Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Evolution is science
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 200 (367517)
12-02-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Confidence
12-01-2006 2:54 PM


Re: Definitions of Proof, and their burdens ...
1. Woman, without her man, is nothing.
2. Woman, without her, man is nothing.
Evolution can easily go from (1) to (2) OR from (2) to (1) and it doesn't matter:
Sure it does, natural selection decides which will survive if it has an impact.
And this point was also addressed in the original message:
Message 75
If one existed in the population and then a mutation created the other version so that both were available within the population then natural selection has a difference to operate on in selecting for increased survival or reproductive success, and in some situations (mysoginist club) (1) may fare better while in other situations (feminist club) (2) may fare better.
There are many situations where natural selection swings one way and then the other way -- galapagos finches and peppered moths are well known examples of the potential swing in natural selection.
Natural selection can only operate on existing mutations within a population.
So again, you can start with population (1) mutate subpopulation (2) and have natural selection pick either OR you can start from population (2) mutate subpopulation (1) and have natural selection pick either.
Evolution can easily go from (1) to (2) OR from (2) to (1) and it doesn't matter.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 2:54 PM Confidence has not replied

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


Message 141 of 200 (379449)
01-24-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by AndyB
01-24-2007 6:01 AM


Why the issue about Darwin?
Welcome to the fray AndyB
I am always a little perplexed at why creationists seem to need to discredit Darwin as if that would make evolution go away. This thread is about why evolution is science, not Darwin.
There were many things that Darwin said in his books that have been invalidated since, where the science has moved on. That is what science does after all - starts at a point and builds from there as new information comes along, discarding ideas that don't work.
You seem to be particularly caught up in the issue of discrediting Darwin, looking at your site, so perhaps you can tell me what would be accomplished about the science of evolution IF it was shown that Darwin cribbed all his notes from other sources and is only responsible for putting it all together in one piece?
Enjoy.

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AndyB, posted 01-24-2007 6:01 AM AndyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AndyB, posted 01-24-2007 9:13 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 158 of 200 (379598)
01-24-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by AndyB
01-24-2007 9:13 AM


Re: Why the issue about Darwin?
For the record, seeing as you are deserting the field with hardly any argument or substantiations ...
Message 153 ... and I don't have much respect for the latter threat. So please remove me from your list of members.
Message 155 Request granted.
... this is just to clarify things for other readers.
1. I have no idea why you would imagine that all "creationists" (a hopelessly vague generalisation)
I wasn't referring to ALL creationists, but to ones that "seem to need to discredit Darwin as if that would make evolution go away" - people like you that post a big website all about what is wrong with Darwin's books and the ideas in them.
The bottom line, as I state quite clearly, is NOT to discredit Darwin as such, but to clarify and document the true level of his scientific knowledge and skill.
So you wrote it all elevate him instead? Please don't play word games, people - generally - know better.
Part of your problem is your own understanding it appears:
Evolution is not a science for one very simple reason - the only universally agreed definition of "evolution" is:
Evolution = Change
And that's it! Once you go beyond that simple definition things start to get fuzzy.
Every definition that I run across for evolution has change over time from generation to generation. There are many forms that this "change in species over time" takes, and some are noted in other responses, but they all involve more than just change.
This is another typical creationist (or anyone with poor understanding) type of comment: when you are talking about a science you either use the definitions in use withing the science or you are NOT talking about the science but some straw man fantasy you have about the science.
Even the source you quoted gave a more complete definition that you omitted in order to present your straw man version as being of a sound source: this is the essence of "quote mining" -- another common fallacy, this one of appearing to use an authority for substantiation, when the source does not in fact substantiate your position but refutes it.
Your doing this shows that you are not really interested in the truth.
Change in species over time has been observed, recorded, documented. These are facts. The theories that build on these observations are the science trying to piece the larger picture together - sorting the reality from the fuzziness: a picture that shows the same kinds of change in species over time since a beginning of life sometime before 3.5 billion years ago.
I hope this answers your questions adequately. If not I respectfully suggest that you try reading the whole thing without prejudging the nature of what you are reading.
It answers my questions about your motives and your reasons for writing your piece, whether you try to dissemble here or not.
It answers my questions about your ability to understand the real issue of evolution, and hence why you may think Blythe is important to the science of evolution instead of a footnote. Like Wallace and others. Even Darwin.
I read enough of you site to know that more would be a waste of time. Peppered moths ... really. That old PRATT.
Seeing as I don't expect a reply, enjoy your refuge on your site where you can remain un-obscured by reality.
For the rest:
Enjoy.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by AndyB, posted 01-24-2007 9:13 AM AndyB has not replied

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


Message 167 of 200 (382388)
02-04-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Oliver
02-04-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Macro-Evo not Science
Welcome to the fray, Oliver.
There are many different species of birds but they're still birds, they're just different variations and have adapted.
But before they were birds they were dinosaurs - you are only looking at the current result and not the process. Archaeopteryx is part of the lineage of transition.
That sounds like micro-evolution to me. Now, if you can, give me an ovserved case of macro-Evoltion, that is a creature completely changing into something esle?
Doesn't happen that way, this is a common creationist misconception of evolution, and not what the science says. Macroevolution is the accumulation of many microevolutionary changes, each one a step that of itself is not remarkable: how many pennies does it take to make a thousand dollars? When does the thousand dollars "appear" in the bank account?
Enjoy.

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
and
Click on the red arrow reply button for general reply, the green arrow button for specific message reply (also sends email to poster). Check the PEEK button to see how coding was done (can also be done during reply using PEEK MODE at the top right of the "message you're replying to"
thas the quick course.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 1:34 PM Oliver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 2:36 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 176 of 200 (382402)
02-04-2007 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Oliver
02-04-2007 2:26 PM


Oliver,
Can you tell me what these are?:

note: the last is an artist rendition, and thus fur length and color and the fullness of the body are not necessarily valid, and are probably influenced by knowing what the descendants look like.
Would you say that whatever they are, that the animals that descended from them will always be of that group of animals?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : note

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 2:26 PM Oliver has not replied

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


Message 182 of 200 (382414)
02-04-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Oliver
02-04-2007 2:36 PM


Re: Macro-Evo not Science
How do you know that birds were once dinosaurs?
Would you say that any fossil animal that has feathers would be ancestral to birds?
Remeber, that was millions of years ago so how does anyone know?
Would you rather embrace ignorance than find out?
The obvious way is to look at the evidence and see where it leads. Reconstructing the history of fossils is not significantly different than reconstructing crime scenes.
At least you are not claiming that the world is only several thousand years old.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 2:36 PM Oliver has not replied

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


Message 197 of 200 (383156)
02-07-2007 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Oliver
02-07-2007 5:02 AM


Please define "macro"evolution - so we can be sure we are (a) talking about evolution and (b) we are talking about the same thing.
Also define "micro"evolution just to be sure we are talking about something different.
It should be easy eh?.
Enjoy.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Oliver, posted 02-07-2007 5:02 AM Oliver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Oliver, posted 02-07-2007 7:55 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 200 of 200 (383345)
02-07-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Oliver
02-07-2007 7:55 AM


More Clarification needed ...
Micro, as in variation and adaptation.
Do you mean all mechanisms of evolution that have been observed in the process of change in phenotype and genotype of a species population up to and including what is called "speciation" - using a standard biological species definition of non-breeding populations as a definition of species?
This would include mutation, genetic drift, and similar mechanisms to cause change, and selection by survival and breeding to match (adapt) environmental and sexual criteria?
This would include "natural selection" as observed in galapagos finches and peppered moths, etc, as well as known speciation events (especially in plants) as noted on talkorigins and accepted by AiG:
Observed Instances of Speciation
quote:
This FAQ discusses several instances where speciation has been observed. It also discusses several issues related to speciation.
The descriptions of each observation come from the primary literature. I went back to this literature for two reasons. First, many of these observations are not discussed (or not discussed in much detail) in secondary sources such as reviews, texts and popular articles. Second, it is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate what a piece of research actually established without looking at the methods and data. Secondary sources rarely give this information in any detail. Anyway, I have included only those observations that I have been able to find the original sources for.
I consider this FAQ incomplete. One reason for this is that I am still chasing references (I still have a list of over 115 to find). More important is the fact that observations of speciation are buried in papers on a number of topics.
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
quote:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:
“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.
For an evolutionary biologist, speciation is not a big deal, it is part of the normal everyday process, and thus is not remarkable for things like specific experiments or commentary on experiments.
For an AiG "mentored" Creationist, speciation is not a big deal because it is part of their model for populating the world with the diversity we see today from a core population of created species.
Thus the real issue is whether there was one species at the dawn of life on earth or several hundred(ish - creationists have never defined how many species were created, so this number is just a "bookmark" value for now), and that brings us to "macro"evolution.
Macro, as in complete change fronm one creature into another.
How much change and in what time-frame?
In one sense this occurs at the moment of speciation: one species has become another. They no longer interbreed because they are different.
Or do you need the accumulated change from, say, two speciation events, to show that change is continuous and necessarily divergent rather than convergent? That second generation daugther (grand-daughter) species are more different from the original parent species than the intermediate ones?
You talked about the change necessary to go from a dog to a cat: would you say that change from something that looks roughly like a dog (size, weight, posture etc) to something that is roughly like a modern horse would be sufficient change?
If not, why was dog to cat good enough for you? Seems to me like there is a noticeable difference there, but the real question is how much change is enough for you.
For time, are you expecting something in one generation? The same time-frame as speciation? Or longer?
Speciation does not occur in one generation, so expecting more change in less time is not reasonable, nor does it even come close to what evolution and biology use for the time frames of changes above species levels.
Notice that if you are not using words as defined and used in evolution and biology that you are no longer discussing evolution and biology and evolution but something else.
If you wish we can settle on "several generations" for now and discuss how many are involved later.
This may also involve a discussion on how much time is available -- the age of the earth question, and we can deal with that when it comes up.
So, are you going to make\agree to definitions that can be used to discuss these matters rationally or are we going to be arguing about moving definitions that change to suit arguments as they occur?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : tyop

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Oliver, posted 02-07-2007 7:55 AM Oliver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024