Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
62 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,972 Year: 3,618/14,102 Month: 238/321 Week: 54/44 Day: 5/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 41 of 121 (374600)
01-04-2007 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-02-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Dealing with the issues

Yes, and you won’t move off the pot on evidence because you don’t seem to have a response to my questions regarding the definitions.
What evidence. The definitions…were dealt with.

The stream of evidence (like tree rings and others) that you apparently want to discuss INSTEAD of definitions! Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t definitions the topic of this debate? Once we are done with definitions, we can close this out and start a new discussion.

All the definitions show evolution is change in species over time, including the ones you presented.

This is soundly refuted in Message 21. Thus repeating this is NOT providing evidence but repeating a mistake.


I’m fine with that IF you tell me what your definition of “molecules to man” evolution is?
That is NOT evolution. The development of molecules to life is abiogenesis.

Just like micro-evolution is NOT evolution. You are again misrepresenting my argument. I have already stated more than multiple times that I’m willing to ignore abiogenesis in any definition we use. That is a separate issue (of whether it should be included) that we haven’t discussed and I’m willing to put off for now. If you prefer, I’ll use “goo to you” evolution. This covers change from the first prototype into the diversity we see today. I’m only trying to provide a temporary term to distinguish (in a meaningful way) your definition of evolution from mine without having to restate it every time.

lets start with what we know: we have speciation, we have an accepted process by which it occurs that many people, creationist and evolutionist alike, call "micro"evolution…It is commonly accepted by evolutionary biologists and creationists that "micro"evolution refers to speciation.

No informed creationist refers to adaptation or its processes as micro-evolution. Micro evolution is NOT “evolution on a small scale” which can simply be extrapolated backwards. Its processes have provided results in direct OPPOSITION to what is required for goo-to-you evolution. In addition, micro evolution does NOT refer to speciation and is NOT implied by your definition of change in species over time (unless this is something new you are springing on me). A species can change but that change does not have to result in a new species. In fact, the vast majority of recent examples that evolutionists have proposed as proof of evolution did not result in new species such as bacteria, moths and finches. Speciation is less common but it is certainly an important component of creation theory. In NO case have new “kinds” or baramins ever been produced or observed.

let's start by discussing "Micro"evolution. It's called common ground. A compromise position. A way to move forward. When we are done with "Micro"Evolution (MiE) then we can move on to "Macro"Evolution (MaE).

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Everyone agrees that Adaptation (MiE) occurs. Why in the world would we want to waste our time looking at evidence for it first? It is a fact. I have already compromised by temporarily removing abiogenesis. Why is temporarily defining evolution as MiE, something that I don’t agree with, common ground? If that’s common ground, it makes infinitely more sense to begin by temporarily defining evolution as Macro-evolution and looking at the evidence for it. We both already agree that MaE is evolution but not MiE, so let's start there. We can then move on to MiE and better understand why it is NOT evolution.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the way that dating methods are actually developed and used, so this ridiculous straw man argument is more of a ill-conceived comic parody of reality than anything else. It's a joke - on you - and a poor one at that.

The joke is on you because the story is not a joke, poor or otherwise. It’s called a parable. Ever heard of that before? It has nothing to do with the way dating methods are developed. The point is that evidence can be very different from the truth when considering historical events. That is why God left us with a written account of what actually happened so we wouldn’t be deceived into believing a lie. You recently accused me of not reading original sources. Have you ever bothered reading the Bible? This is indeed a significant piece of evidence.

OK, I agree that this is getting frustrating. You continue to simply insist that your definition is THE definition over and over again without addressing the logic of my arguments. If the theory of evolution simply states that species change over time as you contend, then this is impossible to refute (and creationists wouldn’t want to since this also defines creation theory - I’ll remind you that in this same context, the two theories would be identical except creationists start with the created kinds (baramins) instead a single common ancestor). We have numerous examples of species changing over time (within their kinds), mostly in living organisms we find today (FACT) and even some in the fossil record (although only conjecture supported by the preponderance of evidence). Why then, do you suppose, is there any debate over whether evolution is true? It has been proved. I am not asking this question rhetorically. I would like an answer.

What is all the evidence you’ve presented regarding the age of the earth supposedly refuting? NOT Creation theory. Creation theory states that species change over time (again, using your same limited context with no further details). You are attempting to dispute things that are NOT part of this definition, so they are irrelevant. And sorry, but you do NOT get to redefine scientific terms to suit your beliefs. You either use the terms as defined and used in creation science or you are not discussing creation science but some personal fantasy about creation science.

Tree ring dating is not reliable and is easily refuted, which I will not attempt to do now since it is irrelevant to the discussion. However I can provide dozens of examples of biological features that are irreducibly complex, some having a hundred components or more that must be working in perfect unison and harmony to operate properly. Since they could not have evolved independently or in small steps, they MUST have been created that way by an intelligent designer. Even a single example of an irreducibly complex feature invalidates evolution. When we finish with definitions, how about starting there? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There’s more, much more!

What I would like to suggest is the following for an attempt to move on - I would like you to THINK about whether your definition makes sense LOGICALLY (no field “evidence” required), REGARDLESS of who uses it. This is appropriate since I have convincingly shown that “Change in species over time”, is NOT universally used by all scientists, is NOT supported by the majority of sources and in fact is contested by prominent evolutionists. I’ll start by re-asking some of the questions you have refused to answer that are designed to facilitate THOUGHTFUL contemplation. Here is the middle ground. Let’s see where this leads us.
1) Restated from above – If evolution theory is “change is species over time”, which everyone agrees has been proven to be true, then why do you suppose there is any debate about whether evolution is true?
2) What would honestly invalidate the theory that “species change over time” when this has already been proven to be true?
3) Do you disagree that changes relevant to evolution observed in species must be directional and support the movement from simple to more complex organisms? If so, how do you justify defining evolution as simply any change when that change does not create new features and support the notion that all life evolved from a common ancestor?
4) Can you provide any examples (beside propagandist evolutionary internet sites with no official affiliations), where evolutionary scientists have protested against sources which characterized evolution as “all life on earth evolving from a common ancestor over millions of year”, as misrepresenting what evolution is?
5) I have contended that change in species over time is simply an observation. How can you defend this as a “mechanism”? Mechanisms are involved in bringing about the observation but are not the observation itself. What is the theory that you are attempting to substantiate through this observation of change in species over time? The observation itself? In other words, the observation of change in species over time proves change in species over time? Please respond.

I’ve already made 2 reasonable and fair suggestions on how to continue - 1) Starting with defining evolution as macro-evolution and seeing where that leads us or 2) Reviewing the definitions from a LOGICAL standpoint starting with my questions. If these are unacceptable, the last and perhaps only alternative is to post a summary of our positions (and perhaps a rebuttal) and then end it.
Sincerely …mw

Edited by MurkyWaters, : Clarify why MaE is a better place to start


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 10:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2007 12:28 PM MurkyWaters has responded
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2007 8:41 AM MurkyWaters has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 42 of 121 (374602)
01-04-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-02-2007 11:32 PM


Re: Timeline #3: Earth > 12,332 years old
I'll be happy to refute this evidence when we've finished our prior discussion on definitions. ...mw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 11:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2007 10:07 PM MurkyWaters has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 43 of 121 (374606)
01-04-2007 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
01-03-2007 3:52 AM


Re: No Progress here.

It was unnecessary to repost all of the definitions again. I’ve clearly refuted this silly concept of ANY observed change as being evolution both through sources and logic.
Where? by bald assertion and repetition of same old position with no new information? That's not a refutation. By using false misleading and quote mined statements by evolutionist taken out of context? Refusing to make any move forward is not helping this debate. All you have done is stone-wall on the first topic and refuse to move forward on either path I have suggested that can help resolve the issue from a different angle:

If you didn’t address my arguments the first time, why should I present something new? Talk about repetition! All you have done is arrogantly insist over and over again that you are right, so we should move on! It is a matter of opinion as to who is stonewalling. This is a marvelous example of how evidence can be interpreted two different ways. I feel I have convincingly and equivocally proved my case without a shadow of a doubt based on all of the evidence and you see it the opposite way. However while I have argued from the evidence and logic you are simply appealing to the imaginary authority of “science”. I have quoted biologists, scientists and scientific journals that agree with me, so you are mistaken that this is the universal definition used by science. I can recap again in the summary post that I have recommended. I have suggested 3 different paths we can take that I feel are fairer in my prior post. Take your pick. …mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 3:52 AM RAZD has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 44 of 121 (374608)
01-05-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
01-03-2007 3:53 AM


Re: Who is stone walling?
No, all you have done is to continue stone-walling. The only way to advance is to start with MiE and then proceed with MaE later.

The only way? That is always your solution. Your way or the highway, despite the evidence. I am not the one stone-walling. You want to move on because you have logically lost the case.

If definitions of evolution include billions of years it is because that is what the evidence shows. If you object to that then you need to deal with the age of the earth before continuing.

I do not object to it, you do. I support the definitions that contain billions of years because that is a critical and essential component of evolutionary theory. If “billions of years” is disproved, so is evolution, so it must be part of the definition.

OK, it looks like we are caught up. Let me know what you think of the 3 options I have suggested.

I just wanted to briefly clarify the options so that you wouldn’t have to look back. There are actually 4 I've mentioned.

1) Let’s discuss the definitions from a Logical standpoint rather than simply fall back on what you might happen to “believe” is the definitions used by others. I’ve already clearly demonstrated the inconsistency in what others believe and in fact the opposition to the CISOT definition by many scientists, biologists included. Technical and non-technical sources also disagree.

2) Assume temporarily that evolution is defined as Macro-evolution and start with evidence for it first and see where that leads us. Then move on to Micro-evolution.

3) End the definitions and move on. However, if this option is chosen, I would like to take the time and summarize our positions on the definitions. If nothing else, this will clearly document our discussions and the valid evidence we have presented for each side. I want to do this so I can more clearly point to this when I have discussions with others. We put a lot of work into our arguments and it would be a shame if it just got lost in the thousands of posts that no one ever reads again.

4) Rather than simply move on to evidence, I think it would be very interesting if we could compile a list of the evidence that supposedly “invalidates” each other’s theories. Then we can take turns selecting the ones we think are most “damaging” and see where that goes. I provided a little more detail for this option in a prior post.

Sincerly...mw

Edited by MurkyWaters, : Added list of options.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 3:53 AM RAZD has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 45 of 121 (374672)
01-05-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-02-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Dealing with the issues
I see all this talk from evolutionists on this site about how creation theory has been “invalidated”. When are you guys going to get it through your heads that it is impossible to invalidate a theory based on an “INTERPRETATION” of historical data? We all have the same evidence. The difference is how we interpret the evidence. The silly notion that you do not have presuppositions is almost humorous. Let’s take your tree rings for instance. You start out by saying “with NO presuppositions”. However, you have presuppositions and you don’t even realize it. Your presupposition is uniformitarianism. You are assuming that everything has always been the same for thousands of years. However, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that this is not the case and that there was a WWF. When you make that assumption instead (a valid one, not only from other evidence, but because we have eyewitnesses to the event), the rings (and carbon 14 dating), can be explained much more accurately.

That’s why you start with evidence that supports your theory, not invalidates it. Then scientists propose explanations for why certain data does NOT invalidate their theory and look for other explanations. This is certainly the way it has gone with evolution and creation theory would be handled no differently. For example, we all know today that natural selection itself is insufficient to explain how evolution might have occurred. When that realization was first made, do you think evolutionist threw up their hands and said “oh well, I guess that just invalidates our theory, we’ll have to propose a whole new one”! Of course not, they looked for OTHER mechanisms that could be use in conjunction with natural selection (mutations). Now mutations are also being questioned by scientists as being sufficient (since they never provide beneficial changes that provide an increase in information). What will be proposed next?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 10:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2007 10:59 AM MurkyWaters has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 53 of 121 (387069)
02-25-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
01-06-2007 12:28 PM


Re: Review. Again.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


The debate is about evolution versus creationism. That starts with definitions that we can agree on, but the definitions are not the whole debate.

The debate is about what both of us agree it is about. I sincerely hope that we don’t have to argue about that too. I certainly can’t make you debate something you don’t want to and the reverse is true as well. This is patently obvious since I’ve not been able to convince you to take this debate in the direction I have suggested (and visa versa). The entire point of getting into this debate was to define evolution and creation theory. My opening post was almost entirely about definitions. If you recall, this started with someone raising the Galapagos finches as an example of evolution. I argued that it was a better example of creation theory. It then became immediately obvious that the evidence itself wasn’t in dispute but rather what people were calling evolution and creation. If it was pointless to discuss finches without understanding those definitions, then it will also be pointless to discuss any other evidence. I’ll talk about where I think we should go with this, in response to your remarks regarding the same, later on.

The only reasons we have touched upon evidence is to confirm the plausibility of our definitions. The test of whether change is evolutionary change is in the “definition”. That’s why we don’t agree on definitions. You want to include what we observe today as part of evolution so you attempt to define evolution so that it is included despite the fact that it cannot produce the results that molecules to man evolution demands.

What you are quibbling about is not that evolution is the change in species over time, but the degree of change

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! How in the world, after reading all of your highlighted sections of my comments regarding the definitions could you possibly conclude that? Never once did I mention the degree of change. The “degree” or amount of change is irrelevant. It is the KIND of change that is in question. The kind of change that we observe in Galapagos finches (and moths and whatever we observe today), is not the KIND of change that can change molecules into man. It is not the KIND of change that supports evolution theory which states that all the diversity of life we see today originated from some common ancestor in a “primordial soup” billions of years ago. It does NOT support the direction of movement from simple to more complex organisms, but rather it results in a LOSS (wingless beetles, blind cave fish…) or reshuffling (moths, bacteria…) of function/information, NOT a gain required by evolutionary theory.

The kind of change we observe today is exactly what you would expect from natural selection, mutations and other processes working on the original created kinds resulting in degradation, “downhill” movement, disease, loss of functionality, less genetic variability, slower and even the complete loss of ability to adapt further, sometimes resulting in extinction. However, it cannot account for the formation of new features (genetic information) that were not already present in the original created kinds.

I fail to comprehend why you cannot grasp such a simple concept as this unless you are being purposely obstinate (stonewalling) which is what I suspect. Surely you can admit there are different types of change? Even evolutionists recognize that not all change is evolutionary change. Certainly, growing old is a change in a species over time. In fact at any point in time there is a large portion of the population that is a certain age, so we are not even talking about single individuals here. I wouldn’t assume that the type of change that is responsible for a seed growing into a flower or a tree would continue to change it into a lizard. The type of change that changes a caterpillar into a butterfly is different than evolutionary change.

Many other analogies might be suggested. For example, you would not expect that the type of propulsion system in a water rocket could take it to Venus. A different KIND of propulsion system is necessary to do that. It’s not just the DEGREE of propulsion. There are LIMITATIONS to a water rocket’s propulsion system just as there are limitations to the changes in organisms we observe today. Just because I grow up from a child into a man, doesn’t mean I will continue to grow indefinitely. A different kind of change would be required for that (like that of science fiction movies). There are LIMITATIONS to this type of change. Similarly, the kind of change we see operating to allow adaptation of organisms to their environment is very different from the type of change necessary to change one organism into another.

It’s possible that what you want to include in your definition is inheritable changes. But no matter, even Ernst Mayr, one of the most famous evolutionists to ever live, said that changes in gene frequencies was NOT evolution. This is because that type of change does not move the population to greater complexity required to create new kinds of organisms (not just changes within their kind). However, the definition you have espoused isn’t specific enough to know what kind of change you are talking about.

A definition (by definition) is supposed to make something clear (and definite). If it has to be explained to be understood, then it is NOT a good definition. “Change in species over time” must be interpreted and explained to understand what you mean and is therefore totally incomplete, confusing and misleading.

The other quibble you have is over the time scale. Again and again you express annoyance at any mention of time that exceeds 6000 years. This really has nothing to do with evolution being change in species over time, but over the age of the earth and the time that has occurred being included in the above definitions, time YOU have a problem with.

“This really has nothing to do with evolution being change in species over time” – You are absolutely correct, because evolution is NOT simply change in species over time. I’m not the one having a problem with the time scale, YOU are. Again and again you express annoyance at any mention of millions of years being included in the definition. I am not annoyed with the timescale of millions of years. In fact, I insist it be included in the definition. That is because evolution is intimately connected with the timescale. Evolution becomes VOID if not for this timescale. The theory was based on the fact that evolution is a very slow gradual process. It is essential to evolutionary theory and therefore, as many definitions suggest, it can and should be part of the definition.

As I’ve clearly shown before, we can apply the same principle to creation theory and remove each essential piece of the definition until we are left with “change is species over time” as well. If we do that then what is the difference between the definition of creation theory and evolutionary theory? To define a butterfly as simply something that flies is not a good definition of a butterfly. We must supply more information so that we know what we are talking about. In the same way, defining evolution as simply change over time is not specific enough to know what kind of change we are talking about.

Darwin himself said “The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation.”

While this indicates that Darwin saw no support of evolutionary theory in the fossil record himself, let’s focus on the time scale. He says here that if the history of the world is thought to be of short duration (ie 6000 years), then it is impossible for evolution to have taken place (species would have remained immutable). Therefore, change in species over time would mean over LONG time according to Darwin.


3) Over the course of time “entirely new” species have developed indicating that a certain type of change which supports the rest of the theory, not just any change, is required.
That is still just change in species over time. What you are including is your preconception of "something else" being included and your incredulity that it could occur to the degree that it has or that it had the time to occur.
That is not a refutation.

And “change in species over time” is not a theory. How is pounding on the table and insisting that everything is simply change in species over time when it is no such thing a refutation on your part?


Again, notice that “new types of organisms” must result “over long periods of time”. This would ELIMINATE the Galapagos finches as examples of evolution which neither resulted in a new type or organism nor did it take a long period of time. Thank you. This should put that thread to rest.
Hardly, seeing as not enough time passed for speciation to occur. You yourself said "neither resulted in a new type or organism nor did it take a long period of time" thus this is just an example of natural selection on existing traits within a population and has not reached the level of speciation. Given more time that is a possibility but that time was not given.

As usual, you are completely missing the point. The definition of evolution (that is, this particular definition, which agrees with most), states that there are 2 requirements to evolution – 1) The formation of a new type of organism and 2) A long period of time. Since the Galapagos finches do not meet either requirement, it is NOT an example of evolution by this definition. That is an indisputable fact, one that is not lost by some evolutionists who are attempting to redefine evolution as simply adaptation.

And what does speciation have to do with anything? Your definition simply states that evolution is “change in species over time”. Are not the Galapagos finches an example of change in a species over time? The beak of a species has changed over time.

“Not enough time passed for speciation to occur” – do you agree then that evolution takes a long period of time? I thought it didn’t matter to you?

“This is just an example of natural selection on existing traits” – My point exactly. No new traits appeared, so this is not evolution (by definition).

“Given more time that is a possibility but that time was not given” – Sorry, but this TYPE of change will not result in a new “kind”, regardless of the amount of time given, whether days or millions of years because it is NOT the type of change that can do that.

The Galapagos finches example is still a "genetic difference in organisms from generation to generation" because the frequency of the alleles for the different sized beaks changes within the population, first towards larger more robust beaks and then back to smaller slender beaks.

I repeat, many scientists do not agree that a change in frequency of alleles is evolution. Billions of years of oscillation between long and short beaks will result in nothing more than finches. This is NOT evolution.

In each case there were existing genes within the population for natural selection to operate on.

Exactly…no new genes were created. This is NOT evolution.

Yes this is evolution, it just has not been "captured" by the process of speciation yet. This is change in species over time at the sub-species level.

So its evolution, but you have no proof because it has not been “captured” by the process of speciation yet? Is speciation the yardstick by which evolution is defined? Therefore, it wouldn’t be an example of evolution as it stands.


Evolutionists admit that they do not find any evidence for “micro-evolution” in the fossil record.
The foraminifera. Microevolution Case #1 - Foraminifera (Message 25)

My statement is a true statement. I made this remark based on quotes from evolutionist sources like Scientific American (which I can document) that made this observation. I believe at least one quote was included in the prior posts somewhere. You have provided an example that could be interpreted as evidence of micro evolution in the fossil record. Another that comes to mind is the horse “sequence” which is quite controversial at best even among evolutionists. These examples do not contradict the statement above.

Message 21 does not in any way refute the definition of evolution as change in species over time, rather it confirms it.

This is you stone-walling on the definition of evolution by trying to exclude elements of evolution that ARE included. You keep coming back to this issue with no further evidence than simply insisting that everything is change over time when it says nothing of the sort. Before I put this to rest, I’d like to point out a few issues first:


  • Please note that it was you, not I, which introduced the plethora of Internet definitions. I have never said that every definition would support my contention. Darwin said that natural selection had gradually caused all life forms on earth to have evolved from a single common ancestor. I don’t think you will find much disagreement from scientists that this is what Darwin considered to be his theory of evolution. The current trend is to redefine evolution as any change in genetic composition so that more deceptive credence can be given to a dying evolutionary theory in order to oppose the tide of valid creationist evidence that is to the contrary. It is also meant to deceive the public in order to affect political policy. Therefore, current definitions can be deceptive.
  • Neither have I denied that some use the definition that you have proposed. Your constant hawking regarding the fact that I cannot simply re-define something that “scientists” are using is not only wrong but also completely irrelevant. Not only do not all scientists use this definition, but because they use it does not mean that it cannot be challenged. My position is that this definition is misleading and I have presented significant evidence as to why this is so.
  • On top of that, what the public is being told and taught is much more significant than what a scientist might use (since hearts and minds are in jeopardy) and therefore the source of “what evolution is” encompasses much more than simple internet definitions which also support my arguments. This includes numerous books by leading evolutionists, textbooks, classroom lectures, scientific journals, scientific organizations, print and television media, all of which you have discounted.
  • The bulk of definitions you have provided are regarding the “process” of evolution rather than the “Theory” of evolution. Because many sources want to be misleading about what evolution really means, they make much ado about the processes for which there is really no disagreement. For example, while Wikipedia talks much about the “theory of evolution”, you would be hard pressed to find where they state what that is anywhere.
  • Even talkorigins admit that dictionary definitions are suspect. However, like most evolutionary propagandists, he wants to cherry pick the evidence and simply chooses those definitions that fit the convenience of his philosophical position.
  • The premise was that these definitions were from “universal” sources, but I doubt anyone is going to look at birdlore.com (or whatever) to find the definition of evolution. They are more likely to hear it from the media or consider what they have been taught from textbooks.

All of this confirms the basic premise that these definitions are debatable. Nevertheless, let’s take a last look at them in total. I did discover an omission on your part. I suspect there may be others. You would have accused me of quote mining, but I’ll just say you missed it to be kind. At “laborlawtalk” you included a definition of the evolutionary process, but left out the definition of the theory of evolution, which is what this debate is really about:

“The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.”

I’ll add a couple of others I happen to come across from textbooks:

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

"Evolution - The concept that all living things are descended from earlier forms of life, with new species developing over time. According to the theory of evolution, the plants and animals alive today descended from organisms that lived millions of years ago.” (Discovery Works, Silver Burdett Ginn, Inc., 1996)

If we take a look at ALL the definitions that both you and I have referenced in this debate (48 of them) we can conclude the following:

71% stated directly or implied that new features, complexity or speciation is required as part of the theory of evolution.

58% stated directly or implied that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.

54% stated directly or implied that long periods of time are required (usually corresponding to the age of the earth, assumed to be billions of years old by evolutionists).

21% explicitly mention Billions or Millions of years

46% stated directly or implied the existence of a common ancestor

15% described it as a sequence of steps or events which tells me they were defining a process, not a theory.

Only 25% said it was simply “change over time” (genetic or otherwise)

The majority of definitions make it extremely and undeniably clear that the measure against which any change is considered evolution is whether it supports the concept that all the diversity of life we see today evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago. Therefore, that IS the definition of evolution, the yardstick against which change is measured. If an observed change supports this concept, then it is evolution. If it does not, than it is not evolution. Period! To say that any change we observe in a species is evolution is simply ludicrous and deceptive. Especially since that change (adaptation) can just as well support the theory of creation as it can evolution.

The dictionary definition of the WORD “evolution” (not the theory of evolution) is a synonym for change. Evolutionary theory qualifies the type of change that would be required to make it evolution. The analysis of the definitions above should basically put this to rest. You cannot rely on any particular definition from a dictionary regarding the theory of evolution because they are not consistent. The bulk of the definitions make my case, not yours – Evolutionary change MUST be qualified to explain what kind of change you are talking about. It’s not the kind of change we see as organisms grow older, taller or larger; it’s not the kind of change that causes them to alter colors or select from already existing traits, it’s not the kind of change that causes them to LOOSE functionality; It’s not adaptation; It’s the type of change that causes them to transform into a different kind of organism – That’s evolution. If you deny all of this evidence and the logic that has been presented, you are fooling no one except yourself.

Now, let’s look at a representative sample of definitions of adaptation (nearly all if not all definitions from any source I looked at agree with these).

“in biology, a change in an organism over time, that better enables it to survive and multiply.”
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=adaptation&matchtype=exact

“Biology - a change by which an organism becomes better suited to its environment.”
http://www.askoxford.com/results/...

“Biology - An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.”
http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/A0078200.html

“Modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment”
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/adaptation

“adaptation (= the process of changing)”
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=944&dict=CALD

“Biol.
a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.”
http://www.infoplease.com/search?query=adaptation&in=dictionary&fr=ipdbot

“Biology - change to suit environment: the development of physical and behavioral characteristics that allow organisms to survive and reproduce in their habitats”
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861695371

“The changes made by living systems in response to their environment”
http://www.bartleby.com/59/21/adaptation.html

“The condition of showing fitness for a particular environment, as applied to characteristics of a structure, function or entire organism; a modification of a species that makes it more fit for reproduction and/or existence under the conditions of its environment.”
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search2.html?bo1=AND&word=adaptation&search_type=normal&def=

“Development of characteristics to fit the environment. As part of the process of evolution, adaptation proceeds by mutation and is closely linked with natural selection”
http://www.birdcare.com/bin/showdict?adaptation

“A genetically changing characteristic that raises an organism's ability to survive.”
http://www.webref.org/anthropology/a/adaptation.htm

“adaptation: changes in gene frequencies resulting from selective pressures being placed upon a population by environmental factors; results in a greater fitness of the population to its ecological niche.”
http://glossary.gardenweb.com/glossary/nph-ind.cgi?scrug=16677&k=adaptation&b=and&r=whole&s=terms

“in biology, a change in an organism over time, that better enables it to survive and multiply.”
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=adaptation&matchtype=exact

These definitions of adaptation make it perfectly clear that what you have been talking about, “change in species over time” (even change in gene frequencies), is ADAPTATION; NOT the theory of evolution. They also make it clear that Adaptation (change in species over time) is only a PART of the story. Adaptation may result in evolution (hypothetical conjecture), or Adaptation may NOT result in evolution (based on real experimental science). Whether it does or does not is determined by whether the change fits the real definition of evolution (molecules to man), not on the wishful revisionist thinking and deceptive practices of some evolutionists who want to redefine evolution to dupe the unsuspecting into believing a lie.

Personally I find slogans ("molecule to man" and "goo to you") to be more distractive than descriptive, especially when they carry connotations that have nothing to do with the science of evolution and everything to do with the argument from incredulity. But if that is what you need to insulate yourself from the issue then feel free -- as long as we are agreed that abiogenesis is NOT part of our discussion for now.

If you don’t like slogans why are you using one? Your slogan of “Change in species over time” is the distractive one, and carries connotations that have nothing to do with the science of evolution and everything to do with the argument from incredulity (species not only change but change into different kinds!), yet I have accepted it without insulting you. Since you have begrudgingly “allowed” me to use my own as well, I will choose “molecules to man”. Although I do want to make it clear that I think abiogeneis does deserve its place in the definition, I have already agreed to leave it out up until now (my compromise).

This [the candle parable] is typical of creatortionista lies and misrepresentations designed to cater to the willingness of gullible people who want to believe there are problems with science and who don't spend the time to check and see if what the creatortionista is saying bears any real relevance to the truth.

Hurling insults is indicative of someone who has lost the argument. Most, if not all of us, believed in evolution when we were young, impressionable and/or gullible, but we have moved on. If you do not believe that there are any problems with science than you are no scientist. Science is about questioning our beliefs and investigating the truth, something that evolutionists want to prohibit in our science classrooms. The truth is that evolutionary stories (fairy tales for adults) are typical of evolutionist lies and misrepresentations designed to cater to the willingness of the gullible public who want to believe that these scientists are unbiased and who don’t spend the time to check and see if what the evolutionist is saying bears any relevance to the truth.

Your comments above are indicative of most evolutionists that I have either read or debated at EVC - arrogant, pompous and irreverent. They feel that their opinion is the only valid one and consistently attempt to intimidate and deride anyone who disagrees. In the same way, many in the scientific community attempt to bully and ridicule into silence, those who are skeptics. Science is supposed to be open to challenge and scrutiny. Many scientists operating from a political and personal bias (ie religious atheism) rather than a scientific perspective are trying to end any dialogue on this issue by simply forcing the other side to shut up. We can see this happening in science classrooms and school boards across the country and even at the Grand Canyon where outright lies and scare tactics are being used by evolutionist in deplorable attempts to ban a single book providing a different view of canyon origins.

The motivation is that they fear that they can’t win the argument so they need to silence and stifle those who disagree. That’s bigotry. This is an attempt at thought control, right out of George Orwell. They say you must believe this! You can’t raise any of these subjects before the American public. You must think in a certain way, you must conform to this ideology. This is anti-thought, anti-science beyond demagoguery. They make an argument and demand it be accepted without allowing any points to the contrary. They wouldn’t have to do this if their position was stronger than it is. Stifling of free speech only occurs to them if it’s their speech that is being stifled.

Every scientific discovery that we have ever achieved was the result of someone finding out something that was contrary to what was believed before. Every breakthrough in science, every new thing is essentially the debunking of what the belief was prior to that. Many scientists believe creation theory, but they fear being fired and papers are refused to be published in attempts to stop any kind of debate on this issue and silence scientists pursuing other views. To say that we can’t pursue alternatives to the dogma that is being presented is the exact opposite of science. It is almost an inferiority complex held by those that hold this view. They are terrified that evidence will be raised that’s going to shoot down their theory, so they don’t allow you to raise the evidence. The way they attempt to do it is the worst form of bullying by saying you’re not a real scientist if you disagree. For example, by excluding “creation scientists” whenever you reference “scientists”. This is scientific bigotry. They’re the ones that are being unscientific. You only have the ability to that if you’re a bigot and only have desire to do if your terrified that somebody will be able to come up information that knocks down what you have accepted as Gospel.

Talk about stonewalling! Your answers below are more double talk than answers. My response is in blue (yours previously still in yellow):


I’ll start by re-asking some of the questions you have refused to answer …

1) Restated from above – If evolution theory is “change is species over time”, which everyone agrees has been proven to be true, then why do you suppose there is any debate about whether evolution is true?
Evolution has been observed in specific instances to occur, and these instances are FACT, but the theory that says it will happen the next time, or that this is what has always occurred in the past is still just theory, as those instances are not observed facts.
So what you are saying is that what we observe in the present may not happen in the future and may NOT have happened in the past? So it is just a “theory” that if I plant an apple seed that it will grow into an apple tree? It is just a “theory” that if I run my car into a brick wall going 100mph that it will be crushed like an accordion? Even though we’ve seen it happen many times before, we can’t say with assurance that it will happen again or that it has happened before? If that’s the case, then I’m much more willing to believe in your supposed evolution than you are, and you have absolutely no grasp of what this debate is about. This is surprising since you don’t seem to grasp that interpretations of past events can’t be proved when it comes to evolution. I am well aware that we can never know the past or future for certain. However, I have no problem at all accepting that the same instance of “change in species” that what we observe today has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. But that is NOT what evolutionists believe or propagandize. They extrapolate the changes we observe today into whimsical and fictional changes from one creature to the next, from goo into you with no evidence whatsoever to justify those changes except their vain imaginations. The change they are talking about is very very different than what we observe today. If this was not the case, then their would be no controversy at all.

2) What would honestly invalidate the theory that “species change over time” when this has already been proven to be true?
Sudden change within a generation - creationist "macro"evolution type change. Mixing of gene lines instead of descent from ancestors. Observations of supernatural interference.
That’s it? I will repeat that non of these invalidate the theory of evolution. Hopeful monsters have been proposed as a part of evolutionary theory, not an argument against it because of the absence of transitional forms. Creationists don’t believe in Macro evolutionary type change. If this occurred it would be an argument against creation theory, not evolutionary theory. I’m not sure what you mean by mixing of gene lines, but parallel evolution has been used to explain lots of evidence contrary to descent from ancestors. Supernatural interference would not invalidate evolution. Many have proposed (without evidence) that God guided the process of evolution through supernatural interference. In your own words, this would still be change in species over time, even if we had evidence of supernatural interference. You show your true colors with this one. Supernatural interference is only relevant because it would mean that the process did not occur through purely naturalistic means, which is a foundational presupposition held by evolutionists. Nevertheless, we Do have an observation of supernatural interference and you have chosen to ignore it – God’s eyewitness account of creation. The fact of the matter is that the way you have defined evolution, it is NOT subject to invalidation and is therefore not a scientific theory. On the other hand, a single example of something that is irreducibly complex is enough to invalidate evolution by my definition.

3) Do you disagree that changes relevant to evolution observed in species must be directional and support the movement from simple to more complex organisms?
Yes. "Direction" is a human observation based on (ego?) preconceptions. Nature is not directed in the choice of what mutations occur, it is directed in the matter of which organisms survive and reproduce, and the ones that do that will be most successful at doing that, whether they are simple, complex, simpler or more complex. As long as an ecological niche exists for simple single cell bacteria to live, reproduce, thrive and multiply, those ecological niches will be filled with simple bacteria that have no need to become more complex to fill that ecological niche. The same condition applies to all ecological niches. Where diversity occurs is where the ecological niches change and then the organisms that are better adapted to those niches will be the ones to live, reproduce, thrive and multiply, whether they are imple, complex, simpler or more complex.
If so, how do you justify defining evolution as simply any change when that change does not create new features ...
Why should it have to create new features?
and support the notion that all life evolved from a common ancestor?
Because children come from parents. Daughter species come from parent species.
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Prominent evolutionists like Ernst Mayr disagree with you. How can anything evolve if it stays the same? If nothing ever became more complex or evolved new features we would supposedly still be pond scum! You want it both ways. You want to say that changes that don’t produce new features/genetic information (the only thing we have ever observed) proves that evolution is a fact when you are saying out of the other side of your mouth that evolution can and eventually MUST produce new features/genetic information without any evidence. That is classic bait and switch and the deceptive tactic used by evolutionists that I have been talking about.

4) Can you provide any examples (beside propagandist evolutionary internet sites with no official affiliations), where evolutionary scientists have protested against sources which characterized evolution as “all life on earth evolving from a common ancestor over millions of year”, as misrepresenting what evolution is?
I have several problems with this. First you are "begging the question" (logical fallacy) by pre-excluding everything YOU consider to be propoganda, and second you are again conflating theory with science. The theory of evolution is basic, change in species over time (or similar statements as previously noted). The science of evolution involves more than theory, as it makes predictions and deductions based on the theories and the evidence. The science investigates whether the theory can be applied to all changes and all time since life first occurred.
You didn’t answer the question, however I understand your objection. My restrictions were only intended to limit the sources to qualified individuals. There a lot of nuts out there that can say anything they want. The simple fact of the matter is that no evolutionist has ever objected to that definition publicly when it was used which supports the fact that it is an acceptable definition. However, I am aware that many internet bloggers have and certainly I’m not omniscient to know that in some book or article somewhere a scientist hasn’t objected. Nevertheless, with the many media sources using my definition, it is clear that scientists are taking advantage of the misconceptions that may be in their favor.

5) I have contended that change in species over time is simply an observation. How can you defend this as a “mechanism”?
Not mechanism, theory. The mechanisms are mutation and natural selection (plus some other mechanisms listed in my short list for what is "micro"evolution - the ones that lead to speciation).
Well, then you are waffling. Which is it? This is what you said in prior posts –
“…but the essential mechanism involved is still change in species over time. This is sufficient to explain the evidence. “
“many… 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”
“no other mechanism than change in species over time will be needed to get from specimen {K} to specimen {Q}.”

Mechanisms are involved in bringing about the observation but are not the observation itself. What is the theory that you are attempting to substantiate through this observation of change in species over time?
The theory that species change over time.
The observation itself?
Facts that are the basis for and that are later found to support a theory are not the theory, they are the observations that form the basis for and that are later found to support the theory.
In other words, the observation of change in species over time proves change in species over time? Instances of observed change in species over time confirm it occurred in those instances, nothing more and nothing less.
Please respond.
I have, more than once.
Well there it is in black and white (or blue and yellow) - Proof of the fraudulent and deceitful tactics used by evolutionist to deceive those less informed. You claim here that the current observation of change in species over time proves the theory that species change over time which we have agreed encompasses both micro and macro evolution. As I said earlier, evolutionist are so afraid of anyone challenging their theory that they must resort to dishonest marketing campaigns which is exactly what this is. They make a completely obvious and simplistic observation that everyone agrees with and then equivocates that with their evolutionary religious beliefs. There is no evidence whatsoever, only faith, that the changes observed today are capable of accounting for the diversity of life from a common ancestor by the change in an organism from one kind to another since science has shown that there are indeed limits to this variation. It is equivalent to postulating a theory that cars move, observing them on the highway and then declaring that we could travel to mars in one. And to suggest that it is just a theory because we don’t know if cars moved in the past or will move in the future is ridiculous. There is a limitation to their movement that does not include extraterrestrial travel.


Let me restate the options that I had presented for continuing this debate (or not) in an order corresponding to your comments that follow:
1) Start with defining evolution as macro-evolution and see where that leads us.
2) Discuss the definitions from a logical standpoint.
3) Summarize our positions, include a rebuttal and end the debate on definitions.
4) Compile a list of evidences invalidating the other’s position and take turns debating the top ones.

#1 – Start with Macro Evolution:

So what is "macro" murk? More change over more time? What is the mechanism for "macro" that is different from and distinguishable from micro? We are still talking about change in species over time (as noted above in the comments on message 21), so in order for us to make any kind of microheadway on this issue you need to define what YOU think this is about -- or we will just get more stonewalling from you on what is "not" evolution according to your personal beliefs.

Where have you been? I’ve been defining macro evolution since this debate began. Oh, and now you’ve done a complete reversal…I need to define what “I” think this is about? You’ve said repeatedly in the past that what I think is completely irrelevant. I thought it was about what scientists think? Apparently it’s about YOUR personal beliefs. Macro-evolution is not about just any change in species over time. We’re talking about the kind of change that can change one kind of organism into another. And that’s my point. There IS no mechanism that can account for that type of change.

Micro + Time does not = Macro. So far, this has been proven by operational science to be true. Macro (that is, “evolution”) has not been observed and never will first, simply because of the supposed long time frames involved (that you want to deny have any relevance) and second and more importantly, the type of change involved is simply not capable of changing one kind of organism into another. And if you did observe one kind changing into another, why would that be significant? I’ll answer that - because you’d be showing that evolution were true (by definition). But apparently we’ve already shown evolution to be true, so why bother?

It’s laughable that you accuse me of stonewalling on what is “not” evolution, when in reality it is you stonewalling by insisting that “everything” is evolution. And let’s dispense with these ridiculous accusations regarding “personal beliefs”. This is yet another example from you of ridiculing the opinions of others based on your lack of valid arguments. What you believe, BY DEFINITION, is your personal belief. That belief may be held by others or it may not. Facts are facts and no one is disputing ANY facts. Your personal beliefs are based on interpretations of those facts which we are obviously interpreting differently. Your continual insistence that your personal beliefs are valid and not mine simply demonstrates your pompous arrogance and nothing more.

#2 - Discuss the definitions from a logical standpoint.

I have, several times. You need to address those answer to move forward.

Your entire argument up to this point regarding the definitions is to simply ignore all of the evidence to the contrary and insist that “everything is evolution” according to your personal beliefs. To be blunt I don’t have the time to be continually putting together rational arguments simply to have them responded to like a little boy pounding his fist on the table insisting that everything is “just change”. The definitions are there in black and white, which clearly indicate that it is NOT just change. The change is qualified in the majority of the definitions to indicate that it is the TYPE of change which is responsible for greater complexity (increased genetic information content), the TYPE of change responsible for the vast diversity of life we see today (implying one common ancestor that Darwin originally proposed), over billions of years (the age of the earth). I have summarized this and many additional arguments in favor of the correct definition of the theory of evolution at the end of this post. You need to address those arguments in a RATIONAL manner to move forward.

The main problems you have are with the degree of change involved and the time frame involved. To address these from a logical standpoint we need to discuss "micro" evolution and the age of the earth to show that erroneous thinking based on false preconceptions are interfering with understanding of the issue. I have suggested doing this in several ways and you have refused to participate.

I addressed the “degree of change” and “time frame involved” earlier from a logical standpoint. YOUR erroneous thinking is 1) your reliance on fallible interpretations of past events by fallible science (which you have admitted is fallible) instead of the unchanging and infallible Word of God and his eyewitness account of our origins and 2) Your erroneous extrapolation of observed change to include all sorts of imaginative changes between creatures despite observed scientific evidence which has shown that these variations are limited to changes within a kind. If we interpret the evidence based on God’s word instead of the erroneous presuppositions of naturalism, uniformitarianism and atheism, we arrive at a true picture of our origins instead of the convoluted and “just so” fairytales that comprise evolutionary theory.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make the following. You are the one that is misunderstanding the issue by continuing to insist we look at evidence. Looking at evidence has NOTHING to do with how evolution is DEFINED. You can look at micro-evolution all you want, but it is NOT evolution unless it meets the test of the definition of evolution. Micro-evolution is misleading because it implies a “small amount” of evolution. However, it is NOT evolution at all, because the observed changes we are talking about DO NOT fit the definition of evolution since they cannot produce the kind of change necessary to change one kind of creature into another. Evolutionists have never shown that this is even possible (I’ll again submit the example of tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies which are still fruit flies), much less that it could happen by natural means. You cannot just define evolution the way you want because it is convenient to your lies.

Therefore, we must define evolution BEFORE we look at evidence. The evidence is NOT going to change our positions on what evolution is, certainly not yours since not a single example of real (molecules to man) evolution has ever been observed and you continue to insist that it is true nonetheless. Even if you could come up with an example of a change which meets the requirements of evolution, you would be admitting that the test of whether it is evolution or not is MY definition (the correct one), not yours.

And that is why you refuse to accept my definition, because then evolutionary propagandists (and I can quote many) will have to admit that evolution is NOT a FACT, that evolution has NOT been observed. That would relegate them to the TRUTH, that evolution is simply a religious belief held by those who do not want to recognize the reality of God, the truth of his Word or his judgment in their lives.

On the other hand I have suggested going to a compromise at a lower level where we CAN agree and seeing where that leads us, and I have also suggested discussing things that affect your ability to accept being wrong, and you have - so far - refused to participate.

I will ask again, how is keeping your definition a compromise? You have it reversed. We DO NOT agree that micro-evolution is evolution. However, we both agree that Macro-evolution is evolution. So as you seem to be suggesting, why shouldn’t we start where we both agree? Regarding your second point – “affect my ability to accept being wrong” about what? The definitions? The only argument you seem to be able to muster is that “everything is change!” as opposed to the overwhelming logic and many arguments that I have proposed during the course of this debate and in my summary at the end of this post. Since you cannot accept that you are simply wrong about this, you refuse to participate further and want to proceed to another topic.

To be fair I have suggested that we discuss areas that could affect BOTH of our ability to accept being wrong, rather than the one-sided approach you have proposed – that would be my suggestion #4. However, I have already provided ample reason why discussing evidence is throwing the cart before the horse, so I’m taking back that option till we can conclude on definitions since you don’t want to go there anyway. Instead of “seeing where that leads us”, how specifically do you think discussing evidence for micro evolution will affect how we define evolution?

I have suggested a compromise position, that we set the bar a little lower to discuss "micro"evolution so that we then have a basis to tackle the issue of "macro"evolution.

How is you keeping your definition and moving on to another topic because you can’t accept being wrong, a compromise position? You want to talk about micro-evolution and “see where that leads us”, but only a single example of change that does not produce results sufficient for molecules to man evolution is sufficient to eliminate this type of change as belonging to evolution and these examples abound. I have suggested setting the bar a little lower to discuss macro evolution where we both agree so that we have a basis to tackle the issue of micro evolution.

In spite of evidence to the contrary you are unwilling to even admit that you could be wrong about your definition and have refused to budge from that position.

And you have not? LOL! Why do you even bother with ridiculous statements like this! And what evidence??? Your only refutation has been that “everything is change” despite both factual and logical evidence to the contrary. See my summary at the end of this post.

If billions of years is disproved, then all that means is that evolution did not occur over billions of years. It would still be going on today, and the only issue would be the time frame.

You are living in a fantasy world! So if the earth was “proven” to be 6000 years old, that is sufficient time for “primitive” life to have developed from rocks in a “primordial soup” and then subsequently all the diversity of life we see today arising from that common ancestor? Are you for real?

We can talk about "last-thursdayism" where everything observed was created de novo last thursday, complete with the appearance of immediate history and vast age, and evolution would still be occurring today.

Adaptation would still be occurring, but not evolution since there wouldn’t be enough time for that. And why do you choose in your fantasy to have everything created with the appearance of vast age? The earth in its actual form today appears to be about 6000 years old to any casual observer that has not been indoctrinated with evolutionary beliefs of vast age. And rather than “last-thursdayism”, why don’t you try “last 6000 years-ism” with adaptation still occurring today from the original created kinds. Then you could actually be talking about reality.

#3 - Summarize our positions and end the debate on definitions.

Your third option is you completely stonewalling on the definition of evolution and refusing to accept where you can be wrong. This would be you leaving the debate after failing to deal with the issues.

And tell me where you have accepted where you can be wrong? Perhaps if you could produce even a single shred of logical evidence to support your case I’d consider it. Instead you just arrogantly state that you are right and that all change is evolution despite the evidence. You deceptively use evolution as a general synonym for change when in fact the theory specifically qualifies the type of change that must be involved. No one disagrees that things change. The question is whether that change is evolution or not. However, that question is mute (and indeed impossible to answer) if you define evolution as simply any change that you might happen to observe in order to deceive people into thinking that it is currently happening.

A debate doesn’t have to and in fact rarely does end in agreement. My purpose in debating wasn’t to try and convince you of the truth of creation. I have learned a long time ago that people will believe what they want to believe despite the evidence. My purpose was to find out what arguments evolutionists would use and if my logic could withstand the attack. I can confidently say that it certainly has in regards to the definitions. On the other hand, you certainly feel very highly of yourself, if you think I’m going to roll over just because you say I should.

We seem to be just going in circles now and we could continue this until hell freezes over. Do you really want to be debating this same topic on your deathbed with your laptop computer in hand? If you don’t have anything more constructive than “everything is change” to present, I’m willing to allow you to concede. However, by posting closing arguments, I’m suggesting a way of exiting gracefully because you have obviously lost your case. It is simply a gentleman’s way to agree to disagree. Really, if all of the evidence has been presented and you insist on your definition despite the facts, there is nothing I can do about that. And what issues have we failed to deal with in regards to the definitions? If you feel that there are any issues regarding the definitions that we have not covered, please state them and I will be glad to respond. I simply want to finish one thing first before going onto something else.

#4 - Compile a list (top 5?, 10?) of invalidating evidences and take turns debating them.

As for the last one, the earth is old and there was no flood. This invalidates any position based on a young earth model and on a world wide flood.
Feel free to address that issue. Starting with Timeline #1: Earth > 8,000 years old (Message 28), Timeline #2: Earth > 10,000 years old (Message 33) and Timeline #3: Earth > 12,332 years old (Message 36).

How arrogant! This is similar to the rest of your responses. No amount of simply insisting you’re correct is going to make it so. Stating your PERSONAL BELIEFS that the earth is old and there was no flood without evidence invalidates nothing. That is no refutation. The evidence that there was a worldwide flood is simply overwhelming, but it does not belong in this current debate. How do your posts on tree rings and the age of the earth demonstrate that the earth is old? Instead, they show evidence for a YOUNG earth.

There is no change in the basic way the tree rings look, whether they are from last year or 8,000 years ago, they still have winter growth and summer growth patterns and show typical climate variations with no extreme conditions. Certainly they show no sudden discontinuity in the data that a world wide flood would produce.
Deduction is not presupposition, it comes AFTER looking at the data.

While I’m not going to get into the evidence until we end our first discussion, I must interject to correct the obvious. You’re answering too quickly without even thinking things through. A worldwide flood would not leave any trees alive to show a discontinuity! All of the trees alive today have grown since the flood and no single tree has ever been tree ring dated to be older than that. The error is in attempting to cross date with other trees and even fossilized trees, which introduces interpretations of the evidence. In addition, it is a FACT that trees have been known to produce up to 4 rings or more in a single year. Under the post flood climactic conditions, this would be the norm. The presupposition of uniformitarianism excludes evolutionist from considering the effects of the flood, not because of lack of evidence since evidence for a worldwide flood abounds. So you are wrong. Presupposition comes BEFORE looking at the evidence and is then used to interpret the evidence, which leads to a di


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2007 12:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2007 11:01 PM MurkyWaters has responded
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2007 12:05 AM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 54 of 121 (387078)
02-25-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
02-01-2007 10:07 PM


Re: Evolution 101 Link
You may recall that I introduced the Berkley definition and you had problems with it, so I’m familiar with what it says. What it says is that “Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time.” Therefore your definition of “Change is species over time” is invalidated. I’ve refuted the rest in my latest post Message 53. However, I’ll re-iterate that changes in species that we observe today (frequency of alleles) will not add up to macro evolution no matter how many steps since it is not in the direction that evolution demands. To say that over 3.5 billion years that “micro” steps have created all the diversity of life we see today is not only a religious belief but a fantasy as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2007 10:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2007 7:59 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2007 8:04 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 56 of 121 (387083)
02-25-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
02-18-2007 10:59 AM


Re: Dealing with the issues
This is simply the biggest pile of bull that I have ever read. “It is a matter of explaining the evidence -- ALL the evidence.” – Are you kidding? Are you telling me that science has an answer for everything? Science IS your god, isn’t it? I don’t have to think of examples myself. I could probably list a couple thousand pages of quotes by scientists themselves confessing that they don’t have all the answers (if I had the time). How many would you like? And to be a little more specific, you’ve already confessed yourself that science did and does not have all the answers regarding evolution.

So if some evidence arises that seems to invalidate a theory, then the theory is automatically invalidated? Scientists should just give up on that theory and go on to something else? Let’s not investigate or attempt to figure out if it really does or not. How ridiculous. Darwin said that the current fossil record invalidated his theory. Even though we know that is still true today, evolutionists will say that now that we’ve found so many fossils, it confirms his theory. How long did that take? When was the theory validated again? “He just did not know at the time what the source of variation was. Now we do.” Let me rephrase that, “Now we THINK we do”. Darwin thought he knew as well – use/disuse. In any case, not having a mechanism for variation would invalidate the theory until one was discovered. How long did that take? You don’t just stop because you don’t happen to have a current explanation for something. If that were true, evolution would have been on its deathbed long ago. However, since there is no acceptable alternative to atheists, that will never happen.

Perhaps what you are saying applies to operational science but not to origins studies. When will you get it through your head that our origins cannot be proved? Were you there when the universe was created? Did you see it happen? Did you see slime evolving into humans? Data is interpreted based on your presuppositions. Evolutionists are the supreme experts at ignoring evidence and cherry picking, so don’t lecture me. And the way you have defined evolution, it cannot be invalidated.

The earth is Young. That is what the evidence shows. Deal with it.

There was a worldwide flood. That is what the evidence shows. Deal with it.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2007 10:59 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2007 12:33 AM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 60 of 121 (387203)
02-26-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
02-18-2007 1:50 PM


Re: Microevolution Case #2 - Pelycodus
Speciation is the generally accepted dividing line (currently) between "macro"evolution and "micro"evolution, in both biology and creationism.

False. This simple sentience is rift with misunderstanding. Micro-evolution is not accepted by creationists as being evolution, so there really isn’t any dividing line. Adaptation occurs, is observed and is a fact. Speciation occurs, is a result of adaptation and is also a fact. This is evident by the fact that artificial breeding programs are able to produce various species (ie cats, dogs, flowers) and in the species we have seen develop through natural selection even today, much faster than evolutionist had ever proposed. The dividing line between observed science and the unproven speculation of “macro”evolution is the change from one KIND (not species) of organism into another. In addition, you strangely compare biology with creationism. Biology is a science, which is respected and used by both creationists and evolutionists in supporting their contentions. The misapplication of that science to false interpretations of the evidence is where the disagreement lies between evolutionists and creationists.

In creationism there is often a "cognitive dissonance" issue regarding "macro"evolution (what evolution actually says happens) and a common belief that something else happens on a comparatively brief time-scale and that causes some kind of sudden significant change or some kind of extra change.

This sentence is correct EXCEPT you need to replace the second word with “evolutionism”. This is very strange thing to pin on creationist when evolutionists are the ones that have proposed PE to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. In other words, everything goes along with adaptation working normally and then some sudden significant change occurs which transforms one kind of creature into the next. Creationists do not believe that this ever occurred or can happen. There is no “extra” change, it is a different KIND of change that would be required to make this happen and that’s where creationists and evolutionists part ways. I explain this more fully in my long post (53).

The point of this discussion of "micro"evolution is to see how far we can go in explaining the evidence with the mechanisms of "micro"evolution, and see if we need some additional mechanism to explain some additional or extra kind of change.

That’s better. However, it’s rather obvious that we DO need a different kind of change. Since this kind of change (macro) has never been observed, it is merely speculation. Not only that, genetics has shown that this mechanism is not capable of producing the kind of change that would add new information necessary to make these transformations. That is why the definition doesn’t depend on your interpretation of the evidence. It is clear and we all agree that things change, but that is NOT the kind of change that transforms one Kind into the next. That’s why the type of change must be specified in the definition. We SEE one kind of change, but evolution requires a different kind, so specify in the definition which one you are talking about.

The theory of travelism says that cars move. So, let’s load the next one up and head out to the planet Jupiter. Ooops, that’s different KIND of movement. I failed to mention that in the definition, but you’ll get there in small steps! Obviously, a car is not capable of getting there (extraterrestrial travel) in any number of steps. The definition doesn’t depend on the evidence, because even if you could demonstrate that change from one type to another can occur (which you will not be able to do), it would only be significant because you would be showing that evolution is possible! What evolution? The theory that says one kind can change into another. Otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered because it’s already been shown to be a fact (any change is evolution). I am getting a little tired of repeating this and I’m not sure why you don’t seem to understand this concept. I sincerely hope that this has made a little clearer.

As far as your speciation examples go, the warblers do not contradict creation theory in any way and do not support evolutionary change from one kind to another. The same can be said of pelycodus, although there is some misinterpretation of the evidence which I can get into when/if I find some time when/if we discuss the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2007 1:50 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2007 10:04 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 61 of 121 (387205)
02-27-2007 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
02-20-2007 10:34 PM


Re: Invalidation of a Young Earth
One piece of evidence that contradicts a concept invalidates it. There is nothing "supposedly" about it. This is how science is done.

If that were how science is done, evolution would have been discarded long ago since there has been more that “one piece” of invalidating evidence from the very beginning and it is piling up into a mountain. “Supposedly” is completely appropriate as it is not the evidence that is invalidating, it is your INTERPRETATION of the evidence. Remember the candle parable? Since you COMPLETELY misinterpreted the message of the story, I’ll repeat it. Someone’s interpretations of past events can be completely wrong while consistent with the evidence because of incorrect assumptions or presuppositions. Your observation may apply to operational science, which is repeatable and testable, but not origins studies.

Regarding the tree rings, I’ve already responded as much as time permits. When we get to the evidence I can respond in more detail. Obviously you’ve been a prolific contributor at EVC and can pull from many previous posts and arguments you have made in the past. However, if you supply ten posts to every one of mine, I am not going to be able to keep up. I would prefer that we - 1) finish one debate before we go on to the next and 2) respond in sequence so things don’t get confusing. That may be slower than you like, but it is as fast as I can go. If that is not acceptable you can bow out. If we wish to continue, of course, that means finishing the definitions first and then fairly responding to each other’s arguments that are traded back and forth, not simply me constantly responding to the problems you might have with Creation theory. I’d like to hear what you have to say about evidence that invalidates evolution as well.
…mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2007 10:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2007 8:14 AM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 64 of 121 (387332)
02-27-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
02-21-2007 8:41 AM


Re: Irreducible Complexity and Evolution and Invalidation
As noted previously, one piece of evidence that contradicts a concept invalidates it. The onus is then on the person supporting the concept to fully explain the discrepancy. This explanation must not just show that the evidence could be wrong, it must show how and why the evidence is the way it is. There is nothing "supposedly" about it. This is how science is done. Failure to explain the contradictory evidence means that the theory is falsified as written.

You have a very bizarre and incorrect perception of origins science. Operational science proceeds forward as it gains new knowledge where theories are proposed or discarded because they produce results. However, in Origins studies concerning the past, of which evolution is a part and which cannot be proven and which produces no results, it is the preponderance of the evidence that matters. A single piece of evidence rarely invalidates the theory because so much is unknown, so much yet to be discovered and where it is an interpretation of data based on assumptions rather than facts. Scientists bicker about things, propose new things and this goes on for many many years as new information is discovered often overturning the conflicting evidence.

One need only look at the many dating fiascoes that have occurred. The most modern human remains have been found in the oldest rock and the most primitive “hominids” have been found in the most recent beds. This evidence invalidates evolution. Do you think that’s going to stop any evolutionists? They MUST believe in evolution because there is no “acceptable” alternative. What is there response? Nothing more than “The dates must be wrong or contaminated because it doesn’t fit with our model” and ignore it. This invalidates your explanation of science. Darwin himself said that the fossil record invalidated his theory. Did that stop anyone? No, they simply waited, “hoping” that newer fossil discoveries would validate the theory. Unfortunately for them it has not. So what is their response? “The record is simply incomplete, so we’ll ignore it”. In fact, they’ve now changed their tune and have said that an incomplete record is what you would expect to find. LOL! You vastly mischaracterize the years after Darwin’s discovery. There was great contention among scientist regarding mechanisms that could cause change to the point where there was a lull in much activity… waiting, hoping, and searching for some scrap of evidence. Did everyone abandon the theory? Of course not, new evidence was “invented” later to explain things.

The coelacanth was once considered an index fossil of 70my old until it was discovered alive. What happened to all those samples that were dated at 70my? They could be any age at all since the fossil was still alive today. I can’t tell you how many times the bible has been “invalidated” only to have new archeological evidence come up years later disproving the invalidating evidence. Were people supposed to have thrown out their faith in the meantime? They would have been fools if they did. There is not a single historical fact in the bible that has been proven false.

The point is that there is so much that is unknown and so much yet to be discovered, that any single piece of evidence which is only an “interpretation” of past events based on potentially incorrect assumptions, in no way invalidates a theory. At least, it does not invalidate evolutionary hypothesis because of the presuppositions and religious beliefs of its followers. However, hypocritical evolutionist will dig up any controversial piece of evidence and with strong hand waving declare that creationism has been disproved. Evolutionists have not addressed every piece of evidence. I can easily come up with a lengthy list of lamentations from their own mouths. For evolutionists, failure to explain the contradictory evidence simply means they need to get their imaginations in gear to come up with some whimsical explanation. Sorry, but the same standards need to be applied to both sides.

Providing many examples of IC systems does not show that they can ONLY be developed by a designer. To invalidate evolution with it you must show that not a single IC system can evolve.

No! You so easily twist things around. A SINGLE example of an irreducibly complex system invalidates evolution because NO systems have been proven to have evolved. If it is irreducible to small steps then it CANNOT have evolved and MUST have been designed. Is there a third theory that you have yet to come up with? If there is, I’m sure a lot of people would like to hear it. Things either evolved or they were created.


Even the simplest forms of life are irreducibly complex with apparatus working together that could not have evolved independently. They are numerous examples of this that I’ve seen over the years for which evolutionists simply wave their hands and say it MUST of have happened somehow.
No hand waving needed nor employed.

No? While the following quote I provided previously has to do with Abiogenesis, it’s similar to ones regarding IC – “the cold fact remains that no one has so far succeeded in creating life in the a laboratory. However, the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened”. If that’s not hand waving, I don’t know what is.

Complex systems evolve by adding mutations to existing systems. No matter how simple you start, mutation adds complexity to the overall system

You are living in a dream world. Mutations have never been shown to add complexity and almost always result in degradation of something that was previously better.

Your following refutation of IC is comical. There is more hand waving, outright lies, deception, misunderstanding and liberally biased nonsense then in most of your previous posts. It would take way too much time to respond, but it will be fun if we ever get to the evidence.
...mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2007 8:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2007 8:24 AM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 67 of 121 (387539)
03-01-2007 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
02-25-2007 11:01 PM


Re: Problems. Try reality ...
as noted before, either you use the definitions used by the science to talk about the science or you are NOT talking about the science.

This is laughable. That is your refutation despite all of my valid arguments against this deceptive and nonsensical definition used simply to bolster you lies and ego? Either YOU use the definitions used by science to talk about the science (which I have proved) or you are NOT talking about science. If that is all you have, I claim victory. No further debate is necessary. I simply don’t have the time to debate someone that won’t concede where they are wrong and childishly pounds their fists on the table crying that they are right no matter what anyone or the evidence says.

This concept of "information" is bogus -- there is no definition that can be applied to actually measure the amount. However the biggest problem is that "information" is either irrelevant or it does increase. See Thread Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall’s experiments:

To imply that a human being is no more complex than an amoeba because you don’t accept the ways that it is measured is ludicrous and to suggest that it is irrelevant is even more ludicrous. Then you go on to hypocritically state that information loss is irrelevant, but information gain favors your position. So how is it that you can so confidently claim that information increases when there is no way to measure it? You can either measure it or you can’t. To say that it is irrelevant when it is not in your favor, but invalidates the concept of information when we demonstrate information increase is circular reasoning and hypocrisy. You’re foolishly falling over your own arguments. I’ve demonstrated that nearly all definitions of evolution dictate an increase in complexity. You lecture about science only when it benefits your argument, but when science disagrees with you, as it does here, you ignore it. You are living in a self-deceptive world that simply defies all logic.

As far as Hall’s experiment goes, it supports rather than detracts from the concept of IC. While I don’t have time to comment extensively since we haven’t agreed to discuss evidence yet, I’ll make a few obvious observations. The experiment you mention is the most extensive out of a dozen or so similar ones, so we only need to refute this one to refute them all.

First of all, it’s important to realize that bacteria and the like are very complex organisms designed by God to be able to do some amazing things. Transferring genes between themselves, for example. Not all organisms are designed the same, even though they use the same building blocks and design features (like apes and humans). Some creatures can grow back limbs that have been severed and others can’t based on their genetic information code.

Second, this does not invalidate IC because a multipart (IC) system was not wiped out to begin with. Only 1 component of a multipart system was deleted. While this capability was restored, it utilized an almost identical pre-existing component to do it with. Experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that only a single step like this can be performed. Multiple “evolutionary” steps required to replace multiple (IC) missing components has NEVER been demonstrated.

Third, intelligent interference was required to keep the bacteria alive. The mutants that were initially isolated would be unable to use lactose in the wild so they required the artificial inducer IPTG to be present in the growth medium. Hall himself states, “The mutations described above have been deliberately selected in the laboratory as a model for the way biochemical pathways might evolve so that they are appropriately organized with respect to both the cell and its environment. It is reasonable to ask whether this model might have any relationship to the real world outside the laboratory.” There’s that word “might” again, similar to “perhaps”, “maybe” and other “just-so” story words.

And here is Behe’s response “the admirably-careful work of Hall involved a series of micromutations stitched together by intelligent intervention. He showed that the activity of a deleted enzyme could be replaced only by mutations to a second, homologous protein with a nearly-identical active site; and only if the second repressor already bound lactose; and only if the system were also artificially supported by inclusion of IPTG; and only if the system were also allowed to use a preexisting permease. Such results are exactly what one expects of irreducible complexity requiring intelligent intervention, and of limited capabilities for Darwinian processes.”

It’s also extremely important to realize that after all these experiments the result was still bacteria. Therefore, no evolution occurred (by definition).

So, what can evolution really do? Not much when you ask it to do two things in order to succeed. Irreducible complexity trumps evolution again. It’s that simple!

This also invalidates the claim that there is only a loss of "information" [Referring to walking sticks].

You are back to your strawman again. I have never made this claim. I have said that information is lost or re-shuffled, but not gained. Information is in the genetic code. Functionality can be lost and re-gained again (in populations, not individuals) but new information in the genetic code cannot be added and new features that were never present cannot be added. This is actually quite obvious. Mutations and adaptation can eliminate the ability to regain features from isolated populations, but those features can potentially be added back in if the populations interbreed. Again, mutations and natural selection are a fact, but after all is said and done, they are still walking sticks, with the same or less information than the originally designed and created walking stick.

Now that we have disposed of that intellectually vacant (undefined = cannot be measured = useless) concept, AND shown that there is no such barrier, there is no restriction to change in species over time showing new features -- just as we see in speciation and in the fossil record. Just as we see with the lactose and the wings. We've seen it. Change in species over time.

Sorry, you’d better pull out your definition of a delusional person again and read it. I’ve just demonstrated that there is a barrier, one that has been called “mount improbable” by Dawkins. Information gain is required. The majority of definitions and every textbook on evolution require it. This is a restriction that prohibits evolution from taking place. Bacteria and walking sticks are still bacteria and walking sticks no matter how much imagination and wishful thinking you can muster. Evolution has never been seen and the fossil record invalidates it. Change in species over time is adaptation within kinds and nothing more. Denial of evidence does not make it go away.


#1 – Start with Macro Evolution: Where have you been? I’ve been defining macro evolution since this debate began.
What is your definition of "macro"evolution?

My definition is what I said it was. That is, what “I’ve been defining…since this debate began”. Macro-evolution (“evolution”) is the theory that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor billions of years ago, which itself came from non-life.


Macro-evolution is not about just any change in species over time. We’re talking about the kind of change that can change one kind of organism into another. And that’s my point. There IS no mechanism that can account for that type of change.
This is not a definition of "macro"evolution, it is claiming that {something else that is totally undefined} happens. Do you think that the fact that there is "no mechanism" for what you think "macro"evolution is could be a CLUE that your concept of "macro"evolution is false?

Correct. It is not a definition; it is what macro is “about”. I said what the definition was earlier. My concept of macroevolution is TRUE specifically because there is no mechanism that can account for it. Wouldn’t that be a clue that macroevolution cannot occur?

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

How much change? Enough to change one KIND of creature into another KIND. The study of the original created kinds is called baraminology. Speciation is an arbitrary classification. You might say there are 100 species of cats. I would say there is 1 cat KIND. Notice that scientist differentiate cats into various species, but that does not prevent them from interbreeding, and the concept of interbreeding is useless when it comes to asexual forms. Most of the time it is obvious. A flower is different from an elephant and it will never become one no matter how many millions of years you wait. A new species (which is consistent with creation theory) that no longer breeds with the original strain due to isolation is exactly the opposite of evolution. This new variety now has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in it’s own environment. It’s more likely to become extinct than to change into another kind.

In what time frame? Scientists say billions of years to create the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor, but that’s only the theory. In reality, it has never been observed, the fossil record does not support it and no amount of time will transform one kind into another.

Either way you cut the evidence, the mechanism by which evolution occurs is change in species over time. That you think one change is bigger or more important than another is irrelevant. All that matters is that species continue to survive and breed to be successful.

Here you go again. I wish you’d make up your mind. In a previous post you DENIED that change in species over time was a mechanism and now you state it is again. I fear that you don’t quite know what you are talking about. A change may or may not be bigger or more important. What is relevant is the KIND of change. All that matters is that species continue to survive and breed to be successful WITHIN THEIR KINDS.

You still have totally failed to address the issue of the evidence that shows (1) no world wide flood for over 12,000 years (minimum) and (2) the earth is OLDER than any YEC model.
The evidence invalidates a YEC model and this makes it pointless to discuss any part of a YEC model or any hypothesis based on it. It is falsified.
That's reality.

The evidence does not invalidate creation theory, only your interpretation does and your interpretation is false. THAT’S REALITY. I’ll talk more about it when you agree to finish our first topic on definitions.

…mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2007 11:01 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2007 8:25 AM MurkyWaters has responded
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2007 8:09 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 70 of 121 (391709)
03-26-2007 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
03-01-2007 8:25 AM


Catching up
This post is in reply to all of your latest responses listed below. I have made this post a response to the last message in that group, even though it may mostly apply to prior ones. That brings us up to date except for your most recent on “information”. When we complete the definitions, I think I would like to tackle the information question next since I think it is essential to understanding our differences.

Re: Dealing with the issues - still not done [57]
Re: Evolution 101 Link -- remedial class ... [59]
More Stonewalling [62]
Re: Microevolution Case #2 - Pelycodus [63]
Re: Irreducible Complexity and Evolution and Invalidation [65]
Misrepresenting the facts again. [66]
Re: Problems. Try reality ... [68]

To be blunt however, this debate is overall becoming a colossal waste of time, which I don’t have and while I don’t know your situation, I don’t see how you or anyone else would have either. I dearly wish that we could have a decent conversation, both in moral tone and in organization. Let me briefly address these two issues in hopes that we can turn things around. If we cannot agree to reasonable debate terms, it makes no sense to continue.

First, your tone from the very beginning of this debate has been inflammatory and it has only gotten worse as we have proceeded. Your posts are largely littered with false and unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentations and continual accusations of denial, delusion, living in fantasy worlds and other uncalled for attacks and abusive, goading and belittling language. I suspect, as is common with evolutionists, that this is because you have lost the argument a long time ago and there is nothing left than to use this obvious debate tactic. I have often responded in kind by simply parroting your remarks because your rude and insulting statements have more aptly applied to your own arguments rather than mine.

While I cannot stop you from doing this, the simple fact of the matter is that you obviously feel your belief in evolution is justified and I feel just as committed to creation theory and the evidence that overwhelmingly supports it. Whether those positions are true or not, accusing the other person of living in a fantasy world, does not support either argument and is only used to incite rather than debate the facts. I don’t know why you are in this debate, but if it is to convince your opponent that your position is the right one by providing evidence, calling them names is not the way to go about it. THAT is the real waste of bandwidth in this debate. I will decline parroting your rude remarks if you don’t make them in the first place.

Second, I never intended this debate to go on forever. Again, I have other things I would like to do with my life other than debate you. In addition, I’d like to read or participate in other topics that may not have been explored. Whether you wish to believe it or not, I am telling you again that my intention and my understanding was that we were only to address the definitions in this debate. I think this is undeniably clear from the very beginning based on all of my comments and arguments. And as we have repeatedly seen, the definitions are a prerequisite to discussing any evidence. While I am perfectly open to debating the evidence for/against evolution or for/against creation with you or anyone else, it is out of place until we finish our first objective. That is why I have only briefly responded to your posts regarding evidence to point out some obvious fallacies, not to argue the evidence in detail. While I have veered from the definitions on occasion, and in this latest post as well, I made the decision at some point not to discuss evidence at all until we complete the debate on definitions.

In addition, when and if we decide to discuss evidence, it will have to be in an orderly fashion where we can explore each of the issues one at a time from both of our perspectives, not only those issues for which you are well prepared or have prior material to work from. This constant pitching over the wall of evidence to distract from our real discussion is annoying and dishonest. To ask me to respond to something which has nothing to do with our debate and then accuse me of not responding to make it appear that I cannot refute the evidence is a deceitful debate tactic. I have already said that I would be glad to respond when it is appropriate.

It is not surprising that you would want to move on to evidence since your arguments regarding the definitions have simply been non-existent. The only arguments that I am aware of that you have used is 1) You must use what “science” uses (which I have successfully refuted from several different angles) and 2) Despite referenced definitions clearly stating the contrary, you continue to insist that they are all just change in species over time. Based on that, why you would expect me to agree with you is baffling.

While I have not looked to see how most debates end in this forum, any debate I have ever witnessed or participated in ends with closing arguments, so I am confused as to why you don’t wish to go in that direction. The only suspicion I have (based on what I have seen in other debates on this site) is that you 1) Attempt to be as irreverent and hostile in your discourse as possible and 2) Post irrelevant arguments regarding evidence, in order to 1) Disguise the weakness of your arguments and 2) Hope that your opponent will be overwhelmed and offended enough to bow out. That way, you can dishonestly state that I abandoned the debate “like all the other creationists you’ve dealt with” and claim some self serving victory to make you feel good and cover the inadequacy of your philosophical and scientific position.

To be blunt, I don’t care. In the end, there is nothing I can do if some choose to deceive themselves. As the Bible says:

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator”

And also:

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”

This says that the evidence of design is so clearly and strongly seen in God’s creation, that there is no excuse for not believing God created the world and everything in it. But it goes on to say that some “willingly” (not because of any evidence to the contrary) choose to ignore the catastrophic flood event that destroyed the world as it then existed and instead believe that everything continues just as we see it today since the World began (uniformitarianism).

Continuing, if you have no further evidence (regarding definitions) to present, why don’t we just agree to disagree on that? It is clear that we are on very different plains with agreement on almost nothing (except that things change). We can post definitions from the evolutionist’s and creationist’s perspectives and be done with it. If we decide to proceed to the evidence at least we’ll know each other’s positions when someone references adaptation or evolution. On the other hand, I have presented numerous valid arguments that I have boiled down to a dozen or so in my latest “long” post (53). However, I feel the most compelling is simply this:

A: Change in species over time is a FACT
B: Change from one kind to another kind has never been observed and is NOT a fact.

To define evolution as A and then imply B is a fact is not only a logical fallacy, but is dishonest and meant not only to deceive the public but to delude oneself. And make no mistake. Whatever you may believe personally, evolution (man to molecules) is being touted as a FACT, so you will not be able to deny that this logical fallacy has and is taking place.

Having said that, let me respond specifically to some of the comments in your most recent posts.

[A] Theory explains all the known evidence or the theory is not complete. …When it can't be explained the theory is invalidated.

You are talking in circles again. Is the theory “not complete” or is it “invalidated” when things cannot be explained? I’ll repeat my prior question. Are you trying to tell me that evolutionists have a watertight explanation for all of the evidence regarding evolutionary theory? I can probably provide you with several pages of quotations from evolutionists themselves and others indicating that this is not the case, usually lamenting that there is NO plausible explanation at all. Having an explanation for something is also very different than showing something to be true. You can provide a hypothetical explanation (story) that life came from non-life, but without any proof, it simply remains a hypothetical explanation (story).

You continue to confuse operational science with origins studies. The fact remains that theories regarding origins can never be proven because no one was there to see it happen. It cannot be repeated or tested like operational Science. Therefore it is the preponderance of the evidence that matters. Evolutionists have always found a way to explain contradictory evidence, the fossil record being a prime example. There are probably a dozen explanations for the disappearance of the dinosaurs along with other mass extinctions and other theories regarding the ice ages including many theories of various catastrophic events etc. No matter how much evidence comes in, they’ll probably never admit that it was the flood because that would mean that the Bible might be true.

Darwin proposed natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution, however, he had no explanation (except perhaps use/disuse) for how new traits arose which natural selection could act upon. That debate rages even today, despite advances in genetic theory. So your contention that an origins theory is discarded as soon as some “potentially” controversial evidence is discovered is blatantly false. It may modify the mechanisms, but the original contention (The diversity of all life evolved from a single common ancestor which came from non-life by purely naturalistic means over billions of years) is a presupposition that is never modified.

When it can be explained in a manner consistent with the theory it is done by DEALING WITH THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLAINING IT not by ignoring it.

Then why do evolutionists ignore the evidence?

You still have not dealt with the evidence that shows otherwise [that the earth is young]. Making this statement is not refutation, nor is it dealing with the issue. Rather it is blatant declaration of denial and a demonstration of your willingness to live in delusion rather than deal with the facts.

No, it is a decision not to discuss the evidence until our first topic has been completed. Your delusion is thinking that everyone is going to play along with your debate tactics.

I've presented evidence. You've presented opinion and denial. Neither of those refute the evidence presented.

I’ve presented valid evidence relevant to the topic we are discussing. You have not. It does not take much effort to present irrelevant evidence. It is merely a way to distract the conversation because you have nothing of substance to offer.

…you misrepresented what Berkely said the definition was -- and did not even QUOTE the definition part that CLEARLY says evolution is the change in species over time. Stop misrepresenting the facts Murk.

You misrepresented what laborlawtalk said the definition of the theory of evolution was – and did not even QUOTE the definition part which clearly states that the theory of evolution is that all species today are the result of an extensive process that began over three billion years ago and accounts for the great diversity of life we see today and which has become extinct. Stop misrepresenting the facts Raz.

The fact is, I’ve not misrepresented anything. If, in your opinion I have, than it has certainly been much less than the misrepresentation that you have done. I have done nothing differently than you, which is to seek evidence that supports our cases. It is a misrepresentation on your part to exclude the validity of any explanation of evolution (which is, after all, what a definition is) which doesn’t agree with you. You shouldn’t be accusing me of misrepresenting anything, when your whole position is a gross misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. You have called “change in species over time” a process, a mechanism, a theory, a science and who knows what else. Based on definitions that we were both able to dig up, the evidence shows that 82% define evolution in the fashion that I have proposed, not yours and you want to ignore this evidence. You’ve already lost this argument, so why don’t we go on to the next.

What you seem to fail to understand is that you ARE talking about the degree of change, whether you drag your feet kicking and screaming or not. You are talking about the differences in DNA between species, differences that are still due to mutation and selection (ie -change in species over time \ change in the frequency of alleles in a population \ descent with modification \ etc) and thus all you have is the degree of change in DNA.

What you seem to fail to understand is that mutation/selection/change in frequency of alleles CANNOT change one kind of organism into another whether you drag your feet kicking and screaming or not. A population of dark moths and light moths changing into a population of dark moths and light moths is not a demonstration of moths changing into anything that wasn’t there before, just as finches with longer or shorter beaks had already existed in the population prior to the change. That is the whole point. We have only observed this TYPE OF CHANGE to have the ability to allow organisms to adapt to their environment within their kinds, not between kinds. I provided a number of examples and parallels to make this clear. It is like asking the question – if you can pedal your bicycle at 10mph, how long will it take you to get to the moon? Sorry, you can pedal your whole lifetime, but a bike doesn’t have the ability for space travel. Thus, all you have is the degree of change in DNA which reshuffles, corrupts or looses information, but not the KIND of change that can add information responsible for new and more complex features.

Evolution is NOT directed, there is no such thing a a "direction that evolution demands" -- this is a creatortionist misrepresentation of evolution and does NOT deal with the SCIENCE.

This is nonsense. You are misrepresenting what evolution is and again missing the point. That evolution has no direction is an evolutionista misrepresentation of evolution and does NOT deal with the SCIENCE. Mechanisms such as adaptation (change within kinds) may not be directed, but evolution MUST be. Otherwise we would still be pond scum! How obvious can that be? You are completely misrepresenting what the Berkeley reference you quoted is saying by equivocating EVOLUTION with “Natural Selection”. Berkeley was discussing “Natural Selection”, a process involved with evolution, not the theory of evolution. It is saying that natural selection may not demonstrate direction (creationists know that this is always true), but in other places already quoted it says that evolution itself IS directed.

Having said that, you are misreading the quote entirely anyway. It says “Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations” (assuming they are talking about changes from one creature into the next, a presupposition which has never been observed), “it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress”. This is NOT what I or creation scientists have said. All we are saying is that it’s results must ultimately be directed and that’s what defines evolution. The following reasons they give DO NOT refute that evolution is directed, only that NATURAL SELECTION is not an “all-powerful force”.
• “First, natural selection is not all-powerful…No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
• “Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand… it's not striving to produce progress”.

Creationists have no disagreement with this. This does NOT state that EVOLUTION produces no progress only that NATURAL SELECTION does not STRIVE to produce progress, even though progress is indeed produced (theoretically). It is self evident that evolution must produce higher complexity since all the diversity of life we see today supposedly evolved from a single common ancestor.

You will also find that they are unknowingly making the argument for Creation Theory. If adaptation is an undirected process which produces no higher order, than it cannot change one kind of creature into another and creation theory has been proved. In fact to quote your Berkeley reference “Evolution ONLY occurs when there is a change in gene frequency”. It is obvious that a change in gene frequency (more or less of a certain pre existing type in the population) does not produce new features, only the frequency of existing features. Since this is the ONLY time evolution occurs, than it CANNOT produce new features and we could not have descended from a common ancestor. We must therefore have descended from an original created kind which contained all of the features that we already have. Therefore, this reference supports creation theory.

Note also (again), that many scientists including one the most famous, Ernst Mayr, do not agree that changes in gene frequencies is evolution since nothing “new” is produced that could change organisms from one type into another.

Thus the site that you think I have problems with contradicts your mischaracterization of evolution and shows that you are NOT "familiar with what it says" ... here's another couple of tidbits:

First, I have shown this is not true. Second, it does not logically follow that I am not familiar with what it says just because you think it contradicts my characterization of evolution. It shows that you are not familiar with logic. I’ve read the Berkley material as well as you, perhaps better since as I stated, I introduced the reference.

Now who does that sound like ...
(1) RAZD: (evolution is the change in species over time)
(2) Murk: (evolution must occur over billions of years and involves some other process)

First, I have already demonstrated that 82% of the definitions “sound like” my definition. So your feeble attempts at cherry picking are irrelevant. Second, you have again misrepresented my position. I’ve never said that evolution must occur over billions of years, only that the theory of evolution states that it has been occurring over that period of time. The actual time required for evolution to occur would be the time it takes one kind of life to change into another kind. Since that has never been observed, the time it takes for evolution to occur would be infinity (in other words, mathematically impossible).

I have also stated that the primary mechanisms attributed to cause evolutionary change (one kind into another) are natural selection and mutations. However, since those processes have been shown to be incapable of changing one kind of life into another kind, yes, another process would need to be involved. However, that is not relevant to what the definition of evolution is, only whether it is true or not, which is not the subject of this debate. What is relevant is including the type of change we are talking about in the definition so there is a basis for refutation instead of defining it as an obvious and self serving observation that we all know is true.


Micro-evolution is not accepted by creationists as being evolution, so there really isn’t any dividing line. Adaptation occurs, is observed and is a fact. Speciation occurs, is a result of adaptation and is also a fact.
Speciation is evolution whether you like it or not: this is the way it is used in the science by the scientists in the field. You can try to call it something else but the only one you fool is yourself.

Here is your argument #1 again which I mentioned earlier. Repeating arguments with no evidence is only going to make it true in your fantasy world in which you are the one that is fooled. Sorry, but CISOT is NOT used by all scientists. I’ve refuted this multiple times. And you have not refuted the fact that micro-evolution is not accepted by creation scientists as being evolution by feeble attempts at quote mining wikis. These are not only unreliable, but your references did not in any way refute my statement (I have not repeated these references above). Creationists recognize the use of the word microevolution but if you read the rest of the reference instead of quote mining, you will see that they do not consider it to be true evolution (change from one kind into another). Your second reference is an incomplete stub. Talk about misrepresentation!

Variation within a gene pool is also evolution, even if it has not reached the point of speciation - it is still a change in the frequency of alleles in a population, ie change in species over time. The process is on-going and continuous.

Variation in the frequency of EXISTING traits will NEVER result in evolution, which requires new information to be produced.

Now you can either join other creationists with accepting microevolution as the process that leads up to and includes speciation OR you can continue to equivocate and stonewall with your own private interpretation of your fantasy world. It makes no difference to reality whether you do or not.

Creation scientists DO accept microevolution (adaptation within kinds) as a fact including speciation (within kinds), which I have stated many times. However they do not accept that it is evolution, which requires changing one kind into another kind. Including “evolution” in the term microevolution misleads the reader into thinking it is “small” evolution, when it fact, the processes that in entails cannot lead to the “real” evolution (macro), so its usage is discouraged. Now, you can either join other evolutionists and scientists who do not accept change in frequency of alleles as evolution or you can continue to equivocate evolution with microevolution and stonewall with your own private interpretation of evolutionary theory in your fantasy world. It makes no difference to reality whether you do or not.

There is substantial disagreement whether punk eek is needed. Dawkins disagrees very strongly. There are also plenty of transitionals to show that evolution occurs - without needing punk eek. The foraminifera - Microevolution Case #1 - Foraminifera (Message 25) - are but one example of a plethora of such transitionals, Pelycodus - Microevolution Case #2 - Pelycodus (Message 50) - is another.

You really have been reading too much evolutionary propaganda. Neither of these examples are “transitionals” and neither show that evolution has occurred. These are examples of adaptation within a kind, which we already know is fact. They do not show a transition between different kinds, which is what evolution demands must occur to have created all the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor. Rather than a “plethora” which it should show, the fossil record is completely absent of any transitional forms (a handful are controversial even in evolutionist circles). Many an evolutionist (and all honest ones) has admitted that this is the case.

Punk eek makes no such claim about "significant" OR that anything magically "transforms" - this is your misunderstanding of punk eek as well as evolution in general and not at all what the theory says. You need to stop misinterpreting what the science says, Murk.

Get your head out of the sand. Punctuated equilibrium was proposed specifically to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record which ought to have been there if evolution were true. You must know that.

In 1977 Gould wrote,”The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”

In 1980 Gould said, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our IMAGINATION, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Whatever backsliding he’s done since then to placate political pressure by evolutionists is no matter. He was being truthful back then and is precisely why he proposed the theory in the first place.

PE recognizes that gaps are characteristic of the fossil record, NOT missing data. The original 1972 paper by Eldridge and Gould clearly stated that the theory was based on long periods of stasis followed by rapid change. Gould continued to be very vocal about this in the many years that followed. For example in 1977 he said “most evolutionary change … is concentrated in rapid (often geologically instantaneous) events …” While not a proponent of hopeful monsters persay, in a paper published in 1977 titled ‘The Return of Hopeful Monsters’, Gould wrote: “I … predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.” He also suggested at the time that another mechanism was involved in macro evolutionary change. Since then, of course, he has been forced by the evolutionist community to soften his criticisms of gradualistic theory so as not to rock the boat.

You say, “There is substantial disagreement whether punk eek is needed?” Indeed. This is further evidence that origins studies do not follow the rules of operational science. If transitionals are found, they are touted as evidence for evolution. If there are gaps in the fossil record it is touted as evidence for evolution (using PE or whatever). Apparently evolution is true no matter what the evidence shows…looks like a religious belief to me.

This of course, is no model of a biological system [cars traveling to Jupiter], and bears no real relation to evolution except in your fantasy world. One where parables about candles are science.

You continue to dishonestly misrepresent what I have said and what analogies and parables are. They are meant to portray similarities in meaning or truth, and are never meant as scientific evidence for a particular point of view. You’ve apparently read Dawkins who has made his reputation as a master storyteller, so you should understand that. You choose to hurl insults instead of considering the facts because they obviously come too close to the truth. The concept of a common designer as an explanation for similarities among a set of objects is just as valid (and I would say much more) than an evolutionary explanation. In the same way, you must concede that there may be the possibility of a limitation to genetic change since changes between kinds has never been observed and untold generations of breeding experiments since history began has never produced a new creature.

Pick any three species of your choice: what is the difference in DNA between two of those three species and how is it different than the difference between the other two sets of two species? What is it other than a matter of degree of difference in the arrangements of DNA? What is it that cannot be achieved by substitution of DNA sequences from one species into another? What is it that cannot be achieved equally by a species mutating to achieve those same sequences? What "different kind of change" is needed?

You speak as if it a simple thing for nature to simply re-arrange and substitute DNA sequences to create new creatures, but this has never been observed. DNA is the computer program that God designed into living things. An intelligent programmer is necessary to change the code. The code, as designed, currently restricts changes to within kinds. As I said earlier the similarity between living things cries of “designer”, not evolution. Design, if nothing else, is certainly a valid interpretation of similarity between different objects, living or otherwise. And your strawman of “species” is getting tiresome. There is a difference between “kinds” and “species”. Creationists do not deny speciation occurs. The difference in DNA between any two kinds can never be traversed by any known evolutionary process. Mutations can never re-create a different genetic code that was not originally programmed into that particular kind. A mutation is neutral or reduces genetic information and variability.

Note this article from talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.
The dividing line between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution is speciation. The dividing line between science and your strawman fantasy is "supermacrofragilisticextra"evolution.

Speciation has been observed, but never the change from one kind to another.
Regarding the talkorigins article and your response, dribble as ridiculous as that is not worth responding to. It is both dishonest and childish to create strawman caricatures of your opponents in order to deceitfully ridicule their position and call them names. To resort to those tactics merely tells me that you have no argument of substance left to present. I have already told you what the creationist position on this is. You can choose to accept the truth or continue to believe in strawman representations to make you feel good and deceive yourself.

Address the reality: change in species over time. Foraminifera, pelycodus, horses, humans, warblers, starlings and all.

Address the reality: None of these things has even the faintest relevance to evolution except in your strawman fantasy world. Adaptation is a fact. Evolution is not.

Making such wild assertions without providing the backup information is just wasting bandwidth.

I would be glad to document any statements I have made regarding evidence such as the dates of human and ape remains when we finish our discussion of definitions. Identifying areas for which we may disagree is not a waste of bandwidth. It is a common technique used in many disciplines including science. You must first recognize there is a problem before you can deal with it. What is a waste of bandwidth are your continual attempts to discuss anything except what this debate is about and your constant hurling of insults and name calling to incite rather than debate issues.


Darwin himself said that the fossil record invalidated his theory.
Document this.
Quote mine taken out of context - typical creatortionista type of attack that has nothing to do with reality (or any effect on science). This is twice you've used this falshood recently.
Please quote from the original source with page reference. Back up your assertion with evidence instead of hot air.

It’s hard for me to believe that you would deny that Darwin recognized the inadequacy of the fossil record. It is a typical evolutionista tactic to accuse their opponents of quote mining in order to deny reality. This should wait until we finish with definitions, but perhaps I can use it to reflect on some pertinent issues. So let’s take a look at Darwin’s own words from the origin of species 1st edition, 1859.

P280 – “The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. “

P299 – “Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views.”

P302 – “But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory. On the sudden appearance of whole groups of Allied Species.—The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by Professor Sedgwick, as afatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.”

P310 – “The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

P 463 – “On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history.”

Regarding the above reference to the progenitors of the Silurian groups, an 1860 review of the origin of species in Quarterly review by Wilberforce, P244 states: “Now it is proved to demonstration by Sir Roderick Murchison, and admitted by all geologists, that we possess these earlier formations, stretching over vast extents, perfectly unaltered, and exhibiting no signs of life. Here we have, as nearly as it is possible in the nature of things to have, the absolute proof of a negative. If these forms of life had existed they must have been found. Even Mr. Darwin shrinks from the deadly gripe of this argument. 'The case,' he says (p. 308) 'at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.' More than once indeed does he make this admission.”

So, how did Darwin respond to this lack of evidence?
P463 – “I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe.”
P465 – “That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree which I require, few will be inclined to admit.”
P280 – “The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
P307 – “Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer. …The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

Darwin goes on to explain why he supposes the fossil record is so extremely imperfect, but it is important to recognize that these are presuppositions, many of which have been shown to be false. For example, on p288 he says “No organism wholly soft can be preserved”. But we know today having found numerous fossils of jelly fish and even single celled organisms that this is not the case because they were buried rapidly by the flood, not over long periods of time.

Today, many evolutionists still cling to the view that the fossil record is simply incomplete despite the millions of fossils that we have discovered and many other evidences. However what is important is what Darwin says on P 342 “He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record [that they are simply imperfect], will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations.”

Darwin is saying that if the missing transitional forms (real ones, not just variations within kinds), is NOT due to imperfection in the fossil record (that is, not due to missing data) but is actually characteristic of the fossil record (which many evolutionists like Gould believe), then it is a VALID position to reject his ENTIRE theory. In other words, to interpret the fossil record as not imperfect INVALIDATES his theory. He goes on to say that evidence which shows that the fossil record was not laid down in enormous intervals of time would also INVALIDATE his theory. This is the point I have made many times and which you have not only rejected, but want to avoid talking about (evidence for real macro evolution) because there is no evidence.

Darwin also said “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.” At least Darwin recognized that data can validly be INTERPRETED a different way which would cause one to come to a completely different conclusion. You should respect this fact as Darwin did before telling everyone who disagrees with you that they live in a fantasy world.

They still date to 70my. The Coelacanths today are different species than the many species of Coelacanths that lived 70 my ago. Those species are still index fossils. You do realize that Coelacanth is an ORDER not just a SPECIES don't you?

You’re “muddying the water” to avoid seeing the facts and of course missing the point again. There is hardly a story on Coelacanth that doesn’t call it a “living fossil”, virtually identical to ones found in the fossil record. It was presumed to be extinct because there was no fossils present after that time and yet it was found alive. There are thousands of examples like this. It has been proved that fossils can form quickly. Therefore if you find a coelacanth (or any number of its varieties) in some rock that you cannot date, who’s to say it didn’t happen a thousand years ago instead of 100 million (since a variety is still living!)? But this isn’t the only issue that this raises. Evolutionists were WRONG about a whole host of things including the fact that it’s fins were thought to have been used for “walking” until observations of the living fish showed this to be untrue. If “stories” can be told when entire fossils are discovered what credence can be given to fantasies that result from just bits and pieces? Evolution will be true in the evolutionist’s mind no matter what the evidence - organisms changing rapidly or staying the same for millions of years - because it is born of faith, not science.

This also is evidence for the majority of fossils being laid down during the flood. Few fossils are formed unless a catastrophic event buries them quickly. Therefore it is not surprising to creationists that coelacanth fossils (and many other examples) were absent and the living fossils discovered in the present time.

No matter how much hand waving you engage in Murk, it has evolved. Your denial of the evidence otherwise is just demonstration of your denial of reality.
An IC system evolved. It is a FACT.

Again, you are the one in denial of the evidence and of reality. It DID NOT evolve and I have soundly shown that this is the case with solid reasoning. No wild assertions were necessary except by you.

Apparently we need to talk more about this and other issues regarding evidence one at a time. However, as I’ve said repeatedly this is not the time or manner in which they should be discussed. I’d be happy to discuss further if and when we make that decision. In the meantime, the topic of definitions has not been completed. I’m officially making the decision now that I will not go into detail on any evidence regardless of how much goading and name calling you may do until we finish our first topic.

If you have so much time to debate evidence than think about this - Provide several examples of one kind of living animal or plant that we have observed today to have changed by itself into another kind (not species) that we’ve never seen before? This should be easy since in order for evolution to be true this must have happened countless times to have provided all the diversity of life we see today from a single common ancestor. If you cannot do this, then stop accusing me of living in a fantasy world.

By the way: you accuse me of lying. This is a serious breach of forum protocols.

You’ve got to be joking! If you plan to go crying to mommy, you’d better be willing to look yourself in the mirror. The forum guidelines state:
1) “Please stay on topic” - You’ve done just about everything you can to avoid staying on topic!
2) “Avoid any form of misrepresentation” - You do this in nearly every post.
3) “Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.” – I’ve documented on numerous occasions including those in this current post, your serious breach of this guideline. You can go to almost any (but not all) of your posts and see the hurling of insults, calling of names, goading and harassing behavior. This is not even close to treating anyone with respect.

The rules (at least the ones posted from the rules link) do not specifically state anything about accusing the other person of lying unless it’s considered part of point 3 above. In any case, I DID NOT accuse you of lying and I’ve only parroted your rude and unnecessary comments in order to point out that they would apply equally, and in most cases more appropriately, to you.

Note that I provide the evidence for my calculation [regarding the definitions] while you just post numbers. Feel free to check my numbers -- the evidence is there for all to see.

The evidence has already been posted. You have provided your interpretation (misrepresentation) of the evidence. I assumed it was obvious, but apparently nothing is obvious to someone who wants to twist words and the truth to fool themselves into believing what they want. You have completely misrepresented these definitions (I will leave out willfully. That can be between you and whatever God you might believe in, if any. I really don’t care at this point).

First, I’ll leave out your additional 6 sources so we can make a valid comparison. I think it’s obvious by now that I could produce hundreds more that use my definition, not yours. If that would convince you, I would certainly go through the trouble, but if the current definitions don’t do it than I doubt anything else will.

To be clear that we are using the same definitions, I will state them over again in the same order as in your post, using the same text except that I will make note of any relevant text that you have removed. I won’t be picky if there are irrelevant changes such as occurs frequently at Wikipedia. Before I do that we need to re-state what we are looking for, since you have twisted the interpretation in order to make it come out in your favor.

First we'll parse your 71% "statistic" -- we'll only use "stated directly" to avoid interpretations and we'll look at each part separately. We'll also only look in the definition and not in any discussion following the definition.
(A) Development of a "new feature" is directly stated as being a required part of evolution
(B) Added "complexity" is directly stated as being a required part of evolution
(C) Speciation is directly stated as being a required part of evolution
Then we'll compare that to definitions that use
(D) Change in species over time, including change in frequency of alleles and descent with modification and other variations that are of equivalent meaning.
Any that don't fit one of those categories I'll label (E)
• =(A) = 2 can be interpreted as a new feature being required (5%)
• =(B) = 3 can be interpreted as increased complexity being required (7%)
• =(C) = 5 can be interpreted as speciation being required (11%)
• =(D) = 31 refer to evolution as being change in species over time, change in the frequency of alleles or descent with modification. That's 70% (not 25% so you are misrepresenting the facts again).
• =(E) = 3 don't fit into any of the (A) (B) (C) or (D) classes (7%)

While I was being honest in reading the definitions plainly in regards to their content, you are attempting to apply completely different standards to our definitions in order to misinterpret what they mean. This fools no one.

First, While you require that the components of my definition be “stated directly”, you allow yours to include any “variations” which you interpret to be change in species over time. Sorry, but we either compare them using the same standards or not at all. NONE (0%) of the definitions state directly that the definition is “change in species over time”. So I was being fair and generous by including ANY in that category. Neither is that definition equivalent to change in frequency of alleles or descent with modification.

Second, you are dishonesty using semantics to eliminate entries that include my definition by necessitating them to state directly that it is a “required” part of the definition. Again, using those same standards, NONE (0%) of the definitions directly state that “change in species over time” is a REQUIRED part of evolution. In fact the definitions do not “require” anything. A component is either present or it is not. Its presence makes it a part of the definition, period.

Third, you want to exclude anything except the first sentence to imply that anything else is an unnecessary part of the definition, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Definitions can be more than a single sentence and the explanation following the first sentence is necessary to explain what the first sentence means! Therefore it is necessary. You obviously don’t want to include those parts because they confirm that the real theory of evolution is the one that I have been espousing.

Fourth, the whole point of my comparison of these definitions was to demonstrate that “change is species over time” is not the ONLY part of the definition. In other words, it cannot stand on it’s own as you have been attempting to do. However, you have turned this around by classifying anything which CONTAINS CISOT as being ONLY CISOT. I stated that 25% of the definitions contained ONLY change over time not that there were no others that referred to change. All definitions imply that change occurs, or evolution could not be true. However, the vast majority specify what kind of change this must be. So you are the one misrepresenting the facts again, not me.

Apparently we need to confirm some simple logic. If a definition contains something other than CISOT then the definition is not simply (not only) “change in species over time”. This is a logical Fact that cannot be denied, but which apparently you are attempting to do anyway. To repeat – If a definition contains A and B, then the definition does not contain ONLY A, it contains A AND B. If a definition contains A, B and C, then it does NOT contain ONLY A, it contains all three.

Therefore, if a definition contains “Millions/Billions of years”, or “change to greater complexity/higher life forms”, or “responsible for all the diversity of life we see today” or “entirely new species” or any combination, variation of those or any other relevant differentiating information than it does NOT contain ONLY “Change in species over time”. Those other things are clearly included because “Change in species over time” cannot stand on its own and is not a statement of the theory of evolution, only an observation which could mean literally ANYTHING. I suspect that some of the people responsible for posting a bogus “CISOT only” definition in these references may either have their own political, theological or materialistic biases, have been swayed by evolutionist propaganda or simply copied unintentionally from another incorrect definition.

However, the point I have been making throughout this debate is that change in species over time cannot stand on its own, because it says nothing about the theory of evolution. For example, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory%20of%20evolution defines the theory of evolution as “(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals” How can “change in species over time” be a theory of the ORIGIN of species? It says nothing about the ORIGIN of species, only that they change over time. Darwin’s discourse of the same name discusses how the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor over huge amounts of time. He also discusses the origins of the original living prototype. Therefore, all of those components become part of the theory, not just what you want to cherry pick out of it. “Change in species over time” is simply a statement of a single observation that has been known to be true since the beginning of time. There is nothing controversial about it. CISOT can be true WITHOUT the theory of evolution being true. That is precisely why you are attempting to define it in a deceptive way.

We need only look at a single example which you categorized as only change in species over time to display the ludicrous hypocrisy you have used to interpret these definitions.
The definition from lexicon is “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.”

With any stretch of the imagination, it is impossible for someone to interpret this definition as ONLY change in species over time. How can you possible deny that it says nothing about the theory of evolution except change in species over time? I can only assume that you have chosen to blind yourself to the truth. In fact, it never explicitly states anywhere that species change over time, it only IMPLIES this, something you have unfairly attempted to deny me.

Apparently, 3.8 billion years is not a long time to you? It is for 54% of the definitions. “All living species today have the same origin” does NOT imply that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today and that they have a common ancestor? Since this definition and many like it state that all life we see today evolved from a common ancestor, this therefore IMPLIES that greater complexity has resulted. By the way, this definition also includes Abiogenesis, but we’ll ignore that for now.

Using the SAME standards of comparison, we can now demonstrate the appropriate classification of these definitions. I will also use classifications roughly corresponding to yours so we can compare. I have no idea why you would have wanted to separate “new feature” from “complexity” as these are basically the same thing. In addition, I discuss later why it is valid to include speciation, so instead of (A) and (B) for these, I’ll just call it ABC. In addition, if a definition states that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today or the existence of a common ancestor it will also be classified as ABC since obviously that must have entailed a movement toward greater complexity and change from one KIND to another. This is a very important part of the definition since it qualifies the type of change that must be involved.

You have also ignored 54% of the definitions which include long periods of time. This can only be interpreted as an attempt to inflate your position. If these components are included in the definition, then the definition is not ONLY change in species over time. This is included specifically to qualify the type of change involved. So here are the categories:

(ABC) - Development of new features, complexity, speciation, responsibility for all the diversity of life or a common ancestor is included in the definition. This qualifies the type of change involved as molecules to man evolution since change in species over time is vague, confusing and requires explanation.

(D) - Change in species over time, including change in frequency of alleles and descent with modification and other variations (although these are not equivalent) is the ONLY part of the definition with no other explanation that includes ABC or F.

(F) - Long periods of time (including billions or millions of years) is part of the definition.

Note that ALL definitions imply that species change over time (and I agree that species do change). However, you must know by now that the principal crux of this debate is that this is insufficient by itself. Therefore, if the definition includes ABC or F, then it is not JUST (only) change in species over time. CISOT is simply a cute “slogan”, but does not explain what the theory of evolution is about and is therefore totally and completely useless as a “definition”.

I was tempted to break your change in species over time to a “requirement” for CISOT (0% of definitions), frequency of alleles, descent with modification or other variations as you did with new features and complexity. The reason is that CISOT and other variations are NOT equivalent. There are many observed variations like age in a population that may not involved heredity or change in gene frequency. In addition, the way that Darwin used descent with modification made it clear that this “modification” was a change to greater complexity responsible for all the diversity of life we see today. Darwin TITLED his theory “descent with modification”, it was not a definition. These have different connotations than simply change in species over time. Nevertheless, all of these can occur without any evolution actually taking place, so I will be kind and still lump them together for now.

So here are the correct classifications of the definitions. Definitions or parts of definitions in another color is what you left out.


  1. Dictionary.com
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution
    3.Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
    (D)

  2. Wikipedia.org
    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 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]
    (ABC) (F)

  3. Encarta 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.
    (ABC) (F)

  4. Lexicon
    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.
    (ABC) (F)

  5. Berkely U
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
    (the real definition(1))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… 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.
    (ABC) (F)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2007 8:25 AM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 9:47 AM MurkyWaters has not yet responded
     Message 72 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 10:17 AM MurkyWaters has not yet responded
     Message 73 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 4:48 PM MurkyWaters has responded
     Message 74 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 9:57 AM MurkyWaters has responded
     Message 75 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 12:40 PM MurkyWaters has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 87 of 121 (407086)
06-24-2007 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
04-01-2007 4:48 PM


Analysis of the definitions (again)

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Instead of arguing this issue on a logical basis, you continue to nit pick these definitions which don’t support your argument anyway. I must assume that this is because you simply don’t have any logical arguments left to refute those that I have made. You continue to accuse me of misrepresentation, but you are the one that is misrepresenting the whole basis of this argument and the definitions as well.

I'll note at the start that you are still misrepresenting the evidence. When an encyclopedia or article on evolution is cited, you don't search for where they say what you want to say and claim that is part of the definition - you look for the definition ("evolution is ...") statement and stop when they start discussing the application of that to the evidence.

You are the one who is searching through a source to find where they say what you want it to say, not me. To my recollection, in only one case was the information I presented separated from the main definition and there was a valid reason for doing so which I will point out when it comes up. On the other hand, you are searching through the definition to cherry pick the part that agrees with you. A clarification or explanation which immediately follows the first sentence IS part of the definition. A clarification which is necessary to understand the meaning of a short-hand slogan, IS part of the definition. A definition does not have to be one sentence.

As I’ve pointed out many times, change in species over time is simply an observation which is a part of the theory. The theory itself is a statement of what is trying to be proven by the observations. Defining the change as responsible for all the diversity of life on earth is NOT an “application” of the definition to the evidence. Quite the reverse, evidence such as “change in species over time” is applied to test the theory, that it IS responsible for all the diversity of life on earth. You don’t necessarily look for “evolution is..” statement because you don’t know if they are defining the process or the theory. What you look for is “the theory of evolution” or “theory of evolution states…” or “according to the theory of evolution…” or …is known as the theory of evolution” or “the theory of evolution explains…”. If these are absent, you look for what it states is the RESULT of the process since then they would be talking about the theory, not the process itself. This debate is to define what the theory of evolution is, not the processes which are part of the theory or by which the theory is realized.

The place to “stop” is at the end of the paragraph or section labeled as the definition or explanation. This is particularly true of references on the web. If you are looking up a definition for evolution and it presents you with a paragraph which it says is the definition for evolution, you are misrepresenting the definition by simply cherry picking the first sentence. You are attempting to define evolution with a cute slogan, but it takes more than that to make it clear what it is we are actually talking about.

Likewise when a dictionary definition is used and there is an entry for "biol." then that is the entry to use (they are talking about the biology definition not the general definition).

I find it almost humorous and completely hypocritical of you to point this out when you have been the one attempting all along to apply the general definition of evolution to biology when it suits you (change in “something” over time), but when the general definition disagrees with your argument (ie lower to more complex states), than you want to exclude it! You can’t have it both ways. Evolution is evolution. All generic overriding definitions apply. Biology is just a more specialized case of the general term. You cannot stop at the general term as you have been attempting to do with CISOT. You must be more specific for biology.

Despite the fact that there were only 2 or 3 definitions which even provided the general term, making little difference anyway, there is another reason which makes using the general term a perfectly valid thing to do. 16% of the definitions used the term “evolution” or “evolutionary” within the definition of evolution. For example “the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms”. Since the use of the word evolution within the definition would be reason to invalidate the definition because of circular reasoning, we can only conclude that they are using the “general” definition of evolution within the body of the main definition. These definitions are therefore validating the use of the general definition. It would then be reasonable for us to look up the general definition and substitute it’s meaning into the definition. The definition would then become “the sequence of events involved in the development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms leading to different and more advanced Kinds”.


(ABC) - Development of new features, complexity, speciation, responsibility for all the diversity of life or a common ancestor is included in the definition. This qualifies the type of change involved as molecules to man evolution since change in species over time is vague, confusing and requires explanation.

How is a species NOT changed by the development of a new feature? How is a species NOT changed by becoming a new species? How is a species NOT changed by a change in complexity? No, Development of new features IS change in species over time, Speciation IS change in species over time, Complexity IS change in species over time. You lump these together with other elements to misrepresent the definition given and misrepresent your results. This kind of misrepresentation falsifies your accounting before you begin.

You just don’t get it. However, after 70 posts I find that very hard to believe. I have stated my position too many times to count and yet you simply ignore it. You could not have even read my last post since I spent considerable time explaining this and yet you continue this deception after it has been pointed out. You are the one that has misrepresented the results with this deception. The question is whether the definition states ONLY “change in species over time” or if instead it qualifies that change with other characteristics or features. I’ll repeat. We are not looking for something that is “not change over time”, we are looking for something that is in ADDITION to change over time.

It is completely appropriate to lump those characteristics together because they all mean basically the same thing and they are in direct contrast to ONLY change over time. You have lumped all the different kinds of “change” together to misrepresent your results by calling everything change over time but it’s ok for you to do it? How hypocritical!

Who has ever said that evolution did not involve change in species over time? I certainly have not! It was recognized long before Darwin that species change over time. How then, can that be called the “theory of evolution”? How is a species NOT changed by the development of a new feature? Who said it was NOT changed? The answer is in the very quote you have cited, but apparently failed to read. I think I know how you have been able to respond so quickly now. You simply ignore most of what I have written (or don’t read it at all) and just see the things that you want to see. This is the same thing you are doing with the definitions.

The “development of a new feature” specifies the TYPE of change involved. This is regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it still qualifies the TYPE of change. We all know that species change over time. But what kind of change is it? Suppose the theory of evolution stated that all species develop horns over time. How does defining it as “change in species over time” explain that theory? You could argue “how is species NOT changed by developing horns?” But the theory doesn’t state any change, it specifically says species develop horns. It is a logical fallacy to equate the two. In the same way, the theory of evolution states that this change is one that is responsible for all the diversity of life or the development of new features etc., not just any change.

For someone that accuses everyone else of logical fallacies, you go right ahead and commit one of the most egregious without a bat of an eye. The development of a new feature implies change has occurred, but change does not imply that it will result in the development of a new feature. If the kind of change you are talking about is the kind that is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today than why not say so? What are you afraid of? Lack of evidence perhaps? Or maybe unwillingness to admit the deceitful equivocation of definitions?
This kind of misrepresentation falsifies your accounting before you begin. I stand by my latest analysis which remains completely valid. Nothing you have presented contradicts it in any way. You have introduced misrepresentations of the definitions intended solely to inflate your position rather than staying true to the intent of the authors. The following errors below completely invalidate your analysis:


  1. Cherry picking from the full definitions and even from the discussions following in completely different paragraphs to misrepresent the intent of the authors.
  2. Selecting definitions of evolutionary processes when the theory of evolution is clearly stated from the same source.
  3. Separating factors that belong together to minimize their impact
  4. Taking terms out of context to misrepresent their meaning
  5. Utilizing the general definition of the word “evolution” to construct your own definition (used no where in science) but disallowing its use when it disagrees with you.
  6. Utilizing “discussions” to dispute definitions that don’t agree with yours but disallowing the use of discussions to clarify definitions which you believe agrees with your misrepresentations.
  7. Categorizing all the definitions as ONLY “change in species over time” when they clearly contain additional elements (which are part of my definition) that you have ignored.

I will clarify those misrepresentations further if I have not already addressed each one. It makes absolutely no sense to repeat and refute all the individual definitions again as most fall into the categories above. Even your interpretation of the parts that you THINK are the definition is flawed. I will point a couple of these out as examples and also respond to some of your other comments and then summarize at the end.


(D) - Change in species over time, including change in frequency of alleles and descent with modification and other variations (although these are not equivalent) is the ONLY part of the definition with no other explanation that includes ABC or F.

These are equivalent, as I have pointed out and used them several times to make just that point.

Just because you say they are equivalent doesn’t make them so. We are talking about a definition for the theory of evolution which can stand on it’s own. Do you really think that some stranger reading your definition (change in species over time) for the first time is going to know what YOU personally REALLY mean by it? In fact, that is exactly what you and other evolutionists are hoping for. Someone reading that definition will be deluded into thinking that any change they might see is evolution, so evolution must be a fact, when in reality it is a complete deception.

And yet you still go and add back other parts into your evaluation that ARE part of the discussion and not the definition. That is misrepresenting what is the definition in those discussions. You do this again here even when it has already been pointed out as false misrepresentation of the definitions involved.

And who are you to say what is a false misrepresentation (who has proposed the mother of all false misrepresentations)? Just because you think it is a misrepresentation because it doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean it is.

Let's cut to the chase: the disagreement is over whether "change in species over time" is a complete definition of the scientific theory.

You’ve just now come to that conclusion? You’ve not read the more than dozens of times that I have stated that “change in species over time” is insufficient by itself? If you’ve come to this conclusion than why is that you don’t logically refute this notion? Could it be that it’s not defensible?

(R) = "change in species over time" (and variations previously noted) OR
(X) = something else is said and "change in species over time" is NOT included at all in the definition

Again, you could not have even read my last post since I dispelled this misrepresentation numerous times. The argument isn’t whether “change in species over time” (or your invalid interpretation of something you think means JUST change in species over time) is part of the definition or not. No one is arguing that “change in species over time” does not occur. It is certainly implied in every definition. The argument is whether it is the ONLY thing that appears. If there are other elements present (those that are part of the correct definition that I have proposed) that qualify the type of change, then it cannot be counted as ONLY “change in species over time” and therefore you are wrong in these designations. This immediately disqualifies the bulk of your analysis since it is a misrepresentation of the entire argument.

EVOLUTION [Lexicon]
Process that has led to the appearance and transformation of living species on earth.

Appearance of living species would be the descent of living species from (no longer living) ancestors. Transformation of living species would be change from those ancestors.

No. How deceitful! You cherry pick what you want out of the definition, then ignore the explanation so you can misinterpret what’s left. This single sentence is clearly saying that evolution is a process that has “led to the appearance” (Abiogenesis) of life on earth and then the subsequent transformation into all the diversity we see today. The subsequent sentence (which is part of the definition) makes this clear - “The first living beings…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.” That’s why all of it is the definition, so people that want to deceive do not take it out of context. Only you could interpret it another way simply to inflate your position.

(5) Berkely U
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

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.
The Explanation:
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
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.

It kind of amazes me that you repeat this misrepresentation after it has already been uncovered in previous posts and repeated as evidence of such on your part.

It kind of amazes me that you consider it a misrepresentation. It has not been “uncovered” since it was never “covered” in the first place. What HAS been uncovered is your attempts to misrepresent what the definitions mean. I believe this may be the only instance that I referred to earlier where I included something that was not immediately adjacent to the main definition. However, there is good reason. How can the “central idea of biological evolution” not be an equivalent definition? You have repeatedly implied that the central idea of biological evolution is “change is species over time” (because no source defines it this way), but when a reference uses this same technique, you want to ignore it.

The fact of the matter is that the “central idea of biological evolution…” is equivalent to “Biological evolution, simply put, is the idea (theory) that all life on earth shares a common ancestor”. They go on to say that “descent with modification” is a “process”. Therefore, the first sentence of the definition is defining a process. The theory of evolution itself, which is what this debate is about, is stated in the explanation. The section labeled explanation is explaining the definition, not evolution or the details of the processes involved, and is therefore part of the definition.

Note the selective picking of elements that fit your preconceived notion of what the definition is rather than looking for what the article says is the definition: this is blatant misrepresentation of the definition here.

This is laughable. You accuse me of cherry picking but you leave out what you don’t like from the paragraph which is clearly labeled “The Definition”! Again, how hypocritical! Also, there was no selective picking of elements on my part. I could have just as well included “just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother” or other parts, but clearly indicated that I was leaving them out (…) simply to save space because they added nothing.

This definition contains concepts (micro and macro evolution) that obviously need further explanation. The part that follows is the explanation of the definition and is therefore part of the definition. If a word within a definition is being explained, it is valid to substitute that explanation into the definition and it remains valid. The ONLY reason I can fathom that you would want to EXCLUDE explanations and clarifications of the definitions is because you want to be deceptive as to the definition’s meaning. You don’t agree so you want to leave them out. This is true misrepresentation and out right deceit. Notice that the explanation clearly states that evolution “is NOT simply a matter of change over time”.

(6) Modern Biology, Its Conceptual Foundations” by Elof Axel Carlson
evolution: a theory of complexity in the organization of life from the origins of life to the present with the premise that all life is related by common descent to the first forms of life on earth. 6, 229, 257, 260, 264, 267, 319

Looking at these (briefly), p 6 is the introduction and it discusses the difference between fact and theory, p 229 is the start of Section V: Evolution, and it discusses some of the historical theories, p 257 discusses "recapitulation" and the study of heredity in germ-cells, p 260 discusses the random probability distribution of mutations and a tendency for statis in stable environments, change in unstable environments, p 264 discusses 3 competing theories of evolution, p 267 says evolution is an application of basic scientific processes, and p319 involves a study of the changes in hemoglobin between humans and other apes. In none of those references is the descent from a single common ancestor at the origins of life necessary to the discussion of evolution.

Unbelievable! You just scolded me for referring to an “explanation” but hypocritically when the definition doesn’t fit what you want, you attempt to discredit it by using explanations separated by many pages and entirely different sections of the whole book. However, if the definition IS supposedly what you want, then explanations of the definition immediately following are invalidated.

(7) Barnes and Noble Thesaurus of Biology

evolution: the process by which more complex forms of life have arisen from simpler forms over millions of years (see geological time scale p226 and natural selection).

This is still change in species over time. The change from simpler to more complex is still change. Millions of years is also only the time span for the evolution of Homo sapiens from Homo habilis, not that significant in the total evolutionary picture.

I point this one out as an example of how blatant your misrepresentation of these definitions are, particularly after I have spent literally paragraphs in my last post explaining this deception. It does not matter whether you happen to interpret it as ONLY “change in species over time”. The definition does not say this. It makes it very clear that the TYPE of change is one in which complex forms of life have arisen from simpler ones over millions of years. “Change in species over time” does NOT specify the type of change. This definition agrees with the definition I have proposed, not yours.

Also, 4.5 billion years IS “millions of years”. It does not say it’s only the span of time between homo sapiens and homo habilis. The explanation indicates it is the span of time since life first appeared on earth (all the geological periods).


(9) U of Michigan - The university of Michigan teaches that Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: 1) Organisms have changed over time 2) All organisms are derived from common ancestors 3) Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time and 4) The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection(ABC) (F)

This one gets a little long ... and I've left out some parts.
This is a discussion of Darwin's theory of evolution and not the modern science one. Furthermore, the summary section would list the elements that are critical to it, and that summary is all about "change in species over time" ...
But that is not all: the previous lesson in the series has the current scientific definitions:
Both of those definitions of biological evolution involve "change in species over time" and that is what the University of Michigan really teaches as the definitions of evolution. You completely ignore the definitions listed for evolution and go on until you can find something - anything - that meets your false misconception of what the definition should be. This is not the way honest research is done.

I was going to pass this one up until you made an accusation regarding the “honesty” of my research. I left some of your response out for brevity. I did exactly what you did except perhaps with more relevancy. This debate is to determine a statement of the “Theory of evolution”, not the “process” and that’s what I searched the web for. Your more current definitions are invalid because they are NOT talking about the theory of evolution which is what this debate is about. When did Darwin’s theory become invalid? It may have been propped up or added to by mechanisms which supposedly can produce the results theorized by Darwin but that does not change the theory. I simply stated a source which defined the “Theory”. You are the one which has gone on and produced literally pages of text searching to find something – anything – that meets your false misconception of what the definition of the theory should be. That is not the way honest research is done. Find references which define the theory of evolution, not modern processes which support the theory and have no relevance to this discussion.

Just to emphasize the point further, here is a quote from “The book of Life”, 1993 by various authors – “The theory of evolution by natural selection has not changed at all in its basic principles since it was formulated by Charles Darwin in 1859. Indeed, some of the best evidence is still based on the kinds of field observations which he had made over the previous thirty years before he published his famous book.” There are many other sources which point this out, at least one other I reference later.

16) The Compact Oxford English Dictionary

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

This doesn't really describe what is going on or what the process is. Is it change in species over time or something else? We can't really tell from this (too concise?).

It’s perfectly clear, but you don’t want to admit it. It says evolution is responsible for the development of different “KINDS” of organisms, not just any change.

They also list a number of other links for comparison. So I also looked up "evolve" with this result:
And "speciation" ...
And "Darwinism" ...
And "develop" ...

Wonderful! If the definition doesn’t say what you want it to, let’s look up some irrelevant terms to boost your argument.

I don't see anything in this that is NOT change in species over time.

As previously stated, ALL definitions involve change over time. They’d better or else all life on earth could not have supposedly developed from nothing. That they involve change is irrelevant. What’s important is that it specifies the type of change – that which is responsible for the development of different “KINDS” of organisms. Therefore, this definition cannot be counted for stating ONLY change in species over time.

(18) Wiktionary
1. (general) A gradual process of development, formation, or growth, esp. one leading to a more advanced or complex form.
2. (biology) The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

Do I need to say it? You even omitted where it said "(general)" in your misrepresentation of the definition. Do you really think this is valid?

Do you really think it’s not? Really, it makes little difference one way or the other since the definitions still report overwhelmingly in my favor. However on principal, yes, it is absolutely valid. As I said previously, I find it very hypocritical of you to use the general definition of evolution (change in “something” over time), and apply it to biology to come up with “Change in species over time” but exclude the general definition when it doesn’t appear to work in your favor. NONE of the definitions define evolution as “Change in species over time”. You are interpreting what they say based on the general definition of evolution to come to this conclusion. The biological definition is a more specific example of the general case with qualifiers added to specify the type of change. This in no way invalidates the general definition.

It is a logical fallacy to deny that the general definition does not apply. Is an automobile accident an example of “change in cars over time”? Of course it is. But you cannot describe accidents as ONLY “change in cars over time” since you could also be describing change in car designs or rusting of cars over long periods. You need a more specific definition to tell you what type of change you are referring to. Plus, I’ve shown that the general definition is used and validated within other definitions.


(21) Ultralingua Online Dictionaryhttp://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms; theory of evolution n. A scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals(ABC)

and I find the definition for "theory of evolution" rather lacking.-- where is the rest of what we know of life, the much more numerous species that are not just plants and animals?
I also do not get hung up over the use of "origins" here, seeing as they are talking about the origins of individual species of plants and animals (and not the origins of life).
An event that is A beginning, not THE beginning, and attributable to one's ancestry. Speciation is A beginning of a species.

First, this debate is specifically about the “theory of evolution”, not the process or whatever, so this definition is certainly applicable. While we have discovered life that may be hard to classify, the term “plants and animals” has generally and historically been accepted to include ALL life.

In regards to “origins”, how do you know that “they are talking about the origins of individual species of plants and animals (and not the origins of life)”? On the contrary, they ARE talking about the origins of ALL life. Your argument reminds me of the panspermia theory. You can’t explain how life evolved here, so let’s push the argument out to somewhere else…but that doesn’t explain how life evolved “somewhere else”.

Darwin was not proposing his theory to explain the beginning of a particular “species”, like a variety of finch. Everyone already knew that this happens as could plainly be seen by domestic breeding. His theory was meant to explain how ALL life (ALL species) evolved. He clearly stated this on numerous occasions and postulated about the first “prototype” life from which all others are derived. This is all part of his theory which is stated in the definition. If you look at the beginning of a particular species, you must ask yourself what the species was prior to that, and then prior to that and again until inevitably you get to the “origin” of the first species. This is clearly part of the “sequence of events involved” in the origin of species.


(24) Websters 1913 Unabridged Dictionary http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=evolution&use1913=on&use1828=on6. (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.(ABC)

Again, what part of this is NOT change in species over time?

Well, first of all, it’s the “history of steps”. Taken to its logical conclusion, the definitions which list this feature are telling us in no uncertain terms that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today. Second, the change is “gradual”. Gradual is defined as changing, or developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees. As we’ve seen, sources which are not attempting to be as concise as dictionaries generally expand this to be millions of years. However, all the other evidence taken together is overwhelming enough that we don’t need to debate what they mean by “gradual”. The point, however, is that it is still a qualifier of the change, not just any change.


(26) AllWords Online Dictionaryhttp://www.allwords.com/index.php3. 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.(ABC) (F)

What do they mean by "long periods of time"? A couple of days is a "long period of time" for the evolution of bacteria. A better description would be "over many generations" as that would take into account the different life spans of different species. There is nothing here that is NOT change in species over time.

While this definition is similar to many that I have already pointed out, I’ll highlight this one to be clear since some of the terms used may not be as specific but nevertheless you continue to use the same fallacious arguments. Bacteria do not evolve at all, so your statement regarding days being a “long period of time” for them is not only irrelevant but is a logical fallacy. While I agree that long periods of time can be interpreted differently in various contexts, it is almost always interpreted as millions/billions of years in regards to evolution. This is due to the fact that we do not observe creatures changing into different kinds except in the fallacious interpretation of the fossil record which is considered to span billions of years. Why do you suppose evolutionists were surprised to find finch beaks changing observably in less than hundreds of years?

The fact this involves change in species over time is completely and totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that it qualifies the type of change as one which results “in the development of new types of organisms over long periods of time”. Of course, “type” is synonymous with “kind”. Therefore this definition cannot be counted as one which specifies ONLY change in species over time.

(29)(a) Dictionary by Labor Law Talk
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/biological%20evolution
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.
The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.
As the theory of evolution by natural selection has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism.
Scientific theory
Currently, the modern synthesis is by scientific consensus the best theory of the evolution of species. This is the synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Mendel's theory of the gene made possible by population genetics. This theory conceives of evolution as any change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool. In the modern synthesis, change may be caused by a number of different mechanisms, such as natural selection or genetic drift. The genetic isolation of two populations, which allows their gene pools to diverge, results in speciation.
The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects:
1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage.
3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

"Often used" does not mean "always used", nor is Darwin's ("this theory") necessarily the same as the modern scientific theory of evolution (see UMich, #9, above). You are also taking elements from the discussion of the application of the theory to the evidence. The scientific definition is clearly delineated by the first paragraph break.

This definition supports my contention in almost every aspect, so you are climbing the wrong tree here. I have stated endlessly that the “word” evolution can mean many things. When you come across one that talks about it’s meaning as the “theory of evolution”, that’s the one you take since that is what this discussion is about. Use of the term “often used” simply recognizes the fact that it can be used different ways in other disciplines, as a process, or as a general term and does not negate its meaning as the “theory of evolution”. The first paragraph clearly states it is referring to a “process”. The second paragraph is clearly the correct statement of the “theory of evolution”.

In addition, it says that this theory (the second paragraph which corresponds almost identically with my definition) is universally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, you ought to be using the definition accepted by scientists, not your personally made up slogan of “change in species over time”.

Lest you think that the “synthesis” has discarded the basic theory, the article goes on to describe that it still includes the basic tenants of my definition, namely, descent of all organisms from a single ancestor (which of course is supposed to have happened billions of years ago) and the origin of “novel” (completely new) traits as being a requirement.

(29)(b) Dictionary by Labor Law Talk
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Evolutionary_biology
Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time, i.e. their evolution. One who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist, or less frequently evolutionist…

NOT listed in the list of disciplines is abiogenesis. This is also change in species over time: speciation and descent with modification.

Grasping at more straws…This one will need to be removed. This source has already defined the theory of evolution previously. The definition of the science of evolutionary biology is completely irrelevant. And why should abiogenesis necessarily appear in a list of disciplines? I don’t want to get into a debate about whether abiogenesis is a “discipline” or not. However, it is a theory which can be studied by any number of “disciplines”. Stanley Miller was a “biologist” and so was Pasteur.

(29)(c) Evolution
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/evolution
quote:

1. evolution - a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"
Antonyms: degeneration, devolution - the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality
Synonyms: development
2. evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
Synonyms: phylogeny, phylogenesis

I’m also eliminating this one. This is simply a repeat of the Word-net definition (14). On this very same page it list the definition of the theory of evolution that we’ve already discussed from this source and which is the topic of this debate. While it still supports my definition, it is clear that they are using the “noun” as a definition of the process, not the theory which is defined just below it. The article needs to be taken as a whole. If we are going to cherry pick every mention of evolution from a single source, than as I’ve said previously, I’d challenge you to find ANY comprehensive source which does not mention that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today or any of the other basic tenants of my definition.


(32) Dinosauria Onlinehttp://www.dinosauria.com/dml/diction.htm#Eevolution v. changes in the character states of organisms, species, and clades through time (D)

Agreed again.

Actually, I’ve changed my mind about this one. Since it refers to changes in “character states” of clades (“a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor.”), it is implying that evolution includes the change of organisms since the first prototype (billions of years ago) resulting in all the diversity we see today and therefore is clearly indicating that it is more than just ANY change. As I pointed out previously, this would be treated in a similar way to definitions which include statements regarding the “sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organism” or “changes throughout time” since this sequence logically takes you back to the origin of life or implies all the time since life has been on the earth.

I happen to have Encarta Encyclopedia, 1997:
Evolution, in biology, the complex of processes by which living organisms originated on earth and have been diversified and modified through sustained changes in form and function. The earliest known fossil organisms are single-celled forms resembling modern bacteria; they date from about 3.4 billion years ago. Evolution has resulted in successive radiations of new types of organisms, many of which have become extinct, but some of which have developed into the present fauna and flora of the world. Extinction and diversification continue today.

This clears up the apparent reference to abiogenesis from your quote and shows they are talking about the diversification of species after the first known life form from the fossil record.

This clears up nothing of the sort. The definition clearly spells out that they are including how living organisms “originated on earth” (abiogenesis). Nowhere does it specifically exclude it after that statement.


(46) Ernst Mayr, “What Evolution is”: Evolution – The gradual process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life. (ABC) (F)

[Various quotes/references from the book]
This is still change in species over time. Mayr also obviously believes that the evidence for this happening since the origin of life is overwhelming, but this doesn't make that part of the definition of evolution - that is just the application of the theory to the evidence. He doesn't say that long periods of time are a necessary part of the theory, just that they are part of the evidence for evolution.

The referenced quote IS the definition of evolution used by Mayr. That’s what a glossary is - a definition of terms used. You have referenced them as well. I find it amazingly hypocritical of you to go back through various widely separated sections of this book in an attempt to explain what he meant by this definition when you THINK it agrees with you, but you want to exclude from consideration sentences immediately following the first sentence in a complete definition when it doesn’t agree with you! If you are opening up the full discussion of evolution as a tool to “interpret” the definition, then you have done yourself in. EVERY complete discussion on evolution will include the various concepts I have pointed out such as millions/billions of years, all life evolving from a single common ancestor, responsibility for all the diversity of life and even abiogenesis (as Mayr’s book does). The definitions either stand on their own or they don’t. You can’t selectively and deceptively use explanations only when it suits you.

In any case, Mayr specifies that evolution has been occurring since the origin of life (supposedly billions of years ago), clearly implying that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today. Therefore, this is NOT simply any “change in species over time”.
I do find it interesting that you chose to quote his diatribe regarding how evolution is a “fact”. “That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that it has become irrational to call it a theory” Mayr says. How deluded! This is exactly the confusion and equivocation of terms that I have talked about and how prominent evolutionists have touted evolution as being a “fact”. Many scientists on the other hand have trouble raising evolution even to the level of a hypothesis. Karl Popper, arguably the greatest science philosopher of all time said the following regarding evolution “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme” - a valid reason why some of the “metaphysical” (religious) definitions of evolution should apply.


(47) Kerkut: “General Theory of Evolution” (GTE) - The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. (ABC) (F)

and again I can't verify this at this time. The fact that this is presented as a "GTE" rather than a normal "theory of evolution" leaves me unimpressed that his has to be included in the list until I can see what he is talking about.

I’d be happy to remove definitions from evaluation if you have provided evidence that it doesn’t belong. However, to decide you’re not going to include it because you don’t like what it says and can’t verify it, is not acceptable. The “GTE” is what this debate is about. The majority of definitions you have produced don’t even mention the “theory of evolution”. By that line of reasoning, they should all be tossed. And actually, I think they should.


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

Another blank at the library. Note that "from its earliest beginnings" applies to a 6000 year creation as much as it does to a 3.5 billion year expanse of life. This is just change in species over time, change that can be applied "from its earliest beginnings" but those beginnings are not defined.

Come on! You know as well as I do that since this is a definition for evolution that they are talking about 3.5 billion years. This would definitely go under the column of millions/billions of years even though it is implied instead of stated directly. If not, you are again being hypocritical. If you are discounting the age because it applies equally to the creationist’s timeframe, than why isn’t CISOT itself discounted since it applies equally to the creationist’s position as well?


(50) Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution Evolution - the development of the higher kinds of animals (eg man), plants etc, from the lower kinds. (ABC)

This is change in species over time, plus some undefined "higher" versus "lower" direction. What is "higher"?

This is laughable. “Change in species over time” – what is this except some undefined change! What kind of change? No one reading this definition would understand what you mean. I’ve stated many times that you are proposing a completely nebulous, confusing and ambiguous definition which could mean almost anything and yet you express consternation over a completely clear term of “higher”. Any reader would understand that in this context higher means more advanced, more complex, more developed, and any scientist would understand that it means greater genetic information content. They even provided an example of what higher is. My goodness!

(51) - Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 2nd edition, Marshal Cavendish Corporation, 1996,2004
Evolution is genetic change that takes place over time within a group of organisms.
Evolution can be discussed either in terms of the development of a species as it adapts to its surrounding environment over successive generations (microevolution) or according to the theory that life on Earth has gradually developed from simple to complex organisms over a four-billion-year history (macroevolution).

Change in species over time. Covers both microevolution and macroevolution.

Wrong. First, it is ridiculous to consider ANY genetic change to be evolution and they are incorrect to include it as part of the definition. A few other sources do this as well and of course that is what this debate is about. How can the many groups of organisms (people) in this county that have a myriad of genetic diseases be considered evolution? If that’s evolution, I don’t want it! Or, a less damaging example is simply groups of people born with blue or brown eyes. Genetics is the way in which the design of an organism is passed on to it’s offspring, defects and all. It’s good observable and operational science, but it is not the theory of evolution.

As noted earlier, the theory of evolution by natural selection has not changed at all in its basic principles since it was formulated by Charles Darwin in 1859. Once Evolutionists discovered a new genetic mechanism that they think could account for evolutionary changes, they started calling this evolution. However, this is only an evolutionary mechanism by their “definition” since there is zero real operational scientific evidence that genetic change can create macro evolutionary changes.

What they have defined is a genetic “mechanism” or process, NOT the theory of evolution which has not fundamentally changed and is what this debate is about. Notice that they associate micro evolution with adaptation (which I have stated is what CISOT really is) and then define the “theory” as almost EXACTLY what I have said is the real statement of the theory of evolution, calling it macro-evolution. This should answer your question about how I define macro-evolution.

This definition confirms that “micro-evolution” is simply adaptation and “macro-evolution” is Darwin’s theory of evolution – 2 very different things. Equating the two without any scientific evidence under the umbrella of “any genetic change” is the deceit that I have repeatedly pointed out. Genetic change is the cause of adaptation, but NOT evolution.
The definition of the THEORY is what we are looking for and this source supports my contention nicely.

(52) [REMOVED]- Encyclopedia of Evolution, vol 1, Oxford University Press, 2002
Applied to biology, evolution describes genetic changes that occur in organisms over time. It is distinct from maturational changes that occur during development or in organisms that have metamorphosis. In some contexts - most conspicuously when discussing "human evolution" - the term often acquires an implicit sense of progress such that later forms are assumed to be more complex and sophisticated than their primitive ancestors. In other contexts, "evolution" connotes a sense of adaptation, such that evolved forms are better suited to coping with the demands of the environment.

I’m going to have to eliminate this one. “Applied to biology, evolution describes genetic changes that occur in organisms over time” is not a definition. Evolution also describes how all life evolved on earth. The fact is that most reference books don’t define evolution at all, they just discuss it. If we are going to pick things out of discussions, then as I’ve said repeatedly, EVERY textbook that describes evolution in detail, will talk about how it is the source of all the diversity of life we see today. In addition, they will almost always talk about abiogenesis. We are also looking for a statement of the theory of evolution, not a “definition” of the word evolution or the processes involved.

(52) - Concise Encyclopedia of Biology, (seem to be missing publisher and date)
Evolutionary theory: a theory founded in particular by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), that the variety of living forms on the Earth is the result of a lengthy and complicated process known as evolution, and that this process still continues today. In the course of evolution, the numerous and various modern living forms descended from a few primitive forms with a low level of organisation. The E.t. is now accepted by all serious scientists
Synthetic theory of evolution: A modern theory of evolution incorporating Darwin's theory of selection, Mendelian genetics, and genetics at the molecular level. Five mechanisms are assumed to operate…
Selection primarily ensures that phylogenetic evolution results in more appropriate adaptations of the organism to the environment. In contrast, the other four mechanisms occur more or less accidentally and are nondirectional with respect to the form and function of the organism. Both microevolution (differentiation and divergence up to the status of species) and macroevolution (formation of larger and more comprehensive taxa, e.g. at and above the rank of genus) are ultimately due to the operation of these five factors within populations.

These 5 mechanisms add up to change in species over time. Note the emphasis on nondirectional changes, and the fact that the only mechanism that provides any kind of direction only "results in more appropriate adaptations of the organism to the environment" - there is no "progress" or "higher" or "more complex" just more "appropriate" adaptation. This also means that these concepts are not required parts of the theory of evolution.

Talk about cherry picking! This source clearly defines the theory of evolution in the first paragraph. Since you don’t like what it says, you search through the discussion to cherry pick what you want. How hypocritical, since you falsely accuse me of doing the same thing.
You are confusing various concepts and terms here. From the first paragraph, this source clearly defines the theory of evolution (which again is what this debate is about) as being responsible for all the “modern” diversity of life we see today over the history of the earth beginning with a few “primitive” forms (kinds) with a “Low” level of organization (information). Since he is contrasting “low level of organization” and “primitive” with “modern” the clear implication is that modern means “higher” and more complex.

In addition, it very clearly and refreshingly differentiates the “theory of evolution” stated above (and again what this debate is about), with the “process known as evolution”. The definition uses the term “evolution” referring to the “process” within the definition of the theory. In other words, you can use the word “evolution” as referring to the process of evolution or as a statement of the theory. Several other sources made this clear as well. The theory is not a factual observation but talks about the theoretical RESULTS of the processes involved and again agrees with my definition. Not only that, it states that this evolutionary theory is TODAY accepted by all serious scientists. Therefore, you ought to be using the definition accepted by scientists, not your personally made up slogan of “change in species over time”.

Regarding synthetic theory, this source does not really define it. It comments on the fact that it involves 5 mechanisms (processes) that are “assumed” to operate. Meaning, of course, that they are only assumed (presupposition) to produce evolutionary results without any real scientific evidence of doing so. I’ve not repeated the descriptions of the 5 mechanisms to save space.

Regardless, when I have I ever said that evolutionary mechanisms are directional? What’s the “direction” of a mutation? If it has ANY direction it is “down”. Creationists know that there is no upward direction to these processes. Random directionless processes produce nothing but random directionless results. The evolutionists are the ones that have been fooled into thinking that they can produce higher order. In contrast to the processes or mechanisms, the “theory” of evolution dictates that over time that the “appropriate” adaptations produce higher complexity and information. How else could all the variety of life today be produced from primordial soup? Therefore, changes which do not produce higher complexity (in “synthetic” terms meaning greater genetic information content) is NOT evolution, it is simply an example of the wonderful ability of the created kinds to adapt to their environment.

It also comments that both micro and macro evolution are due to these 5 factors. Of course, all scientists, both creationists and evolutionists alike, agree that they contribute to adaptation (micro evolution). However, there is no real world operational scientific evidence to suggest that they can produce macro evolutionary changes (real evolution). The only evidence for that is a false and manufactured interpretation of the fossil record.

Therefore, to only mention micro evolution (change in species over time) in the definition is where the disagreement lies because you are deceptively hiding the fact that you also mean macro evolution. If micro and macro evolution were the same thing, than why are there 2 different terms? Since this reference also discusses macro evolution, at least it makes it clear that evolution is responsible for the “larger and more comprehensive” set of organisms and therefore different “kinds” which agrees with my definition not yours.

Since you’ve taken the opportunity to add some definitions, I’ll include a few extra as well.

(53) “Life before man”, Zdenek V. Spinar, American Heritage Press, 1972
“Evolution – The process by which living things develop from simpler, generalized forms to the more complex and specialized, each generation being better fitted to survive and propagate in the particular niche of the environment it occupies. When the environment changes, the too highly specialized types are unable to adapt and so become extinct.”

This is the entire entry from the glossary. Notice the movement from simple


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 4:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 5:10 PM MurkyWaters has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 88 of 121 (407092)
06-24-2007 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
06-10-2007 9:57 AM


Re: Proceeding Once Again ...

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

I have made several compromises, but see no change in your position at all: that is not debate, it is just spouting your position with your fingers in your ears ignoring the conflicting evidence.

Look who's talking. I have suggested just as many compromises as you have and I have seen no change in your position at all. All your compromises have done is suggest we define evolution your way. That's not a compromise. In addition, all you have done is re-hash definitions, ignoring the overwhelmingly evidence (regarding the defintions) which supports my position. Lastly, you have refused to debate the appropriateness of our opposing defintions on their actual merits, supposedly because you lack any valid arguments to make. Your refusal to accept the obvious indicates that you wish to continue to deceive yourself and others into thinking that evolution has and is occuring regardless of the evidence. ...mw

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 9:57 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021