Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
24 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 78 of 121 (405179)
06-11-2007 7:56 PM


Reply to S1WC's swipe on the Moderation Thread
On Message 246 S1WC makes this argument in a place that is NOT for debate of issues, so I have re-directed it here to reply:

I would like to say that I am not interested in debating the argument of "What a real debate is or is not," so I do not wish to debate this matter (or others like defining certain terms) with you.

However, since you have brought up the Lucy matter, (and I apologize if this isn't the most appropriate place for this)I would like to say that I have revised my essay concerning this matter just recently. I have deleted the old statement, which I have learned is not proper, but in its place I have put in the truth about the knee joint and so my argument that Lucy is not a transitional from apes to man is just as strong, if not stronger! You can read what I have revised in my essay here: http://www.freewebs.com/noevolutionguy/evolutionessay.htm

Note: Your sudden attacks at my argument and use of negative comments and bandwagoning that so many other Creationists have declined from using the argument were not what prompted me to realize my mistake. I learned of my mistake when reading 'Ape-Men - Fact or Fallacy?' by Malcolm Bowden, where he explained the whole situation in the proper argument, which is what I have in my essay now. So I would like you to know that if you want to approach me and point out my mistakes, I would accept it much better if it were softer and more understanding (this is one of the main reasons I like debating with Anglagard- we actually get somewhere and I have realized the errors in my essay as we debated and fixed them).

I do recall that you have said you would not debate with me until I remove my false Lucy argument, and now I have removed it. But I would still appreciate debating with someone who presents more arguments for "proof" than for only defining terms and saying we cannot debate until we define all the terms. I realize this is your specialty, but I like debating proof, not definitions.

I will probably not reply to any replies made to this post, and it is true that I find little time and determination to debate here, but hopefully :) Anglagard and I can tackle another debate- the one about "proofs" against the Flood.

Peace my friends. Once again, I apologize for posting this here, but as RAZD has noticed, I do not normally post anywhere except in the Great Debate topics.

I will answer here as this IS a debate forum (and it IS open to you now).

I would like to say that I am not interested in debating the argument of "What a real debate is or is not," so I do not wish to debate this matter (or others like defining certain terms) with you.

quote:
Lucy’s inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that she was most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee. She did not even walk like humans do. In Lucy's find the distal (lower) end of the femur is severly fragmented, and this is the part that is to determine whether or not Lucy walked upright. So, to get around this problem evolutionists find a knee joint around 80m (262ft) lower than Lucy and several miles away and claim that this knee joint proves Lucy's ability to walk upright.

...I learned of my mistake when reading 'Ape-Men - Fact or Fallacy?' by Malcolm Bowden, where he explained the whole situation in the proper argument,...


There is no inner ear in the Lucy fossil (for gosh sakes LOOK at the fossil), this information about the femur still does not address the issue of walking correctly, you are STILL conflating australopithicus with Lucy, and you still claim that the knee was found after Lucy not before: it was this find that sent the paleontologists back to find more. My comments re LUCY still stand on Lucy - fact or fraud?. You are of course free to post there as well.

IE: Still full of falsehoods. Why am I not surprised when your source for "corrections" is still a creatortionista source and not one that presents the scientific facts:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-books.htm

quote:
Creation and Intelligent design books

Malcolm Bowden - his books are good and well worth getting hold of (The rise of the Evolution Fraud 1982, Ape-Men - Fact or Fallacy? Science vs Creation, True Science agrees with the Bible (1998)). (Young Earth)


Try reading LUCY by Donald Johanson, if you haven't already (you should be able to get it from your library) as it tells about making the discovery.

But I would still appreciate debating with someone who presents more arguments for "proof" than for only defining terms and saying we cannot debate until we define all the terms. I realize this is your specialty, but I like debating proof, not definitions.

The one that dragged that out was MurkeyWaters. The matter is really stunningly simple: you use the definition used in studying the science or you are not talking about the same thing and your argument is based on a false premise.

Analogy: I used the best soap on the market for washing my dishes in the dishwasher, but they came out with a bad taste and streaks on everything and I got the runs. Why? Because I used laundry detergent instead of dishwasher soap. You have to use the proper tools to come to the truth.

I will probably not reply to any replies made to this post, and it is true that I find little time and determination to debate here, but hopefully Anglagard and I can tackle another debate- the one about "proofs" against the Flood.

Peace my friends. Once again, I apologize for posting this here, but as RAZD has noticed, I do not normally post anywhere except in the Great Debate topics.

I'm not surprised. People afraid of the truth will do anything to avoid confronting it. And, as the evidence of your posts and your essay show, you are not interested in the truth no matter how much you claim you are.

Enjoy.

ps - I don't expect you to reply. IF you do we can agree to discuss the age of the earth, as based on the evidence, and avoid the evolution definition and Lucy's knee for now.


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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Someone who cares, posted 06-12-2007 1:03 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 80 of 121 (405298)
06-12-2007 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Someone who cares
06-12-2007 1:03 AM


Age of the Earth in stages

GREAT DEBATE
RAZD v MurkyWaters, S1WC & other creos

Of course you shouldn't be surprised, why would I waste my time reading evolutionist books to get some information if I can read Creationist books and get the information PLUS rebuttal to evolutionist "proofs"?

For the simple reason that you can't tell that the creationist book is representing the story correctly without reading the original source. The LUCY book is an easy read, not as dry as articles in journals (the ultimate source for facts on scientific studies).

I don't know... Are you sure you have any "proof" and not just useless babble about definitions and things??

We can take it in easy steps. With breaks for you to reply and rebut on any of this evidence. What we'll be looking at is methods of counting annual layers in different systems, building up the age as we go. First up is the "Methusula Tree"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29

quote:
Methuselah (estimated germination 2832 BC) is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California, which was 4,789 years old when sampled in 1957 (when the trees were originally being surveyed by Schulman and Harlan). It is the oldest living organism currently known and documented. It is named after Methuselah, a Biblical figure reputed to have lived 969 years. Located at approximately 11,000 feet above sea level, its exact location is currently undisclosed to the public as a protection against vandalism; the coordinates cited refer to the Methuselah Grove Visitor Center.

Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood.

This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957.

Any Comment so far?

{ABE} The format we can use is like that of a trial: as "prosecutor" I present "witnessed" evidence, one by one, with time for you to "cross-examine" each one before going on to the next, then when I am done you can provide evidence in defense one by one, while I "cross-examine" followed by closing arguments. {/ABE}

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE
RAZD v MurkyWaters, S1WC & other creos

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle change added banners

Edited by RAZD, : abe


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Someone who cares, posted 06-12-2007 1:03 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Someone who cares, posted 06-13-2007 3:26 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 82 of 121 (405549)
06-13-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Someone who cares
06-13-2007 3:26 PM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
... and don't be surprised if it may take me weeks before I reply sometimes ...

That is not a problem. I too may be unable to reply at times.

Tree ring dating can be misleading under certain conditions, such as when there are two or more wet seasons in a year, the tree will develop extra growth rings and thus appear older than it actually is.

Do you have a source (link) and a particular piece of evidence for this or are you just going on generalities for now. Or do you want to hold that in reserve until after the next piece of evidence. We can deal with this issue now or later, your choice.

I don't see how come this is supposed to disprove a young earth...

It's about laying a foundation for a valid methodology of puting together a chronology based on annual phenomena.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Someone who cares, posted 06-13-2007 3:26 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Someone who cares, posted 06-13-2007 4:32 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 84 of 121 (405573)
06-13-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Someone who cares
06-13-2007 4:32 PM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
You didn't get it, but I assume that you use this "proof" because it supposedly outdates the Flood.

No, I realize that this date is not that controversial for YEC position. All it is is a foundation for later evidence.

Yes, here is a good example: "Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced" http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

Yes, a good example typical of creatortionista misrepresentations, misleading statements and false conclusions. I'll explain in a bit, but first I want to add the second piece, as it basically duplicates the first and is part of the refutation of Dr. Batten's article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29

quote:
Prometheus (aka WPN-114) is the nickname given to the oldest non-clonal organism ever known, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree about 4900 years old growing at treeline on a mountain in eastern Nevada, USA. The tree was cut down on August 6, 1964 by a graduate student and U.S. Forest Service personnel for research purposes, though at the time they did not know of its world-record age. The cutting of the tree remains controversial.

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

quote:
The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4,789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV. The age is largely crossdated (6). Naturally, these ages underestimate the true ages of the respective trees (see Tree Age Determination for details), perhaps by hundreds of years in view of the fact that pith dates were not recovered for these trees. It seems likely that trees at least 5000 years old exist.

With an age of 4,789 years in 1964 when the tree was cut down this means that "Prometheus" or WPM-114 has an estimatd germination date of 2,880 BCE, just a little bit older than "Methusula." This is substantiating evidence of this age, and we will get to this below in greater detail.

Now we come to Don Batten's article, which is also available at:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441

This is a review I have written of that article (I have shortened it here to provide the highlights - the full article is available at Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud):

quote:
Dendrochronology is the study of time and climate through the evidence of tree-rings and related data. There are several thousand dendrochronologies currently being used and expanded in the world, some of these are "floating" chronologies (where the end dates are not know) and some are absolute. At first blush one would not think that young earth creationists (YEC) would have a problem with something that doesn't measure ages in the billions of years.

However the YEC problem is that the chronological age of several tree-ring dendrochronologies are older than their model for the age of the earth. Two continuous absolute dendrochronologies make the concept of a world wide flood invalid for any time in the last 8,000 years.
Don Batten wrote "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" attempting to discredit the whole field of dendrochronology in order to maintain a delusion in a young earth, and in that article he says:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 (9)

quote:
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.

The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be "incorrect" (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 "age"). So the carbon "date" is used to constrain just which match is acceptable.

The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. ... Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.


He is talking here about the "Methuselah" tree[2], with an estimated germination date of 2,832 years BCE, while ignoring the slightly older "Prometheus" tree that was cut down in 1964. "Prometheus," also known as specimen WPM-114, was 4,844 years old at the time of cutting for an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE)[8]; this not only duplicates the age shown by the "Methuselah" tree, but extends it a bit further. Nor does he address the issue of all the other trees used to build the Bristlecone Pine chronology, ones from other areas, that confirm the information from these two trees: dendrochronologies are built from many overlapping specimens, not from single trees.

Notice two things: first is the intentional mis-direction to a completely different species that grows in a different environment (with the implication that they are the same - the hallmark of a scam and a con), and second is that he knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled. We'll look at both these issues in greater detail:

Misdirection and Misinformation

The intentional mis-direction is to a completely different species - in a different subgenus and that grows in a different environment - with the stated implication that they are the same. This is the hallmark of a scam, a con and a fraud. The genus Pinus - which includes all pine trees - includes some 115 different species in three subgenus divisions: Strobus (white or soft pines), Ducampopinus (pinyon, lacebark and bristlecone pines) and Pinus (yellow or hard pines)[6]. The Monterey Pine is in the subgenus Pinus[4], while the Bristlecone Pines are in the subgenus Ducampopinus.

Now let's look into his claim of using a "similar" species. First the Monterey Pine:

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html (10)

quote:
The currently accepted scientific name of Monterey pine is Pinus radiata D. Don [12,31,32,33,43]. There are three recognized varieties [10,38]:
Pinus radiata var. radiata
Pinus radiata var. binata Lemmon
Pinus radiata var. cedrosensis (Howell) Axelrod.

Monterey pine hybridizes with knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata) and bishop pine (Pinus muricata) [12,32,25].
The typical variety of Monterey pine occurs along the coast of California in three disjunct populations in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, Monterey County, and San Luis Obispo County. Pinus radiata var. binata occurs on Guadalupe Island, Mexico [12,32,33,35,42]. Pinus radiata var. cedrosensis is found on Cedros Island, Mexico [10,12,38].
Monterey pine is part of the coastal closed-cone coniferous woodland [23].

See an image of the Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata (3).

quote:
Leaf: Evergreen needles, 4 to 6 inches long, 3 per fascicle, slender; shiny green; persist 3 years

The Bristlecone Pine chronology does not rely on just one species, but uses two closely related species for a cross-reference:

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/growth.html (14)

quote:
On dry windswept mountaintops of the Great Basin in the western United States grow earth's oldest living inhabitants, the bristlecones (Pinus longaeva, Pinus aristata). Many of the trees living today were seedlings when the pyramids were being constructed, mature in the time of Christ, and ancient patriarchs today. Bristlecones occur in only six western states, but of these the oldest are found at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in the White Mountains of California.

The bristlecone has adjusted to places on earth that no other tree wants to inhabit, and in these harsh environments, has flourished, free of competition.

Until 1970 bristlecones were regarded as a single species. D.K. Bailey, an amateur botanist, demonstrated that the western most trees differ enough in structure of their needles and cones from the bristlecones of the eastern region, to warrant a new species name, Pinus longaeva.

Bristlecones don't grow very tall, 60 ft. (18.3m) at the most, but usually much less. Girth of the largest one, the Patriarch is 36' 8" (11.2m), and this tree is relatively young at 1,500 years. The average age is about 1,000 years with only a few over 4,000 years. The oldest trees grow on outcrops of dolomite­an alkaline calcareous substrate of low nutrient but of higher moisture content than the surrounding sandstone. The dolomite can reflect more sunlight than other rocks, co ntributing to cooler root zones, and saving moisture.

Spring comes to the bristlecone pines in early May with the melting of snow and higher temperatures. Each year the tree increases in girth only 1/100th of an inch, often less, and new cones andtwigs are formed. In this subalpine zone there are only three warm summer months, often only 6 weeks, to produce growth and reserves for overwintering. All of this must be accomplished on a mere 10" (25.4cm) precipitation.


Description of the Rocky Mountain Bristlecone Pine:

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html (11)

quote:
Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine, Great Basin bristlecone pine (P. longaeva), and foxtail pine (P. balfouriana) share a common ancestor [114,149]. Taxa within the bristlecone-foxtail pine complex (Pinus, subgenus Strobus, section Parrya Mayr, subsection Balfourianae Englm.) are distinguished by growth form, bark, and differences in chemical composition [8,31,90,97]. Bristlecone and foxtail pines readily produce fertile hybrids in the laboratory [128,149]. Disjunct distributions, and possibly other factors, prevent natural hybridization among the 3 species.

Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine occurs in upper montane and subalpine communities [146]. Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis) associate with Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine throughout most of Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine's range. Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine tends to exclude Engelmann spruce and limber pine on upper subalpine and timberline sites. Even in lower subalpine sites, Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine is more common in mesic areas than limber pine [104]. Brunstein [22] noted limber pine was absent from Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine communities on the east slope of the Park Range of Colorado. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) may co-occur throughout Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine's range on seral sites including burns. Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) also occurs on new burns and other disturbed sites in Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine communities [70,104].


See an image of the Rocky Mountain Bristlecone pine, Pinus aristata (1).

quote:
Leaf: Evergreen needles, short (1 to 1 1/2 inches long), curved, fascicles of 5, dark green but usually covered with white dots of dried resin. Remain on tree for 10-17 years, giving a bushy appearance that resembles a fox's tail.

Description of the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine:

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html (12)

quote:
Great Basin bristlecone pine occurs in a relatively narrow latitudinal range in California, Nevada, and Utah [86,94]. In California it occurs on the summits of the Panamint, Inyo, and White mountains of Mono and Inyo counties [53]. In Nevada it has scattered occurrences on high mountain ranges from the White Mountains in Esmeralda County; north to the southern Ruby Mountains of south-central Elko County; south to the Spring Mountains of west-central Clark County; and east to the Ruby Mountains and Snake Range of White Pine County [31,63,94]. In western Utah Great Basin bristlecone pine occurs on the western edge of the Colorado Plateau from the Confusion Range of Millard County; north to the Uinta Mountains of Summit, Wasatch, and Duchesne counties; south to the Pine Valley Mountains of Washington County and northern Kane County; and east to the Wasatch Plateau of Emery County [94,136]. The U.S. Geological Survey provides a distributional map of Great Basin bristlecone and Rocky Mountain pines.

The ranges of Great Basin bristlecone, Rocky Mountain bristlecone, and foxtail pines do not overlap. The Colorado-Green River drainage has separated the 2 bristlecone pine species for millennia.


See an image of the Great Basin Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva (14).

The two Bristlecone Pine species have been separated for thousands of years, the Monterey Pine has been separated for much longer, especially considering the differences between the needles. What is certain is that he is comparing a very distantly related, coastal species with two high altitude species and saying they are the same - species that grows in an entirely {different habitat\ecology}. Perhaps he intentionally chose a species cultivated for rapid growth (for the timber industry), living in an entirely different seasonal growth environment where he can intentionally take samples from trees that are known to frequently have false rings. Certainly Dr. Batten is not telling the truth when he says these species are comparable in the way they grow.

Dr. Batten is also not telling the full truth when he mentions the microscope, as that is not the only tool used, either by himself to identify the false rings, or by dendrochronologists that do honest work. He knows his maximum error found occurred in a single year, not just an average error based on the total life of the tree - which is the only information he would have if he were totally unable to distinguish false rings from real ones.

False Ring Identification

That Dr. Batten knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled shows that he could indeed find, measure, locate, distinguish and identify them in spite of any claims to the contrary. The only way anyone can count the number of false rings that occurred in one year is to have been able to distinguish the false rings from real ones. He does this in the same way that dendrochronologists employ to identify false rings in order to account for them in the data and make the necessary corrections. Nor does he tell you how many times false rings were found during normal growth, what the distribution of error was, or what the average error was, he just reports the maximum rate he was able to find with the implication that amount this is common in all trees all the time. Is this a 1% error or a 10% error in the life of the tree? Dr. Batten is mum on that issue.

Nobody has claimed that there are trees that produce no false rings, or no missing rings either - another common problem that makes the trees appear younger than they really are (and which Dr. Batten in all his "honesty" fails to mention). The difference is that dendrochronologists know how to find the evidence of false rings - as does Dr. Batten when he notes "up to five rings per year" of false rings - but they use this information to correct the chronology.

Both the species of Bristlecone Pine would not have the same numbers of false rings and missing rings, as they grow in different locations and environments, and yet the chronology that is built from their evidence is consistent from one to the other. Consistent because false rings and missing rings have been accounted for by the honest scientists.

So how do the scientists deal with these problems? Here is information from an on-line slide show on dendrochronology - pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm (5)

Pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation.

quote:
(Slide 6)Under certain climatic conditions, some species will form intra-annual or false rings . If climatic conditions are unfavorable to growth during the growing season, the tree may mistakenly sense that the end of the season is near, and produce dark, thick-walled latewood cells. Improved conditions will cause the tree to produce lighter, thinner-walled cells once again, until the true end of the season. The resulting annual ring looks like two rings, but when this first ring is closely inspected it can be identified as false because the latewood boundary grades back into the earlywood. False rings occur in a number of species such as the Mexican cypress pictured here. Young ponderosa pines in southeastern Arizona commonly contain false rings as well. In this region, winter and early spring rains provide moisture to trees in the early part of the growing season. By May and June, the driest part of the year, trees have used up the available moisture and, if stressed enough, will begin to produce latewood cells. However, monsoon moisture usually begins to fall in July, and with this moisture, trees will again produce earlywood cells.

(Slide 7)Under other climate conditions, trees may produce only a partial ring or may fail to produce a ring at all. This may occur in a year in which conditions for growth are particularly harsh. These rings are called locally absent or missing rings and are commonly found in trees which are extremely sensitive to climate. ... This ring gets pinched between the rings to the left and right of it and is not visible at all in the lower portion of the slide. Very old and/or stressed trees may also produce very small, barely visible rings only a few cells wide which are called micro-rings. Because of the occurrence of false, locally absent, micro, and missing rings, it is especially important to prepare surfaces carefully and use the technique of crossdating to ensure exact calendar year dates for individual rings.

(Slide 8)The work of a dendrochronologist starts with the collection of samples in the field. The particular problem being addressed will dictate site and tree selection so that trees sampled are sensitive to the environmental variable of interest. ... Most commonly, tree-ring samples are collected using a hand-held increment borer to remove a small core of wood roughly 5mm in diameter from the trunk of the tree, ideally from bark to pith. ...Usually, two cores are taken from each tree to facilitate crossdating and to reduce the effects of ring-width variations related to differences in the two sides of the tree. The number of trees sampled from the site depends on how sensitive the trees are to the environment, but the average is about 20-30 trees.


Ponderosa Pines, for the record, are in the same subgenus - Pinus - as the Moneterey Pine(7).

Of particular note is the cause of false rings with specific reference to the type of environmental conditions that would prevail in certain locations with the Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata, used by Dr. Batten. By contrast the conditions that prevail for the Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva, are more likely to produce missing or micro rings, a condition that would make the trees appear younger than they really are.

.... (cut material) ....

Conclusions

  • The issue of false rings does not invalidate the existing dendrochronologies, as false rings - and other problems - can, and have been, identified by the scientists. They have been accounted for by cross-reference and by duplication of climate and chronological results in different species.

  • Even Dr. Batten was able to distinguish false rings in his samples and thus would be able to account for them in constructing a chronology from his choice of species if he were so inclined.

  • Dr. Batten is a fraud, a scam and a con, pretending to tell the truth to gullible people who want to believe a delusion, when in fact he is hiding the truth, misdirecting the issues and misrepresenting evidence.

    Enjoy.



    References

    1. Anonymous "Bristlecone pine Pinaceae Pinus aristata" Forest Biology and Dendrology Educational Sites at Virginia Tech. 16 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?id="224"
    2. Anonymous "Methuselah (tree)" Wikipedia. Updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29
    3. Anonymous "Monterey pine Pinaceae Pinus radiata" Forest Biology and Dendrology Educational Sites at Virginia Tech. 16 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?id="232"
    4. Anonymous "Monterey Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 12 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterey_Pine
    5. Anonymous "Paleo Slide Set: Tree Rings: Ancient Chronicles of Environmental Change " NOAA Paleoclimatology. Updated 20 Jul 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm
    6. Anonymous "Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 14 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine
    7. Anonymous "Ponderosa Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponderosa_pine
    8. Anonymous "Prometheus (tree)" Wikipedia. updated 7 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29
    9. Batten, Don, "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" Creation on the Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441
    10. Cope, Amy B., "SPECIES: Pinus radiata - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html
    11. Howard, Janet L., "SPECIES: Pinus aristata - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html
    12. Howard, Janet L., "SPECIES: Pinus longaeva - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html
    13. Martinez, Lori, "Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating" Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. updated Oct 2001. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/good.html
    14. Miller, Leonard, "Growth Characteristics" Sonic.net/bristlecone. Updated 2 Jan 2005. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/growth.html
    15. Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 10 Jan 2007 http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS%20Readings/Reimer2004.pdf

  • I have taken out parts that refer to later evidence, and we can go back to those when we come to that evidence.

    The net result of Don Batten's work is

    • he badly misrepresents the status of Pinus radiata as closely related when it is in a different subgenus, it has been cultivated by the timber industry for fast growth (ie selected for false ring growth) and grows in an entirely different ecology. For someone with his status as a plant biologist this is inexcusable unless his purpose is to deceive gullible and ignorant people and he is not worried about scientific truth in this article (which is not peer reviewed).
    • he claims that false rings cannot be found, then claims that he found 5 false rings in one specimen. These claims are mutually exclusive and one or the other must be totally false.
    • he provides false information about how false rings are found, neglecting to mention the method used in the science to account for this issue.
    • he neglects to mention at all a similar issue of missing rings that result in the ages appearing younger than they really are.
    • he neglects to provide his data and methodology as a true scientist would in a real scientific paper, and the only reason for not providing them is to hide the facts of how he determined the numbers of false rings.
    • he falsely implies that dendrochronologists don't take false rings and missing rings into account in building chronologies.

    In other words Don Batten on this one article has shown that when he is writing for creatortionista websites that he is a completely unreliable source that willingly provide false witness to deceive gullible and ignorant people.

    In other words two things:

    (1) false tree rings (and missing rings) are a known phenomenon in dendrochronology and a scientific methodology has been developed to eliminate their effect from the chronologies, and
    (2) Don Batten actually demonstrates how effective this methodology is when he uses it to determine the number of false rings in his samples

    The tree rings record not only age but climate variations (mild winters, long summers, etc) and that the dendrochronologies take this into account in matching samples. The two trees - "metusula" and "prometeus" - match for climate data as well as for age, even though they come from different groves on different mountains, thus validating the rings (along with samples from other trees in several groves). Dendrochronologies are not based on single samples but hundreds with a lot of duplication to completely rule out false and missing rings. Finally, the age for "prometheus" is a minimum age because the center of the tree is missing, the tree was so badly weathered that the core was gone. We will come back to the issue of correlations between data more as we go farther.

    Still, MIMIMUM CONFIRMED AGE OF THE EARTH = 2,880 + 2007 = 4887 years old, with no possible WW flood in that time

    Ready to move on or do you have more about the reliability of tree ring dating ... hopefully from a valid or reliable source?

    Enjoy.

    ps -- this seems longer than it really is. The important information is:

  • Don Batten's article is false and misleading and he actually confirms the validity of dendochronology.
  • There is another tree with the same age
  • Both Trees correlate for climate and age

    Edited by RAZD, : formating for clarity


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by Someone who cares, posted 06-13-2007 4:32 PM Someone who cares has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by Someone who cares, posted 06-19-2007 11:40 PM RAZD has responded

  • RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 86 of 121 (406520)
    06-20-2007 9:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 85 by Someone who cares
    06-19-2007 11:40 PM


    Re: Age of the Earth in stages
    Note that I have moved this reply and copied the preceding related messages to a new Great Debate Thread to reduce confusion with other topics being pursued here: Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only

    I have deleted the text of this message so that you can reply on the new thread. Thus you can take your time and not feel inundated by other posts that interfere with our debate.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : science thread comment.

    Edited by RAZD, : moved to new thread.


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by Someone who cares, posted 06-19-2007 11:40 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 90 of 121 (407159)
    06-24-2007 5:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by MurkyWaters
    06-24-2007 1:15 AM


    Move forward.

    GREAT DEBATE
    RAZD vs MurkyWaters and others

    Welcome back Murk, long time.

    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.

    And still no change. The concept is simple: two universities that teach the science of evolution specifically define evolution as change in species over time. Everything else is from discussion of the effect of evolution over time: diversity, "macro"evolution are effects.

    The concept of the debate is also simple: if my definition is inadequate, then challenge it to produce the goods. Failure to do that is refusal to move the debate forward.

    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.

    Define that "something" and we can proceed. Insisting on "something" that you leave undefined does not move the debate forward nor resolve the issue, it is just stonewalling. If you cannot define it then it does not exist except as a figment of your imagination.

    {abe} Without "something" being defined it cannot be tested and thus it is

    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).

    Note that the next sentence starts with "this definition" meaning that the first sentence is THE DEFINITION. You continue to conflate it with the discussion of the results of the theory, the predictions, and the science of evolution.

    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.

    There is no main part, there is THE definition and then a discussion of how it is applied in the SCIENCE of evolution. It is typical of every other misrepresentation of the scientific theory of evolution.

    The rest of your post is just more of the same and has already been refuted. Stop wasting bandwidth and deal with thie issue: can the theory of evolution as change in species over time explain the diversity of life we see?

    Yes. That has already been demonstrated with the Foraminifera and Pelycodus and several other examples: diversity happens as a result of change in species over time. Every speciation event has resulted in a new species, that is a diversification.

    Can the theory of evolution as the change in species over time explain the diversity of life we see with our classification system? I say yes. It is just more diversity over more time.

    If you disagree all you need to do is say "show me" and anything else is a waste of time at this point.

    (2) The theory of evolution, on the other hand, can be stated as “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form.” This can be equated with the commonly used terms “macroevolution” (used by evolutionist) or simply “theory of evolution” (used by creationists).

    This is the result of the theory not the theory. You are conflating the science of evolution with the theory of evolution. Your whole argument is based on a false premise and thus your conclusions are necessarily invalid. The fact that you call this the creationist definition shows that you are not using the scientific definition but a strawman.

    If for some reason you do not accept compromise #1, which I think is extremely reasonable, and If you are truly interested in a compromise, then let’s you and I debate the actual merits of the definitions point by point and bring this endless analysis of definitions to a close.

    You have offered no compromise at all but acceptance of your position without modification and with complete denial of evidence to the contrary. It appears all you are interested in doing is rehashing old ground. The simple thing to do to move the debate forward is to APPLY the theory and see if it works. That is how science is done.

    Anything less is stonewalling. Stop wasting bandwidth and start applying science.

    Message 89
    For over 70 posts now you have insisted that "Change in species over time" is a statement of the theory of evolution. This definiton is NOT used in science or in any dictionary, encylopedia or scientific reference. This is a cute slogan made up by you in order to deceive yourself and others into thinking that real evolution has occurred.

    Prove it. Let's proceed to application of "my" theory to see where we end up. That is how science works. It's that simple.

    Enjoy.

    ps - I've invited other creationists to participate in the debate due to your unwillingness to move forward.

    GREAT DEBATE
    RAZD vs MurkyWaters and others

    Edited by RAZD, : abe


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by MurkyWaters, posted 06-24-2007 1:15 AM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 91 by shiloh, posted 06-25-2007 1:59 AM RAZD has responded
     Message 97 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-04-2007 1:58 PM RAZD has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 92 of 121 (407224)
    06-25-2007 6:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 91 by shiloh
    06-25-2007 1:59 AM


    Do you want to debate something?
    YOU GOT OWNED Raz - razzeled-dazzeled

    Think so?

    One, your perception is false: you are not looking at the evidence, but what you want to see. Murk has just presented the same falsified position he has before, and which has been refuted. He has not shown that the definition needs to be more than change in species over time. Volume of misrepresented definitions and conflations of discussion with definition does not begin to refute the fact that definitions used by universities teaching evolution are simply that the theory of evolution is the change in species over time. Berkeley's single line definition is enough to refute his position. Murks post was a waste of his time because he did not address that issue.

    Funny how, IF murk is right, he is afraid to move forward using just my definition. Petrified. Runs screaming every time it is suggested.

    Two, your comment does not contribute to the debate. This is not a normal thread but a Great Debate Thread, and all posts are expected to contribute to the debate. One purpose of the Great Debate thread is too keep non-contributory posts out of the thread. I have invited other creationists to participate in order to move the debate forward from the stonewalling of Murk on the issue of definitions, but I expect them to contribute to the debate on other issues. Perhaps you would like to try to move it forward? If so what topic from the initial thread do you want to discuss?

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : and it's PWND


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 91 by shiloh, posted 06-25-2007 1:59 AM shiloh has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 93 by shiloh, posted 06-25-2007 3:05 PM RAZD has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 94 of 121 (407297)
    06-25-2007 4:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 93 by shiloh
    06-25-2007 3:05 PM


    Re: Do you want to debate something?
    But here is my contribution.

    RAZD said:
    "...the theory of evolution is the change in species over time."

    To quote Michael Behe:

    Seeing as Michael Behe is not teaching the science of evolution his "definition" is irrelevant: he is not using the definition used by scientists so he is de facto talking about something else. This is called a straw-man fallacy in logic. Your failure to understand this simple principle is not my fault, as this has been extensively explained on this thread: it is WHY murk is wrong as well, no matter how he complains and whimpers about it.

    Lets see YOUR theory:

    Prediction - Change in species over time
    Observation - Darwins finches beaks changed over time
    Conculsion - MY theory of evolution is established.

    WOW thanks for the obvious.

    If this is your definition there is no need to debate.

    So then we can move on to show how applying this theory produces the diversity we see in life on this planet. Cool. Proceed to Message 25 and Message 50 to see the next levels of application of this theory to the evidence, evidence that shows that change in species over time is sufficient to explain the diversity produced in those examples.

    I have said before that the argument creationists have is not with evolution per se but with the concept of common ancestors and how many starting species are needed to explain the diversity of life we see on this planet. All you have done is confirm that position.

    No, I was waiting for you to arise out of your primordial goo of obfuscation and debate Merky Waters.

    The only one wallowing in goo is murk. I've been very clear and consistent. I've even proposed using my definition for just microevolution, but even there murk ran screaming from the debate. I've been ready and willing and able to move on.

    You will note that I provided the evidence in the above linked messages and more to move the debate forward from murks stonewalling on the definitions, and he refused to discuss anything but his misperception of evolution.

    Do you care to take up the challenge of talking about the science of evolution as done by the scientists and leave behind your misunderstandings and face reality?

    {abe}

    Creationist believe in micro-evoulution - you are the one who needs to move forward.

    So you have no problem with my using this definition for a working definition of evolution and seeing how far we can get with the diversity of life as we know it:

    Message 17
    "Micro"evolution
  • refers to speciation and
  • nothing beyond the causes up to and including speciation,
  • has been observed to occur and is
  • thus a fact.

    That it involves

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

    That it does NOT involve

  • sudden large scale change or
  • sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities.
  • You will note this was proposed to murk back in message 17 in order to move forward. {/abe}

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : abe


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 93 by shiloh, posted 06-25-2007 3:05 PM shiloh has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 95 by shiloh, posted 06-26-2007 1:08 AM RAZD has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 96 of 121 (407436)
    06-26-2007 9:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 95 by shiloh
    06-26-2007 1:08 AM


    Re: Do you want to debate something?
    I would hope this debate goes further but honestly I dont have the time, ...
    I do not say these things as a rebutal nor to furhter the debate - I honestly do not have the time or the effort to engage in it.

    Another creo refuses to take up the gauntlet. Curious position if you have the side with the answers.

    I wish I new what your full position is - like:

    From what did microeveloution begin and how did it arrive. If you want to use microevolution as a means of macroevolution; what is the foundation of microevolution?

    Do you hold to a common ancestor of all life?

    Microevolution is the (genetic) change in species over time. For it to begin you first need life, an process that produces genetic (inheritable) change - such as mutations - an environment that selectively benefits or inhibits individuals based on there fitness\adaptation to the environment - natural selection - and a changing environment.

    How that life arose is open to debate. Was there one such or several? We don't know for sure: the first evidence we have of rocks capable of showing fossil life 3.5 billion years ago show life was already in existence, so we don't have any evidence that can show how it arose.

    How do you define species?

    Good question. I would define species as reproductively isolated and environmentally isolated populations. This is easiest applied to sexual species, more difficult with asexual (each individual is sexually isolated, but not environmentally isolated from those nearby; in different environments they will have different selection pressures and change in different ways over time; those within each population will undergo similar changes, those in different populations may undergo different changes depending on their opportunities). Asexual species are also known to exchange genetic material with horizontal gene exchange, even between different species, and this can tend to homogenize local populations in the same way that sex operates in sexual species where members within a population interact. This process may also have been at work on early life forms to homogenize them from several initial starts.

    Species are often declared as different after a period of time has elapsed and the number of changes observed in the individuals add up to a certain threshold of noticeable difference from some original starting point. This is often referred to as "arbitrary speciation" because that's what it is: an arbitrary decision by someone to declare a different species.

    Places where speciation is not arbitrary are where speciation events are observed that result in two (or more) daughter population that no longer interbreed\interact: two daughter species are different from each other so at least ONE must have become a different species from the parent species.

    These are useful distinctions, because a lot of speciation is arbitrary, but SOME is definitely non-arbitrary.

    Both are evidence of evolution -- the change in frequency of alleles in a population \ (genetic) change in species over time \ descent with modification -- just as the Darwin Finch beak change was. Both are seen in the evidence from the foraminifera record, but Pelycodus is a non-arbitrary speciation event. Pelycodus shows the end result of microevolution: the separation of two populations that no longer interbreed and share genetic material, and thus each is free to continue to evolve within their separate populations in different directions, not just in size but in other selected adaptations to their changing environments.

    The range of micreoevolution is not known unless we have absolutely est. the range of what is a species, as well as the totality of the different genomes. Also, even if microevolution can increase genetic info that info is of a certain type and will be constrained by those genomes and the category to which they belong. Hence, your not going to get the info for a "wing" if the genome never had any type of wing to begin with and if the genome had info for a wing the info increase would code for another type of wing - a wing that needed more information, but that would fall within the catergory of genomes that are allowed to interact with each other - where that line is we have yet to establish. And I dont think any amount of microevolution will cross that boundary.

    What you think, and what you understand, have no effect on inhibiting nature. It has been shown that either evolution has "increased information" or that the concept of "information" as applied is useless in predicting what evolution can and cannot do. The bat wing does not need new information to use and adapt previous parts of bone and skin to form a flying surface. The evidence is that dinosaurs had feathers before they had wings, and thus they too adapted existing parts of bone and skin and feathers to form flying surfaces. There is no problem here for evolution.

    Sorry, I do not quite understand where you are coming from. Just wanted to know.

    The best way to find out is to continue the debate.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : /i


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by shiloh, posted 06-26-2007 1:08 AM shiloh has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 98 of 121 (409110)
    07-07-2007 12:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by MurkyWaters
    07-04-2007 1:58 PM


    Re: Move forward.
    Just the high points:

    “Something” is anything other than “change in species over time”. I have demonstrated what those “something’s” are over and over and over again. The definitions clearly include “greater information content” (stated in various ways), “long ages” (millions or billions of years), “New Kinds” (not just simple speciation), and “all life arising from a common ancestor”. These are qualifiers to the TYPE of change which is being discussed and are NECESSARY. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that any change is evolution just because they state or imply change is occurring.

    They are only necessary in your personal view -- in order to say that they cannot be explained by the hereditary change in species over time you have to eliminate that possibility by evaluation of the facts, not just by blind assertion and rejection. You have not done that.

    You need to define "information" in a way that it can be evaluated and measured. Without such a definition it cannot be a scientific concept that can be applied in any honest and impartial evaluation of the data.

    You need to demonstrate that "'long ages' (millions or billions of years)" are necessary rather than just claim it.

    You need to define "kind" in a way that can be applied to any individual organism with clarity and no confusion or equivocation. Without such a definition it cannot be a scientific concept that can be applied in any honest and impartial evaluation of the data.

    You need to demonstrate why “all life arising from a common ancestor” is necessary for evolution to occur today or at any time in the past.

    For these to be "NECESSARY" parts of the definition you need to show that they cannot be excluded from the definition without changing the ability of the theory to explain all the evidence. You have not done this.

    If we have observed one kind of creature changing into another, then “show me”.

    Every time there is a non-arbitrary speciation event there is at least one new species that did not exist before: whether one or both differ from the parent species does not matter, as the difference between the two daughter species means that at least one is new. This is a new kind of creature using any standard definition for "kind" anyway.

    Kind –noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
    2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
    3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.
    4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.
    5. Archaic.
    a. the nature, or natural disposition or character.
    b. manner; form.
    6. Obsolete. gender; sex.

    If you want to use a different definition then you will need to provide one, one that can be used honestly and impartially.

    The first sentence is not put in quotes or separated out as another paragraph. The following section which you conveniently left out is labeled as “THE EXPLANATION”. Therefore, the first part cannot be the explanation; it is part of the definition. And in fact, as I have stated previously, an explanation of the definition is also deservedly part of the definition as well by simple substitution rules.

    I did not say the rest of the paragraph labeled "THE DEFINITION" was explanation, and the rules of substitution mean you can use the definition in place of the word defined and get the same meaning: it says NOTHING about any explanation of the definition being used in place of the definition. Please stop misrepresenting the truth.

    I’ve already proved it. See my long post 87.

    You proved nothing except your stubborn adherence to falsifying information. To prove that hereditary change in species over time does not explain the evidence you have to evaluate it and eliminate it as a possibility. You have not done this: all you have done is continued to assert a (false) position.

    ps - I'm considering inviting other evolutionists to participate in the debate due to your unwillingness to move forward.

    We can take this out of the Great Debate forum and put it in the Biological Evolution forum with the question limited to the definition for the theory of evolution -- your call (you were the one that wanted it in Great Debate to begin with).

    Enjoy.


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-04-2007 1:58 PM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-10-2007 12:27 AM RAZD has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 100 of 121 (409574)
    07-10-2007 9:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 99 by MurkyWaters
    07-10-2007 12:27 AM


    ADMINS: please move to {Biological Evolution} forum
    Just the high points again.

    Wrong. They are necessary because the definitions include them,

    This claim has previously been falsified. The Berkeley definition alone is sufficient to show this. You have also yet to show that a definition without them is insufficient.

    ... , the definition of “kind” I have already provided should suffice, which is no less arbitrary than what you have provided for the definition of “species”.

    I asked for a definition: where is it? Note that I have been through the whole thread and NOT ONCE have you defined this term. What you have done is equivocate on "kind" per my definition (and as used in other definitions of evolution) with "biblical kind" which you use elsewhere: this is another logical fallacy.

    So stop dancing around the issue and clarify it: give us a concise, usable definition for what you mean "kind" -- one that can be used in an unbiased manner.

    Regarding substitution, if “Joe is tall” and “tall” is defined as anything “over 7 feet”, then “Joe is over 7 feet” is a true statement. This is more applicable in definitions which reference micro and macro and then explain what micro and macro is later.

    Thank you for making my point: the definition can be substituted for the word and have the same meaning by the rules of substitution. This does not apply to bits and selected parts of extended encyclopedic explanations of the definitions, which is what you keep attempting to do (specifically with the Berkeley definition).

    So, have you decided to change your definition to “hereditary change in species over time”? If so (and if we were discussing the evidence for or against the theory), you would need to show that this process can produce the theoretical results stated in the theory of evolution – namely, that it is sufficient to produce all the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor which arose billions of years ago from non-life. You have not done this: all you have done is simply insist that it is true.

    Actually (1) I have not changed: I have always said that the change was genetic, and (2) I have suggested moving in that direction several times, and I have produced evidence for it: you have consistently refused to pursue this aspect. You cannot hold your failure to pursue this aspect of the debate to my account: it is all yours.

    On the other hand, my definition has been unwavering since the beginning.

    Which does not stop you from being wrong.

    Your first "definition" was in Message 8: "Evolution Theory - Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means." This is not the same as what you are now claiming.

    But I agree with your being "unwavering" as this is just as I have said: you have been completely unwilling to compromise. I have suggested several compromises to use as a working definition for further debate, all of which you have rejected while you continue to stonewall.

    Your "definition" does not include a process by which evolution occurs, and all it amounts to is a list of observations of what has been accomplished by evolution and the time frame that we see in the evidence around us. That is not what a theory is. You seem to think you have "caught me out" in a "big mistake" by saying change in species over time is a process and a theory, when the theory applies the process to the evidence. Your failure to include a process that explains the phenomena leaves your "definition" empty at the core.

    I did not “want” it here. ... Perhaps in an open forum there might be others that are more interested in a real pursuit of truth.

    As you wish, we will have this moved to an open forum. Biological Evolution is the logical one.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : added comments.

    Edited by RAZD, : clarified


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-10-2007 12:27 AM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-11-2007 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 101 of 121 (409576)
    07-10-2007 9:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNWR
    07-29-2006 6:46 PM


    Please move to {Biological Evolution}
    See previous two messages. Also remove "(RAZD v MurkyWaters & ?)" from the title.

    Thanks.

    Edited by RAZD, : title change


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 07-29-2006 6:46 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 103 of 121 (409868)
    07-11-2007 8:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 102 by MurkyWaters
    07-11-2007 12:36 PM


    Still stonewalling -- time to move thread.
    Only the stuff worth replying to.

    I have shown this with almost every breath. It doesn’t need to be repeated. Please either read my posts or give up this debate if it is too much work for you.

    You don't do this by listing more definitions, you do this by showing that a definition without them is inadequate. This you have not even begun to do -- rather you have run from it every time.

    See post 87.
    If you need further clarification when we discuss evidence, I’d be glad to oblige.

    Nope -- there is no definition of "kind" there.

    Until you provide a working definition of what you mean, the standard definition is the only one that CAN be used, and by it's definition a new species is a new kind of animal: speciation has occurred, ergo one kind of animal has evolved into another.

    And no, you do not get to decide what your definition will be as the evidence is discussed: put it up or admit you have no working definition that is usable.

    Wow. I’m shocked. This is an outright bald-faced lie.

    So you are saying that

    Message 8
    Evolution Theory - Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means.

    (which is just abiogenesis, btw) and

    Message 87
    (2) The theory of evolution, on the other hand, can be stated as “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form.” This can be equated with the commonly used terms “macroevolution” (used by evolutionist) or simply “theory of evolution” (used by creationists).

    Are exactly the same? You have changed "life" to "all the living forms" and you have inserted "a single common ancestor" that was not there originally. Plus you have added the term "macroevolution" which implies something else as well - IF your ARE going to equate it with what evolutionists call "macroevolution" (which is different from your definition). Yes it is different in several key aspects.

    Note that your latest definition does not include a LOT of the things on your list of elements that you deem absolutely necessary in your review of definitions (where is complexity, diversity, etc?): thus you also disregard your own arguments to stick to your false preconceptions. That is stonewalling.

    Neither does it stop me from being right.

    The fact that you do not include any elements used in the Berkeley DEFINITION means you are DE FACTO wrong. It is that simple: you are not an authority on what the theory of evolution is, Berkeley is: they teach the science.

    Since you have clearly lost the debate and any respect for the truth, I’m open to you getting help from others by moving the debate.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : fixed quote box


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-11-2007 12:36 PM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-12-2007 10:57 AM RAZD has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 105 of 121 (409988)
    07-12-2007 4:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 104 by MurkyWaters
    07-12-2007 10:57 AM


    Re: Still stonewalling -- time to move thread.
    What you really mean is “only the stuff that you have an answer for”. You refuse to answer my questions or respond to any arguments for which you have been shown to be false. THAT is stonewalling.

    No, the rest of your posts are generally whining and continued misuse of information. Wasted bandwidth.

    The many definitions is the evidence that YOU have chosen to focus on in this debate. Now you are abandoning them because they have shown you to be false in your assertion.

    On the contrary: I have shown how they support my definition, and how you misrepresent information to arrive at your lists. I don't need to keep doing this every time you present another false list that continues to make the same errors.

    From the beginning and throughout this debate I have insisted on wanting to address the definitions on their merits and have presented volumes of evidence other than the definitions to demonstrate that CISOT is insufficient without additional elements included.

    No, all you have done is ASSERTED it is insufficient, you have not SHOWN it to be so. You have also RUN from every discussion of evidence.

    There is as much a usable definition of “kind” there as you have provided for “species”. And yes, I do get to decide when we discuss it in more detail,

    In other words you admit that Message 87 has no definition of "kind" as you are using it and neither does any other message: contrary to your assertion that you had presented a definition. Another falsehood you are caught in and trying to cover up.

    No you do not get to "tailor" your definition to suit when it comes to evidence: you put it up to be tested fairly or admit that you are playing a hid-the-pea shell game with your "definition".

    Btw, you may want to read Message 96 before you assert that I have not defined species again. You will find it fairly similar to definitions used by scientists. For another definition you can use the one from the forum glossary:

    http:///WebPages/Glossary.html#S

    quote:
    A basic taxonomic category for which there are various definitions. Among these are an interbreeding or potentially interbreeding group of populations reproductively isolated from other groups (the biological species concept) and a lineage evolving separately from others with its own unitary evolutionary role and tendencies (Simpson's evolutionary species concept). Employing the terms of population genetics, some definitions can be combined into the concept that a species is a population of individuals bearing distinctive genes and gene frequencies, separated from other species by biological barriers preventing gene exchange.

    That last sentence would apply equally to sexual and asexual species. It can be applied to any group of individuals to see whether they comply with the definition or not. It can be applied to humans and it can be applied to bacteria. It doesn't help us with ancient species where there is no genetic material available, such as fossils: all we can do there is look at the number of similarities between previous and following fossils and the pattern of life in each environment. Thus non-arbitrary speciation events (such as pelycodus) that show a separation over time of a common ancestor population into two distinct and different daughter populations does show two species existing where one had before. Arbitrary speciation would involve feature modification over time to the point where the resulting descendant is noticeably different from the ancestor -- such as longer leg bones.

    No, I’m saying that I have never defined evolution as “life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means”.

    Sorry your Message 8 says otherwise.

    The definition used by science and scientists (All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form) contains all of the elements that I have said are necessary to explain the theory.

    You are now claiming that "(All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form)" is your definition, but it is not the one you gave that I quoted Message 87. Please. I (anyone) can read what you said:

    Message 87
    (2) The theory of evolution, on the other hand, can be stated as “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form.” This can be equated with the commonly used terms “macroevolution” (used by evolutionist) or simply “theory of evolution” (used by creationists).

    Pretty sad when you have to misrepresent even what YOU have said. Funny how it does NOT match with the definitions from Berkeley and U of Mich AT ALL.

    They need not be stated explicitly. I’ll repeat those factors again for your reading pleasure which I listed in post 87 if you were paying attention:

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

    I've said before these are a series of observations of the results of evolution. A list. It does not show how evolution OCCURS, which is what a theory would do.

    Tacking them on now and claiming they are parts of your definition that need not be stated explicitly is really hilarious when that is part of your claim for including them. You can't have it both ways Murk, you've been caught out again.

    And again you are equivocating between KIND as used in the STANDARD definition (as given in Message 98) and your implied "special" but undefined "KIND": kind here is just a different group or type of animals, there are different KINDS of DOGS. Evolution of different KINDS of species HAS OCCURRED and it has been observed.

    Several definitions use descent from common ancestors (plural), and not descent from a single common ancestor: you have continued to conflated these together to misrepresent this element as well. All those definitions mean is that several generations back two daughter populations had a common ancestor population: this refers to speciation events and nothing more. This too has been observed.

    For something to be explicitly necessary it needs to be included in every single scientific definition. What you claim as explicitly necessary is curiously missing from both the Berkeley and U of Mich Definitions: This PROVES they are not explicitly needed.

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

    You continue to misrepresent the facts. The facts of what the definitions really are and the facts of even what you post.

    You do agree that a human being is more complex than some primordial goo, don’t you?

    I repeat: give me a metric to measure the complexity by so that we can ascertain the specific level of complexity of every individual species, as without such a metric all this amounts to in an argument from incredulity. That is certainly not an element of a USABLE definition without such a metric.

    I include all of the elements in the Berkeley definition. You are the one that is removing them to leave only CISOT.

    quote:
    The Definition:
    Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

    That is the entire paragraph labeled DEFINITION. Note the specific reference to (hereditary) change in species over time. Note that A single common ancestor is NOT included, "long time" is NOT included, "complexity" is NOT included, "kinds" is NOT included (although speciation IS, being more specific and being part of the change is species over time). Certainly your "All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form" is NOT included anywhere in that definition. Stop misrepresenting the facts MURK.

    You misrepresent the facts, you even misrepresent what you previously said. You run from any application of theory to the evidence, and you try to use undefined terms in definitions as though they would mean something. You seem to think parroting what I say is cute, but all it shows is an inadequacy on your part to make your own argument.

    Yeah, that's wasted bandwidth.

    You want to debate in good faith, then start by defining "kind" in the way you mean it, and in a way that can be applied to the species present and past in a clear and unbiased manner.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : s

    Edited by RAZD, : forum glossary species definition and discussion added.


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 104 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-12-2007 10:57 AM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-13-2007 12:31 AM RAZD has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20111
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    RAZD writes:

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

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

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

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

    Message 8

    Comparison of Creation and Evolution Theory


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



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

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

    Are you on something? How is:
    “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form” contains all the elements…
    Different from:
    Message 87 -
    “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form.”
    Pretty sad when you begin to see differences in two identical items. Probably similar to the problems you have imaging things about the theory of evolution. Please. I (anyone) can see what I said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    quote:
    The Definition:
    Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Message 1
    RAZD writes:

    Message 9:
    Evolution is change in species over time


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Here we go again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    my reply was

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

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

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

    Your response was:

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

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

    Your response was

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

    and

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

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

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

    Run away.

    In Message 39 I say

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

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

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

    Yet here in Message 105 you claim:

    The definition used by science and scientists (All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form) contains all of the elements that I have said are necessary to explain the theory. They need not be stated explicitly. I’ll repeat those factors again for your reading pleasure which I listed in post 87 if you were paying attention:
    1) Change which occurs over long ages (millions/billions of years) – this is explicitly stated in the definition.
    2) Change which produces new “Kinds” – Kinds (forms) are explicitly stated in the definition
    3) Change which is responsible for all life found on earth from a common ancestor – this is explicitly stated in the definition.
    4) Change which produces greater information content (complexity) – This is implied since the definition states that all living forms today arose from a common ancestor. You do agree that a human being is more complex than some primordial goo, don’t you?

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

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

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

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

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

    Kind –noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
    2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
    3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.
    4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.
    5. Archaic.
    a. the nature, or natural disposition or character.
    b. manner; form.
    6. Obsolete. gender; sex.

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

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

    Enjoy.


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


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 106 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-13-2007 12:31 AM MurkyWaters has responded

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

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019