Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 3:55 PM
37 online now:
dwise1, edge, Faith, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, Stile, Tangle, Theodoric (9 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,083 Year: 5,120/19,786 Month: 1,242/873 Week: 138/460 Day: 80/58 Hour: 7/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Definition of Evolution
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2986 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 16 of 212 (418317)
08-27-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 12:12 PM


Re: What we didn't see before...
Please see the thread in the "Is it Science" forum: "Historical science"

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.

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.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 12:12 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:19 AM bdfoster has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 17 of 212 (418330)
08-27-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 12:12 PM


Re: What we didn't see before...
Look, with 60 posts to your name, you really shouldnt be citing rules for why you can;t defend your assertation that the flood happened.

If you don't want to talk about the flood, then don't suggest that "pre-flood" is the basis for your hypothesis.

You don't get to claim something then defend it by saying that your own claims are off topic.

Typical creation crap again


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 12:12 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 08-27-2007 3:08 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 18 of 212 (418331)
08-27-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Nuggin
08-27-2007 3:00 PM


The flood is off topic here
However the flood is off topic here.

I suggest that the way to handle this is to keep the flood out of here and if anyone feels this thread can't continue without dealing with the flood then take it to a flood thread (or make one).

The same can be done, as suggested above, with the use of "historic" evidence. In fact, it seems to me, that this thread can not continue until the issue of knowing about the past is settled. So perhaps this thread needs to be put aside for a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2007 3:00 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 212 (418371)
08-27-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 12:05 PM


It's the inference to uniformitarianism I want out.

It isn't in the definition of evolution. You are thinking of natural history not evolution. Evolution is a different thing.

To you, creation is fantasy. To me, common descent is fantasy.

Right - so fantasy is a pretty useless term in a definition, then.

The fact that origins is unobserved yet, given evidence to support each hypothesis makes it speculative.

Well - that would make a lot of historical science speculative - but that is hardly a bad thing. This includes all creation stories - moreso in fact.


I would gladly stick to evolution without the common descent inference attached.

As would I -where common descent means from a universal ancestor of some kind. That should not be in the definition of evolution as a broad term that the theory of evolution explains. Common descent should be limited to discussions on evolutionary history of life on earth. That's a different thing to just 'evolution' though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 12:05 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4017 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 20 of 212 (418431)
08-28-2007 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 12:05 PM


There are no eyewitnesses - get over it
Vashgun writes:

To you, creation is fantasy. To me, common descent is fantasy.

Does that mean to imply that to you, creation is not fantasy?

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.

Again, in response to Modulus's earlier post, you wrote:

Vashgun writes:

I haven't personally witnessed any type of "evolution" in or outside a laboratory.

But Modulus rightly pointed out that special creation also hasn't been observed inside or outside the lab.

Given that the event(s) that created humans must have occurred before any humans were around to see it, then is it not logical that any explanation for this event must also be without direct observations to verify it?

There are no eyewitnesses, so can you stop demanding eyewitness accounts as the only acceptable form of evidence?

Edited by Doddy, : grammar


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 12:05 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:12 AM Doddy has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 21 of 212 (418432)
08-28-2007 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 9:51 AM


Re: The what?
Vashgun responds to me:

quote:
Uniformitarianism commits itself to evolution as a foundational philosophy

But nobody is a uniformitarianist. So, what's your point? Do you know what the term "strawman" means?

quote:
However, even if this were true, the implications of major change are not noted in the overwhelming majority of the fossil record.

Incorrect. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge made their careers off of punctuated equilibrium. Why? Because the fossil record shows nothing but major change.

quote:
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."

Question: Wouldn't a "flooded" world leave physical remnants of having been flooded?

So if we examine the geologic column (and yes, it does exist in totality in multiple locations across the globe) and find that there is no physical remnant of a global flood, then can't we conclude through direct observation (after all, the rocks were there and we are directly observing the rocks) that there was no global flood?

Your argument is nothing more than an insistence that forensics is a sham.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:51 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 22 of 212 (418434)
08-28-2007 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 9:59 AM


Vashgun writes:

quote:
As long as we can officially change observable change in genetics and physicality to Variations within a kind.

But there's no such thing as a "kind." Why would we want to change the definition to include something that doesn't exist?

We've seen evolution happen right before our very eyes, both below and well above the species level to include new genera, families, and orders. Are you about to claim that a "kind" is really a class?

And with your claim of a "pre-flood world" and since the flood, according to chronology, happened only about 4500 years ago, that would mean not only does evolution happen, but it happens more rapidly than anybody has ever claimed it could. In fact, it would have to happen so rapidly that no life could possibly survive past a single generation: Every individual offspring would be its own species, incapable of reproducing with any other individual on the entire planet, and thus all life dies in the first generation after the flood.

This goes against your own standard of "unobserved pretenses."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:59 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 08-28-2007 8:00 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 212 (418435)
08-28-2007 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 10:10 AM


Vashgun writes:

quote:
I haven't personally witnessed any type of "evolution" in or outside a laboratory.

So hie thee to a bio lab! What are you waiting for?

Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house.

Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.

But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.

How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.

But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.

Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.

But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.

But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.

Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.

So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.

There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.

You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.

quote:
I remember something about experiments on a fruit fly. They never got anything else other than a fly.

Yeah. They got a different "kind" of fly. This proves your claim that somehow there is a "kind" barrier preventing evolution to be false. And no "unobserved pretenses" need to be invoked. You can watch it happen right before your very eyes.

What were you expecting? They'd come up with an ostrich?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 10:10 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 08-28-2007 7:57 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Tusko
Member
Posts: 605
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 24 of 212 (418439)
08-28-2007 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 9:59 AM


Keeping an open mind
This supplicates both of our religions.

I fundamentally disagree. If solid evidence showed up that contradicted evolution it would facinate me. I would want to find out more. I would want to read scientific opinions on this evidence. I would follow wherever the evidence led, so if enough evidence of this nature came up, I would radically modify my opinion of evolution - perhaps even discard it.

Your attitude seems very different. Evidence that contradicts your beliefs is percieved as a threat. It is to be avoided, rejected, ignored. You are scared of following the evidence because you are scared of discarding your beliefs.

That is why only your beliefs can legitimately be regarded as religious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:59 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:10 AM Tusko has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 25 of 212 (418446)
08-28-2007 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 10:10 AM


Fine by me. We call "unobservable changes in populations that occur outside an observed time frame" -speculations or fantasy.

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.

---

Let's post this again, it's more or less a complete summary of the entire EvC debate.

Evolutionist: This man has been shot.

Creationist: How do you know? You weren't there.

Evolutionist: He has a bullet wound in his skull, he has a bullet in his brain, he has scorch marks consistent with gunpowder on his forehead, here's CCTV footage of someone shooting him, there's a strong smell of gunpowder in the air, and look, here's a smoking gun.

Creationist: That's unscientific! It's impossible to know about the past! Your belief that he's been shot is a religion! Waaah!

Evolutionist: If you ever get called for jury service, please recuse yourself on the grounds of idiocy.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 10:10 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 212 (418523)
08-28-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ihategod
08-26-2007 9:45 PM


The question is WHY?
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.

Why limit it (to all living systems and observed time frames)?

The purpose of a theory is to explain data and evidence, and the test of a good theory is how much it explains, not how limited it can be made.

If the theory is not capable of explaining data and evidence beyond the living systems and observable time, then it would fail tests using that information and be invalidated. I would think that creationists would be particularly interested in doing that -- rather than running in fear from the information.

So the question is why do you want to limit the definition? What purpose does such limitation serve?

Mechanisms should not be classified within evolution.

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?

Message 10
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.

Billions of years is also an unnecessary limitation: evolution occurs from generation to generation.

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 the Problems of a different "Kind".

Why do you need to limit the definition?

Why be afraid of reality?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : mechanisms

Edited by RAZD, : msg 10


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 1 by Ihategod, posted 08-26-2007 9:45 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:27 AM RAZD has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 27 of 212 (418529)
08-28-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rrhain
08-28-2007 4:31 AM


RRHAIN (Rural Rental Housing Association Indiana) writes:

But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved.


Not meaning to barge in like this, but perhaps you should have explained why this experiment is so important in regard to demonstrating mutation and selective pressure. Bacteria reproduce by mitosis (fusion fission). This means that the daughter cells are exact replicas of the mother cell. And so on and so forth.

Edited by gasby, : No reason given.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 08-28-2007 4:31 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by kuresu, posted 08-28-2007 9:25 PM Taz has responded
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 08-30-2007 2:25 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 28 of 212 (418530)
08-28-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rrhain
08-28-2007 4:27 AM


Vashgun writes:

As long as we can officially change observable change in genetics and physicality to Variations within a kind.

But there's no such thing as a "kind." Why would we want to change the definition to include something that doesn't exist?

We've seen evolution happen right before our very eyes, both below and well above the species level to include new genera, families, and orders. Are you about to claim that a "kind" is really a class?

May I humbly suggest that we define "kind" all the way up to include all the kingdoms as being part of the "living kind", which includes all life. Then we can freely allow for such wording as "variations within a kind".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 08-28-2007 4:27 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 621 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 29 of 212 (418539)
08-28-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
08-28-2007 7:57 PM


Not meaning to barge in on your barging in, but don't you mean "fission" when describing mitosis?

Otherwise you're talking about the formation of a zygote, which is a fusion. And fusions are not "identical".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 08-28-2007 7:57 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 08-28-2007 11:15 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 212 (418557)
08-28-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by kuresu
08-28-2007 9:25 PM


kuresu the hippy writes:

Not meaning to barge in on your barging in, but don't you mean "fission" when describing mitosis?


I stand corrected :D


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kuresu, posted 08-28-2007 9:25 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019