Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Starting a new threvad for the purpose of discussing the all issues in the following post that do not apply to the thread in question, so we won't get in trouble with admins ....

From Message 81

I had prepared the following response, but have since noticed that this appears consistent with creationist positions elsewhere on the site so I hope it is not too repetetive. I suppose that happens commonly on forums like this, but I will continue to read to become more familiar with what is being said elsewhere. First of all, I want to thank everyone for their warm welcome including Faith and yourself (Razd). I hope to try to respond in a timely manner to these posts, but it will obviously not always be possible. Thanks for the tips on using the forum as well. While I had considered a point by point response, I decided this would be long and fruitless (although I will make a few exceptions) because the majority of your counter discussion is simply the result of us not having a common understanding of each other’s positions and definitions. If we can’t even agree on what is Evolution and what is Creation, all of the debate in this forum won’t get us anywhere. The first sentence in your response is much more appropriately applied to your position, not mine, so I’ll repeat it here with appropriate modification. “Of course [this is evidence for evolution], because you can define “evolution” any way you want to and make it fit.” It is intellectually dishonest to define Evolution as change over time. Who could possibly disagree with that? Your second definition from the dictionary (a.) is better, but you notice it also does not mention mutations as a mechanism (simply natural selection) which you scolded me for not mentioning. Now, I realize there is a very broad range of beliefs across the entire spectrum on both sides. However, here is the definition of Evolution and Creation which in my experience are the most commonly accepted: Evolution: ALL life has descended over millions of years by purely naturalistic means from a common ancestor which itself came from non-life. That statement is the initial and un-provable axiom for which evidence is sought. The mechanism commonly proposed for evolution is mutations coupled with natural selection. In order for this concept to be valid it must account for the formation of new and different genetic information over time. Creation – God created the universe and all life approximately 6000 years ago according to the historical account from the bible which includes the occurrence of a worldwide flood. That statement is the initial and un-provable axiom for which evidence is sought. The original created kinds of organisms were genetically information rich allowing them to adapt successfully to diverse and changing environments through natural selection/mutation. This process entails the shuffling and loss of genetic information within their kind (to the point where many organisms can no longer successfully adapt to their environments and have become extinct). Note that the initial axioms or presupposition are un-provable largely because they pertain to historical, not operational, science and no one was there to witness the actual events. However, Christians believe they do have an eyewitness account in the bible which provides a more logical foundation for their presupposition. Whether you agree with those definitions or not, you can see that within their context, the finch article fits much better with the creation model than with the evolutionary one, primarily since it demonstrates that change does not require millions of years to take place. It is not evidence for evolution since the change has not added additional genetic information that wasn’t already present but is required for true evolution to occur. No one, particularly any informed creationist, is arguing that natural select and mutation do not occur. In fact, you notice that it is a foundational mechanism of both positions. However, there has NEVER been any observed change in the direction of adding new information that evolution requires. It is mere speculation and hopeful thinking that changes within species has been extended to account for the formation of entirely different type of organisms. And make no mistake. This article, while it talks deceptively about “micro-evolution” is being touted as proof of the “real” thing to the uniformed – the evolution that changes a dinosaur into a bird (or the other way around, depending on what article you read). That is why it is dishonest to call this type of change “micro-evolution” because it is only evolution in the general sense that we have begun to use the term such as in the statement “automobiles have evolved over time”. No one will argue that if I wait long enough my VW bug will change into a BMW. I say this merely for humor so don’t fixate on this statement if you decide to respond. Now, I do need to respond directly to just a few of your assertions for completeness, but I will not expound upon them since this post is already getting long. You say: And that [finches turn into alligators] is not what the theory of evolution claim, so it seems you do not understand what evolution really is. No? Than it is not me that misunderstands what evolution is. I used a facetious example, but that is exactly the claim of evolution – that a single celled organism in some primordial soup eventually turned into a professor, creating all of life as we know it along the way. You disagree that the foundations of modern science did not come from creationists? A large number of some of our most venerated scientists (including recent ones) that laid the foundations of most if not all of our major scientific disciplines found no conflict between science and creationism. Your assertion that geo-centrism or flat earth notions were perpetuated by Christians is false. These concepts are found no where in the bible. However, scientific thinking has always changed over time as more evidence is discovered or postulated. It is obviously how we interpret this evidence that accounts for our differences. Lastly, you say the following: Because you can cite {SOME} evidence for a position does not make it true or valid, most especially when you ignore {OTHER} evidence that disproves the position. The denial of {CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE} means that the position is false, regardless of any claims otherwise, until such time as you can show how the evidence is wrong or explain it in terms of the position claimed. Please! I am not trying to prove creationism, simply by this single post. The evidence in my opinion is simply overwhelming for creationist theory. Contrarily, evolutionists are experts at ignoring the evidence (i.e. it only takes 10 or 20 samples to find the one that will conform to the correct pre-conceived time when attempting to date them). Whatever happened to the concept that science was the search for truth? I am not aware of a single piece of evidence that “disproves” creationism. On the other hand, I challenge you to come up with any examples of observed changes in nature which increase informational (genetic) content. They should abound if evolution is true. Transitional forms in the fossil record should also abound, but evolutionists are hard pressed to come up with even a few controversial examples. And what about soft tissue which is now being found in a large number of fossils? It is simply impossible that they could be millions of years old. How about that for ignoring the evidence? Those are just a few of literally thousands of examples. By the way, as we understand more about genetic theory, evolutionists are beginning to abandon the concept of natural selection/mutation as the mechanism for evolution so you may soon find yourself with a completely bankrupt hypothesis (I dare not call it a theory, since the evidence does not support it). I hope I have addressed the bulk of your objections. These posts are supposed to be fun, so perhaps I’ve taken the liberty to be a little more “forward” than I might otherwise. However, I have attempted to be as accurate as possible. It is not my intention to offend (and I have taken no offense). We should all be searching for the truth, not just for a good argument (although I expect some are in it just for the argument). Respectfully…mw

I will take these issues to start with (keeping others for later to keep the debate simple)

(1) Definitions.

If we can’t even agree on what is Evolution and what is Creation, all of the debate in this forum won’t get us anywhere.

Agreed, which is why we use standard definitions whenever possible. Creationists, it seems, tend to use a lot of non-standard definitions, often designed (by creatortionistas) ...

{I define "creatortionista" btw, as a site or a person that intentionally distorts and misrepresents the truth, states things that are falsified by readily observable evidence and who do not correct their error when it is pointed out to them. I do this to draw a distinction between honest creationists and the ... dishonest (to be polite).}

.... to misrepresent what the science is really about, so we need to be careful and use what can readily be validated by a common source as a real definition.

Like Dictionary.com.

Wikipedia.org may be used with the caveat that it is an open source website subject to change, intentional misrepresentation or whimsical hacking type editing, and that any disagreement about it's material needs to be then substantiated by a more robust source (another on-line encyclopedia). Personally I find it useful as a "weathervane" of the common understanding of things, but prefer other standards where available.

The first sentence in your response is much more appropriately applied to your position, not mine, so I’ll repeat it here with appropriate modification. “Of course [this is evidence for evolution], because you can define “evolution” any way you want to and make it fit.”

(color highlight for empHASis).

Obviously this is part of the issue right from the get go, eh? Let's look at the definition I used for evolution:

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.

Therefore your claim that I can change the definition to suit my argument is not born out by the facts.

For chuckles we'll also look at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes. Evolution is potentially the source of the vast diversity of life: theoretically all contemporary organisms may be related to each other through common descent as products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years

(bold in the original, color highlight for empHASis)

{abe}NOTE: wikipedia article has already changed this paragraph -- the article is in a constant state of flux from people making changes, which is why it is an unreliable source ... :D

This from Encarta On-Line Encyclopedia
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554675/Evolution.html

Evolution, in biology, complex process by which the characteristics of living organisms change over many generations as traits are passed from one generation to the next. The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient organisms to develop into the tremendous and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today. It addresses how, over the course of time, various plant and animal species branch off to become entirely new species, and how different species are related through complicated family trees that span millions of years.

Note the distinction between the evolution of species and the science of evolution -- it is easy to conflate these two distinct usages of the word.

The first sentence can be rephrased as the change in species over time ... {/abe}

Notice that it says that evolution is ... basically ... the change in species over time, and that this change in species over time is potentially -- through the {mechanism\theory} of common descent -- the source all diversity in life as we know it.

Now let's turn to your definitions:

However, here is the definition of Evolution and Creation which in my experience are the most commonly accepted: Evolution: ALL life has descended over millions of years by purely naturalistic means from a common ancestor ...

From the start we see that what you think is "evolution" is NOT in the proper definition but the theory of common descent -- a theory based on evolution being true and then taking it back logically to previous ancestral relationships. This is a common misconception on the part of creationists (and one that is intentionally promoted by creatortionistas).

... which itself came from non-life. ...

And this is abiogenesis and not evolution -- because evolution is change in species over time there must be a {species\life}at the start for evolution to apply. If you use the correct definitions you do not fall into these (semantic\conceptual) traps.

... Creation – God created the universe and all life approximately 6000 years ago according to the historical account from the bible which includes the occurrence of a worldwide flood. ...

This too is a (logically) false definition, false because it excludes many forms of creation beliefs, excluding other christian beliefs as well as all other religions.

Again, dictionary.com defines creation as:

cre·a·tion
4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.

(bold in the original)

Note that this definition shows that the fundamental christian creationism "creations" is but ONE type of MANY various religious and philosophical traditions.

Thus my Deist definition of creation is perfectly valid, as is a Theistic definition, as are any variations on a theme christian definition to suit whatever personal christian belief is held -- it is a definition based on personal belief and not on having any evidence. There is no restriction on who, what, where, why or how {creation} was accomplished - it could have been last Thursday in accordance with the belief in "Last Thursdayism".

Notice that you can change what you mean by {creation} -- what happened when and to what degree -- and it is still valid by this definition, because it is based on {your} religion and philosophy -- beliefs that can evolve with time (and knowledge).

What you really mean is {fundamental christian young earth creationism creation}, a fairly small subset of {creation}

For chuckles we'll also look at wikipedia:

And the first thing you get is a "disambiguation" page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation
Creation may refer to:
* 1 Natural sciences
* 2 Religion/Philosophy
* 3 Arts
* 4 Media
* 5 Various

Where we select {Religion/Philosophy} to get:

* Creation (theology), the act by a god or gods of bringing the universe into existence from unlimited energy, e.g (Isaiah 40:26) rather than from "nothing".
* Generally descriptions of creation are the act or results of bringing something into existence from nothing at all, or from some pre-existing matter or energy.
... o Creationism, the belief that the natural universe, life, and humanity were created by a supreme being's supernatural intervention.
* Creation Festival, a yearly Christian music festival which happens in the Eastern and Western parts of the United States
* Creation (philosophy)

And now we have a choice:

(a) Creation (theology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_%28theology%29

Creation is a doctrinal position in many religions and philosophical belief systems which maintains that a single God, or a group of gods or deities is responsible for creating the universe. Creationism affirms this belief, but the doctrinal belief is not necessarily synonymous with creationism. (philosophy)

(bold in the original)

Which takes us back to (and confirms) the dictionary.com definition, OR

(b) Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

"Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general, or to an alternative of traducianism.

In the Abrahamic religions, creationism is the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe have a miraculous origin in a deity or supreme being's supernatural intervention. This intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo), or as the emergence of order from pre-existing chaos (demiurge). In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be specifically associated with the brand of conservative Christian fundamentalism which conflicts with various aspects of evolution, cosmology, and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world.)

(bold in the original)

It then goes on to discuss different kinds of creationism:

4 Types of creationism
  4.1 Young Earth Creationist
    4.1.1 Modern geocentrism
    4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis
    4.1.3 Creation science
  4.2 Old Earth Creationist
    4.2.1 Gap creationism
    4.2.2 Day-age creationism
    4.2.3 Progressive creationism
  4.3 Theistic evolution
  4.4 Neo-Creationism
    4.4.1 Intelligent design
5 Jewish creationism

(It does not discuss Hindu Creationism, which holds that the scientific age of the universe is much too young.)

And so, finally we get down to:

Young Earth Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Young_Earth_Creationist

Main article: Young-Earth Creationism

The belief that the Earth was created by God a few thousand years ago, literally as described in Creation according to Genesis, within the approximate timeframe of the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar or somewhat more according to the interpretation of biblical genealogies. (They may or may not believe that the Universe is the same age.)

As you can see the definition of evolution was quite concise and specific while the definition of creation allows a wide variety of beliefs and convictions, and that what you meant by your definition of creation is the Young Earth Creationism ("YEC") version ... and that even there, some disagreement over what it involved persists.

For the purpose of any further debate I suggest you use:

• Evolution: the change in species over time (observed fact, not theory)
  
• Evolution (science): the science of studying evolution, including theories on natural selection, common descent and the like, but excluding abiogenesis.
  
• Common Descent: the theory that all species may be related by having evolved from a common ancestor
  
• Natural Selection: the theory that {time & space specific} unfit individuals are less successful surviving and reproducing than more {time & space specific} fit individuals, and that this filters all random mutations so that {fit} ones are passed on to the next generation while {unfit} ones are removed from the population -- for that {time & space specific} set of conditions.
  
• Abiogenesis: the theory that life evolved from activated chemicals in a prebiotic soup.
  
• Creation: the {hypothesis\belief} that the universe was made, created, by a supreme {being\force\etc}
  
• Creationism (general): the {hypothesis\belief} that {creation} (see above} is true
  
• YEC - "Young Earth Creationism" - the fundamental christian belief that the universe etc was created (mostly complete)* some 6000 years ago. (* allows for "micro"evolution within kinds).
  
• OEC - "Old Earth Creationism" - the christian belief that the universe etc was created but that the age of the earth and the universe can be as old as it appears, that genesis is not {literal}.

You can also see how these definitions compare to the ones in the Forum Glossary:
http:///WebPages/Glossary.html

The reasons for using these definitions are because they are (a) concise (b) specific and (c) non-ambiguous. Things needed for concise, specific and non-ambiguous debate.

Notice that I distinquish between {Evolution} and {Evolution (science)}. This is because a lot of people use one when they mean the other and vice versa, and this leads to confusion (it's called the logical fallacy of equivocation when such interchanging is done intentionally).

For instance we were discussing the {Evolution} of beaks on finches on one of the islands of the Galapagos chain -- the observed change in species over time. We also discussed how the theory of Natural Selection was demonstrated by the observed facts. We were not discussing abiogenesis or common descent.

{end rant #1 :rolleyes:}

(2) The Age of the Earth

To use the YEC argument you have to go to Message 1 and explain the Age Correlations that not only show an old earth but invalidate the concept of a young earth.

This is where all the evidence comes into play - you don't get to choose which evidence you use. If evidence exists that invalidates your concept then it is a false argument until you can refute the evidence, and denial (or hand waving etc) does not count as a refutation.

Consider this like a chess game and you are in check - you must remove the check before you can proceed with your game. You have to deal with the evidence that the earth {CAN'T} be only 6000 years old.

Do NOT answer here but go to the thread in question and deal (a) with all the evidence listed and (b) with why it correlates to the same ages when there is no reason for it to do so if the age were NOT correct.

Note: I will take refusal to answer as - not tacit, but solid - evidence that you cannot refute an old earth nor the falsification of a young earth. This may seem harsh, but refusal to deal with being in check usually brings a swift end to the game of chess.

{end rant #2}

(3) What Evolution "says"

You say: And that [finches turn into alligators] is not what the theory of evolution claim, so it seems you do not understand what evolution really is. No? Than it is not me that misunderstands what evolution is. I used a facetious example, but that is exactly the claim of evolution – that a single celled organism in some primordial soup eventually turned into a professor, creating all of life as we know it along the way. .

I need only point out that what Evolution "says" is that species change over time. This is the standard definition as established above.

It says absolutely nothing about what it will change into or how long it will take to change -- it ONLY says that it will CHANGE.

It certainly does not say that if we started all over again (from some original life form or forms -- at least you started with a single celled organism this time :D ) that we would end up with humans debating over the internet. It certainly does NOT say that finches will turn into alligators -- you may claim it is a "facetious example" but what it demonstrates is an ignorance of what evolution is about, and about what evolution "says".

This type of argument is called a strawman argument and it is another logical fallacy.

{end rant #3}

(4) "Information"

However, there has NEVER been any observed change in the direction of adding new information that evolution requires. It is mere speculation and hopeful thinking that changes within species has been extended to account for the formation of entirely different type of organisms.

Show me how to measure the information in every organism, some kind of {information metric score value}, then we'll talk about what the evidence shows.

Until you have a mechanism that results in some {information metric score value} you cannot claim anything about how much or how little is involved and whether or not it is increasing, decreasing or staying static.

Making this claim without any means to document it means that it is a bogus argument intended to deceive.

{end rant #4}

(5) Creationists did it first

Message 16 I’m almost certain that you’ve heard of Edward Blyth. Blyth was a creationist who, according to the article below, “wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837”. Note that Darwin’s work wasn’t published until 1859. “The leading tenets of Darwin’s work—the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection—are all fully expressed in Blyth’s paper of 1835”.

I'm also aware that his father, Erasmus Darwin, had written about natural selection.

I also aware that Robert Chambers wrote "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" in 1844, and that Alfred Russel Wallace was breathing down his neck while he kept his manuscript in his desk.

So?

This does not in any way demonstrate that

(1) Evolution is false (rather it demonstrates that a large number of people were coming to the same conclusions based on the evidence, the conclusion that evolution was true), OR

(2) Creation(ism, Young Earth) is true.

Without demonstrating BOTH of these things, the argument is a non-sequitur -- a logical fallacy, a detraction from the argument -- it's a waste of bandwidth.

You disagree that the foundations of modern science did not come from creationists?

I thought this was the argument of the Russian Oligarchy ... that they did it first ...

I disagreed that ALL the foundations of ALL modern sciences came ONLY from creationists. That was what you claimed. It is false on many counts ...

See http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/evolutio.htm

Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who follow in Hs footsteps, there are rudimentary suggestions of the Darwinian theory in its broader sense; and here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends.

... and the argument is also totally and completely irrelevant to what the science becomes.

Whether modern geology was first founded by christians that believed in a young earth (until they could no longer reconcile the evidence they saw with the belief) has no bearing on the direction, evidence and theory of modern geology. Science follows the evidence, not the dogma of whoever "started" it.

Whether evolution was first founded by Darwin, or Blythe or Wallace or some native kid in Argentina that told it to Darwin is totally irrelevant to what the science is about today -- all of those possibilities would still end up where we are today, because that is what the evidence shows, not any dogma or belief or conspiracy etcetera.

We could throw out everything we know about biology and science in general, and then after we had overthrown the theocratic oligarchy that made such a thing happen, we would re-discover the evidence and recreate the theories, because that is where the evidence leads.

{end of ran #5}

These posts are supposed to be fun, so perhaps I’ve taken the liberty to be a little more “forward” than I might otherwise.

Likewise.

While I had considered a point by point response, I decided this would be long and fruitless ... ... but I will not expound upon them since this post is already getting long.

If you want them shorter, then only make one unsubstantiated assertion at a time.

As in pick one subtopic above and write a paragraph that specifically presents evidence that supports your position.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : speelink erorr.

Edited by AdminNWR, : Mark as great debate thread

Edited by RAZD, : added comment re wikipedia change

Edited by RAZD, : opened title to other creos. per Message 75

Edited by RAZD, : Title update

Edited by RAZD, : removed S1WC from title, that part moved to new thread, see Message 86

Edited by RAZD, : now open to anyone
admin should move to "biological evolution" forum

---

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.

Thank you -- as I opened it is up to MurkyWaters to reply.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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.

.... anyone know what happened?

Maybe we want to move this out of the Great Debate due to absence of debate ....

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

okay. That's a start. Unfortunately I am travelling now and have limited time and access.

My first impression is that if we both keep doing very long posts, very little will be accomplished.

That said, there are some errors I saw in a brief review, that are due to NOT settling on the definitions first.

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

Evolution theory says no such thing. This is abiogenesis. Evolution starts once there is life for the forces of mutation and natural selection to operate on. It's like trying to do chemistry with only protons, neutrons and electrons but no atoms: doesn't work.

{abe3}None of your definitions state this erroneous strawman, and certainly none of mine. The only place it comes from is creatortionista sites that don't understand or willfully misrepresent what evolution is about. If you disagree, then you need to show evidence otherwise - so far that is lacking.{/abe3}

This may sound like a small quibble but it is an essential part of the debate: scientific terms are defined by the science, not by people outside the science.

This is the kind of thing that creationists do when they don't use the correct scientific definitions of the terms, but start changing them into strawman versions based on their misunderstanding (at best).

http://www.lexicon-biology.com/biology/definition_45.html Evolution is the process that has led to the appearance and transformation of living species on earth. The first living beings – undoubtedly very rudimentary cells , algae, or bacteria – appeared 3.8 billion years ago. Since then, life forms have diversified and adapted to their environments. All living species today have, therefore, the same origin.

All this is saying is that evolution is change in species over time, and taking a broad view of the scale of what has occurred. This is addressing evolution since the first appearance of life, and that all the subsequent diversity is the accumulation of change in species over time.

So far evolution -- as the change in species over time -- is sufficient to explain that diversity of life and the known interconnections between different life forms.

The Berkeley series for “understanding evolution for teachers” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml states that “the central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor… Through the process of descent with modification, 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. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.”

BZZZZZZTTTT!!! ... Error ... Error ...

From the site you linked it clearly says:

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 this very clearly says that the definition is still the change in species over time. Again it is looking at the broad base of evidence of change in species over time -- long periods of time, but the essential mechanism involved is still change in species over time. This is sufficient to explain the evidence.

What you quoted from is under Explanation and is getting into the theory of common descent, which is based on evolution (change in species over time), but notice the arrow at the side of each graphic and the words "Change through time" ... so we are still dealing with the definition of evolution as being the change in species over time.

The university of Michigan teaches that Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: 1) Organisms have changed over time (of course), 2) All organisms are derived from common ancestors (and I would add the Darwin postulated a single common ancestor or prototype), 3) Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time (some scientists speculate billions of years) and 4) The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection (which we now know is insufficient by itself). Clearly, Darwin’s purpose was to develop a materialistic explanation of the ORIGIN of species (not merely that “things change”). http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

Now you are editorialising inside the quoted material :rolleyes:. Please. Your opinion is of no value to the scientific definitions and usages.

You also jump to an invalid conclusion when you suddenly talk about Darwin's "purpose" -- his purpose was to scientifically explain how the diversity of evidence that surrounds us happens - on a daily basis and on a long term basis. This is what science does.

Still this 'definition' (although it is rather loose to characterise it that way) is still change in species over time.

Finally, the “General Theory of Evolution” (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as “the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” This I believe should be our goal, to define a general theory of Evolution and Creation, not merely their components.

That's Kerkut's 'general' theory, rather than the theory of evolution.

It's not a matter of putting it up for a vote. The definition of evolution is the change in species over time. This is how the scientists use the term.

You do make a good argument about how everything we know about biology and science in general could be thrown out tomorrow. That being the case, why would you want to bet your everlasting life on it?

Nice little passive aggressive christian ad hominum and non-sequitur plus the logical fallacy of appeal to consquences -- ya gotta love people that think their belief applies to everyone, and wrap up three logical fallacies in one phrase to do it.

I will take your advice to try and reduce future arguments (after this one) to manageable pieces as I’ve already recommended in (1).

At this point I am ignoring everything except the definitions, as it appears that you still don't have it right. Once we get over that hurdle then we can go back to the rest of your post.

So far all you have presented reinforces the basic definition that:

Evolution is the change in species over time.

I hope you enjoyed all of this. I’ll wait for your response. You seem to be a little quicker at this than me considering the number of posts you have made. …mw

See comment at top.

---

{abe2}

Note that what I quoted from your post at the top,

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

is NOT the definition of evolution by any of these sources. This is NOT discussuing evolution but something else. Portraying it as {evolution} is therefore misleading, false and a strawman setup.

You also stated in your reply post:

Using the exact same logic, your definition of evolution is logically false because you haven’t included all of the other evolutionary and religious beliefs. In fact, I believe that evolution is a religion.

The number of times creationists try this logically false inversion is almost a 1:1 ratio to the number of creationists. Of course NO religious beliefs are included in the definition of evolution -- it is science not faith.

This portrayal of evolution as "a religion" just indicates that you can't seem to conceive of a manner of thinking that is not based on "a religion", not that this assertion is true or even close to factual, unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary not withstanding: saying something does not make it so. (That is why we need to use the real definitions, and not creatortionista ones eh?)

You are of course free to believe any number of false things you want to -- but that is the definition of delusion. Notice these distinctions:

faith - belief without evidence

delusion - belief in spite of evidence to the contrary

science - knowledge based on evidence and logic

And as far as “misrepresenting the truth”, I’m sure you are aware of the countless hoaxes that have been perpetrated in the name of evolution including the majority of supposed human ancestry, embryonic recapitulation and the peppered moths.

We can deal with this issue later, after we settle on the definition of evolution, but if you are in a hurry on it, take the false assertion of pepper moth hoax to the appropriate Peppered Moths and Natural Selection, where you will find that the 'hoax' is the false portrayal of what the pepper moths represent -- by creatortionistas. Answer on that thread if you want to pursue this.

You can also search the site for Haeckel and see what has already been covered instead of recapitulating it all over again.

And if you are still in a hurry to discuss "the majority of supposed human ancestry" you can reply to the {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal (seeing as Lucy - fact or fraud? is still closed). Again the real issue is what the evidence shows, what the theories actually state and what it is that the creatortionistas portray as 'hoaxes' actually represent.

You also seem to take issue with billions of years of geological history of this planet and billions of years of astronomical history of this universe. We can deal with this issue later, after we settle on the definitions. If you are in a hurry on this issue you can reply to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III).

This is not to say that I am avoiding these issues but that they have already been answered elsewhere.

Are you saying there are no dishonest evolutionists? It would be an easy task to line them up in droves.

This makes it okay for creatortionistas to be dishonest? The fact that 'dishonest evolutionists' are exposed by scientists rather than creationists would also have nothing to do with the argument eh?

The question is whether you can distinguish between the honest ones and the dishonest one. The way you do that is look at how they use the terms and see if it compares with the definitions, see how they use evidence and see if it compares with reality ... and we're back to square one: without agreement on the definition I would be talking about {evolution} as defined by scientists and you would be talking about {something else while pretending it is about evolution}.

Communication means using the words to convey their meaning.

After we settle what the definition of evolution is then we can proceed to the definition of creation.
{abe2}

---

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : added between lines at end

Edited by RAZD, : tyop, added paragraph, and some paragraph breaks for clarity

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Welcome back Murk (if that is okay with you, otherwise I'll keep with MurkyWaters).

It doesn’t help when people purposely use derogatory terms such as “creatortionista”. I see nothing dishonest (and you have not demonstrated anything dishonest) with creationist logic.

Two points:

(1) My definition of "creatortionista" involves a specific subcamp of creationist and not all creationists, so in replying only regarding "creationist logic" is a strawman, not addressing the point.

A creatortionista is someone like Carl Baugh or Ron Wyatt, that posts absolute fraudulent hoaxes as the truth -- in spite of being corrected, not only by evidence and scientists, but even by other creationists. Someone who continues to post false, fraudulent or misrepresentative material after it has been demonstrated to be false, fraudulent or misrepresentative, is a creatortionista.

(2) There is no special "creationist logic" (or "evolutionist logic" for that matter), there is just logic: it doesn't matter what the argument contains, just that IF the precepts are true and IF the structure is valid THEN the conclusion is {true\valid}.

I have no problem with the proper employment of logic and evidence by anyone supporting a creationist position. I have used quotes from creationist websites, and see no problem with that when it can be demonstrated that the evidence is factual and the conclusions are logical.

If anything, my purpose in identifying 'creatortionista' as a subcamp of creationist is to warn you (and others) that there are unscrupulous and dishonest {people\websites} that seem to support a creationist position, but in truth only support lies and hoaxes and contain false, fraudulent or misrepresentative material -- and that as a result nothing from their sites can be trusted: the material needs to be verified by other sources, to the point where using the other sources would be a better support of the argument than to include the creatortionista material (why quote something correct from a fraud site when you can find valid references elsewhere eh?).

As I’ve already stated, I feel the reverse is true. Some people, including myself, just happen to disagree with you.

I'll be happy to exclude material from any website that you can demonstrate refuses to make corrections when they are shown to be wrong (by evidence and logic, not just by assertion, of course).

Apparently, because you can’t defend your arguments, you have to resort to name calling.

Carl Baugh, case in point:

Please see Glen Kuban article, "Man Tracks? A Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy" (Copyright © 1992) and NCSE article refuting Baugh's mantracks evidence, from Creation/Evolution journal, Issue 15 (Volume 5, Number 1 - Winter 1985). Both links show that the claim for human footprints is false and unsubstantiated by any hard evidence. Note the dates.

From "Creation Evidence Museum" -- Baugh's website:

quote:

---

As you browse our pages you will receive educational information presenting scientific evidence for creation and design by a personal Creator. This scientifically chartered museum was established in July of 1984 for the purpose of research, excavation, and display of scientific evidence for creation. The Museum's team, led by its Founder and Director, Carl Baugh, Ph.D., has excavated eleven dinosaurs (Acrocanthosaurus, Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, etc.), 475 dinosaur tracks, 86 human footprints, 7 cat prints, and other fossil remains - all in Cretaceous limestone. Excavations were professionally documented along the Paluxy River and various other international locations.

---

(color mine for empHASis). This was taken from the website today, demonstrating that he is still perpetuating this fraud on the public, fourteen (14) years after Glen's article and twenty one (21) years after the NCSE article refuted the "evidence" as being a fraud.

From AIG "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" article:

quote:

---

Some of Carl Baugh’s “evidences” for creation.
We are sorry to say that, while AiG thinks he’s well meaning, Baugh unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any “evidence” he provides unless supported by creationist organizations with reputations for biblical and scientific rigor. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh “evidences” despite being approached on the matter.

---

ie -- AiG says to find your material from other websites than take anything from Baugh or Wyatt.

Is that argument defended sufficiently for you to acknowledge that indeed Carl Baugh fits the criteria of "creatortionista" -- rather than just "name-calling"?

You can also see what AIG thinks of Ron Wyatt in the same article. There are others.

The point is that there are creationists and there are creatortionistas, and that not all creationists are creatortionistas.

In any case, I think it is a perfectly valid reaction for someone not to trust a source that has consistently proven to be unreliable.

One could also say it is important not to trust any one site, that you should be able to find corroborating material from a number of other sites ... as a start.

You keep appealing to these logical fallacies every opportunity you get, even when it’s inappropriate. It appears that you have been often accused of logical fallacies yourself and are simply lashing out. There is no purpose in that.

See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for discussion of why I think this is important if not crucial to the debate. You'll notice that you engage in another logical fallacy in implying motivations that attack the messenger and not the message (ad hominum). I'll leave this issue on that thread rather than extend this reply further (and yes it will get long ... )

That Science changes its mind every week is an acceptable part of the process for many. However, that science has frequently made statements that something is a FACT (or that something has been PROVEN, particularly related to “origins” studies) when it is no such case, is inexcusable.

The basic premise of science is that we look at evidence, make a theory to explain the evidence, derive a test condition from the theory to test it's validity, run the test and evaluate the results. If the results invalidate the theory, then you discard or modify it and generate a new theory that explains the previous evidence PLUS the result of the previous test, and repeat. If the results validate the theory, then you add the results to the evidence and make further predictions to test the validity of the theory.

The basic premise of science is that it MUST change when evidence invalidates the theory, and that every time it DOES change that is because it is engaged in doing science and not in bolstering up some dogmatic belief or other.

Thus you are criticising science for doing science when you complain that it "changes its mind every week" (which is certainly an overstatement, if nothing else -- an element of the "argument from incredulity" logical fallacy handbook)

There is also a difference between fact and theory:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

quote:

---

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

---

No scientist claims that a theory is "proven" as all you can achieve is {valid according to currently available evidence}, although you can disprove theories (and they frequently are, by scientists pursuing science).

All that being said, I agree that some people do overstate the case at times. In (any) science there should always be a caveat: "according to the currently available evidence." There should always be the caveat that they could be wrong (see the issue of "courage" on the {Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking} thread.

So there IS something called evolution theory? What is that? More specifically, what is the “Theory of Evolution”. I’ll repeat that you did not include a “theory of evolution” in your definitions and I’m not sure I saw it anywhere in your initial response. Is there such a thing? If so, what is it?

Evolution is the species change over time, the theory is that this change is the result of mutation and natural selection, that such change can result in several species evolving from a common ancestral species, that such daughter species can diverge (change over time) away from each other, and that this divergence of species over long periods of time can explain the diversity of life we see.

So far there is no evidence that invalidates this theory.

This is essentially what the encyclopedia entries cited in the OP address (rather than the definition of evolution itself). Note that wikipedia has changed again ...

quote:

---

In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast biodiversity on Earth, including the many extinct species attested in the fossil record.[1][2]

---

For the sake of the argument I will stipulate that the last two sentences should be clarified with the caveat "according to the currently available evidence" -- as noted before I don't consider wikipedia to be the last word on any topic, it does have some useful information, and it is the most up-to-date source on new information, but it is also subject to flux (especially in areas under debate).

This doesn't mean that the statements are false, as there is no evidence that shows that to be the case. It also doesn't mean that the statements are true, just that they are valid conclusions based on the current available evidence.

Who are people outside of the “science”?

Scientists "in the science" are the ones doing studies, testing theories and publishing papers in scientific journals dedicated to the science in question -- the ones using the definitions to do further research. Do they disagree? yes. Do they disagree over definitions? yes - but they are clear about what they are disagreeing on, and not asserting that the definition is something else and that this new definition makes the other position false.

Dawkins and Gould on "punkeek" is a classic example of such disagreement, but neither one disagrees that rates of evolution changed at different times in the past.

Scientists happen to disagree with your assertion that evolution is merely change in species over time.

Please show one that claims it is NOT change in species over time. Your previous attempt did nothing of the kind, as the actual sites linked only showed general concordance with the concept of change in species over time.

You keep repeating this accusation of a “strawman”, but you (and “evolutionists”) do exactly the same.

There is a strict definition of the straw man fallacy. It is not an "accusation" to point out how an argument fits that definition and how it is a false representation. You claim equivalence but have not demonstrated such to be the case. You claim I have committed straw man fallacies but have not demonstrated that to be the case.

Your claim of equivalence is just (another) unsupported assertion until you actually demonstrate it to be the case.

I'll get to the rest later.

Enjoy.

{abe} I have changed the subtitle to {response part 1} to break up the lengths of these posts and continue response in {response part 2}

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : added banners

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Ha! You’re a real card aren’t you? The number of evolutionists that try this logically false inversion

I begin to wonder if you are just parroting phrases. This is just more unsubstantiated illogical assertion.

I can provide a half dozen or so quotes from famous evolutionists and a lot more with some research, which clearly indicate that this is so (do I need to?).

Would that turn the science of evolution into faith? Would it make the evidence of evolution dissappear? Would it stop the earth in its tracks? No. And the appeal to authority is just (sigh) another logical fallacy.

But if a scientist says it, it does make it so?

Just their saying it, no (hence the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy).

BUT

When a scientist says that the data that results from a the test of a theory validate the theory or invalidate the theory, they are presenting the evidence and the logical conclusion that results.

Likewise, when someone substantiates their position with evidence that validates their position and refutes all evidence that invalidates it, then they are presenting the evidence and the logical conclusion that results.

But when someone ignores evidence that invalidates their concept they are NOT presenting evidence OR making a logical conclusion.

What a ridiculous statement to make. Obviously we disagree, so that makes ME delusional?

No, what makes a person delusional is maintaining a belief in the face of invalidating evidence. The person who is not delusional either adjusts his thinking in the face of invalidating information, OR they find evidence that refutes the invalidating information.

But they DON'T just assert that it is wrong or invalid, they actually DEMONSTRATE it: they present the evidence and the logical conclusion that results.

The religion of evolution is naturalism. Since I couldn’t put it better myself, I’ll quote Dr. Gary Parker ...

Aside from the issue of this being another logical fallacy of the appeal to authority, Dr. Parker is free to say what he wants -- it doesn't change the science done by scientists. He also apparently is quite "free" with what he says:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/parkerdebate.html

quote:

---

These are my findings as best as I can report them. I will draw my own conclusions below. If you wish to draw your own conclusions without being influenced by mine, skip this next section.

1. Gary Parker's claim fails the "multiple witnesses" test of Deuteronomy 19:15. Other eyewitnesses and participants do not confirm his version of events. At the very least, the events and viewpoints expressed were more complex than his simple caricature.

---

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199803/0260.html

quote:

---

Dr. parker does NOT posess a Ph.D. He received his Ed.D. in Biology from Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana in 1973. Checking the web site for Ball State shows that the Ed.D is in science education with a specialty in biology. It qualifies one to teach biology at the community college level or biology methods at the university level. His minor (15 credit units) was in geology. As furhter example of stretching credentials, Dr. Parker's dissertation title was "The relationship of programmed instruction to test and discussion performance among college biology students". Not exactly a biology disertation, but probably a nice science education dissertation. It is a bit misleading to say he received a doctorate in biology/geology. Dr. Parker has called himself a geologist and paleontologist, but 15 credit units of course work does not make one a geologist or paleontologist (my Ph.D. minor was mathematics, but I would never call myself a mathematician).

---

and from AIG Bio

quote:

---

Dr. Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist. The details of his spiritual and scientific conversion, From Evolution to Creation (available as a booklet and DVD), include comic incidents. For example, he was a participant in a debate where his science department, defending the Bible, debated the Bible department, which was defending evolution!

---

(at least they get the degrees right eh?).

finally from Talkorigins quote mine project:

quote:

---

This one is interesting because the dishonesty of the quote mine was exposed at least as far back as 1984 in an article, "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion" by Laurie R. Godfrey that appeared in Science and Creationism (Ashley Montagu, ed. 1984. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-81). That was, in turn, a revision of an earlier article, "The Flood of Antievolution" that had appeared in Natural History, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 4-10. Specifically, Godfrey addressed the use of this quote (along with David Raup's widely mined "120 years after Darwin" quote) by creationist Gary Parker in "Creation, Selection, and Variation,"(*) that appeared in the Institute for Creation Research's newsletter, Acts & Facts in 1980 and which is still available.

---

(*) "Creation, Selection, and Variation,":

quote:

---

As Gould says, our ability to classify both living and fossil species distinctly and using the same criteria "fit splendidly with creationist tenets."

---

Yep misrepresentative quote mine still being used today. The full Gould quote is found on the talkorigins site, along with further discussion showing how his comment is linked to his theory of punctuated equilibrium and NOT to creationism.

So tell me, is "Dr" Parker lying, forgetful or incompetent? Or is he just another creatortionista?

FYI: From the home page of ASA: Science in Christian Perspective

quote:

---

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

---

So it is not some evilutionist that is debunking Parkers credentials but a christian organisation of scientists. There is a lot of good material on this site in a number of different fields.

I notice that you didn't refute the comments I made regarding faith and science (even though you quoted them):

You are of course free to believe any number of false things you want to -- but that is the definition of delusion. Notice these distinctions: faith - belief without evidence delusion - belief in spite of evidence to the contrary science - knowledge based on evidence and logic

You have not shown that science is based on faith or dogma or any other component of religion:

quote:

---

religion –noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

---

quote:

---

science –noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

---

There is no comparison between science and religion, they operate on different levels, and answer different questions in different ways.

Net result - your quote is meaningless on a number of levels: Your source has misrepresented the truth and continues to do so, using his opinion is not evidence, and he is, by definition (not because I say so), wrong.

You never seem to get the point. You were the one that brought up the dishonesty card, not me. I never implied it was ok for anyone to be dishonest. ... That creationists are dishonest is only your opinion.

See above and in part one where such dishonesty is documented. Note FURTHER that what I said was that creatoirtionistas were dishonest creationists, and that you would do well to steer clear of dishonest creatortionistas ... like "Dr" Parker, Carl Baugh and Ron Wyatt (and others).

It is not my opinion, it is documented fact. Deal with it. They are misrepresenting the truth to YOU, not to me.

It is a matter of record and a fact that evolutionists have been dishonest. ... And, I’m sorry, but creationists are scientists too. It doesn’t matter who exposed them. What does matter is that it took 40 years because of the zeal of evolutionists to believe a lie in order to substantiate their fantasies. Which, by the way, happens with almost every discovery that subsequently ends up being discredited after others get a chance to look at it (and after many have been purposely deceived).

It doesn't matter that evolutionists exposed frauds perpetuated in the name of evolution and NOT creationists? I presume you are talking about "Piltdown Man" the creatortionista poster child when you say "40 years" -- have you looked at the facts?

You never see a retraction.

You've never seen any evolution document that discusses the deplorable result of the Pildown Man hoax?

OK, from now on I will attempt to ignore everything except the definitions, as it appears that you still don't have it right.

I'll save that for {response part 3} so that we can keep some of these issue seperated.

{response part 1} is essentially about creatortionistas being dishonest creationists with Carl Baugh as an example.

{response part 2} is more about creatortionistas being dishonest creationists with "Dr" Parker as an example.

Both also deal with further logical fallacies and failed arguments.

Hopefully in {response part 3} we can get to some real issues dealing with the evidence.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : added banners

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

First things first.

Therefore, because of your bias you make accusations that I’m delusional, a creatortionista, ...

Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I have not said YOU are, rather said what behavior is delusional or creatortionista. The only way this applies to you is if you engage in this behavior -- the old "if the shoe fits" bit -- but I have not said you do.

The ones I have said are creatortionistas are Carl Baugh, Ron Wyatt and "Dr" Parker -- based on the evidence of their false and misrepresentative statements. The jury is out on some others, like S1WC, as it is possible he will see the validity of changing his "essay" to reflect the real world evidence and not his false view of it.

Unless you are one of these four people discussed on this thread I have not called you a creatortionista.

Nor have I said anyone specifically is delusional, just what delusional behavior would be.

Ok, look...all this discussion of the evidence is unproductive

Or it cuts to the heart of the matter, by discussing what is good evidence and what is not good evidence (or any kind of evidence at all).

From Message 13 Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Perhaps I started us on this track, but until we can discuss the evidence, talking about it in general terms gets us nowhere. The quote above is ridiculous even by your own standards. Here is a perfect example of evolution being touted as a “fact” when it is simply fantasy (yes, I’m using the same logical fallacy he is). You say that no scientist claims that a theory is “proven” and yet your source says it is a fact.

(color mine for emPHAsis on the part you are missing .. )

The evidence is a fact, the validity of the theory is uncertain. Theory is based on facts, evidence, things that are known.

Speciation has happened, it is recorded, it is documented, it is fact. There have been changes in species over time, thus evolution HAS occurred, it is recorded, it is documented, it is fact. This is not theory, this is not fantasy, this is fact. It exists, it is real. It is as real as tree rings, as real as the orbits of planets around stars, as real as the universe.

They do NOT say that the theory is fact, they say the evidence is fact.

You apparently believe that the evidence overwhelmingly favors evolution and creationists have ignored evidence that invalidates their theory.

Opinion is not evidence. I have yet to see any real evidence that invalidates evolution. What I have seen is false arguments that presume to invalidate evolution, but they deal with false definitions of evolution or transitional fossils or the like. They are logically false arguments that don't prove anything, other than possibly the naiveté, inexperience, gullibility or ignorance (or combinations) of the people who accept them.

As far as Parker goes, you can denigrate anyone’s character as you have done without regard to his argument – another (sigh) logical fallacy ...

Actually I also demonstrated that his argument was WRONG by the definitions of science and religion -- there is no comparison or common ground. The fact is that science is not religion, by definition and by practice.

I never said that science is based on faith, dogma or any other component of religion, so you are purposely setting up another straw man. I said that EVOLUTION is faith, not science. And I was not using Parker to prove anything. “I” (ME, MYSELF), believe that evolution is faith because of the statement I made in the third paragraph of this response.

(1) Evolution is science, you have not demonstrated that it is not. (2) You still have not demonstrated that evolution has the elements of religion. You claimed

Message 10 The religion of evolution is naturalism.

But you have not demonstrated -- in any way -- what (a) this "religion of naturalism" is, or involves, and (b) that this definition applies to evolution in a way, that does not apply to a single other branch of science.

Evolution does not claim to be about philosophical or religious truths or their explanations, but about scientific evidence and the validity of theories -- like any other science. Evolution fits the definition of science, it does not fit the definition of religion, therefore this assertion is false.

The fact remains that neither you nor "Dr" Parker have demonstrated ANY similarity between evolution and religion -- all you have presented is opinion -- and instead of providing evidence for your opinion, you provided the opinion of someone else, someone who also provides no evidence for their opinion.

The fact that he is a demonstrated misrepresenter of facts says that he is also most likely to misrepresent the facts again, because he has gratuitously, and repeatedly misrepresented the truth on other closely related issues. He is a repeat offender.

So the only evidence you have presented is the asserted opinion of someone with a reputation of making false statements. HIS repeated bad behavior is what denigrates his opinion, not my portrayal of it.

And when the ONLY thing you present as evidence for your claim is someones opinion, then that puts the validity of that opinion on the table for discussion and dissection.

Bottom line: his opinion means absolutely nothing. ... At best.

Evolution is science, it fits the definition of science.

Evolution is not religion, it does not fit the definition of religion.

That quote could have come from me, but I didn’t want to just copy it. However, if you prefer, I will do that in the future.

If this is the only evidence you have to substantiate your opinion then you don't have much to rest on, do you? Saying something does not make it so, thus to substantiate a position you need to provide real evidence for it.

quote:

---

evidence -n
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

---

Opinion is not evidence. False opinion is not even worth consideration.

I don’t want to spend the time at the moment looking into “fit splendidly with creationist tenets” quote, but on the surface, it appears perfectly valid to me. No one is asserting that Gould is a creationist or supporting creationist theory.

It seems valid to you because it is designed to seem valid to you -- that is the dishonesty of the quote mining process. Yes Parker is asserting that Gould is saying the evidence supports creationisms better than evolution, because that is ALL that his quote contains and ALL that Parker discusses about the quote. I suggest you DO find the time to look into it -- if nothing else to see if you can prove me wrong eh?

You think you know better than to accept such a silly assertion as actually being Gould supporting creationism, but then you also say "it appears perfectly valid to me" ... you have swallowed the lie.

Lastly, just so I’m not accused of ignoring things, there is the issue of Piltdown man. You have not spent much time there either and I think it would just be another distraction for us. However, I will say this. The issue is so much larger than Piltdown man. If “scientists” really sought the truth instead of substantiation for biased viewpoints, then the hoax would never have occurred in the first place.

Let me quote from anglagard's excellent response to SW1C on this issue:

Message 48 Point 11: Piltdown man was an ape’s jaw placed with a human skull, but for 45 years paleontologists called it ape human, and they wrote about 500 books on it! [4] False, actually “Piltdown Man” was strongly challenged since its discovery by a host of suspicious scientists. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html quote: The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not. It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor. This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries. None the less, Sir Arthur Keith (a major defender of Piltdown man) wrote in 1931: It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity... In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying "I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it." Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud. Additionally, my research using WorldCat, the catalog of all cataloged books, indicates only 50 books were written on Piltdown Man. Your source is plain wrong.

So tell me, how does Piltdown being a hoax perpetuated on scientists disprove evolution? Does this make the theory invalid? No. Does this change the evidence FOR evolution in any way? No. Does it demonstrate that evolutionists purposefully engaged in the hoax? No. Does it even demonstrate that the evolution of man has not occurred as currently considered? No.

Like I said, it is a creatortionista poster child, blown more out of proportion by creatortionistas than by evolutionists.

Fraud happens, it is a human thing eh? We learn from it to avoid those that perpetuate frauds on others, those like Carl Baugh and Ron Wyatt and "Dr" Parker. But fraud proves nothing, except possibly the naiveté, inexperience, gullibility or ignorance (or combinations) of the people who accept them.

Nor does the existence of fraud disprove theories not based on the frauds -- evolution is not based on Piltdown man or Haeckel 's etchings or anything else creatortionistas can dredge up. Cold fusion does not disprove physics eh? Nor does Baugh's footprint hoax disprove creation, just HIS credibility.

Evolution is the change in species over time, the theory is that this applies to all life, and it is based on evidence that change is species over time HAS occurred.

But we'll get to that in {response part 3} ... (if we ever get there eh?)

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters ONLY

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Leaving the discussion of parts 1 and 2 for now, and proceeding to the meat of the debate.

We may need to refer back to parts 1 and 2 for clarification of positions, but for now I consider those issues resolved by those posts. Or just not very important.

Sorry about the length, but it seems this is inevitable ... :rolleyes:

For example, here is a repeated quote from one of the sources I gave earlier: “Evolution is the process that has led to the appearance and transformation of living species on earth…All living species today have, therefore, the same origin.” Your response – “All this is saying is that evolution is change in species over time”. What? Are you reading the same thing that I am?

Yes I am -- the difference is that I use the whole definition.

the full text of the definition is:

quote:

---

http://www.lexicon-biology.com/biology/definition_45.html
Evolution is the process that has led to the appearance and transformation of living species on earth. The first living beings – undoubtedly very rudimentary cells , algae, or bacteria – appeared 3.8 billion years ago. Since then, life forms have diversified and adapted to their environments. All living species today have, therefore, the same origin.

---

(color mine for empHASis)

You have selected parts that do NOT go together. This is quote-mining and misrepresentation.

Let's be very clear that the website says the first life appeared and does NOT say the first life evolved, and let's also be very clear that it then proceeds with "since then" ... life evolved.

The only quibble you can possibly have is with the first line, but let's parse that as well:

quote:

---

Evolution is the process that has led to the appearance and transformation of living species on earth.

---

(color mine again for empHASis)

The first line is talking about the plurality of species living on earth, and not the first life.

It does NOT say evolution is the process that has lead to the appearance of life on earth. It does not say that the first life evolved.

Personally I think the wording is poorly chosen but the intent is fairly clear: evolution is the cause of diversity of life since the first life appeared 3.8 billion years ago. All life forms since then have diversified and adapted to their environments.

And yes, this is still clearly talking change in species (plural) over time.

AND

You have no other quotes to back your false interpretation of evolution: all the others you quoted are clearly, distinctly and unambiguously about change in species over time. All the ones I have presented are clearly, distinctly and unambiguously about change in species over time. The preponderance of evidence -- even including your interpretation of the above definition -- is that evolution is about change in species over time.

Let’s start with what I believe is a statement of FACT: The word “Evolution” (synonymous with “Theory of Evolution”) is universally accepted as a naturalistic explanation for the origins and subsequent diversity of all life on earth over billions of years.

Believe it all you want, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to be correct about what is universally accepted then you need to go with a source that is universally accepted.

dictionary.com:

quote:

---

3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

---

American Heritage Dictionary:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/E0256400.html

quote:

---

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.

---

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary:

quote:

---

2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

---

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution

quote:

---

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

---

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

quote:

---

2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

---

WordNet:

quote:

---

2: (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

---

encarta.msn.com/.../dictionaryhome.aspx

quote:

---

1. BIOLOGY theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. BIOLOGY developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material

---

http://www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/?view=uk

quote:

---

1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.

---

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

quote:

---

the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:
Darwin's theory of evolution

---

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evolution

quote:

---

2. (biology) The change in the genetic composition of a species' population over successive generations.

---

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php

quote:

---

1. the continuous modification and adaptation of organisms to their environments through selection, hybridization, and the like.

---

http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/evolution

quote:

---

3. Biol.change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

---

http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/

quote:

---

The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms;

---

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

quote:

---

a gradual process of change and development
(SPECIALIZED) Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear.

---

http://www.onelook.com/

quote:

---

A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.

---

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s

quote:

---

6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.

---

http://www.rhymezone.com/?loc=bar

quote:

---

(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

---

http://www.allwords.com/index.php

quote:

---

3. biol. The cumulative changes in the characteristics of living organisms or populations of organisms from generation to generation, resulting in the development of new types of organism over long periods of time.

---

http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=evolution

quote:

---

2.[n] the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.

---

http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn

quote:

---

2. evolution, organic evolution, phylogeny, phylogenesis -- ((biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms)

---

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/theory_of_evolution

quote:

---

Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.

---

http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/

quote:

---

In biological terms: a change in the genetic composition of a population over time.

---

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_E.html

quote:

---

evolution -- Darwin's definition: descent with modification. The term has been variously used and abused since Darwin to include everything from the origin of man to the origin of life.

---

http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/diction.htm

quote:

---

changes in the character states of organisms, species, and clades through time

---

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary.asp

quote:

---

2. a process of development in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by the differentiation of its parts, a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.

---

http://www.reference-wordsmith.com/archword/dict.html

quote:

---

A theory of biology about the gradual or rapid change of the form of living organisms throughout time that reflects adaptive change; it is the theory that all forms of life derive from a process of change via natural selection.

---

http://www.birdcare.com/bin/showdict?evolution

quote:

---

Development of the living organism through gradual changes in its characteristics by mutation over long periods of time. Thus one species may evolve into two or more different species, any of which and/or the original species, may become extinct. Evolution proceeds by means of natural selection and adaptive radiation.

---

http://www.dddmag.com/Glossary.aspx

quote:

---

The process of cumulative change occurring over successive generations.

---

http://www.gardenweb.com/

quote:

---

Organic evolution is any genetic difference in organisms from generation to generation.

---

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/index.php

quote:

---

In Darwinian terms a gradual change in phenotypic frequencies in a population that results in individuals with improved reproductive success.

---

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/FLAOH/cbnhtml/glossary-E.html

quote:

---

A process operating on populations that involves variation among individuals, traits being inheritable, and a level of fitness for individuals that is a function of the possessed traits. Over relatively long periods of time, the distribution of inheritable traits will tend to reflect the fitness that the traits convey to the individual; thus, evolution acts as a filter that selects fitness-yielding traits over other traits.

---

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_E.html

quote:

---

(a) In Biology the theory that coniplex and multifarious living things developed from generally simpler and less various organisms.

---

http://iaspub.epa.gov/trs/search$.startup

quote:

---

The biological theory or process whereby species of plants and animals change with the passage of time so that their descendants differ from their ancestors, i.e. development from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations.

---

These are all the dictionary definitions I could find in a reasonable time that gave a biological definition for the word. I have not ommitted one that came up in my search, so everyone I came across has been included.

The only one I found that had NO biological definition was
http://www.christiantech.com/
although in defense of the site it says "Search for a word in the Webster's 1828 Online Dictionary" -- so it would not have Darwin's usage eh?

All the common dictionary definitions talk about change in species over time and none talk about the origin of life on earth.

Now some encyclopedia entries:

wikipedia

quote:

---

In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast biodiversity on Earth, including the many extinct species attested in the fossil record.

---

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ev/evolutio.html

quote:

---

concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution.

---

http://encarta.msn.com/artcenter_/browse.html

quote:

---

in biology, complex process by which the characteristics of living organisms change over many generations as traits are passed from one generation to the next. The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient organisms to develop into the tremendous and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today. It addresses how, over the course of time, various plant and animal species branch off to become entirely new species, and how different species are related through complicated family trees that span millions of years.

---

Crystal Reference Encyclopedia
http://www.reference.com/browse/crystal/11295

quote:

---

Any gradual directional change; now most commonly used to refer to the cumulative changes in the characteristics of populations of organisms from generation to generation. Evolution occurs by the fixation of changes (mutations) in the structure of the genetic material, and the passing on of these changes from ancestor to descendant. It is well demonstrated over geological time by the sequence of organisms preserved in the fossil record. There are two opposing schools of thought regarding the pattern and tempo of evolution. The gradualist school is based on a model of evolution in which species change gradually through time by slow directional change within a lineage, producing a long graded series of differing forms. The punctuated equilibria school is based on a model in which species are relatively stable and long-lived in geological time, and that new species appear during outbursts of rapid speciation, followed by the differential success of certain of the newly formed species.

---

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/evolutio

quote:

---

concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.

---

New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
http://www.bartleby.com/59/21/evolution.html

quote:

---

A theory first proposed in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin, according to which the Earth’s species have changed and diversified through time under the influence of natural selection. Life on Earth is thought to have evolved in three stages. First came chemical evolution, in which organic molecules were formed. This was followed by the development of single cells capable of reproducing themselves. This stage led to the development of complex organisms capable of sexual reproduction. Evolution is generally accepted as fact by scientists today, although debates continue over the precise mechanisms involved in the process.

---

Note the specific reference to chemical evolution in this last one to distinguish it from biological evolution. Chemical evolution is abiogenesis. Note that the one before lists all life as evolving from a "simple primordial protoplasmic mass" -- and note that protoplasm is:

quote:

---

The complex, semifluid, translucent substance that constitutes the living matter of plant and animal cells and manifests the essential life functions of a cell. Composed of proteins, fats, and other molecules suspended in water, it includes the nucleus and cytoplasm.

---

So a "simple primordial protoplasmic mass" would be the first life.

None the less, even accepting that some definitions may include origins in them, this does not mean that ALL definitions include origins: certainly the vast majority do not.

Based on this rudimentary review it is fairly obvious that the overall "universally accepted" definition of evolution is change in species over time.

It does not include the origin of life on earth as that part is definitely NOT "universally accepted" by all definitions.

If you want to qualify that to say this only applies to biological evolution, then I have no problem with that: evolution science is a branch of biological science, so when we are talking about evolution science we are talking about biological evolution eh?

Certainly we are NOT talking about cosmic evolution of the universe, as that is part of astro-physics and does not apply to biology.

And if you are trying to combine these different definitions of evolution then this is an example of equivocation -- the logical fallacy of using different definitions of the same word in different parts of the argument.

Bottom line: (biological) evolution is the change in species over time.

In fact, the word “evolution” is commonly used as a complete explanation of where everything (including the universe) came from.

See equivocation.
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/equiv.htm

Note that I have said before - and repeat here - that many 'evo' people (even ones that should know better) equivocate between the science of evolution and the mechanism of evolution. The word means different things in those two contexts.

The mechanism is about the change in species over time - yes, by mutation and natural selection and genetic drift, etc - but nothing more nothing less.

The science is about all the theories surrounding that mechanism that can then explain the diversity of life as we know it.

For the sake of argument, let’s ignore abiogenesis (something that has been show to be statistically impossible), for the time being so as not to get distracted.

Two comments:

(1) There is no such thing as being statistically impossible. This is a logical fallacy. See the old improbable probability problem for a discussion of the relative importance of statistics to an area where there is insufficient information to begin to make any calculations of probability. See RAZD - Building Blocks of Life for an evaluation of the possibilities for life origins. If you want to pursue this false argument.

(2) If we ignore abiogenesis that means we must start with life already existing, whether by creation or by abiogenesis. Otherwise you are begging the question by allowing one and not the other in the debate.

I have no problem with assuming the existence of life on a primordial or freshly created earth and discussing the evolution of life since then.

That is totally in keeping with my point about what evolution covers.

As far as Kerkut goes, do you disagree that he was a scientist?

I'm saying who or what he is just isn't relevant to the argument, you are engaging in the argument from authority.

Rather than appealing to the authority of some scientists, we should be debating whether the definition is appropriate or not.

And the definition of evolution as used in biological science is change in species over time, or some variation on that theme (change in frequency of alleles etc). It is also the definition universally accepted as demonstrated above.

... it escapes me how you can imply that any of these are attempting to convey that evolution is ONLY change over time. The central theme of every description of evolution in every media that I have ever seen (even internet evolution propaganda go on to explain what they mean) has been that evolution is responsible (through any number of mechanisms) for the diversity of life on earth over billions of years. ... regardless of whether you believe in creation or evolution, simple logic tells you that “change over time” DOES NOT imply that all life on earth came from a common ancestor over millions of years. In other words, it IS NOT a sufficient condition as you contend.

Well we all know what a good information source on science - or any other topic - the media is eh?

Evolution is the change in species over time. The science of evolution is about extending observations of speciation and descent of daughter species from ancestor species in current populations to past species and about explaining the diversity of life as we know it on this planet. The basic element of that is still change in species over time.

The evidence is that life has changed over vast expanses of time, and that there is a relationship between species at one point in time with species both older than it and younger than it (unless it became extinct), relationships that show an accumulation of change over time. That related species had more similarities the further back in time we find evidence of them is also indicative of descent of daughter species from ancestral species and descent from common ancestors.

They DID NOT ask, “Have human beings changed over time?” If they had, the response would have been 100% affirmative ...

Heh, all this demonstrates is that many people are confused about the scientific use of evolution and that the "survey" was poorly designed. I agree that it would have been informative to have included that in the questions to see the difference in answers (it's what a good survey would do), but it still does not show that the definition of evolution is wrong. This is still an appeal to authority, just here your "authority" is the mass of respondents, some of whom are ignorant.

Your "survey" is also extremely poorly designed and almost begs for the results it achieved. Notice another result (page 2):

quote:

---

IS IT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN BOTH GOD AND EVOLUTION?

Yes -- 67%
No --- 29%

Opinions on this question are tied to one’s views on the origin of human beings. Those who believe in evolution, whether guided by God or not, overwhelmingly think it is possible to believe in both God and evolution – 90 percent say this. However, people who believe God created humans in their present form are more divided: 48 percent think it possible to believe in both God and evolution, but the same number disagrees.

---

Note that this result is mathematically impossible to extract from the results you quoted from the first page with a consistent opinion on the part of the people involved (51% > 29%). This is a sign of a flawed survey.

Let’s get more specific by looking at your “Bzzzttt error” definition from the Berkley series (which, by the way clearly states in their explanation that “Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time”). I’ll repeat the definition you quoted here: “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)”. Ahhhh…and there it is! EVOLUTION encompasses “small scale EVOLUTION” and “large-scale EVOLUTION”. Of course, these are commonly referred to as Micro-EVOLUTION and Macro-EVOLUTION. However, there are several logical fallacies here. Small scale Evolution DOES NOT logically imply large scale Evolution. These are 2 very different things.

Ahhh ... and there it is! "Micro"evolution is different from "Macro"evolution ...

Tell you what Murk, let's start by discussing "Micro"evolution.

We can start by stipulating that:

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

  That it involves

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

  That it does NOT involve

• sudden large scale change or
• sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities.

Then we can discuss the evidence for "micro"evolution in genetics and in the fossil record.

The purpose will be to fully define what "micro"evolution is and what "micro"evolution is NOT.

K?

Feel free to add to the list of what is NOT included by "micro"evolution.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : added banner banner

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Much of your response continues to argue in circles because we disagree on what evolution is. You say this or that about evolution and I don’t agree because that’s not what I consider evolution to be. I think I’ve presented solid evidence in support of my definition of evolution. Even if we can’t come to agreement on that first, than at least we should acknowledge the other person’s position to avoid this purposeful argument over semantics.

We can agree that your definition is not supported by dictionaries, encyclopedias, and scientific glossaries of terms. We can agree that your definition is not used by scientists engaged in the scientific pursuit of evolution. We can agree that your definition does not apply to evolution.

When I say “evolution”, I am talking about the ToE, which states that all life on earth arose from an original common ancestor over millions of years which itself came from non-life.

We can agree that you are NOT talking about ToE or any aspect of biological evolution of species. We can agree that you are talking about a typical creationist strawman - that evolution = abiogenesis ... purely and only abiogenesis.

This is false. None of the definitions cited above (previous post) say this is the definition of evolution.

quote:

---

abiogenesis
n : a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter [syn: autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation]

---

This does match your definition, thus this shows that you are misusing evolution to represent abiogenesis.

We can agree to call abiogenesis by the proper term, abiogenesis.

I (and of course creation scientists as well) consider speciation that we observe today (including the Galapagos finches and many other examples) to be “Adaptation”. It proves NOTHING about evolution as I have just defined it. It is just as essential to creation theory as it is to evolutionary theory.

You (and of course creation "scientists" as well) can consider what you want, but YOU are not using the terms of evolution. Calling evolution "adaptation" and abiogenesis evolution does not invalidate evolution as used by the scientists in the field of evolution. All it does is involve you in fraudulent word usage, a hoax.

Please tell me the falsifiable test for the "creation theory" cited here. If there is not such test then (1) it is not science and (2) it is not a scientific theory -- it is just a "feel good" concept.

This is why we are arguing in circles. Your arguments are true using your definition of evolution but are false if you use my definition of evolution. That is precisely why you won’t accept my definition in this debate.

No, I don't accept your definition because it is false, wrong, misrepresentative ... and this has been demonstrated.

I do not consider my definition dishonest or misleading in any way. It is simply stating what any person on the street would understand evolution to be.

And this applies to the actual science of evolution how? It's not a matter of popular opinion. It's not a matter of YOUR opinion. It's a matter of correct usage of terminology -- as is readily determined from numerous sources (see list in previous post).

On the other hand, I DO consider it purposely dishonest - knowing full well what people understand evolution to be or perhaps to put it another way what the implications of evolution are - to portray it as simply change ...

Gosh, every one of the dictionary definitions listed in the previous post (that define evolution as change in species over time) are dishonest representations ... every single one of the encyclopedia articles (that discuss evolution as change in species over time) is dishonest in it's representation of evolution science ... and every glossary of terms listed in the previous post (that define evolution as change in species over time) are dishonest representations ... and only YOU know the truth.

:rolleyes:

OR we could agree that this is sufficient evidence that your usage has been and continues to be wrong.

Speciation is a fact.

And that is evolution. The factual evidence of evolution.

They are not asserting that Gould feels the “evidence supports creationism better than evolution”. Gould is an evolutionist for goodness sake. It would be inconceivable for him to even consider the possibility of creation. They are saying that by Gould’s own admission, evolutionists are willing to believe evolution despite evidence to the contrary.

LOL. In other words they are asserting that "by Gould’s own admission," he is saying the evidence supports creationism better than evolution. Like I said, you swallowed the lie.

I find it astonishing that you are actually trying to make a creationist “hoax” on some obscure website equivalent to evolutionist ones that were taught for years in textbooks as proof of evolution.

Yes, silly me. To say that a hoax currently being hoisted on the gullibles via internet links from numerous "creatortionista" sites is in any way comparable to an old already exposed and totally discredited hoax that was perpetuated on scientists (not by) in a more scientifically naive time.

Plus the lies of Parker

Plus the continuing hoaxes of other creatortionista sites that promote Ron Wyatts fabrications

Plus others.

“So tell me, how does Piltdown…disprove evolution?” Perhaps by itself, no, but taken with all of the rest, I would contend yes. “Does this change the evidence FOR evolution in any way?” Since Piltdown was held up as evidence, yes it most certainly does. There is now LESS evidence for evolution.

Yes, two fraudulent specimens outnumber the hundreds of fossils that have been discovered since and that were foundational in proving that it was a hoax.

Then there is all the evidence that has been discovered since it was exposed. There is now MORE evidence for evolution (the real definition evolution) than ever before, and it grows every year.

Sorry. No discredited hoax or fraud in any way discredits the real science being done, just the perpetrators of the hoax. Cold Fusion does not discredit atomic physics.

{added note: Notice that your usage of evolution in the above quote does not match your purported definition of evolution as the origin of life on earth: you seem to be equivocating between multiple definitions. Using the word in a way inconsistent with your definition also invalidates your definition: enjoy}

TODAY, we still see in churches of evolution (museums) and in textbooks, the progression of modern man from primitive apes, when most of those caricatures are simply from some scientist’s imagination created from the remains of a tooth or other such “evidence”. And those progressions often still contain the hoaxes.

Seeing as none of those are the evidence FOR evolution they do not affect the validity of evolution one way or the other. You seem to mistake popular re-creations for the evidence of science when the evidence is something like shown on this post by anglagard: Message 48

And you can caricature museums as "churches" and make fun of your churches all you want - but that doesn't make it so.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : added comment in {yellow}

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

No problem, I was wondering what had happened to you.

I have vowed to myself to take it in small chunks from now on so that we can respond in manageable pieces, so don’t be surprised if I ignore superfluous issues in the future as well.

Don't be surprised if I set a number of issues you raise aside as well - at least until we can reach some basis to work from.

Also see

Message 19 Tell you what Murk, let's start by discussing "Micro"evolution. We can start by stipulating that: "Micro"evolution refers to speciation and nothing beyond the causes up to and including speciation, has been observed to occur and is thus a fact. That it involves change in species over time, mutation as an observed fact, natural selection as an observed fact, and some other minor mechanisms such as genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer by viruses and the like. That it does NOT involve sudden large scale change or sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities. Then we can discuss the evidence for "micro"evolution in genetics and in the fossil record. The purpose will be to fully define what "micro"evolution is and what "micro"evolution is NOT. K? Feel free to add to the list of what is NOT included by "micro"evolution.

Perhaps we can start with this and not have so many side issues.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : added material, banners

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Well, a lot of this will be set to the side for a number of reasons, and length is one, but I'll try to hit the salient points and address your most pressing concerns.

So then we are in agreement regarding the definition of evolution? Also that all life forms have “adapted” (which is the proper definition for “changed over time”)?

Not all changes are adaptations: the peacock tail is not an adaptation to the physical environment of the peacock, but is a sexually selcted feature. Further "adapt" (to me anyway) has {implications\connotations} of some pre-chosen direction of change that I would rather avoid, and only includes selected beneficial changes rather than all neutral and deleterious changes that are extant in the populations.

Let's stay with changes for now, it's simple, it's concise, it says all it needs to say and carries no extra connotations that are distractive.

There is no question that any usage of the word evolution in any context in which it is used involves change over time. That is the definition of the general usage of the word which I have clearly stated and for which I have no disagreement.

So we can agree that the process of evolution (PoE) is change in species over time, that this is pretty universal in all definitions of evolution, even if some definitions add other things or state it in rather ambiguous terms - aka the "gardenclub" definition (I included every definition I found without regard for what it said).

If you want we can refer to this process as microevolution to distinguish it from both the science of evolution and the theory of evolution, and then we can see how far the process of microevolution can go in explaining the diversity of life on this planet and what the limitations are. Personally I find "microevolution" cumbersome and would prefer "PoE", but if you want to develop a suitable shorthand for this feel free (MiE?)

My point is that this is not sufficient to describe what the theory of evolution is.

Let us come back to this issue later. For now I also want to note that there is often a confusion between the Science of Evolution (SoE) and the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and this confusion is not limited to creationists or laypeople.

I feel it is important to be clear so that we don't unconsciously equivocate between different meanings. I know that I have been guilty in the past as well.

So, what can we conclude? Dictionary definitions are typically not technical, incomplete and abbreviated. You have presented these as valid definitions of evolution. Therefore, if we consolidate the definitions to make them complete, ...

You wanted a universal definition, and to get this you do not consolodate, sum, compile, include, add up -- but cut away extraneous elements, find the common denominators, the minimum elements that are common.

Also, I think you may have a misconception regarding the phrase “universally accepted”. The implication is that my statement is universally accepted by “someone”, not by “definitions” and I thought that was clear.

My point was that origins was NOT in all definitions, therefor it was NOT universal in all definitions, and therefore it was NOT universally accepted by people as part of the definitions. That is why it gets trimmed out of the "universal" definition.

... but a significant number of your definitions defined evolution as the complete historical development of species. An equivalent way of wording that is “from the species origins”. So in that respect, absolutely yes, they did talk about the origin of life on earth.

You keep stretching this point beyond what the words say. They are talking about evolution from {A} to {B}, taking any known starting point {A} and investigating the changes that get you to known ending point {B}.

Let's try some examples:

---

The evolution of modern horses

Involves (by the scientific view) the changes in species over time from an ancestor Hyracotherium ~55+ million years ago to modern horses. We take Hyracotherium as a starting point to see where the specific changes that resulted in Equus caballus (and other equines) then occurred over time and whether those changes fit the application of PoE to those times:

Click to enlarge

From http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm

We note that these are technically all "horses" and that what we see here are a number of sequential speciation events with some speciation divisions, but that all the descendants are still "horses" yes?

---

The evolution of man

Involves (by the scientific view) the changes in species over time from an ape ancestor Ardipithicus ramidus ~5+ million years ago to modern man. We take it as a starting point to see where the specific changes that resulted in Homo sapiens (and other hominids) then occurred over time and whether those changes fit the application of PoE to those times:

Click to enlarge

From http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

We note that these are technically all "apes" (according to the Science of Evolution) and that what we see here are a number of sequential speciation events with some speciation divisions, but that all the descendants are still "apes" yes?

---

These studies are not static: if we find a new ancestor that predates the existing starting point, but that fits the trend of change over time that the PoE would predict we can add them to the starting point. We can even make predictions of what those ancestors would be like and where they would live. We certainly do not include the origin of the very first forms of life in those studies.

We can also look at the evolution of apes from primates, but here we are not concerned with the evolution of mammals (before primates) or of humans (after apes) per se.

In this regard we can say that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is that the process of evolution (PoE) can be applied at any level of the record of life and it will be sufficient to explain the changes observed at that level: that no other mechanism than change in species over time will be needed to get from specimen {K} to specimen {Q}.

This is then tested against the available records of life (where there is sufficient evidence) to see if this holds up.

Where there is insufficient evidence to test this application, then the theory predicts that intermediate evidence will be found, and when new fossils are found they are then tested to see if the theory is applicable at that level.

This also results in a number of corollaries and supplemental theories.

The theory of "Common Ancestry" (TCA) of species is one of these: it is based on the observation that sometimes change in species over time results in two or more different species from one common ancestor species, each having accrued sufficient change in species over time (PoE), but ending with a different result. The TCA then says that this can be applied at at any level of the record of life and it will be sufficient to explain the branches in species observed at that level. This still does not require a single ancestor species in the remote past, but it does indicate a high probability of a small set of ancestral species - not because of the theory, though, but because the evidence fits that pattern of life.

"Punctuated Equilibrium" (PunkEek) is another {corollary\supplemental} theory as is the theory of the "Selfish Gene" (TSE). There are also other theories having to do with gene transfer, drift, population dynamics, response to stress affecting mutation rates allowed, natural selection, runaway sexual selection, etcetera. These generally have to do with how changes get into the population genome and how they get selected or weeded out.

Generally speaking though, a {theory} is a stand alone statement that says IF {A,B,C} are true THEN {X,Y,Z} result. This is the basis on which it is tested and on which predictions are made specifically to test the theory, particularly ones that would invalidate the theory. Yes the {A,B,C} may include foundational or baseline theories in addition to evidence, but then like logic the truth of the conclusion is related to the truth of the precepts -- IF any theory included in {A,B,C} is invalidated THEN it too is invalidated.

Now we come to science.

The science of physics includes all the current theories of physical relationships from quantum mechanics to relativity to big-bang and ekpyrosis. We don't try to invalidate physics, but each and every one of the theories is up for grabs. When relativity replaced newton physics the science was not invalidated, but it did shift gears. When relativity is replaced by a new theory physics will shift gears again.

That is the way science operates - it is the accumulation of validated information plus the theories that best explain that information plus the testable hypothesis that have yet to be confirmed or invalidated plus predictions of what new evidence will be found.

We can regard the Science of Evolution (SoE) as the overall application of the all the theories, of ways and means for life to change and diversify and spread, to all the known evidence of life on earth, and the predictions of the theories that are in the process of being tested or awaiting further evidence for testing. SoE = {PoE + ToE + TCA + PunkEek + TSG + natural selection + mutation + evidence + observation + predictions + experiments + .... }.

It seems to me that the theory that creationists really take issue with is the theory of common ancestry, NOT evolution (ToE) per se. Time and again we see creationists say "well that is just microevolution and creationism includes microevolution" - the issue is "macroevolution" and this is really about the theory of common ancestry eh?

One of your encyclopedia definitions contained the following line and I would like to clarify before I go on: as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form Creation scientists believe nothing of the sort and have never believed this, certainly not since Darwin’s day. This is a straw-man promulgated by the media and evolutionists to deceive. ... The only connection is that change is an essential part of the theory of evolution. However, it is also an essential part of the theory of creation.

Exactly. Microevolution (MiE) happens within "kinds" (whatever those turn out to be). The sticking point is the "macro"evolution (MaE) versus creation of kinds - the issue of common ancestry of higher taxon groups.

And I don't think you will find many evolutionists debating on this forum that subscribe to this straw man caricature of creationism. We've all moved past that naive view.

This definition of adaptation would seem to fit the Galapagos finches perfectly and correspond directly with “change over time” (but not evolution).

This is natural selection. It is change, but it is entirely within a species and has not reached a point of speciation. We can discuss this later, but I suggest you might read Peppered Moths and Natural Selection for another related issue, particularly the discussion I have with MartinV starting at Message 187

Therefore, showing that things change (whether birds or automobiles) is, by definition, demonstrating they have evolved, but it does not demonstrate “evolution” as referring to the theory of evolution.

That is why "it" (PoE) is the change in species over time, not just change, and why "it" (ToE) includes the prediction that with enough time and change that it would result in a new species (but is otherwise uninvolved in Grant's Finches and Kettlewell's Moths), and why "it" (SoE) studies these events to see if PoE becomes another ToE validation event.

There is no such thing as being statistically impossible. This is a logical fallacy. You may disagree with it, but it’s not a logical fallacy. Obviously, nothing is theoretically impossible, but statisticians place a limit on what is practically impossible and I if I recall correctly the odds against abiogenesis is greater than the number of atoms in the universe! That further supports the fact that biogenesis is a scientific “law”. However, that was just a side comment and I’m perfectly fine with tabling that.

No, it is a logical fallacy: it is either {possible/probable} or it isn't, and the word "impossible" says that the probability is absolutely zero, not any number above zero. I am happy to set this aside, but if you want to read my take on the probability issues you can read the old improbable probability problem on the errors in such "improbability" calculations and RAZD - Building Blocks of Life for my take on the possibilities of early life beginning on this planet.

OK, the best I can tell from all that you have said so far is that you are trying to equivocate “microevolution” as “Evolution”, whereas I consider Evolution to be the “Theory of Evolution” or “Macro-evolution”.

Not to make to fine a point of it, but I have already offered to start with the precept that evolution is only microevolution (MiE) - as change in species over time - and see where that leads with the evidence, and what keeps it from becoming macroevolution (MaE).

In fact, as a creationist, I would whole heartily accept and embrace your definition of evolution if that’s all you meant by it. I can accept your definition of evolution and still accept that God created the initial kinds 6000 years ago since they have been “evolving” within their kinds since then.

As I've said before there is not necessarily a conflict.

But you will still have the problem with the theory of common ancestry, the evidence for it and the predictions that it makes about life on this planet. We can get to that later, after we finish with {PoE\ToE\SoE} definitions and then see where those definitions lead.

And you will still have a much bigger problem with physics, astronomy and geology than with (PoE\ToE) evolution. I suggest you start by reading Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) and then we can proceed to this age of the earth issue when we are done with the definition(s) of evolution (it is #2 in the original list after all).

There is no conflict there at all. It is simply using a different presupposition.

Science is post supposition. It takes evidence, then builds a theory that is consistent with and explains the evidence, then makes predictions of new evidence that will be found, and finally tests the theory against the new information to see if the prediction is accurate.

The difference does not come from a priori assumptions that frame how evidence is viewed, but from an attitude of evaluating the evidence, developing theories from the evidence and then testing and attempting to invalidate the theories without needing a suspension of disbelief and without denial of evidence that does invalidate the theory.

To be honest, I’m getting tired of this. You know very well what evolution is and what its implications are. I challenge you to find even a single treatise on evolution that doesn’t describe evolution my way. Some may start with your description, (but rarely call it a definition) and then they will simply go on to describe the “real” evolution. Therefore, that description appropriately belongs in the definition for this and all of the other reasons I have stated.

No it doesn't, because then you are confusing the predictions with the theories.

I've cut out a lot of stuff that is irrelevant, repetitious (and previously addressed) or that will be covered should we pursue a discussion of evolution from a "MiE" point of view and see where the evidence leads.

So what do you say, can we start by discussing "Micro"evolution - "MiE"?

We can start by stipulating that:

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

  That it involves

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

  That it does NOT involve

• sudden large scale change or
• sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities.

The purpose will first be to fully define what "micro"evolution is and what "micro"evolution is NOT. Feel free to add to the list of what is NOT included by "micro"evolution.

Then we can discuss the evidence for "micro"evolution in genetics and in the fossil record.

My intention is to cover 3 examples of sequential speciation events that would be similar to those of horse and human ape above. Each would get their own post and be discussed before moving to the next one (to help keep things short).

Then we can move on to other topics.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : formatting, added comments in pink

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Just some high points for tonight (and strangely, I'll be away tomorrow for some pagan festival of sorts having to do with killing pumkins and making bird pie :D)

No. There is the “theory of evolution” ...

I'm skipping this for now. I do plan to get back to it.

No. If one person defines a dog as “a hairy creature” and someone else defines it as “a creature with sharp teeth” and we know both statements are true, ...

But in neither case have you started with a definition of "dog" and what you have is mammal (fur bearing) likely carnivorous (sharp teeth).

quote:

---

dog - n
1. A domesticated carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris) related to the foxes and wolves and raised in a wide variety of breeds.
2. Any of various carnivorous mammals of the family Canidae, such as the dingo.
3. A male animal of the family Canidae, especially of the fox or a domesticated breed.

---

Which makes you look up Canidae, which leads back to dogs, wolves and foxes.

But you can see that this definition already starts with both fur and carnivorous teeth plus other features NOT included in your straw man examples. Thus both these features are essential to the definition and cannot be pared away.

Then a starting point {A} at the origin of life and an ending point {B} of today would be perfectly valid then, wouldn’t it?

Make point {A} AFTER the origin of life and it would be valid.

As I said it could be from any point {A} life to any point {B} life.

Then a starting point {A} at after the origin of life and an ending point {B} of today would be perfectly valid then, wouldn’t it?

So yes, it would be valid, but it would not be necessary to do so. That is the difference. As I said:

... taking any known starting point {A} and investigating the changes that get you to known ending point {B}.

This is also very difficult for those places where there are gaps in the fossil record.

But the fossil record is not needed to show that evolution occurs: we can do that with experiments and observations in today's world.

For some reason you seem to think that the fossil evidence can be “tested”.

What the fossil record really is, essentially, is a prediction test of evolution: evolution predicts that any gap in the fossil record was filled by intermediate organisms, thus if any are found from the right time and place they will show transitional - intermediate - forms between the before and after fossils.

Thus palaeontologists went specifically to an area of the high Arctic on Ellesmere Island in the Nunavut Territory to look specifically for a specific transitional - intermediate - form between fish and land animals: they knew the areas was correct for the time period and habitat - back when the organisms lived (although it was substantially changed since then), and they found it:

quote:

---

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/fossil.html
Before the discovery of Tiktaalik we knew that limbed animals (tetrapods) were well along their way to invading land by the Late Devonian (around 360 million years ago).

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/geo_setting.html
Tiktaalik was found in the Canadian Arctic, at approximately 78° North latitude. The climate is extremely harsh for all but a few weeks of each year. During this time, the ground only thaws 6 inches below the surface, making it very difficult for large plants to grow.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/geo_setting2.html
Three hundred and seventy-five million years ago in the Devonian, the world did not look anything like it does today. First of all, the climate was much warmer overall, so the north and south pole were not covered in ice. Secondly, the continents were not arranged in the same way as they are today. The continent Tiktaalik lived on was not located at 78° N. Instead, it was located almost entirely in the southern hemisphere. And the stream Tiktaalik probably lived in was located in the Northern part of that continent, very close to the Equator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, "It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is." According to a New Scientist article,

"After five years of digging on Ellesmere Island, in the far north of Nunavut, they hit pay dirt: a collection of several fish so beautifully preserved that their skeletons were still intact. As Shubin's team studied the species they saw to their excitement that it was exactly the missing intermediate they were looking for. 'We found something that really split the difference right down the middle,' says Daeschler." [11]

---

Thus they took an {A} (Devonian fish with features homologous with later tetrapods) and a {B} (the first known tetrapods) where there was a gap (no known transitional), predicted what an organism intermediate between {A} and {B} would be like, where it would be living and when (in the geological column) it would have existed.

Then they found it.

While I realize your not going back far enough to include the origin of life, the chance of ONE ancestral species developing from nothing is infinitesimal (impossible by most accounts). The chance of a “small set” is billions of magnitudes smaller. How can you even entertain this possibility?

Sorry but this is a pure argument from incredulity based on ignorance and misrepresentation. Look at the old improbable probability problem particularly the answer by (self declared) creationist mathematics major DivineBeginning, .. or rather his lack of response on the issue of false calculations and unknowns that make any such "calculation" wild guessing at best, coupled with known egregious errors in the way the calculations are done.

For example of the problem:

quote:

---

Message 35
For example: I hold three faceted solids in my hand, the sides may or may not be regular or equal, the number of sides may or may not all be the same on all three, the markings may or may not all be the same on all three:
What is the probability that I will throw a "7" when I throw these objects onto the table.
Please supply your computations.

---

And for an easy reminder that improbable ≠ impossible, what do you get when you divide improbable (>0) by impossible (==0)?

The point at which we would say something is practically impossible has been defined by mathematicians as something like 10**-20 (-20th power). That is, the probably is so low, we’re not likely to experience it in the lifetime of the universe. I believe the probably calculated for abiogenesis is something like 10**-2000.

"Defined" by creationists and IDologists in order to promote a straw man argument involving the use of completely invalid calculations as some kind of mathematical "proof" of reality.

I'll believe that you can make this calculation with some vague kind of authority when you solve the 3 dice result = 7 problem above: in addition to the calculation being a false calculation of the probability for even the straw man examples they use.

But even then it will be a false argument. Why? because mathematics does not force reality to comply with whatever is calculated.

The best a mathematical model can do is model reality to make predictions: if those predictions are matched by reality then the model can be used to make more predictions, but if the model fails to predict reality then the model is invalid, not reality.

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.

Did you not agree that microevolution was change in species over time?

Exactly. Microevolution (MiE) happens within "kinds" (whatever those turn out to be). The sticking point is the "macro"evolution (MaE) versus creation of kinds - the issue of common ancestry of higher taxon groups. I don’t disagree with the characteristics of microevolution that you have listed. However, this has nothing to do with the real evolution and I don’t see the purpose of continuing down that path. No one disagrees that things change, only that observed changes have anything at all to do with evolution, which is that all life has evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years. Having said all of that, I agree that “scientists” study aspects of the theory of evolution. However, the vast majority of the activity is involved with present day operational scientific mechanisms and sub theories as I’ve stated that have nothing to do with real evolution.

And you are still conflating your personal inflated definition of "real evolution" with macroevolution levels of change and other non-essentials and then just asserting that it doesn't happen.

Let's investigate the limits of MiE first, then see where we are. Take this as your opportunity to prove that

Microevolution is NOT evolution on any scale. It is simply an observation of change. This change MUST demonstrate the appearance of new features, ...

Cannot happen in any of my examples ... without your straw man addition of:

... not only to the particular creature being observed but also to the entire biosphere to be considered evolution (which is what MUST have happened in the past for evolution to have taken place).

Why should one creature change the whole biosphere? Where does evolution even come CLOSE to claiming this "biospheric" effect?

You do NOT get to require evolution to show something that is NOT part of the science. When you debate the merits of a science you use the terms and concepts and theories of that science or you are talking about something else (usually fantasy).

Later. Have a happy T-day.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Murk, seeing as you seem to be taking a breather from this debate, and perhaps collect some thoughts, I have pushed on to provide the first of the three cases I {suggested\discussed\promised} previously.

This will allow you to see my intentions and to comment on those items directly without having to rehash the micro\macro issue yet.

First, what are forams?

From Ref (1):

quote:

---

The Foraminifera, or forams for short, are a large group of amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net. They typically produce a shell, or test, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure. ... They are usually less than 1 mm in size, but some are much larger, and the largest recorded specimen reached 19 cm.

The form and composition of the test is the primary means by which forams are identified and classified. Most have calcareous tests, composed of calcium carbonate. In other forams the test may be composed of organic material, made from small pieces of sediment cemented together (agglutinated), and in one genus of silica. Openings in the test, including those that allow cytoplasm to flow between chambers, are called apertures.

Tests are known as fossils as far back as the Cambrian period, and many marine sediments are composed primarily of them. For instance, the limestone that makes up the pyramids of Egypt is composed almost entirely of nummulitic benthic foraminifera. Forams may also make a significant contribution to the overall deposition of calcium carbonate in coral reefs.

Click to enlarge

(Phase-contrast photomicrograph by Scott Fay, UC Berkeley, 2005. Image copied from wikipedia to save bandwidth. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5: )

---

The image above shows the protoplasm covered test (shell) and several pseudopods of a living species of foraminifera. Fossil species would be similar, with different shape shells and different numbers of pseudopods (limited by the number of holes in the shells).

Also: http://www.eforams.icsr.agh.edu.pl/index.php/TAXONOMY
- DOMAIN: Eukaryota (Whittaker & Margulis, 1978)
- KINGDOM: Protista (Haeckel, 1866 ..... See Phylogeny of Protista)
- PHYLUM: Granoloreticulosa
- ORDER: Foraminiferida (Eichwald, 1830)

Forams are an 'order' in the macro-taxonomic classifications system, with 'suborders', 'superfamilies' and 'families' before we get down to the species level discussed below (we need not be concerned with the levels of taxonomy at this point in the debate, this is just for information).

The Fossil Record

from Ref (2):

quote:

---

In recent years, however, scientists began revisiting the oceans, ... Some intriguing results turned up recently in the laboratories of two Florida State University (FSU) marine paleontologists.

Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

But it's the planktonic variety that chiefly interests Parker and Arnold. Unlike their oversized cousins, free-swimming forams are found almost everywhere in the oceans. Their fossilized skeletons, in fact, were among some of the first biological material recovered from deep ocean bottoms by scientists in the 1850s. For nearly a century, geologists have used the tiny fossils to help establish the age of sediments and to gain insight into prehistoric climates.

Only since the 1960s, though, have scientists begun to fully appreciate fossil forams' potential as a tool for use in evolutionary studies and a host of Earth sciences as well. Advanced deep-sea drilling techniques, combined with computer-assisted analytical tools, have ushered in a whole new vista of foram research. Arnold and Parker are among the first scientists to harness sophisticated technology to a foram project for the express purpose of studying evolution.

As he speaks, Arnold shows a series of microphotographs, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foram species. "This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," he says. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

Click to enlarge

(Image copied from ref (2) to save bandwidth. This same image also appears on ref (4).)

About 330 species of living and extinct planktonic forams have been classified so far. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.

The species collection also is exceptionally well-preserved, which accounts largely for the excitement shared by Parker and Arnold. "Most fossils, particularly those of the vertebrates, are fragmented--just odds and ends," says Parker. "But these fossils are almost perfectly preserved, despite being millions of years old."

By being so small, the fossil shells escaped nature's grinding and crushing forces, which over the eons have in fact destroyed most evidence of life on Earth. The extraordinary condition of the shells permits the paleontologists to study in detail not only how a whole species develops, but how individual animals develop from birth to adulthood.

---

What we have essentially is a jig-saw puzzle with all but maybe 2 or 3 pieces, the whole picture is evident, and where there are a few gaps, these are surrounded by other data that help complete the picture.

This picture shows a continual process of change in species over time, fully realized and documented microevolution, with no reappearance of archaic types in modern species, no "backing and filling" as we see with Peppered Moths and Galapagos Finches, because speciation has occurred, and change moves on to new mutations and new selections of those mutations.

We see significant change in the shape of the shell of one species as it evolves over a period of 6.5 million years.

Conclusions

Several conclusions are readily apparent from this information that apply directly to the issue of microevolution:

• Microevolution has occurred.
  
• Microevolution has been documented over several successive generations of species, and not for just one speciation event.
  
• Microevolution is therefore a fact in this fossil record.
  
• Because further speciation occurs, microevolution does not limit subsequent changes once speciation has occurred (beyond what can occur through mutation and natural selection of the then existing species - more microevolution).

But that's not all we can glean from this example of microevolution.

Other information

Other facts from Ref (1):

quote:

---

Because of their diversity, abundance, and complex morphology, fossil foraminiferal assemblages are useful for biostratigraphy, and can accurately give relative dates to rocks. The oil industry relies heavily on microfossils such as forams to find potential oil deposits.

The foraminiferan life-cycle involves an alternation between haploid and diploid generations, although they are mostly similar in form. The haploid or gamont initially has a single nucleus, and divides to produce numerous gametes, which typically have two flagella. The diploid or schizont is multinucleate, and after meiosis fragments to produce new gamonts. Multiple rounds of asexual reproduction between sexual generations is not uncommon in benthic forms.

---

Forams are used to relatively date marine sedimentary layers due to the distinct morphological differences of the different species.

Also see Ref (5) for more information on relative dating with forams.

Forams reproduce by both sexual and asexual means.

Other facts from Ref (2):

quote:

---

Through dating analysis, he and his colleague showed that the forams could produce a whole new species in as little as 200,000 years--speedy by Darwinian standards. "But as fast as this is, it's still far too slow to be classed as punctuational," says Arnold.

It may be in what the foram record suggests about how life copes with mass annihilation that eventually draws the most attention to the FSU paleontologists' work. The geologic record has been prominently scarred by a series of global cataclysims of unknown, yet hotly debated, origin. Each event, whether rapid or slow, wreaked wholesale carnage on Earth's ecology, wiping out countless species that had taken millions of years to produce. Biologists have always wondered how life bounces back after such sweeping devastation.

One of the last great extinctions occurred roughly 66 million years ago and, according to one popular theory, it resulted from Earth's receiving a direct hit from a large asteroid. Whatever the cause, the event proved to be the dinosaurs' coup de grace, and so wiped out a good portion of the marine life--including almost all species of planktonic forams.

The ancient record of foram evolution reveals that the story of recovery after extinction is indeed busy and colorful. "What we've found suggests that the rate of speciation increases dramatically in a biological vacuum," says Parker. "After the Cretaceous extinction, the few surviving foram species rapidly evolved into new species, and for the first time we're able to see just how this happens, and how fast."

As the available niches fill up with these new creatures, the speciation rates slow down, and the pressure from competition between species appears to bear down in earnest. The extinction rate then rises accordingly. This scenario, says Arnold, suggests that the speciation process is sensitive to how fully packed the biosphere is with other species, not the number of individuals.

---

The shortest observed time interval for speciation was 200,000 years.

The rate of speciation was observed to increase after a major extinction event as there was less natural selection pressure from competition between species on new mutations in their ability to fill available ecological niches.

Other facts from Ref (3):

quote:

---

One of the findings already is being described -- perhaps too hastily -- as disproving Cope's Rule, so named for it's synthesis by the American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope (1840-97). The time-honored evolutionary principle basically holds that all animal groups tend to start out small and increase in size over time.

"We've found out that apparently, lineages don't exactly work that way," Arnold said. "Many of the forams start out small, and essentially stay that way until extinction. Others do manage to wander into dramatically larger sizes, but they're the rare ones."

But the find doesn't necessarily contradict what Cope said, only what many scientists think he said, says Parker. "Cope's observation was simply that there are a few extremely large examples (of individuals) in any given lineage, and these examples always occur at the later stages of the organism's development. And that's apparently true.

"But our findings show that the vast majority of forams start small and end small, even though the mean size increases somewhat due to a few very large specimens. As you get more and more species evolving, some of them eventually manage to get moderately to very large, but most of them don't increase in size at all."

Of late, much ado has been made of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, formulated in the early 1970s by two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. New species may arise fairly quickly (over thousands instead of millions of years) from small animal populations that somehow become isolated, the theory postulates. Intermediate stages are thus too fleeting to become fixed in the fossil record.

Adherents of Darwin's theory of gradualism, in which new species slowly branch off from original stock, should be delighted by what the FSU researchers have found. The foram record clearly reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends" -- varieties that lead nowhere -- and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Moreover, transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendants.

In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system perpetually growing in extreme slow-motion. This means that, in foram evolution at least, the highly touted Eldredge-Gould theory of punctuated equilibrium apparently doesn't work.

In divulging this revelation, Arnold could be forgiven for taking a modicum of perverse glee, the kind a highschool smart-aleck displays when he catches the teacher in a mistake. Gould, now among the most famous scientists in the world, directed Arnold's Harvard dissertation. But there's no room for that here, he says. Arnold maintains a warm professional relationship with his former mentor, who paid his lab a visit when FSU's Distinguished Lecture Series brought him to campus last year. Gould concedes that the forams don't fit his model of punctuated equilibrium, Arnold said.

"He was characteristically pleased to be contradicted with this information. His immediate response was that the forams are probably a special case."

---

We will see Cope's "Rule" again in the next installment of microevolution cases (#2), so I include it here to preview the concept and to show that it does not always apply (as obviously it doesn't when you have island populations with smaller species than on a mainland).

The issue of punctuated equilibrium ("PunkEek") is a side issue in the evolution versus creation debate, but one that seems to reflect kinds to creationists and evolution to evolutionists. It is my opinion that this does not come into play until there is active sexual selection in a species that can select for an averaged individual type - stasis - and that until that stage is reached there should be no evidence of punkeek. That would match the evidence we see here - an organism that engages in random sexual reproduction and random asexual reproduction would not have this stasis selecting mechanism. Thus we will have to deal with this issue later if we come to evidence for punkeek.

Further Conclusions

Conclusions that bear on the debate here and further discussion of microevolution (MiE) in the next examples (yet to come):

• The different age fossils form discrete layers in marine sediment that are identifiable around the world. These fossils all have essentially the same density, size and structure, and are generally less dense than surrounding marine sediment. These different age layers, now that Palmer and Arnold have classified the evolution of the different species of forams, are sorted by age AND evolution within the marine sediment, a fact that cannot be accomplished by any mixed water world wide flood scenario. (WW Flood concept falsified by this evidence)
  
• With several generations of speciation observed and the shortest observed time interval for speciation of 200,000 years, the layers of marine sediment together with the evolutionary structure of the foram fossils embedded within it, AND the evidence of the KT extinction event within the data, document an old age of the earth, much older than any YEC model can manage to accommodate. (Young Earth concept falsified by this evidence)
  
• Cope's "rule" was observed in some species and not in others, so it is not a universal "rule" or "law" (no real surprise there).
  
• PunkEek was not observed in any of the speciation events in this fossil record, even though there was evidence of more and less rapid rates of evolution, particularly in response to the ecological vacuum created by the KT mass extinction event (at the end of the age of dinosaurs).
  
• These organisms reproduce by random sexual and asexual means, and do not have an active sexual selection mechanism that could lead to stasis (and thus to the possibility of punkeek).
  
• There could be other causes for PunkEek as well, that would not affect foraminifera.

I think that's enough for now.

Enjoy.

---

References:

(1) "Foraminifera" - wikipedia article (subject to change)

(2) "Evolution at Sea - a Complete Fossil Record from the Ocean Upholds Darwin's Gradualism Theories" adapted from an article that first appeared in Research in Review, published by Florida State University, revised Oct. 1997

(3) "The Foram Fossils: A Classic Tale of Transition - Did darwin have it right about how species evolve?" ibid, revised Oct. 1995

(4) "A Smooth Fossil Transition: Foraminifera" - with links to ref (2) and (3) by Don Lindsay, last modified: 1 December 1998

(5)"Biostratigraphic Chart of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Region, Jurassic to Quaternary" (pdf), Witrock, R. B., A. R. Friedmann, J. J. Galluzzo, L. D. Nixon, P. J. Post, and K. M. Ross, 2003, Biostratigraphic chart of the Gulf of Publication 60, p. 155-177. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 84, p. 1905-1928. Mexico offshore region, Jurassic to Quaternary, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans.

Note: (3) and (4) contain the same basic information as reference (2) but (3) is an earlier date, and may be an online copy of the original paper.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : added ref (5) per Coragyps Message 86 (Thread REAL Flood Geology)

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

You know, sometimes things happen. Sorry it’s been so long, but I hope this post begins to direct us back to the core of the debate.

Welcome back, it was beginning to feel like I was debating myself.

But in neither case have you started with a definition of "dog” I most certainly have. It is totally reasonable that if you asked someone what a dog is they might say “a small to medium size animal with sharp teeth” or whatever.

No because this "definition" applies equally to dogs, cats, rats, minks, raccoons, wolverines, opossums, tazmanian devils, lizards, snakes, fish, arachnids (tarantula) and possibly even some insects (depending on how far "small" goes). As this list includes things that are definitely NOT dogs, the definition is not complete.

But that’s completely beside the point which apparently you are missing – that is you cannot take a bunch of descriptions of evolution, each of which is different and simply strip out the characteristics that don’t suit you.

I haven't - I've used the ones common to all the definitions.

You cannot say that they are all just change over time, because some “change over time” is very different than other “change over time”.

Evolution is change in species over time. The study (science) of evolution involves just what those changes are, how they occur and how they propagate within a population and how that affects the change to the population over time.

It doesn't matter whether you can posit "other" possible mechanisms for change over time, as what is studied in the science of evolution is the change over time that occurs.

But the fossil record is not needed to show that evolution occurs: we can do that with experiments and observations in today's world. You are again playing with the definitions. There are NO experiments or observations in today’s world that can show evolution has occurred because it supposedly happened in the past.

False. The evidence for speciation is overwhelming to the point where even creationist websites like Answers in Genesis do not contest that it occurs. Speciation is the point at which changes have accumulated to the point where the daughter population is so different from the parent population that they cannot interbreed.

See Some More Observed Speciation Events and 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, two articles on TalkOrigins, for evidence of speciation that have occurred in "today's world" and that document that evolution HAS occurred.

See Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, an article by Answers in Genesis that says:

quote:

---

“No new species have been produced.”

This is not true - new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information.

---

Note: "New species have been observed to form" (we can deal with the "information" boondoggle later).

Evolution is ongoing all the time, it didn't just occur at some point in the past and then stop. Every individual organism is a "transitional" organism in the long trend of change over time. You are different from your parents: you have inherited most of your DNA from them, but some of it has mutated, changed, and is not directly from them. You are a transitional organism between your parents and your children.

Fossils document individual organisms that occurred in the past - they are "snapshots" of past individual organisms that also represent transitions in the long trend of change over time.

Fossils are not needed to show that evolution occurs, but they do show that evolution has occurred, they are a test of evolution: if evolution were not the case then there is no reason for the fossil record to show such a consistent long term trend and the relationships of organisms to organisms that exist.

That the fossil record of change over time within the populations of organisms matches the genetic record of change in DNA between organisms is also a test of evolution that the theory has passed: if evolution were not the case then there is no reason for these two independent systems to match species for species in the tree of life branching.

What the fossil record really is, essentially, is a prediction test of evolution: evolution predicts that any gap in the fossil record was filled by intermediate organisms…Tiktaalik. We seem to be delving far from definitions, but at the risk of starting another side track, I’ll respond briefly. If the fossil record supported evolution, it should be abundantly evident. Instead, only a handful of highly debatable transitional forms have ever been found.

Why do you think so?

Evolution is abundantly clear in the fossils that we do have. Every single fossil is a transitional. There are many examples of definite transitions in the fossil record. Tiktaalik is just one, one that was predicted by evolution.

Regarding the Foraminifers, I’m surprised you have raised this example. You have just finished telling me that the fossil record is not necessary to confirm evolution and the first example you raise is from the fossil record.

Because the Forams show transition after transition after transition. You just complained of not having enough examples of transitions and now you are dismissing examples of just that kind of evidence.

Again, fossils are not necessary to show evolution has and IS occurring. They do, however, still show that evolution HAS occurred. The evidence of the forams demonstrates that change in species over time has occurred for thousands of years within the order (with 'suborders', 'superfamilies' and 'families' before we get down to the species level) of Foraminifera.

quote:

---

As he speaks, Arnold shows a series of microphotographs, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foram species. "This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," he says. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

---

Hundreds of examples of transitions within just one group of species.

First of all, the limits of probability are not defined by creationists, they are defined by mathematicians. Second, the calculation of evolutionary probabilities, are not invalid simply because creation scientists may have come up with them (which may or may not be the case).

First there are no limits to probability. Second the "calculation" used by creationists is false and full of errors, and it is based on assumptions that have not been in any way validated. I have discussed this issue on another thread, so if you want to pursue this topic there feel free: the old improbable probability problem

I will note that the difference between impossible (possibility == 0) and improbable (possibility > 0) is easy to demonstrate:

1/(x>0) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 1/0

therefore improbable ≠ impossible, no matter how small x is.

And finally, math does not prove or disprove reality. It doesn't matter WHAT a mathematical model shows, if it does not match reality, the MODEL is in error.

Also see Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations for another take on this issue.

And even in the event that something occurring was highly improbable, once it HAS occurred the probability that it HAS occurred is 1.0.

Math cannot trump reality.

To be honest, I have NEVER read an evolutionist paper on this subject where they didn’t lament the fact that the chances of abiogenisis was astronomically small, but always believe it anyway simply because it “must” have occurred, not because of the evidence but because if it did not, then their world view collapses.

Perhaps you just haven't read enough. You might try reading them from original sources instead of "filtered" through creationist propaganda sites. Try reading through the list on Biogenesis bibliography from TalkOrigins.

What I see is not lamentation of " the fact that the chances of abiogenisis was astronomically small" but rather statements like the one in the TalkOrigins article, The Origin of Life, where the word "probability" is not mentioned at all:

quote:

---

Even though recent, exciting research has provided plausible scenarios for the origin of life and has answered many questions, it is clear that a lot of research remains to be done, since much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still hypothesis. Experimental models are needed that are both realistic and of some appreciable complexity.

---

This is not lamentation, but a statement of fact of the current state of science and our understanding of the possibilities. Personally I find these possibilities exciting and inspiring, as can be seen in my essay on this forum, RAZD - Building Blocks of Life

And abiogenesis is NOT evolution. The first seeds of life could have evolved on another planet and been transported to earth and the resulting evolution of life since then would still be just as applicable as if they developed here by natural means.

The "improbability" of abiogenesis - whatever that probability really is - in no way invalidates evolution.

I think you misunderstood. Back in the days of the supposed primordial soup, there were no birds, mammals, bacteria etc. The features that arose in these evolved organisms (such as feathers, blood cells or flagella) were completely new to life on planet Earth (the biosphere), never having been seen before, ...

Yes. They evolved.

... not just a re-shuffling of information already present.

Thus proving that this issue of "information" is bogus. A red herring argument used by creationists to delude the gullibles.

Do we observe today the formation of completely new features in animals that we have never seen before?

This gets into the matter of what you call a "completely new feature" and how long you think this takes. Given that most fossil evidence for development of "new features" took place over thousands of years you need to have an observation time frame that compares.

We can discuss this in later posts after we cover the evidence for "micro"evolution and see where we end up with that.

I’ve already clearly and unequivocally shown that the definition of “real evolution” is not my “personal” one as it is substantiated by every source we have looked at. By definition, microevolution is not “real” evolution.

The real definition is the one used by evolutionary biologists. If you are not using that definition then you are not discussing evolutionary biology. It is that simple. Evolution is the change in species over time.

All evidence is INTERPRETED by the presuppositions that you hold. If this were not true you would no longer believe in evolution because the fossil record taken as a whole overwhelmingly supports the creation model.

How insulting. Not just to me but to every scientist in the field. You are the one in denial of the evidence, as demonstrated by the forams. Science is NOT based on presuppositions, it is based on evidence and logical deduction of where the evidence leads, testing of those deductions to see which are valid, in the process finding more evidence, and using all the past knowledge of evidence and deductions to make the next deductions to test and evaluate.

Creationism on the other hand is nothing BUT presupposition, especially presupposition in denial of evidence to the contrary.

The Chalk beds (consisting of forams, among others) were laid down during and shortly after the flood in “blooms” due to vast amounts of decaying matter which could easily account for incredible numbers of extremely small organisms (procreating like bacteria) being laid down in various stages of development due to rapidly changing temperatures, food sources etc

Which completely ignores the layered evolution of the forams, not just random changes but layer by layer changes that match the speciation events of the different species as documented by Arnold and Parker.

Sorting that cannot be duplicated by any random mixing of sediment and forams, as the different foram skeletons have the same basic density and thus would be randomly distributed throughout every single sedimentary layer found on earth.

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. Remember that Parker and Arnold say:

quote:

---

The extraordinary condition of the shells permits the paleontologists to study in detail not only how a whole species develops, but how individual animals develop from birth to adulthood.

---

... "how individual animals develop from birth to adulthood" during their lives.

I believe these creatures are usually considered index fossils so I am also very suspect that age determinations are accurate and probably circular as well since these beds cannot be dated directly.

What you believe is irrelevant. You accuse me of basing my view on interpretations and ALL YOU HAVE IS BELIEF?

They are called index fossils because they are always found in the layers of sediment that are of the same age, thus oil geologists do not need to do age dating when they find the right fossils for the layer they are looking for. This has been tested time and again and VALIDATED every time.

Again you insult scientist who spend their careers on this work. Work that is validated in the real world by simple things like oil drilling based on the changes in forams in the different layers.

Notice that some foram layers are associated with oil fields and some are not. This also refutes and invalidates any flood model that has all these layers laid down at the same time through some random mixing process.

“Billions of years” dating methods are a joke as they are extremely inaccurate, almost always determined by cherry picking the “appropriate” dates, are completely inconsistent with each other, and consistently date items of known recent age at millions or billions of years.

Again you are insulting scientists that spend their careers on this work. You do not have a clue what you are up against, but feel free to blithely dismiss the work of others based on your BELIEFs.

Because you have been so freely insulting of the life work of thousands of dedicated people I'll be blunt: you are also either in denial or ignorant of the evidence for an old earth, an earth billions of years old. The concept that is a joke is the Young Earth concept of fundamental creationists. This is as false a belief as the ones that have been discarded about a geocentric or flat earth.

Denial of evidence that contradicts belief is not faith.

quote:

---

delusion –noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

If you want we can discuss age dating correlations as laid out on Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). Note that this is part III because not one creationist has been able to refute the correlations that demonstrate that the earth is older than any possible young earth scenario.

The obvious answer to harmoniously explain all the evidence is that the earth is OLD, very very old.

... while no one wants to admit the flood is the obvious one to harmoniously explain all the evidence.

Because the evidence refutes a world wide flood (WWF). It's that simple. This conclusion was reached by christian clergy during the early days of geology when they were hobby geologists. This concept is falsified, invalidated, finished. Only those ignorant of or that deny the evidence of the real world maintain this delusion.

The evidence shows the earth is old, much older than any YEC model believes.

The evidence shows that a WWF never happened.

The logical conclusion based on the evidence is that the YEC model and the WWF are falsified concepts, invalidated.

This also comes down to an important distinction between evidence FOR a concept and evidence that REFUTES a concept. There is plenty of evidence that you can cite that shows the sun orbits the earth. This does not prove that the earth is the center of the universe because there is evidence that REFUTES this concept.

You need to deal with the reality of evidence that REFUTES a YEC world and a WWF before you can proceed with any claim that you have evidence FOR those concepts.

You have ignored the majority of my arguments, so I really insist that you respond to the following if we are to keep this going in the right direction: Your contention has been that the theory of evolution can be stated as “Change in species over time” (I’ll abbreviate this to CISOT). If evolution is CISOT, then changes in moth, bacteria and finch populations (and others, for which no one including creationists disagree), have proved evolution to be true and therefore evolution is a fact, not a theory.

I've set aside the majority of your arguments until we can sort out the basis of the debate, because so much of them are based on your misconceptions of evolution, the age of the earth, etcetera.

Yes the evidence you cite demonstrates that evolution is a fact in those instances. It does NOT demonstrate that it is a universal fact. It does not demonstrate that the theory that all species change over time is a fact.

Not only is it a fact, but it cannot be disproved. It cannot be considered a theory since there is no falsifiable test.

False. All that is needed is one instance where it is invalidated. The fact that you are arguing against a very robust theory that has passed many validation tests since its inception is part of your problem, but it doesn't' mean that the theory cannot be invalidated.

When Darwin published his theory he did not know of a mechanism for implementing change in species. That has since been found, and finding it validated the theory. Genetics did not have to validate evolution, but it did - it matched the evolution of species worked out from fossil evidence to a level that surpasses the accuracy some experiments in physics.

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.

Or do we need to discuss the age of the earth first?

p.s. It’s interesting that we really know little or nothing about each other. Is that intentional? I feel like I’m breaking a rule if I ask. Is that the case? I suppose if we find out that one of us is a senior PHD scientist and another one a young bum on the street with internet access, it might bias our outlooks, even though the arguments should speak for themselves.

The arguments speak for themselves. WHO makes the argument is irrelevant (and leads to the logical fallacies of argument from authority and ad hominems). You could be "SomeoneWhoCares" pretending to be someone else, or you could be a teacher with a PhD in evolutionary biology.

Have a happy and blessed New Year! (Sincerely)….mw

Have a happy new year yourself, and I hope it brings you and your family peace and prosperity.

Enjoy

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

---

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.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

“Billions of years” dating methods are a joke as they are extremely inaccurate, almost always determined by cherry picking the “appropriate” dates, are completely inconsistent with each other, and consistently date items of known recent age at millions or billions of years.

I will expect you to document exactly which inconsistencies you are refering to. I expect them to fall into the usual creatortionista lies, misrepresentations and the intentional misuse of science.

In the meantime we can start with simple annual dating systems - ones where annual records are made by some process where we can measure them,

We'll start with tree rings.

Bristlecone Pines, Pinus longaeva

By counting tree rings and matching the overlapping patterns of growth from live to dead trees, scientists have developed a tree-ring chronology of nearly 10,000 years using wood from the Schulman Grove area, California (one tree still living is 4600 years old).

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/earle/pi/pin/longaeva.htm (5)

quote:

---

The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV. The age is largely crossdated (6). Naturally, these ages underestimate the true ages of the respective trees (see Tree Age Determination for details), perhaps by hundreds of years in view of the fact that pith dates were not recovered for these trees. It seems likely that trees at least 5000 years old exist.

Pinus longaeva is generally regarded as the longest-lived of all sexually reproducing, nonclonal species, with many individuals known to have ages exceeding 4000 years. Due to the resinous wood and extremely cold and arid habitat, decay of dead wood is extremely slow, and wood on the ground in some stands has ages exceeding 10,000 years. This has permitted building a continuous chronology of more than 8,000 years, which in turn has been used to calibrate the radiocarbon timescale. The species has been widely used in dendroclimatic reconstruction and in several classic studies of timberline ecology.

---

Note: Reference (6) cited above is:
Brown, Peter M. 1996. OLDLIST: A database of maximum tree ages. P. 727-731 in Dean, J.S., D.M. Meko and T.W. Swetnam, eds., "Tree rings, environment, and humanity." Radiocarbon 1996, Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson.

Note that the article refers to this tree as being specimen WPM-114, when in fact that is the "Prometheus" tree that was cut down later. At the time that Schulman cut down his tree they were not identified by specimen numbers.

The "Methusulah" specimen was cut down in 1957, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,894 years (in 2007 ... and counting). See 'Wikipedia: Methuselah Tree"(2) for additional information on this one tree.

http://www.nps.gov/grba/Bristlecone%20Pines/bristleconepineprometheus.htm (4)

quote:

---

The Forest Service granted permission for the researcher to take core samples from several old-looking bristlecone pines and to cut one down. Bristlecone pines often grow in a twisted fashion. Also, one section of the tree may die off even a couple thousand years before another part. This means it can be very difficult to capture the oldest part of the tree in a core sample. The tree that was cut down in 1964--while still living--has since become know to some as "Prometheus."

Counting revealed that Prometheus contained about 4,900 growth rings. This made it the oldest known tree. Currently the oldest known living tree, about 4,600 years old, is in the White Mountains of California. Chances are good that there are other, older, bristlecones that have not been dated.

---

The "Prometheus" specimen was cut down in 1964 (while it was still living), so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,943 years (in 2007 ... and counting). See "Wikipedia: Prometeus Tree"(3) for additional information on this one tree.

As both these trees have been cut down and they are about the same age they are very useful in building a dendrochronology as the whole ring pattern can be observed and checked for the initial 4,789 year period covered by both trees. Normally only dead samples are cut for cross-sections and live trees are normally sample by taking cores (as was being done on Prometheus when the tool broke). Cores and cross-sections of different samples are aligned by the pattern of annual rings that show the variations in climate from year to year.

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html (7)

quote:

---

Simply put, dendrochronology is the dating of past events (climatic changes) through study of tree ring growth. Botanists, foresters and archaeologists began using this technique during the early part of the 20th century. Discovered by A.E. Douglass from the University of Arizona, who noted that the wide rings of certain species of trees were produced during wet years and, inversely, narrow rings during dry seasons.
Each year a tree adds a layer of wood to its trunk and branches thus creating the pict of cells annual rings we see when viewing a cross section. New wood grows from the cambium layer between the old wood and the bark. In the spring, when moisture is plentiful, the tree devotes its energy to producing new growth cells. These first new cells are large, but as the summer progresses their size decreases until, in the fall, growth stops and cells die, with no new growth appearing until the next spring. The contrast between these smaller old cells and next year's larger new cells is enough to establish a ring, thus making counting possible.

Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.

A number of tree samples must be examined and cross dated from any given site to avoid the possibility of all the collected data showing a missing or extra ring. Further checking is done until no inconsistency appears. Often several sample cores are taken from each tree examined. These must be compared not only with samples from other trees at the same location but also with those at other sites in the region. Additionally, the average of all data provides the best estimate of climate averages. A large portion of the effects of nonclimatic factors that occur in the various site data is minimized by this averaging scheme.

The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously. That's to 7,000 BC! Several pieces of wood have been collected that will extend this date back even further. The hope is to push the date back to at least 8,000 BC. This will be important as the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago, and to have a record of this transition period would offer scientists a wealth of information.

---

Note three things: the tree rings contain climate data, the chronology is not based on one sample but many overlapping and duplicate (from the same tree) samples, and there are other samples that have not been counted yet or that have a break in the climate data that means they are "floating" in the chronology somewhere beyond the end of the continuous record. Adding up all the time recorded by these tree rings would give us a minimum age of the earth for all those years to have passed that generated the rings. We'll be minimalist here and say:

Minimum age of the earth > 8,000 years based on this data.

This is already older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Ussher's calculation of a starting date of 4004 BC). This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 8,000 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.

Also see
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html (8)
http://www.amwest-travel.com/awt_bristle.html (1)
and
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/ (6)

This is only the start.

Enjoy.

---

References

1. Anonymous "California's Ancient Bristlecone Pines, The Oldest Living Things" American West Travelogue, 1996-2007 ASA Consultants, Inc. accessed 10 Jan, 2007 from http://www.amwest-travel.com/awt_bristle.html
   
2. Anonymous "Methuselah (tree)" Wikipedia. updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29
   
3. Anonymous "Prometheus (tree)" Wikipedia. updated 7 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29
   
4. Anonymous "The "Prometheus" Story" Great Basin On-line. updated 2 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.nps.gov/archive/grba/Bristlecone%20Pines/bristleconepineprometheus.htm
   
5. Earle, Christopher J. "Pinus longaeva D.K. Bailey 1970" Gymnosperm Database. Last modified 28 Jan 2000. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/earle/pi/pin/longaeva.htm
   
6. Grissino-Mayer , Henri D., "Ultimate Tree-Ring Web Pages " Department of Geography, The University of Tennessee. updated 28 Jun 2006. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/
   
7. Miller, Leonard, "Dendrochronology" Sonic.net/bristlecone. updated 2 Jan 2005. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
   
8. Miller, Leonard, "The Ancient Bristlecone Pine" Sonic.net/bristlecone. updated 2 Jan 2005. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html
   

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : updated

---

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.