Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Evolution
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 8 of 212 (418257)
08-27-2007 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ihategod
08-26-2007 9:45 PM


Vashgun writes:
Evolution is observable change(s) in all living systems limited to the observed time frame.
Firstly, my body is a living system, but nobody would argue that my getting up to go to the bathroom is evolution (though it is an observable change). Perhaps 'living species' or something would be more accurate?
I also don't know about the last bit. If you're already observing the change, can't you just assume the time frame was observed too?

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 1 by Ihategod, posted 08-26-2007 9:45 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 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 replied

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

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 67 of 212 (418760)
08-30-2007 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 12:12 AM


Re: There are no eyewitnesses - get over it
Doddy writes:
That is fair, I admit mine is religious and you just almost hinted yours is too. I like that.
I think you're reading to much into it. I did indeed assert that nobody directly observed common descent. But of course, I would also assert that eyewitness accounts are not the only means by which we can make conclusions. In fact, often other methods are just as good, if not better, than having a witness (seeing as witnesses can make mistakes more often than a DNA assay or ballistics test will).
Say I was to assert, right now, that I am in fact an eyewitness of common descent. That's right, I saw humans and chimps evolve from the same species of ape. I saw fungi and animals evolve from the same species little multicellular lifeforms. And I am here to testify that fact to you. You wouldn't believe me, would you? And yet you were not around (I know) to check that I wasn't alive in the precambrian or devonian. So how do you come to the conclusion that I wasn't around to witness evolution in all its glory?

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 55 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:12 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 85 of 212 (418909)
08-31-2007 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 11:28 PM


Re: Denial, Definitions and Reality
Vashgun writes:
...something that happened 200 years ago is knowable and possibly scientific. However, expanding this range...is unacceptable
Because...?

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 82 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 11:28 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 88 of 212 (418921)
08-31-2007 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Xaruan
08-31-2007 3:14 AM


Welcome to EvC Xaruan. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Xaruan writes:
Microevolution: Genetic changes occurring within a species that do not result in the formation of a new species.
Macroevolution: Genetic changes occurring in a population that allow for the creation of a new species.
While the definitions of these terms are sort of off-topic here, I must point out that creationists are generally fine with the formation of a new species or even a new genus. They just limit things to 'kinds'. No problem with wolves (Canis lupis) and coyotes (Canis latrans) having a common ancestor, but just no evolution outside of the dog 'kind'.
Edited by Doddy, : welcoming the newbie

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 87 by Xaruan, posted 08-31-2007 3:14 AM Xaruan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 5:18 AM Doddy has replied
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 9:20 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 127 of 212 (419468)
09-03-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rrhain
09-01-2007 5:18 AM


I think I've spent enough time reading creationist works to answer these:
Rrhain writes:
But what is a "kind" and how does the genome know that it isn't allowed to evolve beyond that limit?
Firstly, the genome doesn't know what a kind is. Just as evolutionists will point out that creatures do not know to evolve. Rather, it is just something that occurs due to physical laws.
Now, because the laws of the universe (as read by creationists) prohibit information increasing without intelligence (more information) instructing it to do so, evolution is limited to the information it began with after creation. So, whatever the original created organisms were, evolution can only modify (i.e. make worse) those organisms. A 'kind' simply refers to all those organisms that are commonly descended from this perfect created kind.
Rrhain writes:
Is a "fox" part of the "dog" kind?
I don't know, and I don't think any creationist knows either. But just because we don't know, it doesn't mean the term 'kind' is meaningless or that 'evolution did it'.

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 115 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 5:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2007 1:27 AM Doddy 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