|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
I am unhappy with the results of the last thread for the definition of evolution. Which seemed to be from RAZD (Source):
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time, and these theories explain different mechanisms and processes that occur. These theories also explain the existing evidence known from genetics, lab and field studies and the fossil record. One could say that the overall theory of evolution is that evolution happens, has happened and will continue to happen. I don't think that it is fair to Creationists that this be let off the hook so easily. I think the definition should be changed to: Evolution is observable change(s) in all living systems limited to the observed time frame. Mechanisms should not be classified within evolution. It should be acknowledged that theoretical science is separate from theological musings, and should not be coupled within a standard of a definition. Rebuttals? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "Source" link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Basically, he wants to be able to say that the various laws of physical nature only work back to some point in the past and beyond that, absolutely nothing can be said. Depending on how far he wants to take it, it is nothing but a thinly veiled variant of the, "Were you there?" argument: That because humans were not physically present to directly observe the biological processes of the past, then we cannot say anything about what happened, as if we had no physical evidence of what did. Close. I want and meant to state that observable change shouldn't be coupled with unobserved pretenses. This should be separate from the actual definition of evolution. I don't know how many tabs have been kept on actual populations in the world and for how long. Not to long probably for either YEC or old earthers. I wouldn't dream of confining the laws of physical nature to the observed as I doubt that evolution is a law of nature. If we adopted a catastrophistic ideology, then it's possible that life might not have varied greatly as was there was zero neccesity. Uniformitarianism commits itself to evolution as a foundational philosophy, and people will argue that it is validated by geology. However, even if this were true, the implications of major change are not noted in the overwhelming majority of the fossil record. Also, if the definition on evolution were loosened, these things would and must be inferred.
Assuming that we do see evolutionary processes happening now, what is to prevent them from having happened in the past? A perfect pre-flood world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
You say you are unhappy with mechanisms, but why? Because, then evolution would be a loaded definition. A definition of a car gives an overview of the machine, not the origins of design nor does it explain any facets of a combustible gasoline engine. I'll be happy to change evolution to exactly what you really want it to be. Evolution- a change in species via genetic mutations and natural selection over Billions of years.As long as we can officially change observable change in genetics and physicality to Variations within a kind. This supplicates both of our religions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Can we drop the 'living systems' and stick with 'populations'? What I'd like to know then is what do we call the 'unobservable changes in populations that occur outside an observed time frame'? Fine by me. We call "unobservable changes in populations that occur outside an observed time frame" -speculations or fantasy. I haven't personally witnessed any type of "evolution" in or outside a laboratory. I remember something about experiments on a fruit fly. They never got anything else other than a fly.http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/jhodin/superfly.htm This guy pretty much makes some wild claims against evolution, maybe he is unaware? His defense of the fruit fly is disturbing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
If evolution is change in populations over time - observability of this phenomenon doesn't change the phenomenon so why should we give it a different name? It's the inference to uniformitarianism I want out.
I understand you argument is that we cannot be sure of events that happened before direct observation - but that should have no bearing on the name we give something - otherwise you'd have to call Creation 'fantasy' since that was also inherently unobservable. This doesn't really make much sense - why not stick to one word to describe one phenomenon? To you, creation is fantasy. To me, common descent is fantasy.Fantasy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster The fact that origins is unobserved yet, given evidence to support each hypothesis makes it speculative. Evolution claims of supporting evidence that is at best loosely related, ie geology however, doesn't really support the macro model of development.I would gladly stick to evolution without the common descent inference attached.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Good luck disproving me. I could use the same argument to further my philosophy, as I did in fact suggest.
So, you're theory is that what happened in the past was not directly observed by us and therefore could have been different than it is now. Yes, It would be foolish to suggest the same atmospheric and environmental conditions existed the same at any given point in the unwritten historical record. This is the problem with uniformitarainism.
You hypothesize that there was a different world "pre-flood" however, since we know there was no flood, this hypothesis falls flat on it's face. I don't think the flood can be easily written off like your peremptory comment. And this is off topic. please see the rules section to better understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Can we get back to nuking me? I mean I leave for a day....,
So many things ladies. First, I would like to thank nemesis for the back up, much love brotha! Also, thanks for the mob for jumping on me so quickly, nothing quite like a gang bang. To Rrhain: You are just over reaching the limits of your capacity. Most of the things you said don't warrant a response. However, I will cite an example.
quote:Assuming that we do see evolutionary processes happening now, what is to prevent them from having happened in the past? A perfect pre-flood world. But that fails your own standard: "Observable change shouldn't be coupled with unobserved pretenses. We are talking about the definition of evolution? Not my religion? Your fly thing is silly, p.s.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
You who bandy words
wow. Hiding behind the word science doesn't make your belief's less a religion. I can admit it, why can't you? How does this pertain to the definition of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
How is it that you can demand observation of our explanation, but yet ignore the fact that your observation is equally unobserved? That was Modulous's point That is fair, I admit mine is religious and you just almost hinted yours is too. I like that. But this is off topic, thanks for the red straw though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Ah, you're going for the ol' "We can't know anything about the past without being there" dodge. You're wrong. Changes in populations which are well-evidenced by the facts available to us are neither speculation nor fantasy, whether they occur in the present or occurred in the past. Not quite, I was more subtly attacking your foundational evidence for your religion. I knew I would have to spell it out... Even your little tirade about changes in populations doesn't mean anything, I could make up stories too. The real reason I made this post was to define evolution with no strings attached. evolution happens. Did I just say that??? I would like to say that and not have religious inference bias placed upon me. This would be nice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Especially since the geoligic record shows without doubt that ancient paleo-environments have varied considerably from the present. We know this with as much certainty as we know matter is composed of atoms. pure speculation. let me give you an example. Friend: Larry is taking a poo. You: He must have ate mexican food.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
So the question is why do you want to limit the definition? What purpose does such limitation serve? I'll ask you, what purpose does expanding the definition to meet your religious views serve? Wait...,
Again: why? Different mechanisms and processes exist and cause different results. They are part of the reality of evolution. What purpose is served by ignoring them? So I can freely use scientific terminology and not have religious inference weigh upon me.
Billions of years is also an unnecessary limitation: evolution occurs from generation to generation. ok, i meant infinity.
And to change to "Variations within a kind" you would need to (1) justify limiting it this way and (2) provide a usable definition for "kind" -- something you have avoided doing on theThread Problems of a different "Kind". How you play coy I did give a definition to a kind. You refused to acknowledge it. A usable example of my inflated definition would be: a dog is a dog. a horse is a horse. if it looks the product of the two it is a dorse. this doesn't suggest common ancestry, this suggests common design. Again, I don't want religious inference in the defintion. Keep those coupled with the hypothesis of evolution and it's mechinisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Then that means every individual is its own kind. Thus, it is impossible for anything to "reproduce after its own kind" for all individuals are unique kinds. Instead, we find different kinds coming together to make new kinds. NO, bad assumption. You need to step out of the box. If every individual was a kind, then Noah's Ark would have never worked. You have to understand, I work through the limitations of what God said. If he lied, there is no hope. Which is why it is important that he didn't. Which he didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Is zebra a zebra? A donkey a donkey? Or are they all "horses"? Is a lion a lion? A tiger a tiger? Or are they all "big cats"? What "kind" is a Tigon, or a Zorse, or a Mule? A wolf is a wolf and a dog is a dog. So what "kind" is Wolf-Dog? First thing to note here is that quantifying the limits of variation would be difficult. With that said, I think your playing stupid. If you took the zebra as the "first" kind or foundation, then all the donkeys, and horses would be variations of that first kind. Anyone can see how these can be related. It is so obvious, yet you try to bandy words to make it look like you have a case for ape to human transmorphism. Because you demand a strict definition, like the Linneus model, which is suited towards common ancestry through morphology, I am unable due to the obvious kind paradox. It is so simple to look and tell from whence it came.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Do you draw the line beyond which you cannot believe the claims of evidence-based science because it is too indirect for your liking for any reason other than convenience? Yes. Simply your reasoning suggests that your world view model is true. As if the Bible has been proved wrong. I strongly disagree and contend with that philosophy. You can spout off all the so called "evidence" you want, but the reality is that only a few of these "sciences" are in conflict with the biblical account and they so happen to be based on fundamental flaws in their assumptions.
For a deeply committed religious type though, this readiness to change beliefs in light of new evidence cannot be the ideal. Or am I wrong? Do the beliefs of the devout change according to the evidence of the physical world around them? Your whole question again assumes that your worldview is correct and justified. I don't need to change anything of my views that pertain to what God has already told me. Your science is floundering behind, not mine. You desire the how, I know the why. If there was evidence to suggest that this universe sprang from nothing material, then blew up evolved everything with time, then I might reconsider. You misrepresent "facts" in favor of your religion and expect me to swallow it. No thanks, I resent the implications of your belief.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024