate in environment inhabited between previous and later fossils and intermediate in form between previous and later fossils.

The fossil evidence fails to provide any intermediate forms between the various major kinds of living creatures that would support the notion that we have evolved from a common ancestor. Your conclusions are based on un-testable presuppositions, not the scientific method. Evolution predicted that we should see many such transitions. Would you like several dozen quotes from evolutionists themselves stating that this prediction has been shown to be false? Evolution fails again.

However, this again points out the crux of the problem. Evolution has failed. The fossil record grossly disfavors evolution; therefore you change the definition of evolution to CISOT so that the fossil evidence supports your definition and you can ignore the evidence. It has been shown that hereditary changes cannot produce greater information content, so you change the definition so that greater complexity and information is not required. Change in kinds has never been observed in either the present or the past, so you change the definition so that major change is not required. There is no evidence to show that all the diversity of life has been produced from a common ancestor so you change the definition so that a common ancestor is not required. The earth has been show to be young, so you change the definition so that long ages are not required. Scientists have failed to produce life from non-life even by applying intelligence to the process, so you change the definition so that Abiogenesis is not included.

Face reality. You are changing the definition to suit the evidence to deceive both yourself and others. Instead you should use the definition as it has been proposed by Darwin, and the majority of sources and scientists we have looked at and then see if the evidence supports it or not. However, you are the one that has continued to stonewall by refusing to do this. Instead you insist that 90% of the definitions are WRONG and that your imaginary definition is correct and therefore we should use it instead of the one use by science and scientists. That is stonewalling. You have stated many times in this response that I am wrong. However, I’m not the one proposing the “wrong” definition. I’m simply agreeing with 90% of the scientific sources we have reviewed. By insisting that I’m wrong you are really saying that these sources and scientists are wrong and that instead, the all knowing RAZ is correct. You’ll forgive me if I agree with the scientists instead of RAZ. I might be persuaded if you would defend your definition logically. However, your refusal to do this tells me that it has no defense. Give it up.


CISOT says nothing about the type of change predicted by the theory. Everyone knows and has always known that creatures change, but what kind of change? Is it the type of change that occurs as creatures grow old?

Seeing as Message 1 - as noted above - gives you this information this is not a problem. This blindness on your part is why I've added hereditary when stating it. It's a good question and one with an answer, as noted in the more explicitly above:

So I will take this as acknowledgment on your part that you are formally changing your definition from CISOT to HCISOT? If so, you’ve answered only one (and a very minor part) of my question and you’ve ignored the rest of the questions because your definition fails to address the type of change demanded by the theory of evolution.


A survey of 60 definitions taken from a wide variety of authoritative sources and analyzed in Post 87 undeniably demonstrate that any statement of the theory of evolution must include the following 4 elements to be valid.

Your survey, in which you misrepresent many definitions, facts and use false logic. Your "survey" is invalidated by the facts of what evolution is, what the biological evolution science involves and what the universities teaching evolution say. Your inability to deal with this refutation does not make your position correct, it just means you are in denial.

Of course it’s my survey. However, the definitions are not mine. I’ve done nothing but reference the entire definitions stated by scientific and universal sources – all facts anyone can see. And all you can say is that my survey is invalidated by the FACTS of what evolution is? These are YOUR facts, not the science. This is simply pathetic. These 2 particular universities teaching evolution tell us that the FACTS of what evolutionary theory includes is life from non-life, billions of years, the development of new kinds of life and a common ancestor to all life on earth. Talk about living in a fantasy world! Your inability to tell the truth not only makes your position incorrect, but means you are in denial.


“Change in species over time” provides no differentiation from the primary competing theory of creationism.

LOL. Another logical fallacy. The theory of Lamarkism is more competition to the theory of evolution than creationism. The fact that creationists have come to accept most facts of evolution doesn't make what they call a theory credible. What makes a theory credible is the ability to make predictions and to be falsifiable -- and then to be tested by experiment and further observations. Creation "theory" does not meet these criteria, thus it doesn't amount to anything of concern to science. Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief.

You continue to live in a dream world. Evolution falls flat on it’s face regarding predictions. It failed to predict something as fundamental as the fossil record or the appearance of living fossils, even how rapidly speciation can occur. It seems like evolutionists predictions change almost weekly. And you have failed to provide anything that could falsify the theory. Evolution is not a theory, it is a belief. History cannot be tested, it can only be interpreted.

On the other hand, Creation theory meets all the requirements of a good theory that is supported by the scientific observations of the present. In addition, it can make predictions and be falsifiable as well as evolutionary theory can. You’ve also got the order wrong. Evolutionists borrowed from Creation theory and then spun the story to remove God from the equation. The Bible has been consistent in its history from the creation of time. The scientific evidence continues to support that history. As usual, because you are unable to refute basic logical arguments you must resort to self denial and denigration of other scientist’s positions instead.


Nevertheless, the point of this section is to compare creation and evolution theories.

Nope. The point of this section is to use the definition of evolution and of the theory of evolution that is used by science, and not one dreamed up by creationists in a desperate attempt to hide the pea and delude themselves that evolution is not occurring. Evolution happens -- deal with it.

As usual, you miss the point. The section being discussed was in message 8 where I was indeed comparing creation and evolution theories, both of which are used by science. Evolutionists are the ones that are desperate to hide the truth by attempts to change the definition for the sole reason to deceive.

The bottom line is this – You are…still…wrong. 60 sources of definitions say you are wrong. Sound Logic and your inability to address it say you are wrong. Finally the fact that you resort to rudeness and denigration of other’s ideas in all of your responses instead of being able to rationally articulate your position tell me you are wrong. Face reality. The theory of evolution is what it is as stated by the majority of sources and scientists. You can’t change it to fit the failed evidence simply because you desperately want to believe it is true. Let’s use the definition as I have proposed, as stated in the majority of sources and as used by the science. Then we can look at the evidence and see if it supports the theory or if it doesn’t.

…mw

Response to Post 111:

If we take your definition as a synthesis of valid modern theories -- your argument based on your "survey" of various definitions eh? -- and evaluate the validity of this "synthesis theory" by it's ability to make usable and accurate predictions for the further study of evolution (as a way to evaluate the validity of your definition as a scientific theory) we get the following:

The whole basis of your argument and this post is again in error and is itself a gross logical fallacy. You are attempting to evaluate a statement of the theory of evolution as correct or incorrect only if it confirms your presupposition that evolution is true! What you are really saying is that if we evaluate the theory of evolution against the evidence and find that the evidence doesn’t support it, then that statement of the theory must be wrong because we all know that evolution is true! You say you have no assumptions, but it’s smacking you in the face!

You assume evolution is true to evaluate whether the statement of the theory is true. Since the real theory doesn’t hold water, you want to change it to fit the evidence. You modify the statement of the theory (to become CISOT) so it confirms your observations, all the while never changing the implications of the real theory. This way, you can deceive yourself and others into thinking evolution is true, while in reality you have only shown your false statement of the theory to be true. This is the height of deception. While this basically invalidates your post, I’ll continue with comments to bring home the point.


Message 104The 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 definition3) 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?

Then we get these results:


All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years ...


All the living forms in the world have arisen ... from a single common ancestor ...


(A) Predicts that new forms\species\varieties\etc will take billions of years to evolve.
New species and varieties have been observed to evolve in modern times, and evolution of other species\families\genera\etc. have been seen to evolve in the fossil record in less time.
This part is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

You’re just making this stuff up as you go along. Your logic is faulty as usual. These statements do NOT predict that new species will take billions of years to evolve. It simply states that the tremendous variety of life we see today arose over billions of years from a single common ancestor. No new forms have ever been observed to evolve and therefore the assumption is made that they will take a very long time, much longer than many of man’s lifetimes. The fossil record is (mis)interpreted to show that changes from one form to another have taken millions of years to form. Until relatively recently, species had not been observed to form either. This came as a great shock to evolutionists that they could indeed occur as quickly as they do. However, this quick formation of species was PREDICTED by creation theory.

In any case, this statement is NOT referring to a single instance of a species change. It is stating that ALL (ALL) [ALL] the living forms we see today have taken billions of years to evolve from a single common ancestor; in other words, from MOLECULE to MAN, not from Galapagos finch with short bill to Galapagos finch with 0.01 inch longer bill. If that is the case, you would expect that Galapagos finches would be changing, however, they are not supposedly going to change into alligators or produce new novel information for millions of years (conveniently).

And if the evidence does not support the theory, that does NOT change the statement of the theory. All it means is that the theory should be abandoned. Instead of abandoning the theory, you just want to abandon the definition so you need not produce any valid evidence in the support of real evolution!

(B) Predicts that new forms\species\varieties\etc will be related to a single common ancestor.
Current thinking on this issue is divided, with some thinking there were multiple original ancestor species. This theory does not predict that happening, thus it would be falsified by such a finding.

As this has not been determined yet this cannot be considered as a tested part of the theory. It is at best an untested hypothesis. As such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

“Current thinking on this issue is divided” is a vast understatement. The original theory stated that all life arose from a single common ancestor. This belief is still held by most evolutionists. However, both fossil and current evidence does not support the evolutionary tree. Homology (similarity of features) is often used as an evolutionary argument when it is convenient, but when the observations don’t match it is brushed off as “convergent” evolution. Multiple and unrelated lineages are found everywhere that do not originate from one common ancestor. This is a big problem since we already know that the development of a single common ancestor is so infinitesimal to be virtually impossible. The development of many is hardly conceivable. However, that has never stopped evolutionists.

Again, if the evidence does not support the theory, that does NOT change the statement of the theory. All it means is that the theory should be abandoned. Instead of abandoning the theory, you just want to abandon the definition so you need not produce any valid evidence in the support of real evolution!

In any case, until it is shown to be otherwise, the single common ancestor stands. If the lack of evidence forces evolutionists to reconsider, they can simply modify the theory. Scientists do this all the time. You should have noticed that all along I have stated that the theory is open to single or multiple common ancestors. I have often said “one or more”. It makes little difference. You cannot deny that there is much contentious debate about many aspects of evolutionary theory. This does not invalidate the theory. Its ability to be falsified by that finding supports, not detracts, from it’s validity since this is a characteristic of a true theory. However, we already have established that evolutionary theory is not falsifiable.

And in regards to being “tested”, the entire theory of evolution is an untested hypothesis! By your same logic, it should be thrown out. I take the use of your words “validated theory” to mean a valid statement of theory. This is unrelated as to whether the theory itself is valid (true) or not. That remains to be seen from the evidence. Therefore, its plausibility does not invalidate this factor as being part of the theory.

Therefore, these factors belong in the definition of the theory as stated by scientists and the sources we have reviewed.

On the other hand, CISOT says absolutely NOTHING about the development of life from any common ancestor whether it is a billions years ago or during a single speciation. CISOT applies equally to the development of life from the original created kinds over the last 6000 or so years. Therefore is it entirely useless in describing evolutionary theory. It completely fails both of these universally accepted aspects of evolutionary theory.

(C) Does NOT predict that new forms\species\varieties\etc will be related to a recent common ancestor.
This means that nested hierarchies of species are not necessary and new species could evolve from the single common ancestor (should one exist). As such this does not have any value to the study of on-going evolution.
Thus it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

You are again grasping at straws while using faulty logic. References to all the diversity of life arising from a common ancestor over billions of years in universally accepted definitions of evolution specifically infer that nested hierarchies of species are required! Why would you think they are unnecessary? This concept has extreme value to the study of evolution. Thus is belongs in the theory because it conveys critical information about the theory and how it works.

On the other hand CISOT says absolutely NOTHING about nested hierarchies of species or the tree of life. There is no way to tell from CISOT whether all the diversity of life we see today arose just a few years ago from a salamander. Of course, the salamander arose from a rock the year before, but that’s of no concern since Abiogenesis is supposedly off limits.

CISOT is completely useless in conveying that the concept of family trees even exist! If you have a problem with the MTM theory, then you have a much much bigger problem with CISOT. You are arguing against your own theory, which of course, is fine with me. You have been doing that all along.


... which itself came from an inorganic form.

(D) Cannot make any predictions about modern evolution based on this element, and as such it does not have any value to the study of on-going evolution.

Its value is not in the study of on-going evolution, but rather in evaluating the validity of the theory. The theory predicts that life can form from non-life. Again, if the evidence does not support the theory, that does NOT change the statement of the theory. All it means is that the theory should be abandoned. Instead of abandoning the theory, you just want to abandon the definition so you need not produce any valid evidence in the support of real evolution!

In addition this has not been confirmed it cannot be considered as a tested part of the theory. It is at best an untested hypothesis. As such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

Maybe you are starting to get the idea here. The theory of evolution IS an untested hypothesis. That’s the whole point. Just because you want to believe its true, doesn’t make it true. Whether the evidence supports or doesn’t support a theory or whether it can or can’t be tested doesn’t change the statement of the theory.


2) Change which produces new “Kinds” ...

(F) Predicts that new "Kinds" will be produced by any level of evolution.

Faulty logic again! You are merely making things up to support your case. This does not say that new Kinds will be produced by any level of evolution. It simply says that evolution produces new Kinds. To be more precise, it must be the kind of change capable of producing new Kinds. It would PREDICT that there would be many intermediate steps between kinds having shared features of both. Of course, this prediction as with all predictions of evolution have not materialized.

- (2) This refers to some other level of change which is left undefined by the theory.
As this type of change is undefined it cannot be studied, nor can it be predicted, and as such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

The scientific definition of “Kinds” can and is just as precisely defined as “Species” is. Therefore, if you apply the same logic, then CISOT must be thrown out as well.

In addition, evolution of the level discussed in (1) above for Galapogos Finches and the like invalidates any prediction that change must be at some other level to be evolution.
As such it is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

Bzzzzt Bzzzt Error Error. Since the Galapagos finches is not an example of evolution, it cannot be used to show that the definition is incorrect! Therefore Kinds is NOT invalidated by existing information. The statement of the theory is not incorrect simply because the evidence doesn’t support it. All it means is that the theory should be abandoned. Instead of abandoning the theory, you just want to abandon the definition so you need not produce any valid evidence in the support of real evolution!


Change which produces greater information content (complexity ...

(H) Predicts that "information content" will always increase.
As there is no metric for measuring "information content" provided in any scientific literature on biological evolution there is no way to ascertain whether "information content" is actually increasing or decreasing or remaining the same. Without a means to measure this element there is no way to validate or invalidate this prediction.
As such this does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

My goodness, there are volumes of studies regarding information content. Since you have refused to answer questions regarding this topic, I hardly think you can use it to disqualify a valid theory.

In addition there are a number of instances where evolution has gone one direction and then reversed itself. According to the above element both of these should be an increase in "information content" and thus the conclusion is either: (1) This has been invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.

LOL! Wrong! Evolution did not occur since there was never any information gain. The inclusion of this element is critical to determine what is evolution and what is not. It is therefore supported by existing information and DOES belong as part of the theory.

As stated previously, this is a significant logical fallacy on your part. You can’t assume evolution has occurred in order to validate your fantasy definition. This would be the same as me stating that a ball falling off the empire state building is evolution. Therefore your definition of CISOT is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories. Get real.

It will also predict intermediate forms between known fossils of any line of descent. Thus it will predict Tiktaalik -- intermediate in time between previous and later fossils, intermediate in environment inhabited between previous and later fossils and intermediate in form between previous and later fossils.

Sorry, the theory of evolution predicted that there would be a plethora of intermediate forms between kinds. However, not a single undisputed example has ever been found which is a fact recognized by most well known evolutionists. So much for predictions…

The bottom line is that your definition fails the test of comparison to valid scientific definitions of the theory of evolution, it fails the test on the merits of the definition elements applied to the study of evolution, and it fails the test of making usable predictions that are any different from the "change in species over time" definition.
The bottom line is that this "Murky Definition of the Theory of Evolution" is a failure.

Quite the contrary, you have done nothing of the sort. On the other hand, I have irrefutable shown that CISOT fails the test of comparison to valid scientific theories (it is in fact indistinguishable), it fails the test on merits and it makes absolutely no useful predictions.

The bottom line is that this “Raz definition of the theory of evolution” is a total failure.

Your reference to the “murky definition” is unwarranted. It is not my definition. I’m simply stating what the majority of universal sources and scientists tell us what the definition is. On the other hand CISOT is totally made up by you since it is not supported by a single source that we have reviewed.

But it is still - at the heart - change in species over time.

As I’ve stated many times, this is where you get in trouble. You cannot boil down a theory to it’s least common denominator by ignoring it’s critical elements. You simply end up with useless gibberish. It is the same as saying that Newton’s law of universal gravitation can be boiled down – at the heart – to change in force over time. However, this says nothing about the real theory. It makes no mention of what direction the force is in. It makes no mention of the magnitude of the force. It makes no mention of the fact that the force is along a line combining two masses. It makes no mention that the force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the masses. Bottom line, it is useless as a definition of Newton’s law and useless at making predictions regarding forces.

In the very same way, change in species over time is useless as a definition of the theory of evolution and useless at making predictions regarding evolution. It says nothing about the type of change, the direction of change, the effects of the change or how long the change has been occurring. It says nothing regarding the origin of species or responsibility for the diversity of life we see today. It says nothing about nested hierarchies, common ancestry or the “tree of life”. If you insist that it does ANY of those things, then you are deceitfully hiding your presuppositions and essential elements of evolutionary theory which you are attempting to apply but not state outright in the definition.

In summary, CISOT says NOTHING about the theory of evolution. It is a complete failure as a description of evolutionary theory. It predicts nothing since it is simply an observational fact in the present. It is completely and totally useless. It is something you have made up to deceive yourself and others into believing evolution is true. The fact is, the theory of evolution is what it is as stated by a plethora of universal sources and scientists. You can’t change it by your own whims to match observable facts because the evidence and predictions of evolutionary theory have failed.

…mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2007 9:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2007 4:18 PM MurkyWaters has responded

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


Message 113 of 121 (416930)
08-18-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by MurkyWaters
08-18-2007 1:17 AM


Murky dodges again.
Why would you falsely assume it is a statement of the theory when you admit above that I am only “starting out” to compare them?

Because you say lets compare theories, then have two boxes labeled {theory A} and theory {B}, with statements in the boxes that look like statements of the theories, and then there is a gap. Normally people start out these kinds of comparisons by actually stating the theories in those boxes. Then down below is where you go into details on the comparisons, but you can't do that honestly without first stating the full theories that are being compared.

Now if you want to admit that you meant to do this but forgot or got in a hurry or just made a mistake, then no problem. You can correct that mistake.

It really doesn't matter to me because your concept of what evolution is, what the science of evolution covers and what the theory of evolution includes is mistaken -- at best.

Something being part of the “definition” or “statement of theory” is a completely different issue from something being part of the theory. For example, your definition says nothing about natural selection, but it cannot be denied that natural selection is an essential part of evolutionary theory

Yet I don't see it in your {everything but the kitchen sink) definition (msg 104). It cannot be denied that the theory of natural selection is an essential part of the science and study of evolution.

Again this is an element of the level of detail in the expression of the theory in question and how much you go into a discussion of what the science as a whole covers. Natural selection is one of the (many) validated theories that make up the science of evolution, as is genetic drift as another example. These act on the available variations in populations to select what changes are inherited. That change has been specified as genetic change, or change of hereditary traits from the start, means that it is there: change in the frequency of alleles in populations from generation to generation; descent with modification -- (hereditary) change in species over time.

1) Life from non-life (Berkeley) – “within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from”.

Just because it is "of special interest" within the scientific field of evolutionary biology does not mean that it is part of the definition of the theory of evolution, or even that it is a necessary part of the science of evolution.

2) Billions of years (Berkeley) – “Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago.” Notice it says that evidence “suggests”, not evidence “proves”.

Again this is just an observation of the natural history of life on earth, including of the span of time that the science of evolutionary biology covers from the first known life to now.

Notice that the evidence - fact - is that the earliest life we know of existed 3.5 billion years ago - cyanobacteria fossils in rocks.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

quote:
The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!

Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years, and they may leave chemical fossils behind as well, in the form of breakdown products from pigments. Small fossilized cyanobacteria have been extracted from Precambrian rock, and studied through the use of SEM and TEM (scanning and transmission electron microscopy).


What is suggested, not proved, is that this is the first life and the first appearance of life. We don't know that. There could be other forms of life from the same time that did not fossilize and there could be earlier, simpler forms of life. Alternately cyanobacteria could have been "seeded" on the earth from space -- we don't know. All we do know is that 3.5 billion years ago there was life on earth.

Again, just because this is part of the natural history of this planet does not mean that it is part of the theory of evolution.

3) Kinds (UMich) – “The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution”, as opposed to species – “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another”.

You are once again blatantly misrepresenting things Murk, highlighted in pink above. This is not part of the UofMich definition or the part discussing it. This is you falsifying information. Your “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another” is not anywhere within the section on the definitions of biological evolution (it is part of one concept of species identification in the following section).

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html

quote:
* Definition 2:
The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures.


The second definition emphasizes the gradual change in species over the course of time, including the generation of new species. It is not "as opposed to species" as you claim, but forms a continuum using the same basic mechanisms of evolution looked at from a wider angle and over longer time (as the last paragraph states). It looks at descent and the effects of additional normal hereditary changes within species over time for the opportunities for the formation of diverse forms over longer periods of time than species cover.

Forms that can be grouped into each different level of a taxonomic hierarchy by their similarities. At each different level of taxon there are different kinds at that level: different kinds of species in each family, different kinds of families in each genus, different kinds of genera in each order, etc etc etc.

There is nothing magical about classifications into different taxons, no level of change that needs to be reached to make a new level, just relationships by common ancestors and the different times of divergence.

This again is just part of the natural history of life on earth.

Change that produces new "kinds" DOES in fact occur -- IF you use the standard definition of "kind:

Again, you are being hypocritical. Use the definition used by Science and scientists, NOT the “general” definition.

I am. There is no special definition listed as scientific under "kind" so what scientists use is this general definition as a generic classification for arbitrary groups of organisms, whether by variety, species, family, genus, order .... or whatever, based on their similarites.

4) Common ancestor (Umich) – “Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor”, an oak tree and man for instance.

Common ancestor is a result of hereditary relationships, thus it is a predicted part of the natural history of life on earth by the theory of evolution. Theoretically the further back in time you apply the theory of evolution the further back in time you will find common ancestors. The evidence for common ancestors validates this concept and that in turn validates the theory of evolution.

You are also equivocating here Murk, as what you were supposed to be showing is that a single common ancestor is necessary in your definition, and this is just recent, or last common ancestor (LCA). You have done this throughout your "evaluation" of definitions (and why it is not usable).

I am supposed to answer refutations of my theory while you refuse to address refutations of your theory? What makes you so special? You have attempting to refute my theory with 1 or 2 definitions out of 60 and yet it is not valid for me to refute your theory with many more?

That's not what I said. I said proving my version to be invalid (if you had) would have no bearing on the validity of your version. None. Zero. Nada. It's basic logic 101.

And in regards to being “tested”, the entire theory of evolution is an untested hypothesis! By your same logic, it should be thrown out. I take the use of your words “validated theory” to mean a valid statement of theory. This is unrelated as to whether the theory itself is valid (true) or not.

Sorry, "validated" means "tested and not invalidated" when it comes to scientific theories. Your claims that evolution is untested is just another delusional assertion on your part. Further "valid" does not mean "true" either -- it just means it has not be invalidated by the tests that have already been done. It may be that your concept has not been tested, but it is not evolution or the theory of evolution.

Logic tells us that if we are neither both right nor both wrong, then you would need to show that one definition is right AND that the other definition is wrong.

Both history and logic tells us that we can both be wrong, that there is no dichotomy as you falsely imply, and that you need to deal with the evidence that refutes your concept OR consider that it is invalidated.

CISOT applies equally to the development of life from the original created kinds over the last 6000 or so years. Therefore is it entirely useless in describing evolutionary theory

No, it just demonstrates that your beef is not with evolution but with common ancestry.

Most of your so called refutations of Message 111 are just assertions on your part, all smoke and no fire, without logic, substance or substantiation, however you have many many logical errors in your post, and this is a typical one:

References to all the diversity of life arising from a common ancestor over billions of years in universally accepted definitions of evolution specifically infer that nested hierarchies of species are required! Why would you think they are unnecessary? This concept has extreme value to the study of evolution.

Insisting on only a single common ancestor in your definition means that any new species can evolve directly from it and there is no need to infer any intermediates. What you are referring to that results in nested hierarchies is recent, or last common ancestors, (LCA). This is valuable to the study of (real) evolution, but this is not what you have. You can't conflate definitions that use LCA to claim that this supports your contention that a single common ancestor must be included in your definition and then equivocate back to use LCA to defend your single ancestor use in the definition.

This is what you do time and again Murk, and it is dishonest.

This does not say that new Kinds will be produced by any level of evolution. It simply says that evolution produces new Kinds.

Right. Any evolution will produce new kinds. Same result.

The scientific definition of “Kinds” can and is just as precisely defined as “Species” is. Therefore, if you apply the same logic, then CISOT must be thrown out as well.

And yet, strangely, you do not provide your definition of "kinds" you just make an assertion. You dodged the question again, Murk. Where's the definition? Without this definition you cannot claim that kinds have not evolved.

We can use the definition of species to see when new species have evolved and when they have not evolved, so if your definition of "kind" is just as good we should be able to use it to determine whether new "kinds" have evolved or not. Failure to provide such definition leads to the conclusion that you don't want to test this claim.

My goodness, there are volumes of studies regarding information content. Since you have refused to answer questions regarding this topic, I hardly think you can use it to disqualify a valid theory.
LOL! Wrong! Evolution did not occur since there was never any information gain. The inclusion of this element is critical to determine what is evolution and what is not. It is therefore supported by existing information and DOES belong as part of the theory.

And yet, strangely, you do provide the metric for measuring the amount of "information" in an organism so that you could actually (scientifically) verify when it goes "up" and when it goes "down" -- you dodged the issue again Murk. Without this metric you cannot tell one way or the other, so you cannot honestly claim that "there was never any information gain" -- and if this element is so "critical" to your definition then WHERE IS THE MEANS TO MEASURE IT?

It's very simple Murk: measurement of parameters is the way science is done. Change in the frequency of alleles in populations - a measurable quantity. Over generations - another measurable quantity.

This is natural selection, NOT evolution. And again, it is fact, not theory.
Since the Galapagos finches is not an example of evolution, it cannot be used to show that the definition is incorrect!

Sorry, Murk, but you do not get to decide whether this is or is not evolution. Scientists in the field of biological evolution get to decide what qualifies and what does not qualify as evolution.

By the Berkeley definition "changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next" and thus it is unequivocally evolution, as used by scientists.

By the UofMich definition #1 this is "Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation" and thus it is unequivocally evolution, as used by scientists.

... or moves in a direction which supports the notion that all the diversity of life arose from a common ancestor, then it is evolution.

That would be evolution of the Galapagos finches too.

The elements in my definition are a complete SUCCESS when applied to the Galapagos finches because it indicates that this is NOT an example of evolution BY DEFINITION.
Evolution did not occur since there was never any information gain.

All this shows is that your understanding of evolution is invalid and that your particular definition is a failure not that evolution did not occur.

The theory predicts that life can form from non-life. Again, if the evidence does not support the theory, that does NOT change the statement of the theory. All it means is that the theory should be abandoned.

Correct: your version of the theory should be abandoned as inadequate. It does not explain things adequately and is falsified by some things.

You see, Murk, ALL you have done here is show that your concept of the theory of evolution (and evolution) is invalid, not that evolution itself is invalid, or that the science of evolution is invalid, or that species have not evolved generation by generation.

This is known as the logical fallacy of the straw man argument: create a false opponent and then knock it down. This does not invalidate the real argument, only the straw man.

Instead of abandoning the theory, you just want to abandon the definition so you need not produce any valid evidence in the support of real evolution!

All that was tested was your definitions and concepts. They failed to explain the facts. That makes them invalid.

Its value is not in the study of on-going evolution, but rather in evaluating the validity of the theory.

No, Murk, a theory that cannot be used to explain and study the existing evidence, the ongoing process of any science, and make predictions, is useless by definition. The purpose of a theory is not to validate itself but to be useful in studying the science in question. You 'theory' is incapable of this, and therefore it is not a valid theory for the study of the science of biological evolution -- as done by scientists.

As I’ve stated many times, this is where you get in trouble. You cannot boil down a theory to it’s least common denominator by ignoring it’s critical elements. You simply end up with useless gibberish. It is the same as saying that Newton’s law of universal gravitation can be boiled down – at the heart – to change in force over time.

That would be false of course, because there is no time element in Newton's basic theory of gravity. But you can say that it is simply the attraction relationship between masses over distance (squared) -- those ARE the minimum elements to the theory. Including the time for the formation of the entire universe (13.7 billion years) is extraneous to the basic formulation of this theory. Including the formation of the first particle to condense from energy plasma (first matter formed from non-matter) is extraneous to the basic formulation of this theory. Including the formation of stars from the debris of the first stellar novas (first common element) is extraneous to the basic formulation of this theory. Including the formation of the solar system by the accumulation of particles into star and planets (formation of new stellar bodies) is extraneous to the basic formulation of this theory. But all of these elements are part of the natural history of the universe and the solar system and the study of physics and astronomy.

Your point is refuted by your own example.

Of course using your approach to theory building we need to include all these elements in order to develop:

The Murky Theory of Gravity

The {hypothesis/belief} that all the celestial bodies in the universe formed over many billions of years from a single common element which itself came from a non-material form

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

Of course man has been incapable of forming new celestial bodies like a moon in spite of hundreds of years of experiments with gravity. We have also never seen the formation of any new celestial bodies. This is because gravity is false. Yada Yada etc etc etc typical creationist nonsense....

Instead you insist that 90% of the definitions are WRONG

No, Murk, I have demonstrated that your evaluation of their import on a statement of the theory of evolution is wrong. I have shown this to be the case several times and yet you continue to do the same thing over and over. What's hilarious is that you have just now shown that your theory of evolution is invalid just as I claimed it was. Good. Now we can move on to what evolution really is and what the definition of the theory of evolution really is.

In summary, CISOT says NOTHING about the theory of evolution.

Are you personifying " the theory of evolution" as some finite object Murk? It isn't. It is a theory.

The theory that hereditary traits in species change over time is a statement of what the theory of evolution covers\includes\studies. And you admit it happens.

It is a complete failure as a description of evolutionary theory. It predicts nothing since it is simply an observational fact in the present. It is completely and totally useless. It is something you have made up to deceive yourself and others into believing evolution is true.

You have not shown this, you've just made a number of assertions that this is so, based on your straw man misrepresentation of it, and of evolution, and your denial of scientific studies.

The easiest way around your stonewalling is to forget "yours versus mine" and use a scientific definition from a scientific source that teaches the science -- such as the Berkeley definition.

And why should I debate the Berkeley definition, when you refuse to debate the majority of sources that agree with my definition?

Because you initially brought it up, and because I agree with you that it is a scientific definition of the theory of evolution used by scientists to teach the science of evolution. Thus there is no need to look at the validity of your various misrepresentations or what you think of my version, but just to proceed with the discussion using this definition used by scientists. I'm not so dedicated to my version of the definition to make this compromise.

Or do you dispute that this is (a) a definition of the theory of evolution (b) by scientists in the field of evolutionary biology and (c) used by scientists in the field of evolutionary biology?

You may feel that Berkeley and UMich support your definition, but they do not refute mine.

Good. Then we can proceed to use the Berkeley definition.

This means you can dispense with the drama and the histrionics and 10 pages of detailed nonsense and actually proceed with the debate.

IF that is what you really want to do. Personally I think you only want to be a drama queen (hence the stonewalling and the sturm und drang). Of course it also means you can't hide behind misrepresentations anymore either.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added more

Edited by RAZD, : murky theory of gravity

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 112 by MurkyWaters, posted 08-18-2007 1:17 AM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-02-2007 12:04 PM RAZD has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 3397 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 114 of 121 (419359)
09-02-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
08-18-2007 4:18 PM


RAZ dodges and stonewalls again
I really wish you would take more time to read these messages before responding. Your most recent post is chock full of examples of simply not reading the material and then responding with irrelevant comments which don’t deal with the issues at hand. In addition, you quickly respond to a small handful of points and completely ignore the major arguments that you are apparently having trouble with and cannot refute. As has been shown time and again and as will be shown in this post, you are the one that is dodging and stonewalling, not me.


Why would you falsely assume it is a statement of the theory when you admit above that I am only “starting out” to compare them?

Because you say lets compare theories, then have two boxes labeled {theory A} and theory {B}, with statements in the boxes that look like statements of the theories, and then there is a gap. Normally people start out these kinds of comparisons by actually stating the theories in those boxes. Then down below is where you go into details on the comparisons, but you can't do that honestly without first stating the full theories that are being compared.

Now if you want to admit that you meant to do this but forgot or got in a hurry or just made a mistake, then no problem. You can correct that mistake.

It really doesn't matter to me because your concept of what evolution is, what the science of evolution covers and what the theory of evolution includes is mistaken -- at best.

Are you playing dumb? It’s not very becoming of you. You have already admitted that you were aware that I was only “starting out” to compare the theories with other components to follow so you have been caught in another lie. You had obviously read the entire post since you had responded to it in the past so you knew the definition I had proposed was in the definition section, just as yours was in the definition section of your prior post (following YOUR discussion of the theories beforehand).

It’s totally unbelievable and beyond all reason that you are now attempting to blame me as a cover-up by accusing me of being dishonest and making mistakes in how I laid out my argument. I made no mistakes. There was a specific rhyme and reason that is completely apparent if you’d just read the response as to why the components of evolutionary theory were laid out chronologically. That is not only stated in the referenced post but on numerous occasions throughout this entire debate so you are without excuse. Not only this, but I never mention a single time that this is my definition of evolution and in subsequent paragraphs make it clear time and again that this is only the beginning parts of the theories.

Why is it so impossible for you to admit that you have made a mistake (could it be because you have purposely misrepresented the information)? Honestly, if you cannot concede your error in a most blatantly obvious example as this, there is really no point in continuing to more complex issues. And just to be complete, it is not my concept of evolution or what it covers that is mistaken, it is yours –at best.


Something being part of the “definition” or “statement of theory” is a completely different issue from something being part of the theory. For example, your definition says nothing about natural selection, but it cannot be denied that natural selection is an essential part of evolutionary theory

Yet I don't see it in your {everything but the kitchen sink) definition (msg 104). It cannot be denied that the theory of natural selection is an essential part of the science and study of evolution.

That was my point. You don’t see it in either definition. The definition used by science (MTM) does not include “everything but the kitchen sink” but only those critical elements necessary to convey the meaning and intent of the theory. Natural selection is part of evolutionary theory. While evolutionary theory consists of many sub-theories they are still subordinate or part of the main theory. It is not necessary to list all of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms in the definition, although it certainly would not be incorrect to do so.

You seem to be relegating these components to the “Science” of evolution, but that is just semantics. It is not incorrect to state that they are part of “evolutionary theory” which is the terminology commonly used. My point was that everything included in “evolutionary theory” (or science) is a different topic than the “definition” or specific statement of the “theory of evolution” which includes only those things necessary to convey the basic meaning and intent of the theory.


1) Life from non-life (Berkeley) – “within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from”.

Just because it is "of special interest" within the scientific field of evolutionary biology does not mean that it is part of the definition of the theory of evolution, or even that it is a necessary part of the science of evolution.

It clearly states that the origin of life is part of evolutionary biology which makes it part of the science of evolution which means it is part of evolutionary theory. This is supported by many other sources as well. The same applies to Billions of years, kinds and common ancestors. However it was not my intent to get sidetracked into specific discussions on each of these. The clear point being made is that these concepts are all part of evolutionary theory. Whether they should be contained in the definition or not is determined by the scientific sources we have referenced.

However it is not a coincidence that all of these concepts are discussed in every verbose reference on evolution. That is because they are all part of evolutionary theory. Evolution theorizes that life arose from non life billions of years ago. Evolution theorizes that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor which means one kind changed into another kind. This cannot rationally be denied.

Notice that the evidence - fact - is that the earliest life we know of existed 3.5 billion years ago - cyanobacteria fossils in rocks.

It is absolutely and equivocally NOT a fact that the earliest life we know existed 3.5 billion years ago (maybe the fact that this date has changed a dozen times might be a clue). It is a theoretical conclusion based on a presuppositional interpretation of known facts. A different interpretation of these same known facts (evidence) would place the creation of life around 6000 years ago.


3) Kinds (UMich) – “The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution”, as opposed to species – “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another”.

You are once again blatantly misrepresenting things Murk, highlighted in pink above. This is not part of the UofMich definition or the part discussing it. This is you falsifying information. Your “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another” is not anywhere within the section on the definitions of biological evolution (it is part of one concept of species identification in the following section).

I’ve neither misrepresented nor falsified ANY information. That’s just you inventing things out of nothing again so you can accuse others in order to hide your own misrepresentations. No where did I imply that these 2 quotes were in the same section and it is completely irrelevant to boot. The point is that there is a difference between completely new and physically distinct life forms from those that look similar to one another. This is an elementary concept recognized by UMich, the source that has become your bible, and one that a 2 year old could grasp but also one that you refuse to acknowledge simply because it destroys your argument. You’ve demonstrated a history of denying things in black and white that are staring you in the face if it means admitting you are wrong.

* Definition 2:
The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels.

To be complete, definition 1 states: “Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation”

Umich insists that a complete statement which conveys a full understanding of what evolution is REQUIRES that those 2 concepts (definition 1 and 2) be linked. However, you fly in the face of this by insisting the evolution can be represented with ONLY definition 1. You thereby misrepresent the definition of evolution with the full intent of deceiving yourself and others into thinking evolution is a fact. The Umich source says that your supposed comprehensive or general definition is not only wrong but conveys an incomplete and in fact deceptive meaning by not acknowledging the slow development of new kinds (and in fact all of the present diversity of life) as part of macroevolution.


4) Common ancestor (Umich) – “Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor”, an oak tree and man for instance.

Common ancestor is a result of hereditary relationships, thus it is a predicted part of the natural history of life on earth by the theory of evolution. Theoretically the further back in time you apply the theory of evolution the further back in time you will find common ancestors. The evidence for common ancestors validates this concept and that in turn validates the theory of evolution.

Evidence for common ancestors between kinds (of which there is none) would help validate the theory of evolution. However it does nothing for CISOT. CISOT neither mentions nor implies the existence of common ancestors. As I have stated many times, creation of diversity stemming from the CREATED kinds supports the concept of CISOT. CISOT does not imply that ANY pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This is a completely different concept which you refuse to include in your definition.

You are also equivocating here Murk, as what you were supposed to be showing is that a single common ancestor is necessary in your definition, and this is just recent, or last common ancestor (LCA). You have done this throughout your "evaluation" of definitions (and why it is not usable).

I’m not equivocating at all. Mathematics is obviously not your strong point. If ANY 2 organisms have had a common ancestor then we must have arose from a single one. Do the math!!! Nevertheless this was just an example. There are clearer statements for those that are mathematically impaired such as from Berkeley “The central idea of biological evolution is that ALL life on Earth shares A common ancestor...THE common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today.” This is undeniably a statement by Berkeley (who teaches evolution), that the central idea of evolutionary theory is that all life on earth arose from a SINGLE common ancestor. In other words, a valid statement for the theory of evolution would go “The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see around us today arose from a single common ancestor over the history of life”. Of course, they later go on to state that this “history of life” which is specifically included in their definition spans 3.5 billion years. So it would not be incorrect to simply substitute billions of years into the definition. Thus it becomes “The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor billions of years ago”. Thus, Berkeley teaches the same thing that the majority of references have born out – MTM.

Even so, I have said on numerous occasions that the definition is open to a single or a small number of common ancestors when scientists make up their mind. It changes little regarding the basic concepts of the definition. However, it would require a change in evolutionary theory because no longer would ANY 2 organisms have a common ancestor (think about it). In fact, I would relish the news that they have decided that it is more than one. Since the probably of even a single ancestor is already mathematically impossible, the probably of several is astronomically smaller. The evidence they are discovering today which is leading them to re-evaluate whether it’s one or a few will eventually lead them to the conclusion that all life arose from MANY (the created kinds).

The important point to take is that the inclusion of this concept in the theory conveys clearly that evolutionists believe that all the diversity of life arose from much simpler forms thereby implying one kind has changed into another and become more complex, with new features and information content not originally seen in the biosphere – a concept that is COMPLETELY ABSENT from CISOT.


I am supposed to answer refutations of my theory while you refuse to address refutations of your theory? What makes you so special? You have attempting to refute my theory with 1 or 2 definitions out of 60 and yet it is not valid for me to refute your theory with many more?

That's not what I said.

It’s exactly what you said! You say it again below – “you need to deal with the evidence that refutes your concept OR consider that it is invalidated”. You want me to deal with the Umich and/or Berkely definition which you THINK refutes my definition and yet you refuse to deal with the 8 sources I have cited which refute your definition! This is you dodging again.

I said proving my version to be invalid (if you had) would have no bearing on the validity of your version. None. Zero. Nada. It's basic logic 101.

If “proving my version [CISOT] to be invalid (if you had) would therefore also have no bearing on the validity of your version [MTM]” is a true statement then the same holds true for yours. Proving my version [MTM] to be invalid (if you had) would therefore also have no bearing on the validity of your version [CISOT]. However, yours is a ridiculous statement to make anyway which I’ll show in a moment.


Logic tells us that if we are neither both right nor both wrong, then you would need to show that one definition is right AND that the other definition is wrong.

Both history and logic tells us that we can both be wrong, that there is no dichotomy as you falsely imply, and that you need to deal with the evidence that refutes your concept OR consider that it is invalidated.

First of all I said “IF”. You are the one creating the dichotomy. Are you actually admitting that you could be wrong? Show me anywhere in this debate where you have admitted to being wrong (besides a typo or something)? If you can’t admit you are wrong in the blatant example regarding my comparison of creation and evolutionary theories at the opening of this post, than how could I possibly entertain the notion that you could admit you are wrong regarding the definition of the theory of evolution! That being said, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you would not entertain the notion that we could both be wrong.

However, that is really an irrelevant question. The important question is whether we can both be right and this is where your logic breaks down. I actually do contend that in a sense we are both right. CISOT is certainly a true statement, however, it is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution. It is an observation of fact and is used in the majority of your references to describe a process, not a statement of the theory of evolution. MTM, however, is an accurate statement of the theory of evolution which does not depend on whether the theory is shown to be true or not.

I have shown that MTM is the correct statement of the theory based on the majority of 50 references and the application of sound logic. It is correct because it contains the essential elements necessary to clearly describe the basic tenants of evolutionary theory and to distinguish it from competing theories. Demonstrating that MTM is correct directly INVALIDATES CISOT because CISOT does NOT contain these essential elements that references tell us are a necessary part of the statement of the theory in order to convey it’s meaning and intent.

Therefore, all I need to do to invalidate your definition is show that MTM is correct, which I have done in spades. I agree that if I had only shown your definition to be an incorrect statement of the theory, that I would then need to supply a correct version. This I have done. Even if you disagree that I have proven my case, showing that yours is incorrect is half the battle and a major one at that, so it cannot be discounted.

You’re being hypocritical by not taking your own advice. In your own words, “you need to deal with the evidence that refutes your concept OR consider it invalidated”, not find a single source or 2 which you think invalidates mine. I do not need to refute every source under the sun when I’ve already shown that the majority support MTM. However, I would still be glad to address Umich or Berkeley in more detail (I’ve already done that for the most part in this post and in prior posts), if you’d address the 8 definitions which refute CISOT.


And in regards to being “tested”, the entire theory of evolution is an untested hypothesis! By your same logic, it should be thrown out. I take the use of your words “validated theory” to mean a valid statement of theory. This is unrelated as to whether the theory itself is valid (true) or not.

Sorry, "validated" means "tested and not invalidated" when it comes to scientific theories. Your claims that evolution is untested is just another delusional assertion on your part. Further "valid" does not mean "true" either -- it just means it has not be invalidated by the tests that have already been done. It may be that your concept has not been tested, but it is not evolution or the theory of evolution.

My goodness, must we contend also on the definition of a theory? I suppose we could gather together 50 references on that as well and start the debate all over. I certainly hope we need not do this. A valid statement of theory has nothing to do with whether the theory turns out to be valid or not so we just need to be clear on what we are talking about or we’ll get tied up in knots again. The word “Theory” get’s bandied about quite a bit and for the most part I’ve attempted to ignore this topic because in the end, I don’t care whether you call evolution a theory or not even if it doesn’t deserve that status. However, you are the one that is raising the issue so I must respond.

A true theory can be tested. However, you can’t seem to get it through your head that conjecture about past events is NOT testable. We can interpret facts based on our presuppositions, but we were not there in the past and cannot recreate past events for testing purposes. I’m sure you know that Karl Popper, who is one of the most influential science philosophers in history said that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program”. This makes it at best a framework or worldview, not even to the level of a hypothesis. So we shouldn’t even be talking about what a good theory is because evolution is NOT a testable or valid theory. It is simply called a “theory” by common usage to signify a conjecture or speculation synonymous with a “hypothesis”.

Your claim that evolution is testable is just another delusional assertion on your part. CISOT may be an observed fact of science or a testable process conjectured to produce results in support of evolution, but it is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution.


CISOT applies equally to the development of life from the original created kinds over the last 6000 or so years. Therefore is it entirely useless in describing evolutionary theory

No, it just demonstrates that your beef is not with evolution but with common ancestry.

You’re dodging again as always. Either answer the objection or let’s end this farce of yours. How does CISOT NOT apply to the creation of life 6000 years ago? CISOT says nothing about how or when life appeared and it says nothing about common ancestry. “The original kinds of plant and animal life were created by GOD approximately 6000 years ago and since then we have seen change in species over time just as we observe today”. How does that sentence contradict CISOT in any way? It doesn’t. This means CISOT cannot be a valid statement of the theory of evolution if it applies equally well to creation theory.

Most of your so called refutations of Message 111 are just assertions on your part, all smoke and no fire, without logic, substance or substantiation, however you have many many logical errors in your post, and this is a typical one:

LOL! This very statement is simply smoke and mirrors on your part with no substance or substantiation and I have pointed out countless logical errors in your posts. When you encounter sound logic which you are unable to refute, you simply call it a logical error so you need not admit you are wrong. This is a typical example above.


References to all the diversity of life arising from a common ancestor over billions of years in universally accepted definitions of evolution specifically infer that nested hierarchies of species are required! Why would you think they are unnecessary? This concept has extreme value to the study of evolution.

Insisting on only a single common ancestor in your definition means that any new species can evolve directly from it and there is no need to infer any intermediates. What you are referring to that results in nested hierarchies is recent, or last common ancestors, (LCA). This is valuable to the study of (real) evolution, but this is not what you have. You can't conflate definitions that use LCA to claim that this supports your contention that a single common ancestor must be included in your definition and then equivocate back to use LCA to defend your single ancestor use in the definition.
This is what you do time and again Murk, and it is dishonest.

You are the one being dishonest, time and time again as shown most blatantly by the comparison of theories at the beginning of this post and here again. Your first sentence is complete dishonest nonsense and is not even close to a logically drawn conclusion. Evolution from a single common ancestor resulting in all the diversity of life we see today over the course of 3.5 billion years precludes the possibility that ANY new species could evolve directly from it. To form a million species from one implies that there must be a nested hierarchy or tree structure connecting them. It is a slow gradual process, an essential part of my definition which you insist is NOT a necessary part of your definition. On the other hand, CISOT is NOT contradicted by a horse being born from a salamander’s egg. This would certainly be a change in species over a time (a short time). You are the one that is erroneously conflating LCA with CISOT which says nothing about common ancestry.

And look who’s talking about equivocating! It’s none other than RAZ King of equivocation who erroneously equates a simple factual observation like CISOT with the entire theory of evolution.


This does not say that new Kinds will be produced by any level of evolution. It simply says that evolution produces new Kinds.

Right. Any evolution will produce new kinds. Same result.

You’re simply choosing to be illogical and dishonest because you have no refutation. This must be the case since a concept as clear as this could not evade the simplest of minds. That “evolution produces new kinds” is in no way the same as your original statement that MTM Predicts that new Kinds will be produced by ANY level of evolution. You dishonestly left out the rest of my response where I made this clear – “To be more precise, it must be the kind of change capable of producing new Kinds. It would PREDICT that there would be many intermediate steps between kinds having shared features of both. Of course, this prediction as with all predictions of evolution have not materialized.” BTW, this lack of ability to predict indicates that evolution is not a good scientific theory. Evolution producing new kinds does NOT imply that they will be produced at any level. However, if you do not observe changes in kind, you can only CONJECTURE that the process could produce new information without evidence. In addition, the changes we see today have been shown to be INCAPABLE of producing new information that would be required to evolve a new kind. Therefore, evolution has been invalidated by the evidence again.


The scientific definition of “Kinds” can and is just as precisely defined as “Species” is. Therefore, if you apply the same logic, then CISOT must be thrown out as well.

And yet, strangely, you do not provide your definition of "kinds" you just make an assertion. You dodged the question again, Murk. Where's the definition? Without this definition you cannot claim that kinds have not evolved.

And how precise is the definition of species? Umich tells us that “The definition of a species is debatable. Most scientists adhere either to the morphological species concept (members of a species look alike and can be distinguished from other species by their appearance), or to the biological species concept (a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups). Both definitions have their weaknesses.” In addition, geneticists are talking about a new definition of species that relies on genetic information which could double the number.

It’s not strange at all that I have not provided a definition of kind because it’s essentially irrelevant, just as a definition of species is. Considering how imprecise the definition of a species is, it would end up being a major distraction with little impact on the definition of evolution. With thousands of posts at this forum, I suspect you know very well what the definition of a kind is and if not, you are perfectly capable of looking it up. You had no trouble with “species”. However, the definition is completely unnecessary to our debate on the statement of the theory of evolution for a couple of reasons. First, it would simply be another opportunity for you to dodge the issue of refuting evidence against the RAZ CISOT theory by getting sidetracked on the evidence for or against evolution. A discussion of kinds would be relevant to our subsequent debate on the evidence once we agree on the theory that we are supporting or refuting (if that happens). Second, the definition of evolution states “all the living forms in the world” which is equivalent to “all the diversity of life” that we see today. There is no denying that all the diversity of life we see today consists of many different forms or kinds. The specific identification of each one is totally irrelevant until we evaluate the evidence in support or refutation of the theory.

Really, you are just being obstinate. I do not need to provide a precise definition of kinds (just as there is not one for species) to claim that they have evolved. It’s difficult for me to fathom that you would not believe that they have evolved either. ALL evolutionists believe that kinds have evolved, so if you do not, I would need to understand how or why you believe in evolution. An elephant is clearly a different kind of creature than a hummingbird or an oak tree. You don’t need a definition to understand that. It is irrelevant whether you think that two nearly identical birds are different species or not. The gross differences are the only thing that matters in the definition. Evolution is supposed to have created all of these creatures from a single common ancestor and therefore it must be capable of producing new kinds with new features and complexity never seen before. I realize for scientific study, that we must get more specific but it is completely unnecessary for a debate on the definition of evolution.

An unwillingness to debate the obvious is not dodging. It’s staying focused on our objectives without you sidetracking and dodging to avoid your failed arguments so that we can complete this debate before I die.

We can use the definition of species to see when new species have evolved and when they have not evolved, so if your definition of "kind" is just as good we should be able to use it to determine whether new "kinds" have evolved or not. Failure to provide such definition leads to the conclusion that you don't want to test this claim.

First, species is an arbitrary man-made classification which may soon go through dramatic revision based on genetics research so when a species has evolved is a completely arbitrary and therefore non-useful determination for evolution. This is opposed to research into the created kinds which is not arbitrary at all since it is an attempt to determine the actual kinds that were created approx 6000 years ago. We can determine when a new kind has evolved as precisely as a species. I would certainly welcome a test of this claim when we discuss the evidence. Not supplying this definition now should lead you to the conclusion that I wish to stay focused on our objectives rather then getting sidetracked.


My goodness, there are volumes of studies regarding information content. Since you have refused to answer questions regarding this topic, I hardly think you can use it to disqualify a valid theory.
LOL! Wrong! Evolution did not occur since there was never any information gain. The inclusion of this element is critical to determine what is evolution and what is not. It is therefore supported by existing information and DOES belong as part of the theory.

And yet, strangely, you do provide the metric for measuring the amount of "information" in an organism so that you could actually (scientifically) verify when it goes "up" and when it goes "down" -- you dodged the issue again Murk. Without this metric you cannot tell one way or the other, so you cannot honestly claim that "there was never any information gain" -- and if this element is so "critical" to your definition then WHERE IS THE MEANS TO MEASURE IT?

Again, I didn’t invent the definition of evolution, scientific sources and other universal references we have cited did. Your beef isn’t with me, it’s with the science. An appropriate time to look at the measurement of information gain is when we review the evidence which refutes or supports the theory of evolution which we have yet to agree on. However, I never use this term explicitly in my definition, so it’s unnecessary to define it.

On the other hand you are the one dodging by refusing to answer this simple question, yes or no, that I have posed multiple times - Is a human being more complex than a blob of protoplasm (representative of the supposed first life) or not? Refusing to answer is you dodging again.

It's very simple Murk: measurement of parameters is the way science is done. Change in the frequency of alleles in populations - a measurable quantity. Over generations - another measurable quantity.

Ahh, yes. That’s the way operational science is done but it’s NOT the way origins research is done since historical events are neither testable nor repeatable. You’re not talking about evolution here, your talking about observed factual changes which you only SPECULATE support evolution based on your presuppositions.


This is natural selection, NOT evolution. And again, it is fact, not theory.
Since the Galapagos finches is not an example of evolution, it cannot be used to show that the definition is incorrect!

Sorry, Murk, but you do not get to decide whether this is or is not evolution. Scientists in the field of biological evolution get to decide what qualifies and what does not qualify as evolution.
By the Berkeley definition "changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next" and thus it is unequivocally evolution, as used by scientists.
By the UofMich definition #1 this is "Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation" and thus it is unequivocally evolution, as used by scientists.

Sorry Raz, you don’t get to decide either. There are many scientists that do not consider this to be evolution. As noted earlier you are blatantly misrepresenting the UMich definition.

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.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.

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.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.

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.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.

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.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as accepted by all serious scientists.

Lastly, Ernst Mayer, the Darwin of modern times and one of the most respected evolutionists of all time does NOT accept change in frequency of alleles as evolution and thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution as accepted by not only scientists but the most respected of scientists.

Rather than basing your argument on a logical fallacy (If some scientists belief it , doesn’t make it true) why don’t you try using some sound rational and logic? I suspect it is because you have none and certainly have not even attempted to refute the majority of arguments I have proposed as we’ll see later.


The elements in my definition are a complete SUCCESS when applied to the Galapagos finches because it indicates that this is NOT an example of evolution BY DEFINITION.
Evolution did not occur since there was never any information gain.

All this shows is that your understanding of evolution is invalid and that your particular definition is a failure not that evolution did not occur.

No, it shows that YOUR understanding of evolution is invalid, except that I’ve proved it not just said it.


The theory predicts that life can form from non-life. Again, if the evidence does not support the theory, that does NOT change the statement of the theory. All it means is that the theory should be abandoned.

Correct: your version of the theory should be abandoned as inadequate. It does not explain things adequately and is falsified by some things.
You see, Murk, ALL you have done here is show that your concept of the theory of evolution (and evolution) is invalid, not that evolution itself is invalid, or that the science of evolution is invalid, or that species have not evolved generation by generation.
This is known as the logical fallacy of the straw man argument: create a false opponent and then knock it down. This does not invalidate the real argument, only the straw man.

Ahh, except what you call my “strawman” is the actual valid statement of evolution as proven by the majority of sources cited. You are the one that has created the strawman in order to deceive yourself and others that evolution has occurred. CISOT appears no where in the literature as a definition of evolution. You want to abandon the real theory of evolution in place of your own deceptive slogan because real evolution (and therefore your worldview) has been shown to be bankrupt. You are again not reading what I have written – “if the evidence does not support the theory that does NOT change the statement of the theory”. It is what it is. Although I’m glad to see that you agree that I’ve shown that evolution is invalid. Therefore, once you agree that my definition is the correct one, we shouldn’t have to pursue any of the evidence after that.


Instead of abandoning the theory, you just want to abandon the definition so you need not produce any valid evidence in the support of real evolution!

All that was tested was your definitions and concepts. They failed to explain the facts. That makes them invalid.

Sorry, the definition is what it is as cited by a vast array of sources. All your wishful thinking isn’t going to change that. However, you have hit upon the precise point – evolution fails to explain the facts! You can’t change the theory on your own whim and still call it evolution so that it supports the observed facts simply to deceive yourself and others into thinking real evolution is true.


Its value is not in the study of on-going evolution, but rather in evaluating the validity of the theory.

No, Murk, a theory that cannot be used to explain and study the existing evidence, the ongoing process of any science, and make predictions, is useless by definition. The purpose of a theory is not to validate itself but to be useful in studying the science in question. You 'theory' is incapable of this, and therefore it is not a valid theory for the study of the science of biological evolution -- as done by scientists.

You certainly have a twisted sense of what a theory is. I can propose a theory that the moon was made of cheese a million years ago. That doesn’t do much for the science of cheese making but it is nonetheless a theory. You, not me, are the one creating a theory to validate itself. You make up nonsense like CISOT just so that it fits the facts. No matter that it has nothing to do with the statement of evolution. Perhaps if we just call it evolution we’ll deceive people into thinking its true. The real theory of evolution attempts to explain the history of life (as stated by Berkeley, which teaches evolution). CISOT on the other hand is completely and utterly useless in explaining anything because it is not a theory, it is simply a factual observation in the present. It does nothing to explain the history of life as you could draw countless different predictions and assumptions about the past from CISOT. And make no mistake, if you state ANYTHING about the past based on CISOT, you are making some assumption that you are not stating in the theory itself. Therefore, you are being both dishonest and deceptive in your statement.

No, Murk, I have demonstrated that your evaluation of their import on a statement of the theory of evolution is wrong. I have shown this to be the case several times and yet you continue to do the same thing over and over. What's hilarious is that you have just now shown that your theory of evolution is invalid just as I claimed it was. Good. Now we can move on to what evolution really is and what the definition of the theory of evolution really is.

No, RAZ you have done nothing of the sort but I have shown how your circular reasoning has blinded you to the truth and revealed your deception. The theory is what it is. You can’t change it to fit the facts so that you don’t have to face the truth that evolution is invalid. I don’t see how you can have the gall to say you have demonstrated anything. It’s only you running off at the mouth as usual with just assertions on your part, all smoke and no fire, without logic, substance or substantiation. I have clearly demonstrated that CISOT is bankrupt as a statement of the theory, that you have left out all the critical elements of the theory of evolution necessary to convey its meaning and intent but more importantly to provide a basis for its study and evaluation.

The theory that hereditary traits in species change over time is a statement of what the theory of evolution covers\includes\studies. And you admit it happens.

How hilarious that you’ve made my point again. I admit it happens because it’s a factual observation, not a theory. I’ve shown this to be the case numerous times and yet you continue to say the same thing over and over. This is you stonewalling.

In addition, you’ve still not answered my question regarding the change of your imaginary theory from CISOT to HCISOT. Have you formally changed it or not? I will continue to use CIOST until you confirm the change. This is you dodging.


It is a complete failure as a description of evolutionary theory. It predicts nothing since it is simply an observational fact in the present. It is completely and totally useless. It is something you have made up to deceive yourself and others into believing evolution is true.

You have not shown this, you've just made a number of assertions that this is so, based on your straw man misrepresentation of it, and of evolution, and your denial of scientific studies.

How can you say this with a straight face (although I can’t see your face to know). I suppose therefore that it’s probably not straight. I have shown that not a single source we have cited has used CISOT as the definition of evolution. That’s not just me making assertions, its referencing scientific and universal sources to determine the real statement of the theory of evolution. This would be a pretty clear indication that you have simply made up your definition.

It’s not simply an assertion on my part that CISOT is nothing but an observed fact. You have admitted yourself that it’s a fact and have refused to answer any questions regarding its lack of anything theoretical that could possibly be part of this observed fact. This is you dodging and stonewalling again.

CISOT cannot be a statement of the theory of evolution because there is nothing that can invalidate it as would be required of a theory. You have never been able to provide anything even close to reasonable that could invalidate this concept. This is you dodging and stonewalling again.

I have shown how CISOT fails to include any of the critical components of evolutionary theory that the vast majority of references insist are required including Umich and Berkeley. CISOT is useless as a definition of the theory of evolution and useless at making predictions regarding evolution. It says nothing about the type of change. It says nothing regarding the origin of species or responsibility for the diversity of life we see today. It says nothing about nested hierarchies, common ancestry or the “tree of life”. It does nothing to explain the history of life as you could draw countless different predictions and assumptions about the past from CISOT. If you insist that it does ANY of those things or if you state anything about the past based on CISOT, then you are deceitfully hiding your presuppositions and essential elements of evolutionary theory which you are attempting to apply but not state outright in the definition. Therefore, you are being both dishonest and deceptive in your statement. You refuse to address how these factors can be part of CISOT if they are not mentioned in the definition. This is you dodging and stonewalling again.

CISOT says nothing about the type of change predicted by the theory. Everyone knows and has always known that creatures change, but what kind of change? Is it change that can happen quickly or does it take a very long time? Is it the type of change that can create novel information or features that are new to the biosphere? Is it a type of change that could be responsible for all of the life on earth from a common ancestor? NONE of these questions are answered by CISOT. In short, it is useless as a definition because it says nothing about the type of change, the direction of change, the effects of the change or how long the change has been occurring. Since you have refused to address this issue it means you are dodging and stonewalling again.

On a related note, CISOT does NOT imply speciation. Why in the world would you assume it does? All the species that we see today could be changing without a single speciation event ever having taken place. In other words, one could logically conclude based on current evidence and CISOT alone that all the species that we see today were created 100 million years ago with features that have since been simply oscillating back and forth like the beak sizes of the Galapagos finches. Is this what evolutionists believe? Your failure to address this issue means you are dodging and stonewalling again.

You have refused to refute definitions which show you are false. This is you dodging and stonewalling again.

I have demonstrated how CISOT completely fails to differentiate itself from competing theories and yet you completely ignore this except to make denigrating comments regarding creation science and scientists, relegating creation theory to only a religious belief when I have clearly demonstrated that evolution is the more religious of the two. You have refused to address the comparison of creation and evolution theories (found most recently in one table at the bottom of post 109 under Point 5), which is a significant and compelling argument that you apparently are unable to refute. That is you dodging and stonewalling again.

You have refused to answer a simple question YES or NO – Is a human more complex that a blob of protoplasm (representing the first life)? This is you dodging and stonewalling again.

It is an established fact that the word “evolution” can refer to the theory of evolution or the process of evolution. You have already admitted in a prior post that “change in species over time” refers to this process, not the theory. In addition, the definitions which differentiate between process and theory, define the process as “change in species over time”. All this time, you have been defining the process of evolution, NOT the theory. You refuse to address either your past admission that CISOT is a process or a refutation of the many sources which call it a process. This is you stonewalling again.

You have continually waffled both on your definition of evolution and what it is referring to so it is impossible to tell what you are even talking about. Your refusal to answer my questions to clarify your position is you dodging and stonewalling again.

Lastly, I’ve quite effectively shown how your biased worldview and desperate desire to believe in evolution has caused you to use circular reasoning when attempting to establish your personal theory. In other words, according to you, a statement of the theory of evolution is correct ONLY if the evidence supports it or establishes it as being true. Put another way, if we find that the evidence doesn’t support the statement of the theory of evolution, then the statement (rather than the theory) must be wrong because we all know that evolution is true.

You have therefore been forced to remove the movement to greater complexity (information) or changes capable of producing different kinds of life from the definition because there is no evidence that this could possibly occur. You have been forced to remove statements regarding the responsibility for the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor from the definition since no evidence exists to support this notion. You have been forced to remove references to the age of the earth from the definition since the earth has been shown to be young. You have been forced to remove abiogenesis from the definition since it has been firmly established that it is naturally impossible by mathematical means, scientific laws and efforts by “intelligent” scientists themselves to replicate the process.

Therefore, you have only shown your false statement of the theory to be true while never changing the implications of the real theory which remain falsified by the evidence. Circular reasoning is again used by assuming evolution is true in order to speculate that existing processes today have in the past and will in the future produce results dictated by the real theory of evolution without a speck of scientific evidence.

You have done all of this simply so that evidence contrary to evolution can be pushed to the side and ignored in order to deceive yourself and others into believing a lie. This way you can continue to dodge and stonewall without have to face the facts.

Instead you should use the definition as it has been proposed by Darwin and the majority of sources and scientists we have looked at and then see if the evidence supports it or not. However, you are the one that has continued to stonewall by refusing to do this. Instead you insist that 93% of the definitions are WRONG and that your imaginary definition is correct and therefore we should use it instead of the one use by science and scientists. That is dodging and stonewalling.

All of these issues for which you are dodging and stonewalling are directly related to establishing the correct definition of the theory of evolution which is what this debate is about. The issues which you accuse me of stone walling are all exclusively related to extraneous issues dealing with evidence in support or against evolution or creation (without having established what those are). This is not stonewalling on my part but rather an attempt to stay focused on the goal. You are pursuing these in an effort to distract the conversation from the definitions because you have failed to establish your case and are unable to refute the evidence and logic that has been presented.

Really, when you look back at this debate, you have presented absolutely no defense for your notion that the theory of evolution can be boiled down to CISOT. Your only response to any valid arguments is to rant and rave, denigrate and ridicule but never respond with anything of substance. What has your argument been? You dig up a bunch of definitions from the internet and it turns out they support MTM rather than CISOT. You obsess over 2 universities and it turns out they teach MTM rather than CISOT. You insist that some nebulous “scientists” or the “science” believe CISOT without providing any evidence and I show that real scientists reject CISOT. Your only defense to any definitions or scientists (including Darwin himself) that show MTM is the real theory of evolution is simply to exclaim that everything is just CISOT even though MTM elements are clearly delineated in the definitions. Most importantly, you have not provided a SINGLE logical argument in favor of CISOT! And then you expect me to accept CISOT just because the almighty RAZ insists its true? Tell me WHY!

Bottom line, if you do not respond to the above solid objections of your position, then I must assume you cannot and this debate is over.

The easiest way around your stonewalling is to forget "yours versus mine" and use a scientific definition from a scientific source that teaches the science -- such as the Berkeley definition.

I have rarely used “yours versus mine” whereas you have used it consistently. Therefore, you are the one that needs to forget this, not me. I have used the same definition that is used by the vast majority of sources that we have cited, whereas you have simply made something up. I have demonstrated above how it is you, not me that is stonewalling. The easiest way around your stonewalling is to use the statement of the theory of evolution that is used by the majority of scientific and universal sources as well as by scientists and that is MTM.


And why should I debate the Berkeley definition, when you refuse to debate the majority of sources that agree with my definition?

Because you initially brought it up, and because I agree with you that it is a scientific definition of the theory of evolution used by scientists to teach the science of evolution. Thus there is no need to look at the validity of your various misrepresentations or what you think of my version, but just to proceed with the discussion using this definition used by scientists. I'm not so dedicated to my version of the definition to make this compromise.

Or do you dispute that this is (a) a definition of the theory of evolution (b) by scientists in the field of evolutionary biology and (c) used by scientists in the field of evolutionary biology?

First, it’s totally irrelevant who initially brought it up. Second, I certainly agree that it is a definition used by this university to teach evolution. Whether it used by scientists and in what capacity would certainly be up to debate, but again, that is essentially irrelevant considering the fact that not all scientists agree on the definition. Most scientists both within and outside of evolutionary biology define evolution as MTM and many of the most prominent disagree that evolution is HCISOT (ALL agree that it is NOT CISOT). In addition, other references which define evolution as MTM are just as valid as sources which are both written and used by scientists since many have come from biology textbooks or other biology sources.

However, most fundamentally, while I agree with you that UMich and Berkeley are definitions of “evolution”, they have not defined it as CISOT. You are grossly misrepresenting both of these sources. While I have been over this many times, I’ll repeat it briefly again:

Umich
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

UMich clearly states that Darwin’s theory of evolution proposed that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor. They make this clear by stating that one of the main parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution is that ALL organisms (both past and present) are derived from common ancestors and that ANY two organisms have a common ancestor which is an undeniable statement of common ancestry from a single prototype (in Darwin’s own words). Since they state that this concept is a MAIN part of the theory, it obviously cannot simply be removed. Another MAIN part of the theory is that change is gradual and slow taking place over a long time. UMich also makes it clear that another main part of the theory is that this change has occurred over the history of life, which evolutionists now speculate is 3.5 billion years (indeed a very long time). So UMich undeniably agrees with MTM and the majority of sources which we have cited as the statement of evolution. Not only this, but it disagrees with CISOT. Since these elements are cited as the MAIN components of the theory, they cannot simply be removed from the theory without grossly misrepresenting what the theory states.

In addition, it goes on to say in great detail on this page that NATURAL SELECTION is change in species over time during successive generations utilizing heritable traits. This sounds essentially identical to HCISOT. So your CISOT is simply a mechanism or process of evolution, but is NOT a statement of the theory. I’ve already reviewed your misrepresentation earlier of definition 1 and definition 2 found on another page at UMich.

In regards to Berkeley, you are again grossly misrepresenting what they teach. It is an indisputable fact that they include both MICRO and MACRO evolution in their definition. You choose to ignore MACRO by simply using CISOT. This is the height of misrepresentation and deception. They then go on to state what they mean by the definition and it is pure MTM all the way! For those that were blinded by their personal worldviews, they immediately include in their explanation of the definition the fact that the central idea of the definition is that ALL the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor which they later tell us occurred 3.8 billion years ago.

If that isn’t clear enough, it tells us what MACRO evolution is (a concept that they include in their definition). Evolutionary mechanisms (including CISOT) + 3.8 Billion yrs = Macro! They say repeatedly that Macro encompasses the entire history of life and is responsible for all the life forms we see today. What could be clearer than this!

To boil this down to only CISOT is the height of misrepresentation and deception. CISOT as the definition of the THEORY of evolution is NOT what these sources teach.


You may feel that Berkeley and UMich support your definition, but they do not refute mine.

Good. Then we can proceed to use the Berkeley definition.

Yes absolutely, since I’ve shown that the Berkeley and Umich definitions of the theory of evolution can be concisely stated as follows: “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2007 4:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 09-02-2007 3:17 PM MurkyWaters has responded
 Message 116 by iceage, posted 09-02-2007 3:58 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2007 9:19 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 115 of 121 (419413)
09-02-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by MurkyWaters
09-02-2007 12:04 PM


Re: RAZ dodges and stonewalls again
MurkyWaters writes:

It clearly states that the origin of life is part of evolutionary biology which makes it part of the science of evolution which means it is part of evolutionary theory.

The theory of evolution does not include the origin of life, just as home building does not include the origin of lumber. Home building assumes lumber and doesn't concern itself with where the lumber came from, just as evolution assumes life and doesn't concern itself with where life came from.

Your source appears to prefer to view the field of evolutionary biology as including both the theory of evolution and abiogenesis (theories of life's origins). It is not trying to assert that abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution.

However it is not a coincidence that all of these concepts are discussed in every verbose reference on evolution. That is because they are all part of evolutionary theory. Evolution theorizes that life arose from non life billions of years ago.

Actually, no. That would be abiogenesis.

This statement from Wikipedia's Life on Earth article characterizes the relationship between abiogenesis and evolution pretty clearly:

The chemical evolution from self-catalytic chemical reactions to life (see Origin of life) is not a part of biological evolution, but it is unclear at which point such increasingly complex sets of reactions became what we would consider, today, to be living organisms.

Moving on:

Evolution theorizes that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor which means one kind changed into another kind.

Well, sort of. Replace "kind" with "species" and this is fine. "Kind" has no formal definition within biology, nor within creationism, apparently.

It is absolutely and equivocally NOT a fact that the earliest life we know existed 3.5 billion years ago (maybe the fact that this date has changed a dozen times might be a clue). It is a theoretical conclusion based on a presuppositional interpretation of known facts. A different interpretation of these same known facts (evidence) would place the creation of life around 6000 years ago.

Well, it really isn't accurate to say that these same known facts are open to radically different interpretations. Concluding that life began 6000 years ago actually requires ignoring broad swaths of evidence, not reinterpreting it.

At one point in an earlier message you said this:

Kinds (UMich) – “The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution”, as opposed to species – “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another”.

This definition of species is the morphological species concept. It is only applied to species that don't reproduce sexually or which are known only from fossils. In most other circumstances the biological species concept is applied.

The UMich site appears to misrepresent how inadequate the morphological species concept is for classifying many species. It describes morphological species concept as if some scientists would actually consider applying it to living sexually reproducing species. I suppose if there were some rare never-captured species for which we only had a picture or a skeleton then the morphological species concept would be the only option, but when classifying living populations then the biological species concept applies.

I guess I should add that the morphological species concept is often applied in cases where a newly identified species differs significantly morphologically from any existing species. Many new insect species are identified this way every year.

The morphological species concept is usually deprecated because it can so easily lead to errors. Species which are identical morphologically may still be different in other ways, such as the behavioral differences in some species of wasps. And some species go through dramatic morphological change during their life cycle and so could be identified as two species when they are actually one, such as the larval and adult stages of many insects.

A true theory can be tested. However, you can’t seem to get it through your head that conjecture about past events is NOT testable. We can interpret facts based on our presuppositions, but we were not there in the past and cannot recreate past events for testing purposes.

This is just the old familiar creationist assertion that past events cannot be reconstructed from available evidence, which is, of course, clearly wrong. Forensics, archeology, cosmology, geology, they all depend upon reconstructions based upon available evidence.

It’s not strange at all that I have not provided a definition of kind because it’s essentially irrelevant, just as a definition of species is.

In the vast majority of cases, species identification is clear and unambiguous. For sexually reproducing species the definition of species as a population of interbreeding organisms usually works fine. But the world is a complicated place, and ambiguous situations always arise. For example, say you have population A in one place, and population B in another. Population A and B can interbreed with one another, so we call them the same species. But then we find another population C in yet another location, and while C can breed with B, it cannot breed with A. In other words, A and B can interbreed and so are a single species, and B and C can interbreed and so are a single species, but A, B and C taken together are not a single species, because A cannot interbreed with C.

This is just a simple example of how difficult a complicated world can make the definition of simple concepts like species, but the mere fact that complex scenarios exist which defy simple classification does not mean that our definition of species is useless or meaningless, not even close. In most cases the simple biological species concept is more than adequate.

First, species is an arbitrary man-made classification...

Man-made, yes, but arbitrary, no. When you have a rule like "population of mutually interbreeding organisms", that is the opposite of arbitrary.

...which may soon go through dramatic revision based on genetics research so when a species has evolved is a completely arbitrary and therefore non-useful determination for evolution.

I'm not sure why you say this. There's nothing coming out of genetics research to indicate that the concept of species needs to change. Genetic studies can be very helpful for determining degree of relatedness.

Interestingly, a genetic view of life tells us that all species are transitional, except those that end up going extinct.

As I read on through your list of definitions of the theory of evolution, it is apparent that you're responding to RAZD's discussion of the mechanisms of evolution (which very briefly is just descent with modification by means of natural selection acting upon inherent variation) with rather broad definitions of the theory of evolution.

The Galapagos finches are an example of evolution in action because scientists were able to observe modification through successive generations brought about by changes in the natural environment that in turn changed which variations were more desirable than others.

By the way, notice that only one of your definitions of the theory of evolution even mentioned the origin of life, and then only as the starting point for evolution.

You certainly have a twisted sense of what a theory is. I can propose a theory that the moon was made of cheese a million years ago. That doesn’t do much for the science of cheese making but it is nonetheless a theory.

A scientific theory bears no resemblance to what you're doing here. First, hypotheses are constructed to explain observed phenomena, then research is conducted to test the hypothesis, then a theory is constructed around the resulting body of evidence to explain and interpret it, and if the research is replicated and validated then the theory becomes accepted. The idea that the moon was once made of cheese is not an attempt to explain some body of evidence, and it has not been replicated and validated, and so it is not a scientific theory.

You spend much time objecting to "change in species over time," which you abbreviate as CISOT, as part of the theory of evolution. I don't understand why you raise this objection, since all the dictionary definitions you cited include change over time. The entire purpose of Darwin's Origin of Species was to present evidence explaining how the current diversity of life came about by changes in predecessor species.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-02-2007 12:04 PM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-08-2007 7:50 PM Percy has responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 116 of 121 (419417)
09-02-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by MurkyWaters
09-02-2007 12:04 PM


The times are a changing
I don't have the endurance or fortitude to respond to your tome in depth, but I suspect others will.

However allow me to cherry pick just one exchange

Razd writes:

Notice that the evidence - fact - is that the earliest life we know of existed 3.5 billion years ago - cyanobacteria fossils in rocks.

Murky writes:

It is absolutely and equivocally NOT a fact that the earliest life we know existed 3.5 billion years ago (maybe the fact that this date has changed a dozen times might be a clue). It is a theoretical conclusion based on a presuppositional interpretation of known facts. A different interpretation of these same known facts (evidence) would place the creation of life around 6000 years ago.

The date for the earliest life is always changing - but always in the direction of being older. Which is what you would expect as discovery continues and more previously unrevealed evidence is unearth.

You seem to hint that this is a weakness, when in fact, it is a sign of strength, as the answer is getting more and more closer to reality.

Consider that in cosmology there has been a series of historical paradigm shifts that have "changed a dozen times". These shifts have lead us away from stories and myths to a much closer understanding of reality. The ancient presupposition that the earth is the center of the universe is not strengthened by the fact that the presupposition hasn't changed in millenia - it is falsified by the discovery of new data and supplanted by new and better theories.

Murky writes:

A different interpretation of these same known facts (evidence) would place the creation of life around 6000 years ago.

Yep but not all interpretations are equal. For example, an earth centric interpretation of the planetary motions will only take you so far. The earth centric Ptolemic system can do an o.k. job of calculating the position of planets. However, it resorts to complexity with respect to retrograde orbit observations and other difficulties. The heliocentric model does a much better job and is simpler. Same data - two different interpretations. If you are going to navigate to Mars better use the heliocentric model.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-02-2007 12:04 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 117 of 121 (419444)
09-02-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by MurkyWaters
09-02-2007 12:04 PM


Murk misses many marks and makes much ado about nothing of significance
I really wish you would take more time to read these messages before responding. Your most recent post is chock full of examples of simply not reading the material and then responding with irrelevant comments which don’t deal with the issues at hand. In addition, you quickly respond to a small handful of points and completely ignore the major arguments that you are apparently having trouble with and cannot refute. As has been shown time and again and as will be shown in this post, you are the one that is dodging and stonewalling, not me.

No, Murk, I do read them. I just choose not to go over stuff that is already refuted six ways to sunday. The fact that you keep making your posts longer and longer by repeating stuff that has already been refuted six ways to sunday doesn't mean that you are really addressing any issue at all. Repeated falsehoods does not make them true or valid or rational.

Are you playing dumb? It’s not very becoming of you. You have already admitted that you were aware that I was only “starting out” to compare the theories with other components to follow so you have been caught in another lie. You had obviously read the entire post since you had responded to it in the past so you knew the definition I had proposed was in the definition section, just as yours was in the definition section of your prior post (following YOUR discussion of the theories beforehand).

It’s totally unbelievable and beyond all reason that you are now attempting to blame me as a cover-up by accusing me of being dishonest and making mistakes in how I laid out my argument. I made no mistakes. There was a specific rhyme and reason that is completely apparent if you’d just read the response as to why the components of evolutionary theory were laid out chronologically. That is not only stated in the referenced post but on numerous occasions throughout this entire debate so you are without excuse. Not only this, but I never mention a single time that this is my definition of evolution and in subsequent paragraphs make it clear time and again that this is only the beginning parts of the theories.

Why is it so impossible for you to admit that you have made a mistake (could it be because you have purposely misrepresented the information)? Honestly, if you cannot concede your error in a most blatantly obvious example as this, there is really no point in continuing to more complex issues. And just to be complete, it is not my concept of evolution or what it covers that is mistaken, it is yours –at best.

Well normally the first thing you do comparing two items is to define the two items. It certainly LOOKS like that is what you did in fact do. That you now say you aren't doing that is your problem. The only other conclusion one can come to is that it is not intentional but just plain sloppy writing on your part.

It is also totally irrelevant to the issue of your definition being a total fabrication that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution as used by scientists.

That was my point. You don’t see it in either definition. The definition used by science (MTM) does not include “everything but the kitchen sink” but only those critical elements necessary to convey the meaning and intent of the theory. Natural selection is part of evolutionary theory. While evolutionary theory consists of many sub-theories they are still subordinate or part of the main theory. It is not necessary to list all of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms in the definition, although it certainly would not be incorrect to do so.

You seem to be relegating these components to the “Science” of evolution, but that is just semantics. It is not incorrect to state that they are part of “evolutionary theory” which is the terminology commonly used. My point was that everything included in “evolutionary theory” (or science) is a different topic than the “definition” or specific statement of the “theory of evolution” which includes only those things necessary to convey the basic meaning and intent of the theory.

First, your "MTM" definition is NOT used by science no matter how much you claim it is. It is not reflected in the Berkeley definition and it is not reflected in the UofMich definition.

The only thing a valid definition of the theory of evolution needs to include is how evolution occurs.

Evolution occurs by (actual) changes in (existing) populations over (some measured period of) time, because that is what evolution is. Changes that are hereditary get passed on to descendants, those that aren't hereditary are eliminated by the passage of time. The degree of change possible is enabled by a diversity of mutations that occur randomly and by ecological opportunities. The changes that are passed on to following generations are selected by genetic drift and natural selection. That is how evolution occurs.

A valid theory of evolution does not need a hypothetical starting point, it does not need to specify hypothetical time periods it does not need to specify hypothetical "increased" diversity or some still undefined hypothetical level of "information" -- those are not part of how evolution occurs.

They MAY be part of what SOMETIMES happens during the course of evolution, but their existence does not define that evolution has occurred. What defines that evolution has occurred is that populations change over time. When you measure the (hereditary) change in species over time you are measuring the fact of evolution actually occurring or not.

Your definition (Message 104):

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

Does not say how evolution occurs nor does it tell you how you can measure or determine whether it has or has not occurred at any given point. That means it is not a usable theory.

It clearly states that the origin of life is part of evolutionary biology which makes it part of the science of evolution which means it is part of evolutionary theory. This is supported by many other sources as well. The same applies to Billions of years, kinds and common ancestors. However it was not my intent to get sidetracked into specific discussions on each of these. The clear point being made is that these concepts are all part of evolutionary theory. Whether they should be contained in the definition or not is determined by the scientific sources we have referenced.

However it is not a coincidence that all of these concepts are discussed in every verbose reference on evolution. That is because they are all part of evolutionary theory. Evolution theorizes that life arose from non life billions of years ago. Evolution theorizes that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor which means one kind changed into another kind. This cannot rationally be denied.

Being part of the science does not mean it has to be part of the theory. That is the whole issue here. The science applies the theory to the evidence to see if it explains the existing evidence, makes predictions and tests the predictions of the theory.

You continue to conflate the science with the theory and reach false conclusions. All your "support" is on the science of evolution and how it applies the theory to reach conclusions such as common ancestors and evolution of all life from some possible first common ancestor population(s). Those are conclusion based on the theory NOT part of the theory. They are falsifiable predictions of the theory, and NOT part of the theory. This cannot be rationally denied.

It is absolutely and equivocally NOT a fact that the earliest life we know existed 3.5 billion years ago (maybe the fact that this date has changed a dozen times might be a clue). It is a theoretical conclusion based on a presuppositional interpretation of known facts. A different interpretation of these same known facts (evidence) would place the creation of life around 6000 years ago.

No, it is a fact. We know that the earliest life found was in rocks that are 3.5 billion years old. The dates "change" as more information becomes available, different pieces of evidence that show increasing age of life on earth. We may find evidence of older life tomorrow, but that doesn't invalidate the 3.5 billion year old life we know of today. The fact that there is change means that it is a scientific process that builds on previous knowledge and elimination of invalid ideas, such as a young earth. It is not a "different interpretation" of the evidence but denial of the evidence that would "place the creation of life around 6000 years ago". Notice that I have offered to discuss the age of the earth based on evidence, but you have so far refused to address that issue. Until you do so you cannot claim an age that is totally unsubstantiated.

I’ve neither misrepresented nor falsified ANY information. That’s just you inventing things out of nothing again so you can accuse others in order to hide your own misrepresentations. No where did I imply that these 2 quotes were in the same section and it is completely irrelevant to boot. The point is that there is a difference between completely new and physically distinct life forms from those that look similar to one another. This is an elementary concept recognized by UMich, the source that has become your bible, and one that a 2 year old could grasp but also one that you refuse to acknowledge simply because it destroys your argument. You’ve demonstrated a history of denying things in black and white that are staring you in the face if it means admitting you are wrong.

Murk, you connected the quotes with a comma in a single sentence, with no ellipses or qualification AND you skipped part that contradicted what you wrote: THAT is misrepresentation.

Or it is another example of sloppy writing on your part. Your choice. Either way what you said does not represent what the UofMich says.

To be complete, definition 1 states: “Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation”

Umich insists that a complete statement which conveys a full understanding of what evolution is REQUIRES that those 2 concepts (definition 1 and 2) be linked. However, you fly in the face of this by insisting the evolution can be represented with ONLY definition 1. You thereby misrepresent the definition of evolution with the full intent of deceiving yourself and others into thinking evolution is a fact. The Umich source says that your supposed comprehensive or general definition is not only wrong but conveys an incomplete and in fact deceptive meaning by not acknowledging the slow development of new kinds (and in fact all of the present diversity of life) as part of macroevolution.

Lets look at this again then. To be complete the UofMich definition says "A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures. "

In other words, does evolution per definition 1 result in evolution per definition 2.

Definition 2 states "The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time" -- this is nothing but the change in species over time: the change is in hereditary traits such that the form of the species is changed over time. This is the result of evolution per definition 1.

Definition 2 further states "the origin of species" -- this is speciation, which I have discussed before as the culmination of change in species over time in sub-populations that reach a point where the different changes in any daughter populations reach a point that they no longer interbreed and become biologically distinct. This is the result of evolution per definition 1.

Definition 2 further states "lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms" -- this is the result of any parent population dividing into daughter populations. This is the result of speciation which is a result of evolution per definition 1.

Definition 2 further states "and the generation of diversity" -- this is nothing more than the effect of speciation events where we now have 2 species instead of one. This is the result of speciation which is a result of evolution per definition 1.

And that is ALL that definition 2 states. Definition 2 does NOT state billions of years, NOR any necessity for origin from a first common ancestor pool in any way shape or form by any stretch of imagination in any rational way.

Note that I have suggested before using my definition as a definition of microevolution and then evaluate the evidence to see how well it explains what we see in terms of macroevolution, and you have consistently refused to participate in this.

And finally, once again, the validity, or lack thereof, for my definition has no bearing on the validity, or lack thereof, for your definition, and there is no rational way you can turn the UofMich definition into your definition.

Evidence for common ancestors between kinds (of which there is none) would help validate the theory of evolution. However it does nothing for CISOT. CISOT neither mentions nor implies the existence of common ancestors. As I have stated many times, creation of diversity stemming from the CREATED kinds supports the concept of CISOT. CISOT does not imply that ANY pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This is a completely different concept which you refuse to include in your definition.

And you still have not defined what you mean by "kind" so all we have is a minimal definition that there are different kinds of dogs, all of which have evolved. :rolleyes:

I have said before, and I repeat once again, that your beef is not with evolution per se but with common descent and whether there are any limits on common ancestors. If evolution has occurred since a creation of certain unspecified organisms then it is still evolution that has occurred.

The purpose of a theory of evolution is to be able to evaluate, to test, to observe if evolution occurs or not. That evolution would occur after some special creation does not invalidate the fact that evolution occurred.

I’m not equivocating at all. Mathematics is obviously not your strong point. If ANY 2 organisms have had a common ancestor then we must have arose from a single one. Do the math!!!

Not to belabor the point but this is the crux of the difference between the science of evolution and the hypothesis of creation: whether there was a set number of original species or not.

Not to belabor the point but you are confusing a predictable result of the theory with the theory that makes the prediction.

Not to belabor the point but you are talking about logic not math. Obviously not your strong point if you get them confused.

Not to belabor the point but if we take the evidence of common descent of daughter populations from parent populations, and apply this to the record of known life on this planet, what we are doing is seeing if this is sufficient to explain all life as we know it.

Not to belabor the point, but the logical conclusion is that such investigation will suggest or invalidate whether there were some set number of original organisms from which life has descended OR whether they are all related to some theoretical first population of organisms.

Nevertheless this was just an example. There are clearer statements for those that are mathematically impaired such as from Berkeley “The central idea of biological evolution is that ALL life on Earth shares A common ancestor...THE common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today.” This is undeniably a statement by Berkeley (who teaches evolution), that the central idea of evolutionary theory is that all life on earth arose from a SINGLE common ancestor. In other words, a valid statement for the theory of evolution would go “The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see around us today arose from a single common ancestor over the history of life”. Of course, they later go on to state that this “history of life” which is specifically included in their definition spans 3.5 billion years. So it would not be incorrect to simply substitute billions of years into the definition. Thus it becomes “The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor billions of years ago”. Thus, Berkeley teaches the same thing that the majority of references have born out – MTM.

Even so, I have said on numerous occasions that the definition is open to a single or a small number of common ancestors when scientists make up their mind. It changes little regarding the basic concepts of the definition. However, it would require a change in evolutionary theory because no longer would ANY 2 organisms have a common ancestor (think about it). In fact, I would relish the news that they have decided that it is more than one. Since the probably of even a single ancestor is already mathematically impossible, the probably of several is astronomically smaller. The evidence they are discovering today which is leading them to re-evaluate whether it’s one or a few will eventually lead them to the conclusion that all life arose from MANY (the created kinds).

The important point to take is that the inclusion of this concept in the theory conveys clearly that evolutionists believe that all the diversity of life arose from much simpler forms thereby implying one kind has changed into another and become more complex, with new features and information content not originally seen in the biosphere – a concept that is COMPLETELY ABSENT from CISOT.

And you are STILL conflating what the science says when they apply the theory to the evidence with what the theory needs to say.

What Berkeley is stating is that the evidence we have currently leads us to the conclusion that all life is related to one common ancestor population of organisms, that there is no evidence of any stop at some point such that there are a number of distinct set of species that would qualify as created "kinds" of life.

They are applying the theory (per their definition with no conflation to billions of years or a single common ancestor) to the evidence and coming up empty for any possible special creation. It is the evidence of common descent, the natural history of life on earth, and not evolution per se, that shows this.

Note you continue to show ignorance of math and logic by claiming that something is mathematically impossible. Math does not control reality: if there is a conflict between reality and your mathematical conclusions, it is your math (and the assumptions made) that are faulty. This is fact.

If “proving my version [CISOT] to be invalid (if you had) would therefore also have no bearing on the validity of your version [MTM]” is a true statement then the same holds true for yours. Proving my version [MTM] to be invalid (if you had) would therefore also have no bearing on the validity of your version [CISOT]. However, yours is a ridiculous statement to make anyway which I’ll show in a moment.

Of course it is true. That is why I actually show that your version is invalid rather than only show the validity of my version. I am open to both being wrong and reaching a compromise, as I have noted 4 or 5 times now. I've also suggested ditching both and using the Berkeley definition as a bona fide scientific definition.

First of all I said “IF”. You are the one creating the dichotomy. Are you actually admitting that you could be wrong? Show me anywhere in this debate where you have admitted to being wrong (besides a typo or something)? If you can’t admit you are wrong in the blatant example regarding my comparison of creation and evolutionary theories at the opening of this post, than how could I possibly entertain the notion that you could admit you are wrong regarding the definition of the theory of evolution! That being said, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you would not entertain the notion that we could both be wrong.

However, that is really an irrelevant question. The important question is whether we can both be right and this is where your logic breaks down. I actually do contend that in a sense we are both right. CISOT is certainly a true statement, however, it is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution. It is an observation of fact and is used in the majority of your references to describe a process, not a statement of the theory of evolution. MTM, however, is an accurate statement of the theory of evolution which does not depend on whether the theory is shown to be true or not.

I have shown that MTM is the correct statement of the theory based on the majority of 50 references and the application of sound logic. It is correct because it contains the essential elements necessary to clearly describe the basic tenants of evolutionary theory and to distinguish it from competing theories. Demonstrating that MTM is correct directly INVALIDATES CISOT because CISOT does NOT contain these essential elements that references tell us are a necessary part of the statement of the theory in order to convey it’s meaning and intent.

Therefore, all I need to do to invalidate your definition is show that MTM is correct, which I have done in spades. I agree that if I had only shown your definition to be an incorrect statement of the theory, that I would then need to supply a correct version. This I have done. Even if you disagree that I have proven my case, showing that yours is incorrect is half the battle and a major one at that, so it cannot be discounted.

You’re being hypocritical by not taking your own advice. In your own words, “you need to deal with the evidence that refutes your concept OR consider it invalidated”, not find a single source or 2 which you think invalidates mine. I do not need to refute every source under the sun when I’ve already shown that the majority support MTM. However, I would still be glad to address Umich or Berkeley in more detail (I’ve already done that for the most part in this post and in prior posts), if you’d address the 8 definitions which refute CISOT.

Blah blah blah wasted bandwidth. We can't both be right ... if the two definitions contradict each other, agreed. We can both be wrong. You are wrong, that is an established fact, your 50 references and (known faulty) logic notwithstanding (it is your evaluation of the evidence that is faulty and this has been demonstrated).

Invalidating my definition will never validate yours no matter how much you squeal and squirm: that is basic logic. Any ONE source that invalidates your definition in a way that you cannot reconcile means that it is invalidated, end of argument. Both the Berkeley and UofMich definitions do this. Live with it.

The fact that you dispute this demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic logic.

... if you’d address the 8 definitions which refute CISOT.

Tell you what, Murk: acknowledge that your definition is invalid and we can proceed to this, OR we can proceed to use the Berkeley definition.

My goodness, must we contend also on the definition of a theory? I suppose we could gather together 50 references on that as well and start the debate all over. I certainly hope we need not do this. A valid statement of theory has nothing to do with whether the theory turns out to be valid or not so we just need to be clear on what we are talking about or we’ll get tied up in knots again. The word “Theory” get’s bandied about quite a bit and for the most part I’ve attempted to ignore this topic because in the end, I don’t care whether you call evolution a theory or not even if it doesn’t deserve that status. However, you are the one that is raising the issue so I must respond.

A true theory can be tested. However, you can’t seem to get it through your head that conjecture about past events is NOT testable. We can interpret facts based on our presuppositions, but we were not there in the past and cannot recreate past events for testing purposes. I’m sure you know that Karl Popper, who is one of the most influential science philosophers in history said that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program”. This makes it at best a framework or worldview, not even to the level of a hypothesis. So we shouldn’t even be talking about what a good theory is because evolution is NOT a testable or valid theory. It is simply called a “theory” by common usage to signify a conjecture or speculation synonymous with a “hypothesis”.

Your claim that evolution is testable is just another delusional assertion on your part. CISOT may be an observed fact of science or a testable process conjectured to produce results in support of evolution, but it is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution.

First off that rant does not relate to my comment at all.

Second, when we are talking about science, we are talking about scientific theories and not common usage concepts or hypothesis.

Karl Popper notwithstanding the past can be tested, forensic science does it all the time and reaches perfectly valid conclusions. Likewise the evidence of the fossil record can be tested to see whether it fits the predictions of evolution or not. The theory of evolution is a tested and so far validated theory. It has been tested in many studies over the years, regardless of what you think.

You’re dodging again as always. Either answer the objection or let’s end this farce of yours. How does CISOT NOT apply to the creation of life 6000 years ago? CISOT says nothing about how or when life appeared and it says nothing about common ancestry. “The original kinds of plant and animal life were created by GOD approximately 6000 years ago and since then we have seen change in species over time just as we observe today”. How does that sentence contradict CISOT in any way? It doesn’t. This means CISOT cannot be a valid statement of the theory of evolution if it applies equally well to creation theory.

I repeat:

No, it just demonstrates that your beef is not with evolution but with common ancestry.

The theory of evolution does not need to invalidate the hypothesis of a special creation, it just needs to explain the evidence that exists. Whether that evidence shows common ancestry from a single population of organisms or from some set number of original organisms from which life has descended is irrelevant to the theory, but something to be investigated by applying the theory.

LOL! This very statement is simply smoke and mirrors on your part with no substance or substantiation and I have pointed out countless logical errors in your posts. When you encounter sound logic which you are unable to refute, you simply call it a logical error so you need not admit you are wrong. This is a typical example above.

You are the one being dishonest, time and time again as shown most blatantly by the comparison of theories at the beginning of this post and here again. Your first sentence is complete dishonest nonsense and is not even close to a logically drawn conclusion.

And look who’s talking about equivocating! It’s none other than RAZ King of equivocation who erroneously equates a simple factual observation like CISOT with the entire theory of evolution.

Blah blah wasted bandwidth again. You consistently misrepresent things and apply false logic, it has been demonstrated.

Evolution from a single common ancestor resulting in all the diversity of life we see today over the course of 3.5 billion years precludes the possibility that ANY new species could evolve directly from it. To form a million species from one implies that there must be a nested hierarchy or tree structure connecting them. It is a slow gradual process, an essential part of my definition which you insist is NOT a necessary part of your definition. On the other hand, CISOT is NOT contradicted by a horse being born from a salamander’s egg. This would certainly be a change in species over a time (a short time). You are the one that is erroneously conflating LCA with CISOT which says nothing about common ancestry.

No, all it takes is every species evolving solely from the common ancestor, no intermediates necessary. This is the logical conclusion of your element and of your denial of intermediate common ancestors as being the element that is really involved. When you conflate one with the other there are logical consequences, and in this case it shows your evaluation, your logic your whole approach to the definition to be false.

The fact that you contest this simple logical truth demonstrates vividly your inability to reach logical conclusions.

And how precise is the definition of species? Umich tells us that “The definition of a species is debatable. Most scientists adhere either to the morphological species concept (members of a species look alike and can be distinguished from other species by their appearance), or to the biological species concept (a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups). Both definitions have their weaknesses.” In addition, geneticists are talking about a new definition of species that relies on genetic information which could double the number.

Which is interesting but does not affect the definition of the theory of evolution as the (hereditary) change in species over time, or the Berkeley definition, or the UofMich definition ....

It is still a fact that I gave you a definition for species, and that was the issue you complained about to dodge giving a definition for "kind" -- which is integral to your definition and evaluation.

It’s not strange at all that I have not provided a definition of kind because it’s essentially irrelevant, just as a definition of species is. Considering how imprecise the definition of a species is, it would end up being a major distraction with little impact on the definition of evolution. With thousands of posts at this forum, I suspect you know very well what the definition of a kind is and if not, you are perfectly capable of looking it up. You had no trouble with “species”. However, the definition is completely unnecessary to our debate on the statement of the theory of evolution for a couple of reasons. First, it would simply be another opportunity for you to dodge the issue of refuting evidence against the RAZ CISOT theory by getting sidetracked on the evidence for or against evolution. A discussion of kinds would be relevant to our subsequent debate on the evidence once we agree on the theory that we are supporting or refuting (if that happens). Second, the definition of evolution states “all the living forms in the world” which is equivalent to “all the diversity of life” that we see today. There is no denying that all the diversity of life we see today consists of many different forms or kinds. The specific identification of each one is totally irrelevant until we evaluate the evidence in support or refutation of the theory.

Really, you are just being obstinate. I do not need to provide a precise definition of kinds (just as there is not one for species) to claim that they have evolved. It’s difficult for me to fathom that you would not believe that they have evolved either. ALL evolutionists believe that kinds have evolved, so if you do not, I would need to understand how or why you believe in evolution. An elephant is clearly a different kind of creature than a hummingbird or an oak tree. You don’t need a definition to understand that. It is irrelevant whether you think that two nearly identical birds are different species or not. The gross differences are the only thing that matters in the definition. Evolution is supposed to have created all of these creatures from a single common ancestor and therefore it must be capable of producing new kinds with new features and complexity never seen before. I realize for scientific study, that we must get more specific but it is completely unnecessary for a debate on the definition of evolution.

An unwillingness to debate the obvious is not dodging. It’s staying focused on our objectives without you sidetracking and dodging to avoid your failed arguments so that we can complete this debate before I die.

And still no definition for "kind" from the verbose bandwidth wasting can't spend enough time on definitions Murkywaters.

Then strike any mention of "kind" from your definition as there is no usable definition to distinguish whether new kinds have evolved or not. It is your requirement, you fail to support it, therefore it must be unsupportable.

It's that simple.

First, species is an arbitrary man-made classification which may soon go through dramatic revision based on genetics research so when a species has evolved is a completely arbitrary and therefore non-useful determination for evolution.

Irrelevant: the definition of species can still be used to see if evolution of species has occurred. If that definition is modified, then the new definition can be used. It is that simple.

This is opposed to research into the created kinds which is not arbitrary at all since it is an attempt to determine the actual kinds that were created approx 6000 years ago. We can determine when a new kind has evolved as precisely as a species. I would certainly welcome a test of this claim when we discuss the evidence. Not supplying this definition now should lead you to the conclusion that I wish to stay focused on our objectives rather then getting sidetracked.

Not supplying the definition only leads me to the conclusions that (1) you don't have one that is usable and/or (2) you don't want to support your position that it must be part of your definition of the theory of evolution.

Again, I didn’t invent the definition of evolution, scientific sources and other universal references we have cited did. Your beef isn’t with me, it’s with the science. An appropriate time to look at the measurement of information gain is when we review the evidence which refutes or supports the theory of evolution which we have yet to agree on. However, I never use this term explicitly in my definition, so it’s unnecessary to define it.

On the other hand you are the one dodging by refusing to answer this simple question, yes or no, that I have posed multiple times - Is a human being more complex than a blob of protoplasm (representative of the supposed first life) or not? Refusing to answer is you dodging again.

No Murk, you are the one insisting on this being an element of the definition of the theory. Once again you have failed to substantiate that this can be a scientific measurable objective criteria, you fail to support it, therefore it must be unsupportable, and so we must strike it from your definition as well.

For me to answer your question I need to be able to measure the quantity, as anything else would be subjective and open to interpretation, not scientific: it is that simple.

Ahh, yes. That’s the way operational science is done but it’s NOT the way origins research is done since historical events are neither testable nor repeatable. You’re not talking about evolution here, your talking about observed factual changes which you only SPECULATE support evolution based on your presuppositions.

False again, as already discussed. This also does not in any way refute nor excuse your need to provide definitions or metrics to enable objective comparison of data for your elements to be considered scientific.

Sorry Raz, you don’t get to decide either. There are many scientists that do not consider this to be evolution. As noted earlier you are blatantly misrepresenting the UMich definition.

Really? Up above you stated

To be complete, definition 1 states: “Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation”

It meets the criteria for that definition of evolution, thus it is evolution.

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.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.

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.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.

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.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.

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.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as accepted by all serious scientists.

Here's an article that discusses this basic problem you are having and keep repeating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

quote:
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes.

Notice that this is not me saying your definition is wrong, it is a biologist. You need to go to scientific sources for the definitions used by scientists (broken record). Such as ones that this same article references:

quote:
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

Those are scientific sources. The first is a standard textbook for teaching evolution that is well respected throughout the field.

Also see Message 122

quote:
Larry Moran has collated these quotes in this rather famous article - and he has recently expanded on this article at his blog. In which he tackles some of the issues that have arisen in this thread:

quote:

Many people are confused about the difference between a definition and an explanation. That's why we often see incorrect "definitions" that describe how natural selection works. This is wrong. In order to be useful, a definition has to enable us to distinguish examples of evolution from non-evolution but the definition should be neutral with respect to how evolution occurs. It should not distinguish, for example, between Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution even though we know that one of these explanations is incorrect.

He also warns us of confusing the scientific term of biological evolution with the modern vernacular definition. The latter is of little interest to us here! He concludes with

quote:
The amazing thing about the minimal definition of biological evolution is that it doesn't carry any baggage concerning the history of life or its future. As soon as we try to define evolution in terms of the historical record, we run into all kinds of problems because we confuse evolution as a process with evolution as a history of life.

Sounds a lot like what I've been telling you.

Lastly, Ernst Mayer, the Darwin of modern times and one of the most respected evolutionists of all time does NOT accept change in frequency of alleles as evolution and thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution as accepted by not only scientists but the most respected of scientists.

Rather than basing your argument on a logical fallacy (If some scientists belief it , doesn’t make it true) why don’t you try using some sound rational and logic? I suspect it is because you have none and certainly have not even attempted to refute the majority of arguments I have proposed as we’ll see later.

And yet Ernst Mayr "contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept" and he also discussed what evolution was at the end of Section II (How Are Evolutionary Change and Adaptedness Explained):

quote:
Conclusions

Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species. Numerous processes, particularly mutation, contribute to these genetic changes to supply the phenotypic variation needed by selection. The most important factor is recombination, which is largely responsible for the virtually inexhaustible supply supply of new genotypes in every generation. Selection, then, is responsible for the elimination of all but on average two of the offspring of two parents. Those individuals that are best adapted to the abiotic and biotic environment have the greatest chance to be among the survivors. This process favors the development of new adaptations and the acquisition of evolutionary novelties, thus leading to evolutionary advance, as stated in the language of evolutionary biology. Evolution, being on the whole a population turnover, is ordinarily a gradual process, except for certain chromosomal processes that may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step.

Genetic material (nucleic acids) is constant and impervious to any influence from the environment. No genetic information can be transmitted from proteins to nucleic acids, and so the inheritance of acquired characteristics is therefore impossible. This provides an absolute refutation of all Lamarkian theories of evolution. The Darwinian model of evolution, based on random variation and natural selection, explains satisfactorily all phenomena of evolutionary change at the species level, and in particular all adaptation.

-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.157


He further discusses the role of (hereditary) change in species over time near the end of the book:

quote:
End

Evolution is often considered as something unexpected. Wouldn't it be more natural, some antievolutionists ask, if everything would always stay the same? Perhaps this was a valid question before we understood genetics, but it is no longer. In fact, the way organisms are structured, evolution is inevitable. Each organism, even the simplest bacterium, has a genome, consisting of thousands to many millions of base pairs. Observation has established that each base pair is subject to occasional mutation. Different populations have different mutations, and if they are isolated from each other, these populations inevitably become more different from each other from generation to generation. Even this simplest of all possible scenarios represents evolution. If one adds further biological processes, such as recombination and selection, the rate of evolution accelerates exponentially. Therefore, the mere fact of the existence of genetic programs makes the assumption of a stationary world impossible. Evolution is thus a plain fact, not a conjecture or assumption.

It is very questionable whether the term "evolutionary theory" should be used any longer. That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that it has become irrational to call it a theory. To be sure, there are particular evolutionary theories such as those of common descent, origin of life, gradualism, speciation, and natural selection, but scientific arguments about conflicting theories concerning these topics do not in any way affect the basic conclusion that evolution as such is a fact. It has taken place ever since the origin of life.

-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.264


Color mine for emphasis. Here he says (again) that (hereditary) change in species over time is evolution.

The modern synthesis was derived by an international conference of biologists assembled expressly for the purpose of arriving at a modern definition of the theory of evolution that would unite various fields within biology, and that kind of makes the modern synthesis theory of evolution to be the authority for a scientific definition of the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

quote:
The modern evolutionary synthesis refers to a set of ideas from several biological specialities that were brought together to form a unified theory of evolution accepted by the great majority of working biologists. This synthesis was produced over a period of about a decade (1936-1947) and was closely connected with the development from 1918 to 1932 of the discipline of population genetics, which integrated the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics.

...Though the 'Modern Synthesis' is the basis of current evolutionary thinking, it refers to a historical event that took place in the 1930s and 1940s. Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.

According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is now known to be sometimes caused by mistakes in DNA replication) and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated, for example by geographic barriers.

The modern evolutionary synthesis continued to be developed and refined after the initial establishment in the 1930s and 1940s. The work of W. D. Hamilton, George C. Williams, John Maynard Smith and others led to the development of a gene-centric view of evolution in the 1960s. The synthesis as it exists now has extended the scope of the Darwinian idea of natural selection to include subsequent scientific discoveries and concepts unknown to Darwin, such as DNA and genetics, which allow rigorous, in many cases mathematical, analyses of phenomena such as kin selection, altruism, and speciation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centric_view_of_evolution

quote:
The gene-centered view of evolution, gene selection theory or selfish gene theory holds that natural selection acts through differential survival of competing genes, increasing the frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation. According to this theory, adaptations are the phenotypic effects through which genes achieve their propagation.

No, it shows that YOUR understanding of evolution is invalid, except that I’ve proved it not just said it.

The modern synthesis states that evolution is change in frequency of alleles in populations. The changes observed in the Galapagos Finches meet this criteria and the "gene-centric view" as well.

It is evolution.

Ahh, except what you call my “strawman” is the actual valid statement of evolution as proven by the majority of sources cited. You are the one that has created the strawman in order to deceive yourself and others that evolution has occurred. CISOT appears no where in the literature as a definition of evolution. You want to abandon the real theory of evolution in place of your own deceptive slogan because real evolution (and therefore your worldview) has been shown to be bankrupt. You are again not reading what I have written – “if the evidence does not support the theory that does NOT change the statement of the theory”. It is what it is. Although I’m glad to see that you agree that I’ve shown that evolution is invalid. Therefore, once you agree that my definition is the correct one, we shouldn’t have to pursue any of the evidence after that.

Continued assertion of false information is not productive, it is a continued waste of bandwidth.

Sorry, the definition is what it is as cited by a vast array of sources. All your wishful thinking isn’t going to change that. However, you have hit upon the precise point – evolution fails to explain the facts! You can’t change the theory on your own whim and still call it evolution so that it supports the observed facts simply to deceive yourself and others into thinking real evolution is true.

The only thing this "proves" is that your definition is false. Period.

All you are doing is showing that you just don't understand the logic involved and the approach of science to the facts. It is not evolution that fails to explain the facts -- it does, when you use the real definition used by science -- it is your false representation that fails. It is that simple.

You certainly have a twisted sense of what a theory is. I can propose a theory that the moon was made of cheese a million years ago. That doesn’t do much for the science of cheese making but it is nonetheless a theory. You, not me, are the one creating a theory to validate itself. You make up nonsense like CISOT just so that it fits the facts. No matter that it has nothing to do with the statement of evolution. Perhaps if we just call it evolution we’ll deceive people into thinking its true. The real theory of evolution attempts to explain the history of life (as stated by Berkeley, which teaches evolution). CISOT on the other hand is completely and utterly useless in explaining anything because it is not a theory, it is simply a factual observation in the present. It does nothing to explain the history of life as you could draw countless different predictions and assumptions about the past from CISOT. And make no mistake, if you state ANYTHING about the past based on CISOT, you are making some assumption that you are not stating in the theory itself. Therefore, you are being both dishonest and deceptive in your statement.

You can propose a "theory" on the moon made of cheese, but it won't be a scientific theory based on evidence that explains the evidence. This amply demonstrates that you do not understand what a scientific theory is, how it is developed and how it is used. You don't have a clue.

The real theory of evolution attempts to explain the history of life (as stated by Berkeley, which teaches evolution).

Exactly. The theory as defined by Berkeley does that. The theory as defined by UofMich does that. The theory as defined by the Modern Synthesis does that.

The theory that species change hereditary traits over time does that, and I've shown that in the posts where I presented information on evolution, whether it was Galapagos Finches, Foraminifera, Pelycodus or horses. Your denial of this basic evidence does not invalidate it or make it go away.

No, RAZ you have done nothing of the sort but I have shown how your circular reasoning has blinded you to the truth and revealed your deception. The theory is what it is. You can’t change it to fit the facts so that you don’t have to face the truth that evolution is invalid. I don’t see how you can have the gall to say you have demonstrated anything. It’s only you running off at the mouth as usual with just assertions on your part, all smoke and no fire, without logic, substance or substantiation. I have clearly demonstrated that CISOT is bankrupt as a statement of the theory, that you have left out all the critical elements of the theory of evolution necessary to convey its meaning and intent but more importantly to provide a basis for its study and evaluation.

I easily face the fact every day that what you think evolution involves is false and ridiculous because your impression is absolutely false and ridiculous and irrelevant to what the science of evolution studies.

How hilarious that you’ve made my point again. I admit it happens because it’s a factual observation, not a theory. I’ve shown this to be the case numerous times and yet you continue to say the same thing over and over. This is you stonewalling.

In addition, you’ve still not answered my question regarding the change of your imaginary theory from CISOT to HCISOT. Have you formally changed it or not? I will continue to use CIOST until you confirm the change. This is you dodging.

As said before, I don't see significant difference between "change in species over time" and "(hereditary) change in species over time" because the change is specified as being hereditary from the start. This was documented in Message 1 of this thread and repeated several times. I've only introduced (hereditary) in explicit statements due to your failure to understand. As noted above, as you look at the change in populations of organisms from gen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-02-2007 12:04 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 3397 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 118 of 121 (420636)
09-08-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
09-02-2007 3:17 PM


Re: RAZ dodges and stonewalls again
Hi Percy. RAZ opened up this debate to multiple parties without my consent, but I have to say that it was quite refreshing to read your post even though it disagrees with my position. At least you responded with respect. I’m not ashamed to say that this is my first on-line debate so I still consider myself a newbie. Since I’ve only had exposure to RAZ, I was concerned that all the evolutionists on this forum might have that same attitude. I have been close to just calling it quits on several occasions just because of the inappropriateness of the replies to my posts (not that I can’t take it, just because I don’t have to). RAZ responded to my posts almost from the get go with pure venom, disrespect and arrogance (I say this regardless of whether you are friends with him or not). Now, having said that, I’ve not read other replies you have posted so perhaps I’m just being naïve.

In addition, I suppose that things may change. My first posts were very respectful as well, but after awhile I just began to parrot RAZ’s rudeness. In any case, I respect the fact that people can have other opinions. Almost nothing in this life is so cut and dry that things can’t be interpreted differently. I don’t understand why people can’t have a reasonable discussion about differences of opinion using rational arguments instead of arrogant insults. Anyway, I’ll get off my own soapbox now.

Also, I’m having trouble keeping up with RAZ, so I’m not sure how I’m going to respond if a lot of people start adding their comments as well. We’ll see what happens. My inability to be timely should not be interpreted as an inability to respond with a rational argument.

Oh, one last thing. As I read through your response I realized that you have not had the benefit of participating in the entire debate. I can certainly understand that. There are in excess of 115 posts in this thing already, way beyond what I had ever imagined. I’ll end up repeating some of my arguments, which I suppose is a negative of inviting other participants. However, it will be interesting to see how you respond, if you choose to.


MurkyWaters writes:
It clearly states that the origin of life is part of evolutionary biology which makes it part of the science of evolution which means it is part of evolutionary theory.

The theory of evolution does not include the origin of life, just as home building does not include the origin of lumber. Home building assumes lumber and doesn't concern itself with where the lumber came from, just as evolution assumes life and doesn't concern itself with where life came from.

Originally, I was going to stay away from this subject because I know it is a hot point of contention, until we could come to agreement on the rest of the theory. However, it eventually became clear that we were never going to come to agreement, so I decided to introduce the concept anyway. I disagree that the origin of life is not included in the theory of evolution on several grounds. Your analogy is not good. Home building does not concern itself with where lumber came from because it is not dealing with the evolution of lumber or where lumber came from, just the use of it (in a specialized application besides). How to train a dog doesn’t concern itself (rationally, anyway) with where dogs came from.

However, evolution is an attempt to explain where the diversity of life that we see today CAME FROM by purely naturalistic means. How can that be answered rationally if you do not include the origin of the first life. Some people have called this “chemical evolution”, but it’s objective is not the evolution of chemicals but the evolution of the first life (from non-life).

I would contend that evolutionists do not want to include this because the likelihood of it ever happening is nill. However, Darwin did. Darwin never said that the origin of the first prototype was not part of his theory. Since he talked about it, you have to assume he wanted to include it. EVERY discussion of evolution that I have ever read has included abiogenesis in the discussion as part of the theory. Ernst Mayr (called the Darwin of modern times), devoted a whole section on it in his book “What evolution is”. If abiogenesis is of no concern to the theory, why is it always discussed? In addition, you may know that we did a survey of 60 sources which defined evolution (regardless of whether they were talking about the process or the theory) and 22% of the definitions included abiogenesis, so it is not so clear cut. This percentage would be much higher if we excluded definitions which were defining the process of evolution rather than making a statement of the theory.

To argue logically, if Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, than how do you know that life arose only once or literally millions of times potentially separated by billions or millions of years? If Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, than why do evolutionists propose that mulitcelluar organisms had single cell organisms as an ancestor? For that matter, if Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, then why could the diversity of life we see today have arisen from the original created kinds? The concept of Abiogenesis is fundamental to the theory of evolution.

Lastly, evolutionists are fond of unfairly comparing evolution theory with creation theory. Evolutionists contend the diversity of life we see today arose billions of years ago from a single common ancestor. Creationists believe that the diversity of life we see today arose from the original created kinds around 6000 years ago. Evolutionists will contend that evolution is “science” because they will define evolution as an observed fact of change in species over time but that creation theory is “religion” because creationists say that God created all the life we see today. This is a major deception. First of all creationists are scientists too and they do not disagree that species change over time. It is an essential component of creation theory.

If evolutionists do not have to include abiogenesis as part of their theory then they are being significantly hypocritical to insist that creationists must include the creation of the first forms of life in their theory. If we are comparing apples to apples it is sufficient for creationist to start with the original created kinds and show how the diversity of life arose from them without having to explain where they came from either. But it gets worse. If evolutionists do not want to include the notion of billions of years and a single common ancestor in their theory which is RAZ’s position, then why should a creationist include thousands of years and the created kinds in their theory? We are then left with the currently observable fact of change in species over time, an essential part of both theories but one which provides no differentiation between the two and absolutely no indication of what these theories are about.

Consider the table below.


Creation Theory Evolution Theory
Religion or Faith God exists and created the universe out of nothing There is no God. The universe exploded into existence out of nothing by purely naturalistic means
Fundamental Presupposition God Created the different kinds of life (according to his written eyewitness account) approx 6000+ years ago Abiogenesis occurred in a primordial slime by purely naturalistic means approx 4 billion years ago
Theory based on Origins research (NOT Operational Science) The created kinds diversified within their kinds to adapt to changing environments after the catastrophic worldwide flood All the diversity of life we see today evolved from a single common ancestor
Science Fact Species are observed to change within their kinds due to natural selection and mutations Species are observed to change within their kinds due to natural selection and mutations

Notice that both theories have a religious component, a theoretical component and a scientific component. As I’ve just noted, evolutionary proponents are fond of deceitfully comparing the “science” of evolution (bottom right) with the “religion” of creation (top left). This is despite the fact that both creationists and evolutionists agree on the evidence and facts of science. It is only valid to compare science with science, theory with theory or religion with religion.

Notice that the only FACT of science is that species are observed to change within their kinds just as creation science predicts. However, evolutionist not only deceptively call this fact the “theory” of evolution, but must erroneously extrapolate the observed changes past what they are capable of producing to insist that all life could have evolved from a single common ancestor (or that changes into different kinds can take place). Since creation theory is based on the real observable and testable scientific evidence and on an eyewitness account of someone who was there at the beginning, I would contend that it is the more scientific of the theories and that evolution is the more religious.

To get back to the point however, to rationally compare both theories in totality, we either need to exclude Abiogenesis and the supernatural creation event from both or include them in both. Including them makes much more sense based on the integral relationship they have to both theories.

Your source appears to prefer to view the field of evolutionary biology as including both the theory of evolution and abiogenesis (theories of life's origins). It is not trying to assert that abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution.

By that same logic, the theory of natural selection would not part of evolutionary theory either. Just because it can be relegated to its own theory, does not mean it is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory consists of many sub-theories that are still part of the overall theory of evolution. Again, if it is unrelated, why does every source include it?

This statement from Wikipedia's Life on Earth article characterizes the relationship between abiogenesis and evolution pretty clearly:

I do not consider Wikipedia as a reliable source of information regarding contentious issues. It simply reflects the thought of the majority which is NOT an indication of right or wrong. Their definitions of evolution have changed constantly since this debate has progressed. I can provide sources with include abiogenesis that are much more reliable and stable.


Evolution theorizes that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor which means one kind changed into another kind.

Well, sort of. Replace "kind" with "species" and this is fine. "Kind" has no formal definition within biology, nor within creationism, apparently.

Creation science IS part of biology. Creation scientists utilize the same experiments, facts, theories etc that all biologist use. Kinds, which in biology are called “Baramins”, have as specific a definition as does species. The creation scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), was the founder of the science of taxonomy. The modern system of classification is based on his work. And what work was that? Linnaeus was attempting to identify the original created kinds from Genesis. He understood that variation occurs within the created kinds but not between kinds. Since creationists developed our classification system in an attempt to discover the original created kinds, it would be absurd to say that this concept is not part of biology or creation science. Evolutionists are simply choosing to ignore the concept because it sheds doubt on their theory.

Neither “species” nor “kinds’” (baramins) have definitions which are exacting. Does that mean there is no such thing as a “species”? Of course not! Just as it does not mean that “kinds” do not exist. However, species is a purely arbitrary concept, whereas the concept of baramins is intended to identify the descendent s of the original kinds from which the diversity of life arose.

RAZ did not accept my definition of kinds since up to that point he had refused to define species with any greater clarity. The fact of the matter is that an exact definition was and is unnecessary to the statement of the theory of evolution. It is a fact that evolutionists believe that all the different “kinds” of life arose from a single common ancestor. It is clear that an elephant is a different kind of life than a flower and that evolutionist believe that they have a common ancestor. That’s the only concept regarding kinds that is necessary in the definition. It does not have to include what the definition of a kind is. That discussion would follow when the evidence is discussed and more specifically whether we have observed one kind changing into another today.

To relate this back to your question, however, you cannot replace “kinds” with “species” in the above statement. Creationists do not disagree that various species can arise. However, this can only occur within their kind. In all of the change that we have observed, fruit flies are still fruit flies, moths are still moths, finches are still finches. No evolution. It doesn’t matter if we simply observe species changing. This could just as well mean that they arose from the original created kinds as from a single common ancestor. That is why the statement of the theory MUST include this concept or your are not telling the whole story.

BTW, 75% of universal sources included the concept of kinds in their definition and full 47% explicitly mentioned that evolution produces entirely new or different species, types, forms or kinds. I did not want to pursue the definition of kinds with RAZ because I knew it would get into a very lengthy off-topic debate that would probably exceed what we had already done with the definitions. However, if you are truly interested, I’d be glad to supply a more specific definition which we can discuss briefly as compared to “species” with the understanding that we do not have to come to an agreement in order to end the discussion so that it does not go on forever. These debates should be a learning experience, not a dual to the death.


It is absolutely and equivocally NOT a fact that the earliest life we know existed 3.5 billion years ago (maybe the fact that this date has changed a dozen times might be a clue). It is a theoretical conclusion based on a presuppositional interpretation of known facts. A different interpretation of these same known facts (evidence) would place the creation of life around 6000 years ago.

Well, it really isn't accurate to say that these same known facts are open to radically different interpretations. Concluding that life began 6000 years ago actually requires ignoring broad swaths of evidence, not reinterpreting it.

This debate was started in an attempt to clarify what the theory of evolution states. So I’d like to stay on that topic. However, without going into great detail, I’d like to understand what broad swaths of evidence you think need to be ignored to believe that life began 6000 years ago. I would contend that evolutionists are ignoring broad swaths of evidence to conclude that life began billions of years ago. There are a hundred different dating methods that show that the earth is young which are ignored by evolutionists. Earlier in this debate I quoted an evolutionists who stated that the ONLY reason that evolutionist contend the earth is so old is because evolution requires long ages to produce the diversity of life we see today, not because there is any compelling evidence from science.

Evolutionists ignore the other dating methods and settle on the only one which they can interpret as billions of years (the cumulative radioactive methods). Here again, these methods have been shown to be extremely unreliable. Rocks of known recent age have been dated at millions or billions of years. If this method cannot reliably date rocks of known age, why should we trust it to date rocks of unknown age? In addition, evolutionist simply cherry pick dates until they find one that agrees with their contentions. That’s not very scientific.

Recent scientific discoveries by the RATE group have shown that radioactive methods if
interpreted correctly show dates within the 6000 years of earth’s history. This includes the amount of helium (a byproduct of radioactive decay) still present in zircons, and the presence of C-14 still found in supposedly millions or billions of years old materials such as coal and diamonds.

There is much other evidence which shows the earth is young. I’ve not personally uncovered any evidence which would contradict that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. However, if there is some other evidence that I have not yet seen which would indicate an old earth, it doesn’t mean that it is being ignored. The fact that an explanation has not currently been found, does not mean a theory is invalidated. I can list many discoveries by evolutionists meant to discredit creationism that have later been discredited themselves. I’ve had this same discussion with RAZ who insists that if a single piece of evidence is presented for which there is not a current explanation, that this completely invalidates the theory. I do not doubt that this may be true of operational science where repeatable experiments can be performed and various contentions can be tested and/or falsified. However, this is not true of origin studies for which evidence is interpreted. My goodness, the most glaring example is evolution itself. Darwin himself admitted that the then known fossil record could be interpreted as invalidating his theory. However, he simply concluded that the fossil record was incomplete and we would eventually uncover transitional forms. We’re still waiting.


Kinds (UMich) – “The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution”, as opposed to species – “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another”.

This definition of species is the morphological species concept. It is only applied to species that don't reproduce sexually or which are known only from fossils. In most other circumstances the biological species concept is applied.

The UMich site appears to misrepresent how inadequate the morphological species concept is for classifying many species. It describes morphological species concept as if some scientists would actually consider applying it to living sexually reproducing species.

The morphological species concept is usually deprecated because it can so easily lead to errors. Species which are identical morphologically may still be different in other ways, such as the behavioral differences in some species of wasps.

I disagree. The whole field of classification began with Morphology. The biological definition was first proposed by Ernst Mayer in 1942. Scientists are still attempting to find better ways to distinguish species using genetics (I’ll talk about that later). In any case, while the biological definition is nice on paper it is not as commonly used in practice as indicated by this university:
http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/speciesconcept.html

To quote “However, in the real world, it is time-consuming and expensive to make the observations of organisms in their real habitat that would allow us to say with confidence that such-and-such a set of organisms really is a species. And in the fossil world, it is impossible. So instead, most biologists and all paleontologists make a good-faith guess about the boundaries of the set of organisms they propose to name a species. Typically, the species is defined on the morphology it has, not on the genetics and behavior that is specified in the biological species concept.

There are many other such sources I could supply. However, there is no need to get into a detailed debate about which is used most often because it is not important. The point that I want to make is that our understanding of species and our ability to identify species, particularly as they “evolve” is not this factual cut and dry thing that RAZ would lead someone to believe. It is an inexact concept when the morphology is not obvious. He would want us to believe that evolutionists have this fool proof definition of species that allows us to know exactly when a species has evolved, but that creationists don’t know what they are talking about and have no idea what a “kind” is. This is absurd, since as I pointed out, creationists developed the scientific field of classification in the first place with the purpose of identifying “kinds”. Kinds are defined in a different way but using the same morphology, biology and genetics that species are. Creation scientists have no disagreement with the definition of species; it’s just that this concept is of little use in demonstrating real evolution because speciation is an accepted fact of creation theory as well.

I didn’t want to spend excessive time on this, If you are correct that morphological is rarely used, then this would cast doubt on the validity of this source and the rest of their discussion on evolution and RAZ would loose the use of this beloved source anyway. Nevertheless, since different species can be identical in appearance, it would then be valid to conclude that the reference to “new, physically distinct life forms” in the definition of macro evolution above is referring to different forms or “kinds” like elephants and butterflies, not the slight changes we observe today as part of “micro evolution” (whether or not they are interpreted as being different species).


A true theory can be tested. However, you can’t seem to get it through your head that conjecture about past events is NOT testable. We can interpret facts based on our presuppositions, but we were not there in the past and cannot recreate past events for testing purposes.

This is just the old familiar creationist assertion that past events cannot be reconstructed from available evidence, which is, of course, clearly wrong. Forensics, archeology, cosmology, geology, they all depend upon reconstructions based upon available evidence.

Creationists DO NOT assert that past events cannot be reconstructed from available evidence. However, reconstructing past events does not fall under the purview of the scientific method and therefore hypothesis which have their basis in origins studies cannot be called theories in the strictest sense. In addition, the re-construction is STILL an interpretation, not FACT. It does not mean that it couldn’t end up being true, only that we cannot know for sure that it is true because we cannot repeat the past. This assertion (that the past cannot be repeated for testing purposes) may be old and familiar, but it is nonetheless a fact.

Unlike RAZ, I hope you can appreciate this. I referred him to a “parable” that I think illustrated this fact very well and he simply ridiculed me for the effort. It goes something like this. A person lit a candle and left a note telling his friends that he had to run to the store and he’d be back in an hour. When they arrived, one of them immediately became worried that their friend was the victim of foul play because based on the amount of wax that had dripped off the candle and the rate at which it was melting meant that he had been gone for a day. Of course, when he returned in an hour he replied “First of all, that candle isn’t burning anywhere near as brightly as when I first lit it. Second of all, I didn’t light a new candle, but a used one. And thirdly, I used another candle to light this candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one.”

The moral of the story is that your presuppositions will dictate how you interpret the evidence. This couldn’t be more obvious than when it comes to evolution. One of the longstanding principles of evolution has been uniformitarianism (although there are some challenges to this since the evidence doesn’t fit much of the time). Evolutionists assume that the processes we see today have always been occurring at the same rates and ignore the fact that a catastrophic flood took place thousands of years ago which massively reconfigured the face of the earth and accounts for the tons of sediments and billions of fossils laid down over the entire earth’s surface. The old earth dating method is another classic example with the fundamental (and incorrect) assumptions regarding the initial amount of radioactive elements, constant decay rates, and no allowance for material entering or exiting the system.

One of the most egregious of these assumptions is to simply assume that evolution is true. Therefore, any evidence which disagrees with this “fact” can either be ignored or discounted because the evidence must be incorrect (never the theory itself). This happens all the time because the biased world view of evolutionists comes into play when analyzing evidence. I can give many examples of this and quotes from evolutionists themselves admitting that this is true. Btw, if you are a scientist or have done scientific work, you will also know this is true, so I cannot be convinced otherwise. RAZ has made this fundamental error when insisting that my statement of evolution is incorrect simply because I can produce evidence which shows that it is false. Instead, he changes the definition into a factual observation so that it matches the evidence and cannot be proven false. He does this because the only available alternative (creation) is unacceptable according to his worldview.


It’s not strange at all that I have not provided a definition of kind because it’s essentially irrelevant, just as a definition of species is.

In the vast majority of cases, species identification is clear and unambiguous. For sexually reproducing species the definition of species as a population of interbreeding organisms usually works fine. But the world is a complicated place, and ambiguous situations always arise. For example, say you have population A in one place, and population B in another. Population A and B can interbreed with one another, so we call them the same species. But then we find another population C in yet another location, and while C can breed with B, it cannot breed with A. In other words, A and B can interbreed and so are a single species, and B and C can interbreed and so are a single species, but A, B and C taken together are not a single species, because A cannot interbreed with C.

This is just a simple example of how difficult a complicated world can make the definition of simple concepts like species, but the mere fact that complex scenarios exist which defy simple classification does not mean that our definition of species is useless or meaningless, not even close. In most cases the simple biological species concept is more than adequate.

I did not mean to imply that the work involved in classifying life was useless or meaningless (for the right purposes). After all, as I mentioned earlier, the foundational work on this was done by a creationist as was much of the foundations of science that we know today (another indication that science and Christianity are not at odds). However, the definition of species is irrelevant to this debate since it is not mentioned in the MTM (molecules to man) theory of evolution and CISOT neither mentions nor implies that speciation occurs. “Forms” or “Kinds” is mentioned directly in MTM so it would be the more important to define. However, since this is such an obvious distinction at the gross level (ie elephants and flowers), that it need not be defined at the detailed level until we look at the evidence to determine if we have ever observed changes between kinds or if the fossil evidence shows any transitional forms between kinds.

Nevertheless, you say that if population A and B can interbreed with one another than we call them the same species? That must mean that lions and tigers are the same species since they have interbred to form “ligers”? So whales and dolphins are the same species since they have interbred to form “wolphins”. I guess donkeys and zebras are the same species since they have interbred to form “zonkeys” or camels and lamas (“camas”) or cattle and buffalo (“cattalo”). How about the many species of dogs and cats? All of these animals interbreed with each other in nature but they are not considered the same species. The definition of species is not cut and dry by any means and appearance or other factors must play a role in more than a few cases.


First, species is an arbitrary man-made classification...

Man-made, yes, but arbitrary, no. When you have a rule like "population of mutually interbreeding organisms", that is the opposite of arbitrary.

I’m saying that the definition is arbitrary BECAUSE it is man-made. That does not mean that the definition is not precise, although as I’ve shown above it fails to work in more than a few cases. It’s arbitrary because it could and has been defined different ways. However, “kinds” (or “Baramins”) is not arbitrary because this concept is not man made. It is a scientific endeavor to determine which groups of living organisms today arose from the original created kinds. We know, for example, that whales and dolphins are the same Kind because they can interbreed. The same goes for lions and tigers or donkeys and zebras or camels and lamas or cattle and buffalo. Now because 2 populations cannot interbreed, does not mean they are not the same kind since mutations may have caused them to lose this ability. In general the created kinds correspond to the family level, but it may extend up to the order or down to the genus in some cases if interbreeding is shown. Further research is being done to determine these and I’d be glad to share what I know if you are truly interested.


...which may soon go through dramatic revision based on genetics research so when a species has evolved is a completely arbitrary and therefore non-useful determination for evolution.

I'm not sure why you say this. There's nothing coming out of genetics research to indicate that the concept of species needs to change. Genetic studies can be very helpful for determining degree of relatedness.

Genetics research has changed the thinking of many including how evolution is defined and I suspect we are just touching the tip of the iceberg. The research below from the journal of Mammalogy was the source of my comment.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Definition-of-039-Species-039-33769.shtml

The actual research paper talks about a lot of the species issues that we have been touching upon, including a table that compares the Biological, Morphological, Phylogenetic and Genetic species concepts. The interesting thing to note is that each of these methods identifies different organisms as species. Using a new genetic definition, the authors suggest that many more species will be identified that cannot be distinguished using the other methods (ie as many as 2000 more mammalian species than currently recognized!). This may provide a more cut and dry method to distinguish a species but at the same time perhaps will be used to identify a “kind” as well at a higher level.

As I read on through your list of definitions of the theory of evolution, it is apparent that you're responding to RAZD's discussion of the mechanisms of evolution (which very briefly is just descent with modification by means of natural selection acting upon inherent variation) with rather broad definitions of the theory of evolution.

Exactly! I’m so happy that someone beside me recognizes this. I’m attempting to define the GTE or general theory of evolution, one that encompasses all of the basic tenants of Darwinism which is essentially independent of the mechanisms (since most of them have arisen after Darwin). As we all know, the word “evolution” can refer to this theory or it can refer to the “process” (or mechanism) that is occurring today (as many references pointed out). In other words, you can look to the Galapagos finches and say “this is evolution” referring to the process (CISOT), or you can say the Galapagos finches does not go far enough to demonstrate evolution, referring to the theory (MTM). However, RAZ disagrees with us because he insists that CISOT is a statement of the theory even though it says nothing about the basic tenants of evolution. He wants to equivocate this “evolutionary” process of change in species (FACT) with the THEORY of evolution (all life arose from a common ancestor).

The Galapagos finches are an example of evolution in action because scientists were able to observe modification through successive generations brought about by changes in the natural environment that in turn changed which variations were more desirable than others.

This is where we part ways. This is exactly the point that initiated this entire debate. It all depends on how you define “evolution”. It may demonstrate “evolution” which some have deceptively defined as only change in species over time but it DOES NOT demonstrate the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution states that all the various forms of life we see today evolved from a single common ancestor billions of years ago. A small oscillating change in beak size does NOTHING to help this cause. The theory of evolution dictates that there must be a change which introduces novel information and greater complexity to have accomplished what it says it has.

What we observe is a process of adaptation, not evolution. Creation theory states that all the diversity of life we see today arose from the original created kinds. Each kind adapted to it’s environment through mutations and natural selection. The resulting organisms are more specialized, have less information content, and/or are mutations of the original information rich creatures. This is a “downhill” process. However, this is the same process that evolutionists have proposed create upward movement towards greater complexity. After millions of generations, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly, a moth is still a moth, a finch is still a finch. No evolution. No new features/information.

And let’s not get into this silly notion that evolution is simply a change in frequency of alleles. There are many scientists that disagree with this definition including the Darwin of modern times Ernst Mayr. “Neutral evolution” is NOT evolution. This is a merely a logical fallacy and an excuse to avoid the lack of evidence. Evolutionists insist that an elephant and a flower have a common ancestor (in other words, one kind can change into another), but then turn around and say that no upward progress is necessary for evolution to take place (simply because we do not observe this).

Therefore they insist that a population of dark a light moths, changing into a population of dark and light moths (or oscillating beak sizes) is evolution even though its just a shuffling of features that were already present in the population! They are merely speculating without any evidence whatsoever that this change within kinds can produce the change necessary to evolve a flower into an elephant. If you insist this kind of change can take place, then demonstrate this kind of change. Don’t deceptively insist that just because something changes, it proves evolution has taken place. It only demonstrates evolution, because you have redefined it to be evolution to fool yourself and others, but it has nothing to do with the original theory. The changes do not support the direction of movement from simple to more complex organisms, but rather they result in a LOSS (wingless beetles, blind cave fish…) or reshuffling (moths, finches, bacteria…) of function/information, NOT a gain required by evolutionary theory.

On the other hand, these observed changes support creation theory. The kind of change we observe today is exactly what creation theory PREDICTS will happen as natural selection, mutations and other processes worked on the original created kinds resulting in degradation, “downhill” movement, disease, loss of functionality, less genetic variability, slower and even the complete loss of ability to adapt further, sometimes resulting in extinction. However, it cannot account for the formation of new features (genetic information) that were not already present in the original created kinds. In addition, creation theory PREDICTS that these changes can occur quickly, in only 100 years for the Galapagos finches for example, because the diversity we see today must have taken place over 4500-6000 years. Evolutionists were shocked to see this change taking place so quickly since this was NOT predicted by evolutionary theory just as “Living fossils” were also NOT predicted by evolutionary theory, but is no surprise to creationists.

By the way, notice that only one of your definitions of the theory of evolution even mentioned the origin of life, and then only as the starting point for evolution.

I counted a dozen or so (22%) that included abiogenesis. Which ones can be looked up in the table that I provided in post 87 Message 87. I’d be glad to reiterate them if you want.


You certainly have a twisted sense of what a theory is. I can propose a theory that the moon was made of cheese a million years ago. That doesn’t do much for the science of cheese making but it is nonetheless a theory.

A scientific theory bears no resemblance to what you're doing here. First, hypotheses are constructed to explain observed phenomena, then research is conducted to test the hypothesis, then a theory is constructed around the resulting body of evidence to explain and interpret it, and if the research is replicated and validated then the theory becomes accepted. The idea that the moon was once made of cheese is not an attempt to explain some body of evidence, and it has not been replicated and validated, and so it is not a scientific theory.

Yes. You are absolutely correct. My point wasn’t that the moon being made of cheese is a valid theory. However, you are again confusing operational science which brings us medical breakthroughs and advances in technology with ORIGIN STUDIES. Evolution is a very different animal because it is an interpretation of history with no acceptable alternative, so it must be adhered to religiously. It is an attempt to explain the history of life (as noted by Berkeley, a university which teaches evolution as RAZ is fond of pointing out) by NATURAL or materialistic processes alone. We were not there the supposed billions of years ago to see how it happened and we cannot repeat the past (“replicated and validated” as you say). As I’ve indicated in earlier posts (and quoted), many scientists believe that evolution does not even rise to the level of hypothesis, but this would be the best you could call it because the scientific method cannot be used to test history.

Now, we can observe “evolutionary” processes that are going on today, but we can only SPECULATE that they are responsible for the history and evolution of life since what we observe today has been shown to be incapable of producing change between kinds or the type of change required to produce greater novelty and information necessary to produce new forms of life dictated by the theory of evolution. Notice in that sentence that I used the word evolution to refer both to a process and to the theory. Many evolutionists use these references interchangeably to make it appear that evolution (the theory) has been proven because evolution (the process) is a fact. Note however, that creation scientists do not use the term evolution to refer to this process. Rather it is a “downhill” process of adaptation which usually leaves the resulting species less capable of survival in new environments.

Percy, perhaps you are a better one to ask this of. I have at various times talked throughout this debate on why I think the evidence for evolution is lacking and given many examples. The tone and rhetoric of this debate with RAZ has been poor and I have fallen into the trap of merely parroting his rudeness, but I am not really that way. I just don’t like being taken advantage of and denigrated without responding in kind. However, I am genuinely interested in hearing the major reasons why you believe in evolution and conversely why you do not believe in creation. I would be glad to share my reasons as well. We can just hit the highlights at first to understand the basic reasoning without doing a lot of work. Perhaps this isn’t the right place to do this, since this debate is about defining a statement of the theory of evolution (although RAZ insists that it’s everything), but I’ll let you decide that as the more seasoned debater.

You spend much time objecting to "change in species over time," which you abbreviate as CISOT, as part of the theory of evolution. I don't understand why you raise this objection, since all the dictionary definitions you cited include change over time.

I don’t object at all to CISOT. It is an observed fact of science. What I object to is attempting to pawn this off as a valid statement of the theory of evolution which is what RAZ is insisting that it is. You say it yourself - every definition includes change over time (however, most only imply this). However, the CRITICAL thing to notice is that ALL of the definitions include SOMETHING ELSE as well. NONE of the definitions included ONLY CISOT and only 7% defined evolution as Hereditary CISOT. Those 7% were dictionary definitions which were not making a statement of the theory but only defining the common usage of the word evolution as referring to the PROCESS of evolution that we supposedly see today. As I’ve noted in great detail, the rest of the definitions particularly those from more extensive sources clearly include additional elements to describe the TYPE of change we are talking about. They mention the movement to greater complexity (Information), billions/millions of years (since life began), change into new kinds of life (clearly differentiated from minor speciation), and/or the capability of all life arising from a common ancestor.

These elements can be summarized in a complete statement of the theory of evolution as follows “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”. So I don’t have to type it all out every time, I refer to this as MTM (Molecules to Man) as opposed to CISOT. It is the definition used by many scientists and many of the definitions were nearly identical to this one and I listed 8 of them at the beginning of POST 102 Message 102 which make this abundantly clear.

The entire purpose of Darwin's Origin of Species was to present evidence explaining how the current diversity of life came about by changes in predecessor species.

You’ve made my point. The purpose was to explain how all “the current diversity of life came about”, NOT just how species change. The fact that species change, by itself, DOES NOT rule out the possibility that this diversity is the result of changes to the original created kinds about 6000 years ago. Darwin included in his treatise discussions on transitional forms between kinds (or rather the lack thereof), the movement towards greater complexity, the origin of the first prototype and long ages. All components which must be present to explain how all the forms of life we see today and in the fossil record came about by natural means. THAT is the theory, not CISOT alone.

CISOT alone does not describe what the theory of evolution is about. You must describe the TYPE of change you are referring to. Some of my objections to using CISOT alone are delineated in posts 114 Message 114 towards the end in the section which ends every paragraph with “this is you dodging and stonewalling again”.

With respect…mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 09-02-2007 3:17 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Brad McFall, posted 09-08-2007 8:20 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 09-09-2007 9:36 AM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 119 of 121 (420638)
09-08-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by MurkyWaters
09-08-2007 7:50 PM


Re: on a number of origins or not
Hi MW;

As I am not getting a response the the deeper issues in evolutionary theory it would take a lot of work to make all the connections to content in your post here. I would like to comment on you having said,

quote:
how do you know that life arose only once or literally millions of times potentially separated by billions or millions of years?

To be polite to chair sitting evolutionists I would say it is curious, or rather I should actually say I find it inverted, that a good biologist and historian, Will Provine, finds nonething unusual here being perfectly content that he may never know the answer to this question. Oddly, he also has no problem arguing that there is no purpose in evolution and no free will generally, at the same time.

I find that Wright's distinction of internal(intrademic) selective value or external(interdemic) selective value to only be subsumed within Kant's larger sense of intension and extension etc. but Will being perfectly OK with not being able to decide how many origins up through the cell occurred ,does not work out the trajectory of these insides and outsides REGARDLESS OF THE EXTERNAL PRACTICAL REASON feeling free to debit lateral gene transfer as his excuse for not using the philosphy itself.

Now...if he did not have such strong feelings about ethics and biology then... perhaps I would not find this( possible influence of sociolobiology) strange. And if one listens closely to what he is saying (he explained this twice to(wards) me in the past 3 years) one can gather or prima facie suspect MORE confidence in his assertions on morality than biology, very very odd indeed.

I can not say whether the notion of upward vs downward causation plays out better for baramins or simply indicates that a better theoretical ability is needed among biologists in the process of understanding evolution as taught or being guided by God (perhaps only in our minds so far). At issue is probably a better working out of arugements around species selection vs sorting. I do not know for sure how one is supposed to understand a baramin given sorting, but then there may be reasons against sorting if it is just to make a higer level selection seem affected (this can happen if there is not a reciprocal relation of cause and effect as Kant reflected on in the Critique of Judgment). Unfortunately people who are really smart/logical and Christian, Ravi Zacharrias, for instance, still finds Kant contrary to his needs. It seems that neither the evos can work out the independence relations nor the Christians show how philosophy can change the classical scholarship going for elite in the schools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-08-2007 7:50 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 120 of 121 (420723)
09-09-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by MurkyWaters
09-08-2007 7:50 PM


Re: RAZ dodges and stonewalls again
Hi Murky,

The messages that you and RAZD are posting are far too long. I'll try to be brief.

About the definition of the theory of evolution, if it doesn't make sense to you that it doesn't include abiogenesis, that's just something you're going to have to live with.

To argue logically, if Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution...

No one said abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. They are very closely related. As Wikipedia said, where non-life (chemical evolution) becomes life (biological evolution) isn't clear.

To get back to the point however, to rationally compare both theories in totality, we either need to exclude Abiogenesis and the supernatural creation event from both or include them in both. Including them makes much more sense based on the integral relationship they have to both theories.

Of course including them makes sense. The creation/evolution debate certainly includes abiogenesis, as well as geology, cosmology and so forth. But the theory of evolution doesn't include abiogenesis. If you'd like to debate abiogenesis versus supernatural creation, go for it! Propose a topic for the Origin of Life forum.

The messages in this thread are so long, the title of this thread is fairly vague, let me go read Message 1...

HOLY MOLY!

The topics introduced in Message 1 are:

  1. Definition of:
    1. Evolution
    2. Abiogenesis
    3. Religion/philosophy
    4. Creationism
    5. Young earth creationism
  2. Age of the Earth
  3. Information
  4. Credit for the theory of evolution

WOW!!!

You and RAZD have apparently been having this mammoth discussion that wonders all over the creation/evolution map while slipping under the radar because it was taking place in the The Great Debate forum where only you two could participate.

I have noticed that RAZD will invite newcomers into private debates just after they've joined. I'm going to start discouraging this practice. Newcomers should be allowed time to become familiar with the board before getting into private debates.

Since you've been primarily closeted here in this forum you may not be aware that I'm also moderator Admin. I'm going to close this thread now because it is far too broad. I invite you and RAZD to propose new topics in the Proposed New Topics forum.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-08-2007 7:50 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017