Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 121 (410555)
07-15-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by MurkyWaters
07-12-2007 10:57 AM


On the merits of your definition ...
The requirements for a general definition for the theory of evolution would be that it be able to be applied from time {A} to time {B} regardless of whether the interval is a day, a year, a million years of the full known history of life on earth, 3.5 billion years minimum.
On this basis we can evaluate your definition on it's merits by it's ability to do this -- including all your hastily tacked on list items from your previous "must have" elements from your bogus review of definitions:
Message 104
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?
Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week immediately shows that including "over billions of years" makes it inadequate for this task. Strike one.
This also means your conflation (your #1) of "millions" of years with billions of years is also irrelevant, as even including only millions of years means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike two.
This also means your conflation (your #1 again) of "long ages" with billions of years is also irrelevant, as even including only "long ages" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike three.
Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week immediately shows that including "a single common ancestor" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike four.
You also conflated (your #3) common ancestor for new species with the concept of a single common ancestor at the dawn of time -- this aspect of heredity can be used to help define species, as each species would come from a common ancestral pool of genes when that species came into existence. Being able to talk about natural selection and variations between individuals within a species population is useful, seeing as evolution occurs within species. This aspect of common ancestor can be applied to any time period, whether it is a day or a week or millions of years or billions of years. We'll be generous and call that easy lob a ball (it's not a hit for your definition anyway, and you certainly didn't swing at it).
Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week immediately shows that including life coming "from an inorganic form" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike five.
You have also conflated origin of a new species with origin of all life, when this is just speciation. This too is useful in talking about natural selection and variations between individuals within a species population is useful, seeing as evolution occurs within species. This aspect of the origin of a species can be applied to any time period, whether it is a day or a week or millions of years or billions of years. We'll be generous and call that easy lob a ball (it's not a hit for your definition anyway, and you certainly didn't swing at it).
Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week immediately shows that including produces new “Kinds” (forms) means this element is inadequate for this task -- IF you use "Kinds" to only mean macroevolution development of major taxons or the identifying characteristics used to determine those taxons. Strike six.
But you have again conflated (your #2) the use of new "kinds" in definitions where they are talking about nothing more than new varieties with your preconception of macroevolutionary change. When we use THIS definition of "kind" (the common dictionary definition given before), then this can be applied to any time period, whether it is a day or a week or millions of years or billions of years. We'll be generous and call that easy lob a ball (it's not a hit for your definition anyway, and you certainly didn't swing at it).
The concept (4) of "greater information content (complexity)" does not show up in your summary definition anywhere. Strike seven.
Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week, or the time it takes, say, the galapogos finches to grow large beaks and then to grow small beaks (thus reversing and "information" content "increase") immediately shows that including "greater information content (complexity)" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike eight.
Being able to apply the general theory criteria to a period of a day or a week, or a million years, or the time it takes, say, for the full history of life (3.5 billion years minimum) for the evolution of cyanobacteria must evolve into something "more complex" and yet there they are today as relatively "complex" as they were at the begining of known history, thus immediately showing that including "greater information content (complexity)" means this element is inadequate for this task. Strike nine. Your side is retired without a single hit.
And you are out of concepts to evaluate for a general theory of evolution.
To be generous we can look at it as a special theory of evolution -- similar to the difference between general relativity and special relativity -- and see what it can do. Your theory claims it must apply from the whole period complete from day zero to the present, thus the only special condition it can apply to is the full history of life on earth (3.5 billion years minimum) and not a second less. It does not, however, talk about any intermediate steps. That's a bunt, and you get to take off for first base, but you can't get there and turn around to run back to home: your theory only works at home plate and you can't cover the bases. You can't explain normal population variation, speciation, selection, diversity between species and the different effects of different environments\ecologies. You are out of players and forfeit the game, this with you throwing all the pitches to your own batters.
That's purely on the merits of your definition in being able to be applied to the actual field of evolution and any study of different parts and aspects of it.
Now let's review those instances where you were given balls ...
(1) using "a common ancestral pool of genes" as a definition of species allows us to talk about the changes to those genes over time - any period of time. This is hereditary change in species over time (a hit for me).
(2) using "origin of a new species" as a point for defining a species allows us to talk about the changes to that species over time - any period of time. This is hereditary change in species over time (another hit for me).
(3) using the common dictionary definition of "kind" means we are talking about a new variety or a new species occurring within the time period of the study. This is hereditary change in species over time (and another hit for me).
In fact you can easily apply hereditary change in species over time to any time period from a day, to the oscillating pattern of the galapogos finches, to the evolution of cyanobacteria over the full 3.5 billion year history of life to study the amount of change and the pattern of evolution over that time period. That's a home run ... with the bases loaded.
Looks like a clean sweep for hereditary change in species over time as a general theory of evolution.
You lose on merit as well as on misrepresenting the facts about your definition.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : cyanobacteria
Edited by RAZD, : bunt to home

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 not replied

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


Message 110 of 121 (413393)
07-30-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by MurkyWaters
07-27-2007 9:46 PM


More logical failures and inability to deal with reality
I cannot believe you are continuing to propagate this lie. I am now demanding an apology or this debate is over as far as I’m concerned. If you cannot even budge on something as obvious as this, there is no point in continuing anyway. Let me make this perfectly clear. This is the statement you have made in post 100:
So you are now claiming that the section where you are starting out to compare "Creation Theory and Evolution Theory side by side" and where you then place a box labeled "Evolution Theory" and which contains your phrase "Life arose from non-life billions of years ago by purely naturalistic means" is NOT the theory of evolution? I'm glad you cleared that up, Murk, because it sure looks exactly like that is what you were claiming there.
This would be less humorous if you still had a case for your "definition" being true. Instead this can be seen as a pathetic attempt to divert attention from the failure your definition and to claim some kind of moral victory before leaving the field at a run (desperately avoiding reality).
However you haven’t even attempted to refute it, which is the point I intended to make.
First, I contest your assumption that these definitions support your position. Ignoring that however, if you only need these 2 to refute my position, than I need only quote 2 of the remaining definitions (even though I supplied 8 of them in a recent post) to refute your position. Since I have more definitions refuting your position than you have, then I win.
Nope. You need to answer the refutations of YOUR theory: it is wrong. Whether you can show that my definition is wrong or not is irrelevant to the logical validity of your definition. This is a typical creationist blunder, and I expected better of you. It would appear from this statement of yours that you do not understand how logic works. This is not surprising given your many misrepresentations of other definitions.
Your use of "All the living forms in the world have arisen" in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).
Your use of "billions of years" in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).
Your use of "from a single common ancestor " in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).
Your use of "which ... came from an inorganic form " in your definition is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).
Here are the university definitions again for reference:
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
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/.../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.
Conclusion: YOU ARE WRONG.
We can do the same thing for you list of "must have" items (that you claim are included by implication now that it was pointed out that they were missing):
Your use of "1) Change which occurs over long ages (millions/billions of years) - this is explicitly stated in the definition" in your addendum item list is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).
Your use of "2) Change which produces new “Kinds” - Kinds (forms) are explicitly stated in the definition." in your addendum item list is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones) unless you concede that "kind" doesn't means anything other than the standard dictionary definition of "kind" above (in which case this defaults to the same as change in species over time). Also for extra credit show where "kinds (forms)" is explicitly stated in your definition. For bonus points provide a definition of what you mean by "kind" ... which you still have not done.
Your use of "3) Change which is responsible for all life found on earth from a common ancestor - this is explicitly stated in the definition." in your addendum item list is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones).
Your use of "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." in your addendum item list is completely, irrevocably and totally refuted until you can show that the Berkeley and the U of Mich definitions include those words (or equivalent ones). For extrsa credit show how this has occurred in the evolution of cyanobacteria since they first appeared on earth 3.5 billion years ago. For bonus points define "information" in a way that can be quantified and compared from one organism to another.
Conclusion: YOU ARE STILL WRONG.
That’s a joke. And who decides what is unnecessary or necessary? I would contend that it is NOT you.
Not you Murk. Who decides what is necessary and unnecessary are those applying the theory to the evidence to see if it can explain the evidence: the point that I have been trying to make for many posts now, but which you keep stonewalling on and avoiding. Scientiests decide what is necessary and what is unnecessary by testing the elements against the evidence.
We can do this with your latest version of your "theory" as another demonstration of why it is totally inadequate:
Message 104
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?
Does this explain evolution observed in Galapagos Finches? It does not occur over billions of years, there is no tie to the origin of a first common ancestor or to inorganic forms, and the amount of change in information cannot be measured, and it does not demonstrate change responsible for all life found on earth: these elements are a total failure when applied to this specific case of actual evolution. Change that produces new "kinds" DOES in fact occur -- IF you use the standard definition of "kind:
kind -noun1. 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.
But then this also means that what you are talking about is change in species over time -- unless and until you provide a different definition of "kind" that can be used in an impartial and scientific manner.
We can do the same for the peppered moths, foraminifers, pelycodus, horse evolution and other examples of evolution already presented on this thread. In each case the ONLY part of your theory that works is the part that equates to (hereditary) change in species over time with the use of the common definition of "kind". This means that your definition is invalid ... except for the change in species part.
Conclusion: YOU ARE STILL WRONG.
Lastly, you have not answered my question. You have appeared to start using H-CISOT in place of CISOT. Are you or are you not formally changing your definition to H-CISOT? I need to know in order to respond properly to your comments.
I did answer that by referring to the very first time I used change in species over time. The change in question is hereditary and it is due to mutation and natural selection and a number of other mechanisms that operate on populations of species under ecological pressures. It just seems that you keep ignoring this aspect of the change in question so I have made it more visible. As noted in the previous message:
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.
Change in hereditary traits was specifically discussed in the FIRST presentation of the definition. So I have not suddenly added it now Murk - it has been there all along. The evidence is there, you have just blindly ignored it.
You can also compare this definition to the Berkeley and U of Mich definitions and see that both of them discuss (hereditary) change in species over time. If I were looking for a slogan I would go with something like "evolution happens, deal with it" which is true, but doesn't tell you much else.
I could also be much more explicit on what is involved, essentially including all the different theories regarding mutations and selection mechanisms, however this would get cumbersome. I can also be a little more explicit on what the change is that is involved:
The theory of evolution is that species change over time, that the change is enabled by the available variations (diversity) within populations due to accumulations of different mutations in hereditary traits, and the changes made within each generation are those selected by the differential response of organisms to passing on their hereditary traits under prevailing ecological pressures.
This added information explains how the hereditary traits are both derived and selected, but the overall theory is still change in species over time.
This next post is complete waste. This has nothing to do with debating the definitions on their merits. You have now introduced a new and completely bogus concept.
What you cannot deal with is that Message 108 totally and completely refutes your definition. Once again your definition is refuted six ways to sunday, and the only response you have is that it has "nothing to do with" or it introduces something "new" to the debate. LOL.
There is absolutely NO such requirement for the theory of evolution that dictates that it must be able to be applied across any interval of time.
It is how science is done Murk. A general theory applies to general conditions. Evolution Science covers time intervals from single generations to the full 3.5 billion year span of known life on earth. Therefore a general theory of evolution covers the same time frames. For reference to reality I give you the Berkeley definition again:
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
And the U of Mich definition:
The Process of Speciation
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.
Color yellow mine for emphasis. Small scale time and large scale time. In the definition by two universities teaching evolution. Guess what that means? That both these theories apply to any time interval where change can be observed.
Conclusion: YOU ARE - ONCE AGAIN - WRONG.
Your inability to deal with the arguments of Message 108 just shows how bankrupt your argument has become.
However, the definitions from authoritative sources have shown us that the statement of the theory of evolution has 4 requirements - long ages, development of new kinds, responsibility for all life on earth and greater information content (complexity). This is 4 clear strikes against “change in species over time” since it includes none of these requirements.
Looks like a clean sweep for “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” as a general theory of evolution.
You lose on merit as well as on misrepresenting the facts about your definition.
This is pathetic. You haven't even begun to apply the theory to the facts, but you jump to a conclusion that it is wrong, based on invalidated information. This is not logic or reality.
Most fundamentally, CISOT is NOT a statement of a theory. It is an observation of fact.
It is based on observed fact: that is how scientific theories are made. Theory also makes predictions. The theory that species change over time makes a prediction that if you change the ecological pressures on a population that the hereditary mutations that are differentially selected for will be different from the current ones in the population. Thus drought on an island will produce a response change to the population -- larger beaks to open harder seeds -- and return to normal weather will produce another response change to the population -- smaller beaks again.
It will also predict intermediate forms between known fossils of any line of descent. Thus it will predict Tiktaalik -- intermediate in time between previous and later fossils, intermediate in environment inhabited between previous and later fossils and intermediate in form between previous and later fossils.
Message 26
All that Tiktaalik appears to be is another example of a lobe-finned fish.
Your inability to deal with the differences that make it intermediate between previous and later fossils does not mean that it is not a transitional, just that you are in denial of the evidence.
Change in species over time passes the test of a scientific theory -- the ability to make predictions that can then be validated or invalidated.
CISOT says nothing about the type of change predicted by the theory. Everyone knows and has always known that creatures change, but what kind of change? Is it the type of change that occurs as creatures grow old?
Seeing as Message 1 - as noted above - gives you this information this is not a problem. This blindness on your part is why I've added hereditary when stating it. It's a good question and one with an answer, as noted in the more explicitly above:
quote:
... the change is enabled by the available variations (diversity) within populations due to accumulations of different mutations in hereditary traits, and the changes made within each generation are those selected by the differential response of organisms to passing on their hereditary traits under prevailing ecological pressures.
I can get even more specific when we get into details of what kinds of traits\mutations and what kinds of selection mechanisms are involved with specific cases ... but that should cover the basics.
A survey of 60 definitions taken from a wide variety of authoritative sources and analyzed in Post 87 undeniably demonstrate that any statement of the theory of evolution must include the following 4 elements to be valid.
Your survey, in which you misrepresent many definitions, facts and use false logic. Your "survey" is invalidated by the facts of what evolution is, what the biological evolution science involves and what the universities teaching evolution say. Your inability to deal with this refutation does not make your position correct, it just means you are in denial.
“Change in species over time” provides no differentiation from the primary competing theory of creationism.
LOL. Another logical fallacy. The theory of Lamarkism is more competition to the theory of evolution than creationism. The fact that creationists have come to accept most facts of evolution doesn't make what they call a theory credible. What makes a theory credible is the ability to make predictions and to be falsifiable -- and then to be tested by experiment and further observations. Creation "theory" does not meet these criteria, thus it doesn't amount to anything of concern to science. Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief.
Nevertheless, the point of this section is to compare creation and evolution theories.
Nope. The point of this section is to use the definition of evolution and of the theory of evolution that is used by science, and not one dreamed up by creationists in a desperate attempt to hide the pea and delude themselves that evolution is not occurring. Evolution happens -- deal with it.
The bottom line is this -
You are --- still --- wrong.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : change
Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

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 109 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-27-2007 9:46 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

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


Message 111 of 121 (413928)
08-01-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by MurkyWaters
07-27-2007 9:46 PM


Murky Predictions ... and theoretical validity.
If we take your definition as a synthesis of valid modern theories -- your argument based on your "survey" of various definitions eh? -- and evaluate the validity of this "synthesis theory" by it's ability to make usable and accurate predictions for the further study of evolution (as a way to evaluate the validity of your definition as a scientific theory) we get the following:
Message 104
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?
Then we get these results:
All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years ...
(A) Predicts that new forms\species\varieties\etc will take billions of years to evolve.
New species and varieties have been observed to evolve in modern times, and evolution of other species\families\genera\etc. have been seen to evolve in the fossil record in less time.
This part is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
All the living forms in the world have arisen ... from a single common ancestor ...
(B) Predicts that new forms\species\varieties\etc will be related to a single common ancestor.
Current thinking on this issue is divided, with some thinking there were multiple original ancestor species. This theory does not predict that happening, thus it would be falsified by such a finding.
As this has not been determined yet this cannot be considered as a tested part of the theory. It is at best an untested hypothesis. As such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
(C) Does NOT predict that new forms\species\varieties\etc will be related to a recent common ancestor.
This means that nested hierarchies of species are not necessary and new species could evolve from the single common ancestor (should one exist). As such this does not have any value to the study of on-going evolution.
Thus it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
... which itself came from an inorganic form.
(D) Cannot make any predictions about modern evolution based on this element, and as such it does not have any value to the study of on-going evolution.
In addition this has not been confirmed it cannot be considered as a tested part of the theory. It is at best an untested hypothesis. As such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
1) Change which occurs over long ages (millions/billions of years) ...
(E) Same response as (A) to "billions of years" above: this part is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
2) Change which produces new “Kinds” ...
(F) Predicts that new "Kinds" will be produced by any level of evolution. This either:
- (1) Refers as a minimum to variations within existing species (using the dictionary definition of "kind"):
kind -noun1. 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.
In which case we are talking about change in species over time ... such as Galapogos Finches to the evolution of modern horses from Hyracotherium and more.
This part does make valid predictions, but they are no different from those made by "change in species over time" and thus does not make any additional predictions to differentiate it from that definition of the theory. The rule of parsimony would go with the simpler definition as a statement of the theory.
OR
- (2) This refers to some other level of change which is left undefined by the theory.
As this type of change is undefined it cannot be studied, nor can it be predicted, and as such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
In addition, evolution of the level discussed in (1) above for Galapogos Finches and the like invalidates any prediction that change must be at some other level to be evolution.
As such it is invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
3) Change which is responsible for all life found on earth from a common ancestor ...
(G) Same responses as (B) and (C) to "single common ancestor" above: this does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
Change which produces greater information content (complexity ...
(H) Predicts that "information content" will always increase.
As there is no metric for measuring "information content" provided in any scientific literature on biological evolution there is no way to ascertain whether "information content" is actually increasing or decreasing or remaining the same. Without a means to measure this element there is no way to validate or invalidate this prediction.
As such this does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
In addition there are a number of instances where evolution has gone one direction and then reversed itself. According to the above element both of these should be an increase in "information content" and thus the conclusion is either:
- (1) This has been invalidated by existing information and does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
OR
- (2) The concept of "information content" is irrelevant to evolution. As such it does not belong in any synthesis of validated theories.
CONCLUSIONS
The only part of the "Murky Definition of the Theory of Evolution" that produces valid predictions of evolution that can actually be tested is the part that is the same as the theory of (hereditary) change in species over time (see Message 110:
... Theory also makes predictions. The theory that species change over time makes a prediction that if you change the ecological pressures on a population that the hereditary mutations that are differentially selected for will be different from the current ones in the population. Thus drought on an island will produce a response change to the population -- larger beaks to open harder seeds -- and return to normal weather will produce another response change to the population -- smaller beaks again.
It will also predict intermediate forms between known fossils of any line of descent. Thus it will predict Tiktaalik -- intermediate in time between previous and later fossils, intermediate in environment inhabited between previous and later fossils and intermediate in form between previous and later fossils.
The rest of the elements are either invalidated or do not belong in a synthesis of validated theories of how evolution occurs. As such they need to be removed from any proper statement of a synthesis of validated modern theories of evolution.
Note: any statement of a synthesis that includes invalidated and untested theories of evolution would have to include all the invalidated and untested ones, from Lamarkism to Darwin's "blended inheritance" and the like ... and then it should include a discussion of those that are invalidated and why, and a discussion of those that are not yet tested and what those tests would entail. This would be cumbersome and counterproductive.
The bottom line is that your definition fails the test of comparison to valid scientific definitions of the theory of evolution, it fails the test on the merits of the definition elements applied to the study of evolution, and it fails the test of making usable predictions that are any different from the "change in species over time" definition.
The bottom line is that this "Murky Definition of the Theory of Evolution" is a failure.
Enjoy.
ps - If I were going to formulate a "synthesis definition" it would be based on what evolutionary biology covers as a field of science and various subcategories of the science (genetics, natural history, embryology, ecology, epigenetics, heterochrony, etc); it would be something like:
(1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.
OR
(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.
OR
(3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
OR
(4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:
  • theories on how change is enabled
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
  • theories on how changes made within each generation are selected
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate)
    ... etc
As you can see there are different levels of detail involved, and that the more detail you include the more cumbersome the definition gets.
Either way it's a usable theory that can be applied to on-going studies of evolution and to make predictions for change. But it is still - at the heart - change in species over time.
Edited by RAZD, : genus not genius
Edited by RAZD, : updated synthesis theory
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : again
Edited by RAZD, : one more tweak
Edited by RAZD, : final tweak

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 109 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-27-2007 9:46 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by MurkyWaters, posted 08-18-2007 1:17 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 113 of 121 (416930)
08-18-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by MurkyWaters
08-18-2007 1:17 AM


Murky dodges again.
Why would you falsely assume it is a statement of the theory when you admit above that I am only “starting out” to compare them?
Because you say lets compare theories, then have two boxes labeled {theory A} and theory {B}, with statements in the boxes that look like statements of the theories, and then there is a gap. Normally people start out these kinds of comparisons by actually stating the theories in those boxes. Then down below is where you go into details on the comparisons, but you can't do that honestly without first stating the full theories that are being compared.
Now if you want to admit that you meant to do this but forgot or got in a hurry or just made a mistake, then no problem. You can correct that mistake.
It really doesn't matter to me because your concept of what evolution is, what the science of evolution covers and what the theory of evolution includes is mistaken -- at best.
Something being part of the “definition” or “statement of theory” is a completely different issue from something being part of the theory. For example, your definition says nothing about natural selection, but it cannot be denied that natural selection is an essential part of evolutionary theory
Yet I don't see it in your {everything but the kitchen sink) definition (msg 104). It cannot be denied that the theory of natural selection is an essential part of the science and study of evolution.
Again this is an element of the level of detail in the expression of the theory in question and how much you go into a discussion of what the science as a whole covers. Natural selection is one of the (many) validated theories that make up the science of evolution, as is genetic drift as another example. These act on the available variations in populations to select what changes are inherited. That change has been specified as genetic change, or change of hereditary traits from the start, means that it is there: change in the frequency of alleles in populations from generation to generation; descent with modification -- (hereditary) change in species over time.
1) Life from non-life (Berkeley) - “within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from”.
Just because it is "of special interest" within the scientific field of evolutionary biology does not mean that it is part of the definition of the theory of evolution, or even that it is a necessary part of the science of evolution.
2) Billions of years (Berkeley) - “Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago.” Notice it says that evidence “suggests”, not evidence “proves”.
Again this is just an observation of the natural history of life on earth, including of the span of time that the science of evolutionary biology covers from the first known life to now.
Notice that the evidence - fact - is that the earliest life we know of existed 3.5 billion years ago - cyanobacteria fossils in rocks.
Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria
quote:
The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!
Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years, and they may leave chemical fossils behind as well, in the form of breakdown products from pigments. Small fossilized cyanobacteria have been extracted from Precambrian rock, and studied through the use of SEM and TEM (scanning and transmission electron microscopy).
What is suggested, not proved, is that this is the first life and the first appearance of life. We don't know that. There could be other forms of life from the same time that did not fossilize and there could be earlier, simpler forms of life. Alternately cyanobacteria could have been "seeded" on the earth from space -- we don't know. All we do know is that 3.5 billion years ago there was life on earth.
Again, just because this is part of the natural history of this planet does not mean that it is part of the theory of evolution.
3) Kinds (UMich) - “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”, as opposed to species - “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another”.
You are once again blatantly misrepresenting things Murk, highlighted in pink above. This is not part of the UofMich definition or the part discussing it. This is you falsifying information. Your “members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another” is not anywhere within the section on the definitions of biological evolution (it is part of one concept of species identification in the following section).
The Process of Speciation
quote:
* 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.
A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures.
The second definition emphasizes the gradual change in species over the course of time, including the generation of new species. It is not "as opposed to species" as you claim, but forms a continuum using the same basic mechanisms of evolution looked at from a wider angle and over longer time (as the last paragraph states). It looks at descent and the effects of additional normal hereditary changes within species over time for the opportunities for the formation of diverse forms over longer periods of time than species cover.
Forms that can be grouped into each different level of a taxonomic hierarchy by their similarities. At each different level of taxon there are different kinds at that level: different kinds of species in each family, different kinds of families in each genus, different kinds of genera in each order, etc etc etc.
There is nothing magical about classifications into different taxons, no level of change that needs to be reached to make a new level, just relationships by common ancestors and the different times of divergence.
This again is just part of the natural history of life on earth.
Change that produces new "kinds" DOES in fact occur -- IF you use the standard definition of "kind:
Again, you are being hypocritical. Use the definition used by Science and scientists, NOT the “general” definition.
I am. There is no special definition listed as scientific under "kind" so what scientists use is this general definition as a generic classification for arbitrary groups of organisms, whether by variety, species, family, genus, order .... or whatever, based on their similarites.
4) Common ancestor (Umich) - “Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor”, an oak tree and man for instance.
Common ancestor is a result of hereditary relationships, thus it is a predicted part of the natural history of life on earth by the theory of evolution. Theoretically the further back in time you apply the theory of evolution the further back in time you will find common ancestors. The evidence for common ancestors validates this concept and that in turn validates the theory of evolution.
You are also equivocating here Murk, as what you were supposed to be showing is that a single common ancestor is necessary in your definition, and this is just recent, or last common ancestor (LCA). You have done this throughout your "evaluation" of definitions (and why it is not usable).
I am supposed to answer refutations of my theory while you refuse to address refutations of your theory? What makes you so special? You have attempting to refute my theory with 1 or 2 definitions out of 60 and yet it is not valid for me to refute your theory with many more?
That's not what I said. I said proving my version to be invalid (if you had) would have no bearing on the validity of your version. None. Zero. Nada. It's basic logic 101.
And in regards to being “tested”, the entire theory of evolution is an untested hypothesis! By your same logic, it should be thrown out. I take the use of your words “validated theory” to mean a valid statement of theory. This is unrelated as to whether the theory itself is valid (true) or not.
Sorry, "validated" means "tested and not invalidated" when it comes to scientific theories. Your claims that evolution is untested is just another delusional assertion on your part. Further "valid" does not mean "true" either -- it just means it has not be invalidated by the tests that have already been done. It may be that your concept has not been tested, but it is not evolution or the theory of evolution.
Logic tells us that if we are neither both right nor both wrong, then you would need to show that one definition is right AND that the other definition is wrong.
Both history and logic tells us that we can both be wrong, that there is no dichotomy as you falsely imply, and that you need to deal with the evidence that refutes your concept OR consider that it is invalidated.
CISOT applies equally to the development of life from the original created kinds over the last 6000 or so years. Therefore is it entirely useless in describing evolutionary theory
No, it just demonstrates that your beef is not with evolution but with common ancestry.
Most of your so called refutations of Message 111 are just assertions on your part, all smoke and no fire, without logic, substance or substantiation, however you have many many logical errors in your post, and this is a typical one:
References to all the diversity of life arising from a common ancestor over billions of years in universally accepted definitions of evolution specifically infer that nested hierarchies of species are required! Why would you think they are unnecessary? This concept has extreme value to the study of evolution.
Insisting on only a single common ancestor in your definition means that any new species can evolve directly from it and there is no need to infer any intermediates. What you are referring to that results in nested hierarchies is recent, or last common ancestors, (LCA). This is valuable to the study of (real) evolution, but this is not what you have. You can't conflate definitions that use LCA to claim that this supports your contention that a single common ancestor must be included in your definition and then equivocate back to use LCA to defend your single ancestor use in the definition.
This is what you do time and again Murk, and it is dishonest.
This does not say that new Kinds will be produced by any level of evolution. It simply says that evolution produces new Kinds.
Right. Any evolution will produce new kinds. Same result.
The scientific definition of “Kinds” can and is just as precisely defined as “Species” is. Therefore, if you apply the same logic, then CISOT must be thrown out as well.
And yet, strangely, you do not provide your definition of "kinds" you just make an assertion. You dodged the question again, Murk. Where's the definition? Without this definition you cannot claim that kinds have not evolved.
We can use the definition of species to see when new species have evolved and when they have not evolved, so if your definition of "kind" is just as good we should be able to use it to determine whether new "kinds" have evolved or not. Failure to provide such definition leads to the conclusion that you don't want to test this claim.
My goodness, there are volumes of studies regarding information content. Since you have refused to answer questions regarding this topic, I hardly think you can use it to disqualify a valid theory.
LOL! Wrong! Evolution did not occur since there was never any information gain. The inclusion of this element is critical to determine what is evolution and what is not. It is therefore supported by existing information and DOES belong as part of the theory.
And yet, strangely, you do provide the metric for measuring the amount of "information" in an organism so that you could actually (scientifically) verify when it goes "up" and when it goes "down" -- you dodged the issue again Murk. Without this metric you cannot tell one way or the other, so you cannot honestly claim that "there was never any information gain" -- and if this element is so "critical" to your definition then WHERE IS THE MEANS TO MEASURE IT?
It's very simple Murk: measurement of parameters is the way science is done. Change in the frequency of alleles in populations - a measurable quantity. Over generations - another measurable quantity.
This is natural selection, NOT evolution. And again, it is fact, not theory.
Since the Galapagos finches is not an example of evolution, it cannot be used to show that the definition is incorrect!
Sorry, Murk, but you do not get to decide whether this is or is not evolution. Scientists in the field of biological evolution get to decide what qualifies and what does not qualify as evolution.
By the Berkeley definition "changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next" and thus it is unequivocally evolution, as used by scientists.
By the UofMich definition #1 this is "Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation" and thus it is unequivocally evolution, as used by scientists.
... or moves in a direction which supports the notion that all the diversity of life arose from a common ancestor, then it is evolution.
That would be evolution of the Galapagos finches too.
The elements in my definition are a complete SUCCESS when applied to the Galapagos finches because it indicates that this is NOT an example of evolution BY DEFINITION.
Evolution did not occur since there was never any information gain.
All this shows is that your understanding of evolution is invalid and that your particular definition is a failure not that evolution did not occur.
The theory predicts that life can form from non-life. Again, if the evidence does not support the theory, that does NOT change the statement of the theory. All it means is that the theory should be abandoned.
Correct: your version of the theory should be abandoned as inadequate. It does not explain things adequately and is falsified by some things.
You see, Murk, ALL you have done here is show that your concept of the theory of evolution (and evolution) is invalid, not that evolution itself is invalid, or that the science of evolution is invalid, or that species have not evolved generation by generation.
This is known as the logical fallacy of the straw man argument: create a false opponent and then knock it down. This does not invalidate the real argument, only the straw man.
Instead of abandoning the theory, you just want to abandon the definition so you need not produce any valid evidence in the support of real evolution!
All that was tested was your definitions and concepts. They failed to explain the facts. That makes them invalid.
Its value is not in the study of on-going evolution, but rather in evaluating the validity of the theory.
No, Murk, a theory that cannot be used to explain and study the existing evidence, the ongoing process of any science, and make predictions, is useless by definition. The purpose of a theory is not to validate itself but to be useful in studying the science in question. You 'theory' is incapable of this, and therefore it is not a valid theory for the study of the science of biological evolution -- as done by scientists.
As I’ve stated many times, this is where you get in trouble. You cannot boil down a theory to it’s least common denominator by ignoring it’s critical elements. You simply end up with useless gibberish. It is the same as saying that Newton’s law of universal gravitation can be boiled down - at the heart - to change in force over time.
That would be false of course, because there is no time element in Newton's basic theory of gravity. But you can say that it is simply the attraction relationship between masses over distance (squared) -- those ARE the minimum elements to the theory. Including the time for the formation of the entire universe (13.7 billion years) is extraneous to the basic formulation of this theory. Including the formation of the first particle to condense from energy plasma (first matter formed from non-matter) is extraneous to the basic formulation of this theory. Including the formation of stars from the debris of the first stellar novas (first common element) is extraneous to the basic formulation of this theory. Including the formation of the solar system by the accumulation of particles into star and planets (formation of new stellar bodies) is extraneous to the basic formulation of this theory. But all of these elements are part of the natural history of the universe and the solar system and the study of physics and astronomy.
Your point is refuted by your own example.
Of course using your approach to theory building we need to include all these elements in order to develop:

The Murky Theory of Gravity

The {hypothesis/belief} that all the celestial bodies in the universe formed over many billions of years from a single common element which itself came from a non-material form
1) formation which occurs over long ages (millions/billions of years) - this is explicitly stated in the definition.
2) formation which produces new “Kinds” - Kinds (forms) are explicitly stated in the definition
3) formation which is responsible for all planets and stars from a common element - this is explicitly stated in the definition.
4) formation which produces greater information content (complexity) - This is implied since the definition states that all living forms today arose from a common ancestor.
Of course man has been incapable of forming new celestial bodies like a moon in spite of hundreds of years of experiments with gravity. We have also never seen the formation of any new celestial bodies. This is because gravity is false. Yada Yada etc etc etc typical creationist nonsense....
Instead you insist that 90% of the definitions are WRONG
No, Murk, I have demonstrated that your evaluation of their import on a statement of the theory of evolution is wrong. I have shown this to be the case several times and yet you continue to do the same thing over and over. What's hilarious is that you have just now shown that your theory of evolution is invalid just as I claimed it was. Good. Now we can move on to what evolution really is and what the definition of the theory of evolution really is.
In summary, CISOT says NOTHING about the theory of evolution.
Are you personifying " the theory of evolution" as some finite object Murk? It isn't. It is a theory.
The theory that hereditary traits in species change over time is a statement of what the theory of evolution covers\includes\studies. And you admit it happens.
It is a complete failure as a description of evolutionary theory. It predicts nothing since it is simply an observational fact in the present. It is completely and totally useless. It is something you have made up to deceive yourself and others into believing evolution is true.
You have not shown this, you've just made a number of assertions that this is so, based on your straw man misrepresentation of it, and of evolution, and your denial of scientific studies.
The easiest way around your stonewalling is to forget "yours versus mine" and use a scientific definition from a scientific source that teaches the science -- such as the Berkeley definition.
And why should I debate the Berkeley definition, when you refuse to debate the majority of sources that agree with my definition?
Because you initially brought it up, and because I agree with you that it is a scientific definition of the theory of evolution used by scientists to teach the science of evolution. Thus there is no need to look at the validity of your various misrepresentations or what you think of my version, but just to proceed with the discussion using this definition used by scientists. I'm not so dedicated to my version of the definition to make this compromise.
Or do you dispute that this is (a) a definition of the theory of evolution (b) by scientists in the field of evolutionary biology and (c) used by scientists in the field of evolutionary biology?
You may feel that Berkeley and UMich support your definition, but they do not refute mine.
Good. Then we can proceed to use the Berkeley definition.
This means you can dispense with the drama and the histrionics and 10 pages of detailed nonsense and actually proceed with the debate.
IF that is what you really want to do. Personally I think you only want to be a drama queen (hence the stonewalling and the sturm und drang). Of course it also means you can't hide behind misrepresentations anymore either.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added more
Edited by RAZD, : murky theory of gravity
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 112 by MurkyWaters, posted 08-18-2007 1:17 AM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-02-2007 12:04 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 117 of 121 (419444)
09-02-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by MurkyWaters
09-02-2007 12:04 PM


Murk misses many marks and makes much ado about nothing of significance
I really wish you would take more time to read these messages before responding. Your most recent post is chock full of examples of simply not reading the material and then responding with irrelevant comments which don’t deal with the issues at hand. In addition, you quickly respond to a small handful of points and completely ignore the major arguments that you are apparently having trouble with and cannot refute. As has been shown time and again and as will be shown in this post, you are the one that is dodging and stonewalling, not me.
No, Murk, I do read them. I just choose not to go over stuff that is already refuted six ways to sunday. The fact that you keep making your posts longer and longer by repeating stuff that has already been refuted six ways to sunday doesn't mean that you are really addressing any issue at all. Repeated falsehoods does not make them true or valid or rational.
Are you playing dumb? It’s not very becoming of you. You have already admitted that you were aware that I was only “starting out” to compare the theories with other components to follow so you have been caught in another lie. You had obviously read the entire post since you had responded to it in the past so you knew the definition I had proposed was in the definition section, just as yours was in the definition section of your prior post (following YOUR discussion of the theories beforehand).
It’s totally unbelievable and beyond all reason that you are now attempting to blame me as a cover-up by accusing me of being dishonest and making mistakes in how I laid out my argument. I made no mistakes. There was a specific rhyme and reason that is completely apparent if you’d just read the response as to why the components of evolutionary theory were laid out chronologically. That is not only stated in the referenced post but on numerous occasions throughout this entire debate so you are without excuse. Not only this, but I never mention a single time that this is my definition of evolution and in subsequent paragraphs make it clear time and again that this is only the beginning parts of the theories.
Why is it so impossible for you to admit that you have made a mistake (could it be because you have purposely misrepresented the information)? Honestly, if you cannot concede your error in a most blatantly obvious example as this, there is really no point in continuing to more complex issues. And just to be complete, it is not my concept of evolution or what it covers that is mistaken, it is yours -at best.
Well normally the first thing you do comparing two items is to define the two items. It certainly LOOKS like that is what you did in fact do. That you now say you aren't doing that is your problem. The only other conclusion one can come to is that it is not intentional but just plain sloppy writing on your part.
It is also totally irrelevant to the issue of your definition being a total fabrication that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution as used by scientists.
That was my point. You don’t see it in either definition. The definition used by science (MTM) does not include “everything but the kitchen sink” but only those critical elements necessary to convey the meaning and intent of the theory. Natural selection is part of evolutionary theory. While evolutionary theory consists of many sub-theories they are still subordinate or part of the main theory. It is not necessary to list all of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms in the definition, although it certainly would not be incorrect to do so.
You seem to be relegating these components to the “Science” of evolution, but that is just semantics. It is not incorrect to state that they are part of “evolutionary theory” which is the terminology commonly used. My point was that everything included in “evolutionary theory” (or science) is a different topic than the “definition” or specific statement of the “theory of evolution” which includes only those things necessary to convey the basic meaning and intent of the theory.
First, your "MTM" definition is NOT used by science no matter how much you claim it is. It is not reflected in the Berkeley definition and it is not reflected in the UofMich definition.
The only thing a valid definition of the theory of evolution needs to include is how evolution occurs.
Evolution occurs by (actual) changes in (existing) populations over (some measured period of) time, because that is what evolution is. Changes that are hereditary get passed on to descendants, those that aren't hereditary are eliminated by the passage of time. The degree of change possible is enabled by a diversity of mutations that occur randomly and by ecological opportunities. The changes that are passed on to following generations are selected by genetic drift and natural selection. That is how evolution occurs.
A valid theory of evolution does not need a hypothetical starting point, it does not need to specify hypothetical time periods it does not need to specify hypothetical "increased" diversity or some still undefined hypothetical level of "information" -- those are not part of how evolution occurs.
They MAY be part of what SOMETIMES happens during the course of evolution, but their existence does not define that evolution has occurred. What defines that evolution has occurred is that populations change over time. When you measure the (hereditary) change in species over time you are measuring the fact of evolution actually occurring or not.
Your definition (Message 104):
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
Does not say how evolution occurs nor does it tell you how you can measure or determine whether it has or has not occurred at any given point. That means it is not a usable theory.
It clearly states that the origin of life is part of evolutionary biology which makes it part of the science of evolution which means it is part of evolutionary theory. This is supported by many other sources as well. The same applies to Billions of years, kinds and common ancestors. However it was not my intent to get sidetracked into specific discussions on each of these. The clear point being made is that these concepts are all part of evolutionary theory. Whether they should be contained in the definition or not is determined by the scientific sources we have referenced.
However it is not a coincidence that all of these concepts are discussed in every verbose reference on evolution. That is because they are all part of evolutionary theory. Evolution theorizes that life arose from non life billions of years ago. Evolution theorizes that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor which means one kind changed into another kind. This cannot rationally be denied.
Being part of the science does not mean it has to be part of the theory. That is the whole issue here. The science applies the theory to the evidence to see if it explains the existing evidence, makes predictions and tests the predictions of the theory.
You continue to conflate the science with the theory and reach false conclusions. All your "support" is on the science of evolution and how it applies the theory to reach conclusions such as common ancestors and evolution of all life from some possible first common ancestor population(s). Those are conclusion based on the theory NOT part of the theory. They are falsifiable predictions of the theory, and NOT part of the theory. This cannot be rationally denied.
It is absolutely and equivocally NOT a fact that the earliest life we know existed 3.5 billion years ago (maybe the fact that this date has changed a dozen times might be a clue). It is a theoretical conclusion based on a presuppositional interpretation of known facts. A different interpretation of these same known facts (evidence) would place the creation of life around 6000 years ago.
No, it is a fact. We know that the earliest life found was in rocks that are 3.5 billion years old. The dates "change" as more information becomes available, different pieces of evidence that show increasing age of life on earth. We may find evidence of older life tomorrow, but that doesn't invalidate the 3.5 billion year old life we know of today. The fact that there is change means that it is a scientific process that builds on previous knowledge and elimination of invalid ideas, such as a young earth. It is not a "different interpretation" of the evidence but denial of the evidence that would "place the creation of life around 6000 years ago". Notice that I have offered to discuss the age of the earth based on evidence, but you have so far refused to address that issue. Until you do so you cannot claim an age that is totally unsubstantiated.
I’ve neither misrepresented nor falsified ANY information. That’s just you inventing things out of nothing again so you can accuse others in order to hide your own misrepresentations. No where did I imply that these 2 quotes were in the same section and it is completely irrelevant to boot. The point is that there is a difference between completely new and physically distinct life forms from those that look similar to one another. This is an elementary concept recognized by UMich, the source that has become your bible, and one that a 2 year old could grasp but also one that you refuse to acknowledge simply because it destroys your argument. You’ve demonstrated a history of denying things in black and white that are staring you in the face if it means admitting you are wrong.
Murk, you connected the quotes with a comma in a single sentence, with no ellipses or qualification AND you skipped part that contradicted what you wrote: THAT is misrepresentation.
Or it is another example of sloppy writing on your part. Your choice. Either way what you said does not represent what the UofMich says.
To be complete, definition 1 states: “Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation”
Umich insists that a complete statement which conveys a full understanding of what evolution is REQUIRES that those 2 concepts (definition 1 and 2) be linked. However, you fly in the face of this by insisting the evolution can be represented with ONLY definition 1. You thereby misrepresent the definition of evolution with the full intent of deceiving yourself and others into thinking evolution is a fact. The Umich source says that your supposed comprehensive or general definition is not only wrong but conveys an incomplete and in fact deceptive meaning by not acknowledging the slow development of new kinds (and in fact all of the present diversity of life) as part of macroevolution.
Lets look at this again then. To be complete the UofMich definition says "A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures. "
In other words, does evolution per definition 1 result in evolution per definition 2.
Definition 2 states "The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time" -- this is nothing but the change in species over time: the change is in hereditary traits such that the form of the species is changed over time. This is the result of evolution per definition 1.
Definition 2 further states "the origin of species" -- this is speciation, which I have discussed before as the culmination of change in species over time in sub-populations that reach a point where the different changes in any daughter populations reach a point that they no longer interbreed and become biologically distinct. This is the result of evolution per definition 1.
Definition 2 further states "lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms" -- this is the result of any parent population dividing into daughter populations. This is the result of speciation which is a result of evolution per definition 1.
Definition 2 further states "and the generation of diversity" -- this is nothing more than the effect of speciation events where we now have 2 species instead of one. This is the result of speciation which is a result of evolution per definition 1.
And that is ALL that definition 2 states. Definition 2 does NOT state billions of years, NOR any necessity for origin from a first common ancestor pool in any way shape or form by any stretch of imagination in any rational way.
Note that I have suggested before using my definition as a definition of microevolution and then evaluate the evidence to see how well it explains what we see in terms of macroevolution, and you have consistently refused to participate in this.
And finally, once again, the validity, or lack thereof, for my definition has no bearing on the validity, or lack thereof, for your definition, and there is no rational way you can turn the UofMich definition into your definition.
Evidence for common ancestors between kinds (of which there is none) would help validate the theory of evolution. However it does nothing for CISOT. CISOT neither mentions nor implies the existence of common ancestors. As I have stated many times, creation of diversity stemming from the CREATED kinds supports the concept of CISOT. CISOT does not imply that ANY pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This is a completely different concept which you refuse to include in your definition.
And you still have not defined what you mean by "kind" so all we have is a minimal definition that there are different kinds of dogs, all of which have evolved.
I have said before, and I repeat once again, that your beef is not with evolution per se but with common descent and whether there are any limits on common ancestors. If evolution has occurred since a creation of certain unspecified organisms then it is still evolution that has occurred.
The purpose of a theory of evolution is to be able to evaluate, to test, to observe if evolution occurs or not. That evolution would occur after some special creation does not invalidate the fact that evolution occurred.
I’m not equivocating at all. Mathematics is obviously not your strong point. If ANY 2 organisms have had a common ancestor then we must have arose from a single one. Do the math!!!
Not to belabor the point but this is the crux of the difference between the science of evolution and the hypothesis of creation: whether there was a set number of original species or not.
Not to belabor the point but you are confusing a predictable result of the theory with the theory that makes the prediction.
Not to belabor the point but you are talking about logic not math. Obviously not your strong point if you get them confused.
Not to belabor the point but if we take the evidence of common descent of daughter populations from parent populations, and apply this to the record of known life on this planet, what we are doing is seeing if this is sufficient to explain all life as we know it.
Not to belabor the point, but the logical conclusion is that such investigation will suggest or invalidate whether there were some set number of original organisms from which life has descended OR whether they are all related to some theoretical first population of organisms.
Nevertheless this was just an example. There are clearer statements for those that are mathematically impaired such as from Berkeley “The central idea of biological evolution is that ALL life on Earth shares A common ancestor...THE common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today.” This is undeniably a statement by Berkeley (who teaches evolution), that the central idea of evolutionary theory is that all life on earth arose from a SINGLE common ancestor. In other words, a valid statement for the theory of evolution would go “The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see around us today arose from a single common ancestor over the history of life”. Of course, they later go on to state that this “history of life” which is specifically included in their definition spans 3.5 billion years. So it would not be incorrect to simply substitute billions of years into the definition. Thus it becomes “The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor billions of years ago”. Thus, Berkeley teaches the same thing that the majority of references have born out - MTM.
Even so, I have said on numerous occasions that the definition is open to a single or a small number of common ancestors when scientists make up their mind. It changes little regarding the basic concepts of the definition. However, it would require a change in evolutionary theory because no longer would ANY 2 organisms have a common ancestor (think about it). In fact, I would relish the news that they have decided that it is more than one. Since the probably of even a single ancestor is already mathematically impossible, the probably of several is astronomically smaller. The evidence they are discovering today which is leading them to re-evaluate whether it’s one or a few will eventually lead them to the conclusion that all life arose from MANY (the created kinds).
The important point to take is that the inclusion of this concept in the theory conveys clearly that evolutionists believe that all the diversity of life arose from much simpler forms thereby implying one kind has changed into another and become more complex, with new features and information content not originally seen in the biosphere - a concept that is COMPLETELY ABSENT from CISOT.
And you are STILL conflating what the science says when they apply the theory to the evidence with what the theory needs to say.
What Berkeley is stating is that the evidence we have currently leads us to the conclusion that all life is related to one common ancestor population of organisms, that there is no evidence of any stop at some point such that there are a number of distinct set of species that would qualify as created "kinds" of life.
They are applying the theory (per their definition with no conflation to billions of years or a single common ancestor) to the evidence and coming up empty for any possible special creation. It is the evidence of common descent, the natural history of life on earth, and not evolution per se, that shows this.
Note you continue to show ignorance of math and logic by claiming that something is mathematically impossible. Math does not control reality: if there is a conflict between reality and your mathematical conclusions, it is your math (and the assumptions made) that are faulty. This is fact.
If “proving my version [CISOT] to be invalid (if you had) would therefore also have no bearing on the validity of your version [MTM]” is a true statement then the same holds true for yours. Proving my version [MTM] to be invalid (if you had) would therefore also have no bearing on the validity of your version [CISOT]. However, yours is a ridiculous statement to make anyway which I’ll show in a moment.
Of course it is true. That is why I actually show that your version is invalid rather than only show the validity of my version. I am open to both being wrong and reaching a compromise, as I have noted 4 or 5 times now. I've also suggested ditching both and using the Berkeley definition as a bona fide scientific definition.
First of all I said “IF”. You are the one creating the dichotomy. Are you actually admitting that you could be wrong? Show me anywhere in this debate where you have admitted to being wrong (besides a typo or something)? If you can’t admit you are wrong in the blatant example regarding my comparison of creation and evolutionary theories at the opening of this post, than how could I possibly entertain the notion that you could admit you are wrong regarding the definition of the theory of evolution! That being said, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you would not entertain the notion that we could both be wrong.
However, that is really an irrelevant question. The important question is whether we can both be right and this is where your logic breaks down. I actually do contend that in a sense we are both right. CISOT is certainly a true statement, however, it is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution. It is an observation of fact and is used in the majority of your references to describe a process, not a statement of the theory of evolution. MTM, however, is an accurate statement of the theory of evolution which does not depend on whether the theory is shown to be true or not.
I have shown that MTM is the correct statement of the theory based on the majority of 50 references and the application of sound logic. It is correct because it contains the essential elements necessary to clearly describe the basic tenants of evolutionary theory and to distinguish it from competing theories. Demonstrating that MTM is correct directly INVALIDATES CISOT because CISOT does NOT contain these essential elements that references tell us are a necessary part of the statement of the theory in order to convey it’s meaning and intent.
Therefore, all I need to do to invalidate your definition is show that MTM is correct, which I have done in spades. I agree that if I had only shown your definition to be an incorrect statement of the theory, that I would then need to supply a correct version. This I have done. Even if you disagree that I have proven my case, showing that yours is incorrect is half the battle and a major one at that, so it cannot be discounted.
You’re being hypocritical by not taking your own advice. In your own words, “you need to deal with the evidence that refutes your concept OR consider it invalidated”, not find a single source or 2 which you think invalidates mine. I do not need to refute every source under the sun when I’ve already shown that the majority support MTM. However, I would still be glad to address Umich or Berkeley in more detail (I’ve already done that for the most part in this post and in prior posts), if you’d address the 8 definitions which refute CISOT.
Blah blah blah wasted bandwidth. We can't both be right ... if the two definitions contradict each other, agreed. We can both be wrong. You are wrong, that is an established fact, your 50 references and (known faulty) logic notwithstanding (it is your evaluation of the evidence that is faulty and this has been demonstrated).
Invalidating my definition will never validate yours no matter how much you squeal and squirm: that is basic logic. Any ONE source that invalidates your definition in a way that you cannot reconcile means that it is invalidated, end of argument. Both the Berkeley and UofMich definitions do this. Live with it.
The fact that you dispute this demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic logic.
... if you’d address the 8 definitions which refute CISOT.
Tell you what, Murk: acknowledge that your definition is invalid and we can proceed to this, OR we can proceed to use the Berkeley definition.
My goodness, must we contend also on the definition of a theory? I suppose we could gather together 50 references on that as well and start the debate all over. I certainly hope we need not do this. A valid statement of theory has nothing to do with whether the theory turns out to be valid or not so we just need to be clear on what we are talking about or we’ll get tied up in knots again. The word “Theory” get’s bandied about quite a bit and for the most part I’ve attempted to ignore this topic because in the end, I don’t care whether you call evolution a theory or not even if it doesn’t deserve that status. However, you are the one that is raising the issue so I must respond.
A true theory can be tested. However, you can’t seem to get it through your head that conjecture about past events is NOT testable. We can interpret facts based on our presuppositions, but we were not there in the past and cannot recreate past events for testing purposes. I’m sure you know that Karl Popper, who is one of the most influential science philosophers in history said that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program”. This makes it at best a framework or worldview, not even to the level of a hypothesis. So we shouldn’t even be talking about what a good theory is because evolution is NOT a testable or valid theory. It is simply called a “theory” by common usage to signify a conjecture or speculation synonymous with a “hypothesis”.
Your claim that evolution is testable is just another delusional assertion on your part. CISOT may be an observed fact of science or a testable process conjectured to produce results in support of evolution, but it is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution.
First off that rant does not relate to my comment at all.
Second, when we are talking about science, we are talking about scientific theories and not common usage concepts or hypothesis.
Karl Popper notwithstanding the past can be tested, forensic science does it all the time and reaches perfectly valid conclusions. Likewise the evidence of the fossil record can be tested to see whether it fits the predictions of evolution or not. The theory of evolution is a tested and so far validated theory. It has been tested in many studies over the years, regardless of what you think.
You’re dodging again as always. Either answer the objection or let’s end this farce of yours. How does CISOT NOT apply to the creation of life 6000 years ago? CISOT says nothing about how or when life appeared and it says nothing about common ancestry. “The original kinds of plant and animal life were created by GOD approximately 6000 years ago and since then we have seen change in species over time just as we observe today”. How does that sentence contradict CISOT in any way? It doesn’t. This means CISOT cannot be a valid statement of the theory of evolution if it applies equally well to creation theory.
I repeat:
No, it just demonstrates that your beef is not with evolution but with common ancestry.
The theory of evolution does not need to invalidate the hypothesis of a special creation, it just needs to explain the evidence that exists. Whether that evidence shows common ancestry from a single population of organisms or from some set number of original organisms from which life has descended is irrelevant to the theory, but something to be investigated by applying the theory.
LOL! This very statement is simply smoke and mirrors on your part with no substance or substantiation and I have pointed out countless logical errors in your posts. When you encounter sound logic which you are unable to refute, you simply call it a logical error so you need not admit you are wrong. This is a typical example above.
You are the one being dishonest, time and time again as shown most blatantly by the comparison of theories at the beginning of this post and here again. Your first sentence is complete dishonest nonsense and is not even close to a logically drawn conclusion.
And look who’s talking about equivocating! It’s none other than RAZ King of equivocation who erroneously equates a simple factual observation like CISOT with the entire theory of evolution.
Blah blah wasted bandwidth again. You consistently misrepresent things and apply false logic, it has been demonstrated.
Evolution from a single common ancestor resulting in all the diversity of life we see today over the course of 3.5 billion years precludes the possibility that ANY new species could evolve directly from it. To form a million species from one implies that there must be a nested hierarchy or tree structure connecting them. It is a slow gradual process, an essential part of my definition which you insist is NOT a necessary part of your definition. On the other hand, CISOT is NOT contradicted by a horse being born from a salamander’s egg. This would certainly be a change in species over a time (a short time). You are the one that is erroneously conflating LCA with CISOT which says nothing about common ancestry.
No, all it takes is every species evolving solely from the common ancestor, no intermediates necessary. This is the logical conclusion of your element and of your denial of intermediate common ancestors as being the element that is really involved. When you conflate one with the other there are logical consequences, and in this case it shows your evaluation, your logic your whole approach to the definition to be false.
The fact that you contest this simple logical truth demonstrates vividly your inability to reach logical conclusions.
And how precise is the definition of species? Umich tells us that “The definition of a species is debatable. Most scientists adhere either to the morphological species concept (members of a species look alike and can be distinguished from other species by their appearance), or to the biological species concept (a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups). Both definitions have their weaknesses.” In addition, geneticists are talking about a new definition of species that relies on genetic information which could double the number.
Which is interesting but does not affect the definition of the theory of evolution as the (hereditary) change in species over time, or the Berkeley definition, or the UofMich definition ....
It is still a fact that I gave you a definition for species, and that was the issue you complained about to dodge giving a definition for "kind" -- which is integral to your definition and evaluation.
It’s not strange at all that I have not provided a definition of kind because it’s essentially irrelevant, just as a definition of species is. Considering how imprecise the definition of a species is, it would end up being a major distraction with little impact on the definition of evolution. With thousands of posts at this forum, I suspect you know very well what the definition of a kind is and if not, you are perfectly capable of looking it up. You had no trouble with “species”. However, the definition is completely unnecessary to our debate on the statement of the theory of evolution for a couple of reasons. First, it would simply be another opportunity for you to dodge the issue of refuting evidence against the RAZ CISOT theory by getting sidetracked on the evidence for or against evolution. A discussion of kinds would be relevant to our subsequent debate on the evidence once we agree on the theory that we are supporting or refuting (if that happens). Second, the definition of evolution states “all the living forms in the world” which is equivalent to “all the diversity of life” that we see today. There is no denying that all the diversity of life we see today consists of many different forms or kinds. The specific identification of each one is totally irrelevant until we evaluate the evidence in support or refutation of the theory.
Really, you are just being obstinate. I do not need to provide a precise definition of kinds (just as there is not one for species) to claim that they have evolved. It’s difficult for me to fathom that you would not believe that they have evolved either. ALL evolutionists believe that kinds have evolved, so if you do not, I would need to understand how or why you believe in evolution. An elephant is clearly a different kind of creature than a hummingbird or an oak tree. You don’t need a definition to understand that. It is irrelevant whether you think that two nearly identical birds are different species or not. The gross differences are the only thing that matters in the definition. Evolution is supposed to have created all of these creatures from a single common ancestor and therefore it must be capable of producing new kinds with new features and complexity never seen before. I realize for scientific study, that we must get more specific but it is completely unnecessary for a debate on the definition of evolution.
An unwillingness to debate the obvious is not dodging. It’s staying focused on our objectives without you sidetracking and dodging to avoid your failed arguments so that we can complete this debate before I die.
And still no definition for "kind" from the verbose bandwidth wasting can't spend enough time on definitions Murkywaters.
Then strike any mention of "kind" from your definition as there is no usable definition to distinguish whether new kinds have evolved or not. It is your requirement, you fail to support it, therefore it must be unsupportable.
It's that simple.
First, species is an arbitrary man-made classification which may soon go through dramatic revision based on genetics research so when a species has evolved is a completely arbitrary and therefore non-useful determination for evolution.
Irrelevant: the definition of species can still be used to see if evolution of species has occurred. If that definition is modified, then the new definition can be used. It is that simple.
This is opposed to research into the created kinds which is not arbitrary at all since it is an attempt to determine the actual kinds that were created approx 6000 years ago. We can determine when a new kind has evolved as precisely as a species. I would certainly welcome a test of this claim when we discuss the evidence. Not supplying this definition now should lead you to the conclusion that I wish to stay focused on our objectives rather then getting sidetracked.
Not supplying the definition only leads me to the conclusions that (1) you don't have one that is usable and/or (2) you don't want to support your position that it must be part of your definition of the theory of evolution.
Again, I didn’t invent the definition of evolution, scientific sources and other universal references we have cited did. Your beef isn’t with me, it’s with the science. An appropriate time to look at the measurement of information gain is when we review the evidence which refutes or supports the theory of evolution which we have yet to agree on. However, I never use this term explicitly in my definition, so it’s unnecessary to define it.
On the other hand you are the one dodging by refusing to answer this simple question, yes or no, that I have posed multiple times - Is a human being more complex than a blob of protoplasm (representative of the supposed first life) or not? Refusing to answer is you dodging again.
No Murk, you are the one insisting on this being an element of the definition of the theory. Once again you have failed to substantiate that this can be a scientific measurable objective criteria, you fail to support it, therefore it must be unsupportable, and so we must strike it from your definition as well.
For me to answer your question I need to be able to measure the quantity, as anything else would be subjective and open to interpretation, not scientific: it is that simple.
Ahh, yes. That’s the way operational science is done but it’s NOT the way origins research is done since historical events are neither testable nor repeatable. You’re not talking about evolution here, your talking about observed factual changes which you only SPECULATE support evolution based on your presuppositions.
False again, as already discussed. This also does not in any way refute nor excuse your need to provide definitions or metrics to enable objective comparison of data for your elements to be considered scientific.
Sorry Raz, you don’t get to decide either. There are many scientists that do not consider this to be evolution. As noted earlier you are blatantly misrepresenting the UMich definition.
Really? Up above you stated
To be complete, definition 1 states: “Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation”
It meets the criteria for that definition of evolution, thus it is evolution.
Modern Biology, Its Conceptual Foundations” by Elof Axel Carlson - “Evolution: a theory of complexity in the organization of life from the origins of life to the present with the premise that all life is related by common descent to the first forms of life on earth.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.
Barnes and Noble Thesaurus of Biology - “Evolution: the process by which more complex forms of life have arisen from simpler forms over millions of years.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.
Concise Dictionary of Biology (Oxford University Press) Defines evolution as “The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believe to have been continuing for at least the past 3000 million years.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as used by scientists.
Concise Encyclopedia of Biology - “Evolutionary theory: a theory founded in particular by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), that the variety of living forms on the Earth is the result of a lengthy and complicated process known as evolution, and that this process still continues today. In the course of evolution, the numerous and various modern living forms descended from a few primitive forms with a low level of organisation. The E.t. is now accepted by all serious scientists.” Thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution, as accepted by all serious scientists.
Here's an article that discusses this basic problem you are having and keep repeating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
quote:
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes.
Notice that this is not me saying your definition is wrong, it is a biologist. You need to go to scientific sources for the definitions used by scientists (broken record). Such as ones that this same article references:
quote:
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Those are scientific sources. The first is a standard textbook for teaching evolution that is well respected throughout the field.
Also see Message 122
quote:
Larry Moran has collated these quotes in this rather famous article - and he has recently expanded on this article at his blog. In which he tackles some of the issues that have arisen in this thread:
quote:
Many people are confused about the difference between a definition and an explanation. That's why we often see incorrect "definitions" that describe how natural selection works. This is wrong. In order to be useful, a definition has to enable us to distinguish examples of evolution from non-evolution but the definition should be neutral with respect to how evolution occurs. It should not distinguish, for example, between Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution even though we know that one of these explanations is incorrect.
He also warns us of confusing the scientific term of biological evolution with the modern vernacular definition. The latter is of little interest to us here! He concludes with
quote:
The amazing thing about the minimal definition of biological evolution is that it doesn't carry any baggage concerning the history of life or its future. As soon as we try to define evolution in terms of the historical record, we run into all kinds of problems because we confuse evolution as a process with evolution as a history of life.

Sounds a lot like what I've been telling you.
Lastly, Ernst Mayer, the Darwin of modern times and one of the most respected evolutionists of all time does NOT accept change in frequency of alleles as evolution and thus it is unequivocally NOT evolution as accepted by not only scientists but the most respected of scientists.
Rather than basing your argument on a logical fallacy (If some scientists belief it , doesn’t make it true) why don’t you try using some sound rational and logic? I suspect it is because you have none and certainly have not even attempted to refute the majority of arguments I have proposed as we’ll see later.
And yet Ernst Mayr "contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept" and he also discussed what evolution was at the end of Section II (How Are Evolutionary Change and Adaptedness Explained):
quote:
Conclusions
Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species. Numerous processes, particularly mutation, contribute to these genetic changes to supply the phenotypic variation needed by selection. The most important factor is recombination, which is largely responsible for the virtually inexhaustible supply supply of new genotypes in every generation. Selection, then, is responsible for the elimination of all but on average two of the offspring of two parents. Those individuals that are best adapted to the abiotic and biotic environment have the greatest chance to be among the survivors. This process favors the development of new adaptations and the acquisition of evolutionary novelties, thus leading to evolutionary advance, as stated in the language of evolutionary biology. Evolution, being on the whole a population turnover, is ordinarily a gradual process, except for certain chromosomal processes that may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step.
Genetic material (nucleic acids) is constant and impervious to any influence from the environment. No genetic information can be transmitted from proteins to nucleic acids, and so the inheritance of acquired characteristics is therefore impossible. This provides an absolute refutation of all Lamarkian theories of evolution. The Darwinian model of evolution, based on random variation and natural selection, explains satisfactorily all phenomena of evolutionary change at the species level, and in particular all adaptation.
-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.157
He further discusses the role of (hereditary) change in species over time near the end of the book:
quote:
End
Evolution is often considered as something unexpected. Wouldn't it be more natural, some antievolutionists ask, if everything would always stay the same? Perhaps this was a valid question before we understood genetics, but it is no longer. In fact, the way organisms are structured, evolution is inevitable. Each organism, even the simplest bacterium, has a genome, consisting of thousands to many millions of base pairs. Observation has established that each base pair is subject to occasional mutation. Different populations have different mutations, and if they are isolated from each other, these populations inevitably become more different from each other from generation to generation. Even this simplest of all possible scenarios represents evolution. If one adds further biological processes, such as recombination and selection, the rate of evolution accelerates exponentially. Therefore, the mere fact of the existence of genetic programs makes the assumption of a stationary world impossible. Evolution is thus a plain fact, not a conjecture or assumption.
It is very questionable whether the term "evolutionary theory" should be used any longer. That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that it has become irrational to call it a theory. To be sure, there are particular evolutionary theories such as those of common descent, origin of life, gradualism, speciation, and natural selection, but scientific arguments about conflicting theories concerning these topics do not in any way affect the basic conclusion that evolution as such is a fact. It has taken place ever since the origin of life.
-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.264
Color mine for emphasis. Here he says (again) that (hereditary) change in species over time is evolution.
The modern synthesis was derived by an international conference of biologists assembled expressly for the purpose of arriving at a modern definition of the theory of evolution that would unite various fields within biology, and that kind of makes the modern synthesis theory of evolution to be the authority for a scientific definition of the theory.
Modern synthesis - Wikipedia
quote:
The modern evolutionary synthesis refers to a set of ideas from several biological specialities that were brought together to form a unified theory of evolution accepted by the great majority of working biologists. This synthesis was produced over a period of about a decade (1936-1947) and was closely connected with the development from 1918 to 1932 of the discipline of population genetics, which integrated the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics.
...Though the 'Modern Synthesis' is the basis of current evolutionary thinking, it refers to a historical event that took place in the 1930s and 1940s. Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.
According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is now known to be sometimes caused by mistakes in DNA replication) and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated, for example by geographic barriers.
The modern evolutionary synthesis continued to be developed and refined after the initial establishment in the 1930s and 1940s. The work of W. D. Hamilton, George C. Williams, John Maynard Smith and others led to the development of a gene-centric view of evolution in the 1960s. The synthesis as it exists now has extended the scope of the Darwinian idea of natural selection to include subsequent scientific discoveries and concepts unknown to Darwin, such as DNA and genetics, which allow rigorous, in many cases mathematical, analyses of phenomena such as kin selection, altruism, and speciation.
Gene-centered view of evolution - Wikipedia
quote:
The gene-centered view of evolution, gene selection theory or selfish gene theory holds that natural selection acts through differential survival of competing genes, increasing the frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation. According to this theory, adaptations are the phenotypic effects through which genes achieve their propagation.
No, it shows that YOUR understanding of evolution is invalid, except that I’ve proved it not just said it.
The modern synthesis states that evolution is change in frequency of alleles in populations. The changes observed in the Galapagos Finches meet this criteria and the "gene-centric view" as well.
It is evolution.
Ahh, except what you call my “strawman” is the actual valid statement of evolution as proven by the majority of sources cited. You are the one that has created the strawman in order to deceive yourself and others that evolution has occurred. CISOT appears no where in the literature as a definition of evolution. You want to abandon the real theory of evolution in place of your own deceptive slogan because real evolution (and therefore your worldview) has been shown to be bankrupt. You are again not reading what I have written - “if the evidence does not support the theory that does NOT change the statement of the theory”. It is what it is. Although I’m glad to see that you agree that I’ve shown that evolution is invalid. Therefore, once you agree that my definition is the correct one, we shouldn’t have to pursue any of the evidence after that.
Continued assertion of false information is not productive, it is a continued waste of bandwidth.
Sorry, the definition is what it is as cited by a vast array of sources. All your wishful thinking isn’t going to change that. However, you have hit upon the precise point - evolution fails to explain the facts! You can’t change the theory on your own whim and still call it evolution so that it supports the observed facts simply to deceive yourself and others into thinking real evolution is true.
The only thing this "proves" is that your definition is false. Period.
All you are doing is showing that you just don't understand the logic involved and the approach of science to the facts. It is not evolution that fails to explain the facts -- it does, when you use the real definition used by science -- it is your false representation that fails. It is that simple.
You certainly have a twisted sense of what a theory is. I can propose a theory that the moon was made of cheese a million years ago. That doesn’t do much for the science of cheese making but it is nonetheless a theory. You, not me, are the one creating a theory to validate itself. You make up nonsense like CISOT just so that it fits the facts. No matter that it has nothing to do with the statement of evolution. Perhaps if we just call it evolution we’ll deceive people into thinking its true. The real theory of evolution attempts to explain the history of life (as stated by Berkeley, which teaches evolution). CISOT on the other hand is completely and utterly useless in explaining anything because it is not a theory, it is simply a factual observation in the present. It does nothing to explain the history of life as you could draw countless different predictions and assumptions about the past from CISOT. And make no mistake, if you state ANYTHING about the past based on CISOT, you are making some assumption that you are not stating in the theory itself. Therefore, you are being both dishonest and deceptive in your statement.
You can propose a "theory" on the moon made of cheese, but it won't be a scientific theory based on evidence that explains the evidence. This amply demonstrates that you do not understand what a scientific theory is, how it is developed and how it is used. You don't have a clue.
The real theory of evolution attempts to explain the history of life (as stated by Berkeley, which teaches evolution).
Exactly. The theory as defined by Berkeley does that. The theory as defined by UofMich does that. The theory as defined by the Modern Synthesis does that.
The theory that species change hereditary traits over time does that, and I've shown that in the posts where I presented information on evolution, whether it was Galapagos Finches, Foraminifera, Pelycodus or horses. Your denial of this basic evidence does not invalidate it or make it go away.
No, RAZ you have done nothing of the sort but I have shown how your circular reasoning has blinded you to the truth and revealed your deception. The theory is what it is. You can’t change it to fit the facts so that you don’t have to face the truth that evolution is invalid. I don’t see how you can have the gall to say you have demonstrated anything. It’s only you running off at the mouth as usual with just assertions on your part, all smoke and no fire, without logic, substance or substantiation. I have clearly demonstrated that CISOT is bankrupt as a statement of the theory, that you have left out all the critical elements of the theory of evolution necessary to convey its meaning and intent but more importantly to provide a basis for its study and evaluation.
I easily face the fact every day that what you think evolution involves is false and ridiculous because your impression is absolutely false and ridiculous and irrelevant to what the science of evolution studies.
How hilarious that you’ve made my point again. I admit it happens because it’s a factual observation, not a theory. I’ve shown this to be the case numerous times and yet you continue to say the same thing over and over. This is you stonewalling.
In addition, you’ve still not answered my question regarding the change of your imaginary theory from CISOT to HCISOT. Have you formally changed it or not? I will continue to use CIOST until you confirm the change. This is you dodging.
As said before, I don't see significant difference between "change in species over time" and "(hereditary) change in species over time" because the change is specified as being hereditary from the start. This was documented in Message 1 of this thread and repeated several times. I've only introduced (hereditary) in explicit statements due to your failure to understand. As noted above, as you look at the change in populations of organisms from gen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-02-2007 12:04 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024