Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 49 (352330)
09-26-2006 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Nighttrain
09-26-2006 7:59 AM


Re: Courage
Not so, Rob, I face it many times a year. Unlike other habits, it doesn`t get easier with practice.
If the results are academic and have no personal importance, then it's possible. But when the results are going to have personal ramifications (on one's career, for example), then bias is inevitable.
This big-to-do in education about "critical thinking" is mere piety. The term "critical thinking" is meaningless. It just means "thinking."
It's a reaction to "rote" learning, although memorization has its place in education. To be sure, mere memorization by itself is not good education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Nighttrain, posted 09-26-2006 7:59 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Nighttrain, posted 09-28-2006 7:29 AM robinrohan has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 17 of 49 (352332)
09-26-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
09-26-2006 7:47 AM


Re: another example.
A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits certain primitive (or basal) traits in comparison with its more derived descendants. "Missing link" is a popular term used for transitional forms. According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.
That is better. The definition is tied in which the assumption that evolution occurs in the TOE sense. For a transitional fossil to exist evolution must be presumed to occur. If it wasn't then there would be no talk of "derived descendants". Thus it is not a scientific definition as such but an evolutionary science definition
So Iano, do transitional fossils exist that meet the criteria of the scientific definition? A simple yes or no eh?
Had you worded it so...
"So, Iano, do fossils exist that meet the criteria of the evolutionary scientific definition of transitional fossils. A simple yes or no eh?"
..then I would have answered a hearty yes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2006 7:47 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 09-26-2006 8:36 AM iano has replied
 Message 22 by MangyTiger, posted 09-26-2006 3:42 PM iano has not replied
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2006 4:41 PM iano has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 18 of 49 (352334)
09-26-2006 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by iano
09-26-2006 8:28 AM


Re: another example.
For a transitional fossil to exist evolution must be presumed to occur.
You seem to have things turned 'round bass ackwards. It is the fact that transitional fossils do exist, and the fact that populations are seen to be in transition in the real world, that support the conclusion that life evolves.
Put it this way, if live evolves, there will be transitional organisms, whether we assume life evolves or not.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:28 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:46 AM subbie has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 19 of 49 (352336)
09-26-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by subbie
09-26-2006 8:36 AM


Re: another example.
Put it this way, if live evolves, there will be transitional organisms, whether we assume life evolves or not.
And if evolution is assumed to happen then fossils exhibiting certain characteristics will be slotted in as transitional because the assumption demands that there be some.
I dealing with the rather narrow issue of defining a transitional. And the definitions so far assume the traits to be transitional (derived descendent is the term used) which make the definitions evolutionist definitions not scientific ones. Razd quoted what was described as a neutral (read: scientific) definition when it most certainly is not.
His complaint seems to be that opponants twist 'scientific definitions' whereas they are actually evolutionist definitions of fossils found. If it is as I see it then its a complaint that rings hollow. "You may oppose but you must assume our definitions to correctly describe the fossil found"
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 09-26-2006 8:36 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 09-26-2006 9:34 AM iano has not replied
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 09-26-2006 9:46 AM iano has not replied
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 09-28-2006 7:23 AM iano has not replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2006 1:28 AM iano has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 49 (352343)
09-26-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
09-26-2006 8:46 AM


Re: another example.
His complaint seems to be that opponants twist 'scientific definitions' whereas they are actually evolutionist definitions of fossils found. If it is as I see it then its a complaint that rings hollow. "You may oppose but you must assume our definitions to correctly describe the fossil found"
Sort of. His real complaint appears to be that if you are going to argue against what scientists say about their own fields, then you need to either argue within that context OR demonstrate that the premises are wrong. Simply changing the definition to one you like, and then arguing against that is the heart of a strawman fallacy. The mistake creationists make is in ignoring the part after "or". Now a good demonstration of why either generic or specific organisms that share traits between taxa is NOT a transitional under the definition used by science, or a demonstration that these organisms are in fact distinct and unrelated, would be a good approach. That would put paid to the contention, IMO. Simply arguing that an organism isn't transitional because it doesn't fit the creationist idiosyncratic non-scientific definition of "transitional" (most of which appear to refer to chimerae or bizarre mosaics with unusable because un- or underdeveloped features rather than shared traits which "bridge" the taxa), doesn't actually provide a good argument against the scientific terminology. Remember the premise used by scientists when discussing what they term transitional: all organisms must be functional in their environment. A mosaic or chimera that couldn't possibly survive and reproduce can't be a transitional - because it couldn't have lived.
In the context of definitions, think about how Someonewhocares is insisting that the platypus be accepted as an example of what evolution says represents a transitional. Obviously, evolution DOES NOT say this - the platypus isn't an example of what we consider a transitional organism, except in the very loose sense that all organisms living or dead are "transitional" between what came before and what comes after. However, someonewhocares is demanding we accept this "example", and attempts to use it - an example that is flat wrong - to argue against the evolutionary concept of transitional.
So in essence the challenge for creationists who wish to call into question transitional organisms that science claims share features of two distinct taxa, is to demonstrate - starting from the definition used by scientists - that the organism is in fact unrelated to either one. Demonstrate, not assert. If this can be done consistently, then the entire idea of transitional organisms as used by scientists would have to be revisited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:46 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2006 9:28 AM Quetzal has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 21 of 49 (352344)
09-26-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
09-26-2006 8:46 AM


Still bass ackwards
And if evolution is assumed to happen then fossils exhibiting certain characteristics will be slotted in as transitional because the assumption demands that there be some.
Nobody has ever assumed evolution happens. Science has concluded that it does based on evidence. One part of that evidence is the existence of transitional fossils. As I mentioned before, you know, the part of my previous post that you ignored, it was the existence of transitional fossils, and the transitional nature of populations, that lead to the conclusion, not assumption, that life evolves.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:46 AM iano has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 22 of 49 (352425)
09-26-2006 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by iano
09-26-2006 8:28 AM


Clarification requested
Thus it is not a scientific definition as such but an evolutionary science definition
As opposed to a Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity or Cosmology or Pseudo scientific definition?
Well sure - but I suspect that's not what you mean
Rather than me try and guess could you clarify what you really mean please?
My guess is it's the usual creo attempt to sneak in the 'evolution isn't really science' inferrence, but maybe I'm wrong.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:28 AM iano has not replied

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


Message 23 of 49 (352433)
09-26-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by iano
09-26-2006 8:28 AM


Re: another example - with a leg up.
Had you worded it so...
"So, Iano, do fossils exist that meet the criteria of the evolutionary scientific definition of transitional fossils. A simple yes or no eh?"
..then I would have answered a hearty yes
What's the difference? The science in question is evolution. The topic being debated is the change in species over time = evolution.
Message 19
Razd quoted what was described as a neutral (read: scientific) definition when it most certainly is not.
No, what I quoted was the proper definition. "Neutral" has nothing to do with it, it's not a matter of voting on the definition, it's a matter of using the proper definition.
Let me give you an example:
A dog is a quadraped because it has four (4) legs.
If I disagree with this, and claim that we should use a "neutral" definition, that "leg" should be defined as "any appendage off the trunk of the body" and ...
Thus a dog is really a hexapod (if female) or a septapod (if male).
Does every dog suddenly start running, walking and jumping with it's head and tail (etc.) as a leg? No. Calling them legs does not make them so.
A definition is derived to clarify the discussion not obfusticate it. Changing the definition does not make the revised definition true, nor valid, nor meaningful.
The definition is tied in which the assumption that evolution occurs in the TOE sense. For a transitional fossil to exist evolution must be presumed to occur.
The definition is derived from the theory of evolution - that species change over time, so therefore you should see evidence of that change over time - with more change possible the more time that is involved - and any fossil found that is intermediate in time between two related specimens shoulod also be intermediate in features, having some changes but not all.
But the fossils exist whether evolution is derived as a theory or not, they are the facts of the matter.
Creating a false definition doesn't make the proper definition false, it makes any argument using the false definition invalid (see straw man example in OP) and irrelevant.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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 17 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:28 AM iano has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 24 of 49 (352765)
09-28-2006 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
09-26-2006 8:46 AM


Re: another example.
I (am) dealing with the rather narrow issue of defining a transitional
O.K.,how about trannies being the missing critters between the 'kinds' that wandered off the Ark, and today`s species?
Too specific?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:46 AM iano has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 25 of 49 (352769)
09-28-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by robinrohan
09-26-2006 8:22 AM


Re: Courage
If the results are academic and have no personal importance, then it's possible. But when the results are going to have personal ramifications (on one's career, for example), then bias is inevitable.
I think you miss the point. The whole essence of 'Crit-think' is that it is intensely personal. When one applies the four elements to one`s thinking, and it necessitates altering one`s worldview, you either change or go with the flow,i.e.,lack courage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 09-26-2006 8:22 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:19 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 49 (352818)
09-28-2006 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Nighttrain
09-28-2006 7:29 AM


Re: Courage
The whole essence of 'Crit-think' is that it is intensely personal.
By personal I mean practical.
And what's all this talk about "courage"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Nighttrain, posted 09-28-2006 7:29 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Nighttrain, posted 09-29-2006 6:24 AM robinrohan has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 27 of 49 (353055)
09-29-2006 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by robinrohan
09-28-2006 12:19 PM


Re: Courage
Courage? How else would you define letting go of the familiar? What other quality sums up changing your cosy beliefs to the harsh light of Crit-think? We all accept certain values as the standards in our life, based on previous understanding. Then, if you remain true to the three elements and discover you are on a fool`s journey, do you compromise, or take a deep breath and realign your thinking? I doubt anyone can take the plunge without counting the cost of lost sureties, lost opportunities, possibly lost friends. So it boils down to whether CT is king, or do you accommodate the new without accepting the new boundaries? Whether the transition is something relatively mundane, or life-shaking like moving from religious to atheistic (or vice versa), rejecting scientific, political, tribal, even domestic ties in the face of new evidence, I`d say it took courage. Still think phlogiston had a lot going for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 09-29-2006 8:14 AM Nighttrain has replied
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 3:22 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 49 (353064)
09-29-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Nighttrain
09-29-2006 6:24 AM


Re: Courage
Courage? How else would you define letting go of the familiar? What other quality sums up changing your cosy beliefs to the harsh light of Crit-think?
This does not correspond to my experience of life in the least. I never had any religious beliefs to begin with, but I don't think it took any "courage" to go on not having religious beliefs. It didn't take any "courage" for me to examine arguments on both sides.
Just sounds like boasting to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Nighttrain, posted 09-29-2006 6:24 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Nighttrain, posted 09-29-2006 9:28 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 29 of 49 (353089)
09-29-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Quetzal
09-26-2006 9:34 AM


Re: another example.
think about how Someonewhocares is insisting that the platypus be accepted as an example of what evolution says represents a transitional.
While no modern organism is transitional with any other modern organism in any meaningful way, monotremes have retained a lot of features that 'bridge the gap' between early synapsids and modern mammals. Features such as egg laying, excreting and reproducing through the same orifice, internal testes, some skeletal features (epipubic bone for example), sperm characteristics that are both reptillian in appearance and mammalian etc etc
They do highlight the kind of thing we are looking for in a transitional form purely because they have retained ancient features that placental mammals have not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 09-26-2006 9:34 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by kuresu, posted 09-29-2006 2:16 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 09-29-2006 4:20 PM Modulous has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 30 of 49 (353148)
09-29-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Modulous
09-29-2006 9:28 AM


Re: another example.
methinks quetzal misrepresented S1WCs. S1WCs was saying that, because the platypus has bird, reptile, and mammal features we should accept it as a transtional of all three, somehow (I think) ending up making it the ancestor of modern reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Which is patently false--there are no bird features in platypus to begin with. Second, reptiles were around before the earliest synapsids. Third, it's not even the ancestor of all modern mammals--it's just a branch of modern mammals that shares a common ancestor with us. yeah . . .

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2006 9:28 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 09-29-2006 4:07 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024