Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 4:27 PM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,730 Year: 9,766/19,786 Month: 2,188/2,119 Week: 224/724 Day: 63/93 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Definition of Evolution
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 212 (418673)
08-29-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2007 5:49 PM


Re: The what?
quote:
Naturally, I remain unconvinced.

Convincing you is, naturally, an impossible task. You know, I've read your posts for a while now and I'm actually shocked that you remain so ignorant (but I guess I shouldn't be). Is it the Jesus thing? Dude, get religion off your brain for a minute and actually learn something. Incredible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2007 7:42 PM Clark has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1463 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 47 of 212 (418679)
08-29-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2007 5:49 PM


Re: The what?
nem writes:

I wonder that if mudskippers were extinct right now, if evolutionists would make the argument that they were really creatures in transition from water to terrestrial, or vice versa.


But there currently exist many species of animal that are transition from water to terrestrial. We don't need to look at animal that are already extinct to use as an example.


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 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5690
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 48 of 212 (418687)
08-29-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
08-29-2007 9:16 AM


Re: The what?
About your fruit fly speciation claims, experiments of all different sorts have been performed on Drosophila melanogaster

Yes, I am aware of that the fruit fly has been used in a multifaceted way. I'm simply mentioning the Drosophila because it is used as evidence of speciation. I'm really not sure where the ambiguity is in that.

Though not impossible, bombarding fruit flies with X-rays is unlikely to produce such specific mutations.

But it is what they did. If your objection is that the expressed intent was not specifically to, in essence, "prove" evolution, then I can't really comment on that. All I know is that the fruit fly has been used as an evidentiary claim for macroevolution. I am simply dispelling the notion that it proved anything in favor of macroevolution. In my mind, it did prove quite nicely that the abundance of beneficial mutations are little more than wishful thinking.

we've observed speciation both in the lab and in the wild multiple times. Your observation about the slowness of speciation in longer-lived species is accurate, but this comment about the fossil record is also clearly wrong

Percy, its just an illustration so the reader understands what I mean. I don't see how that could be "clearly wrong."

I would also like to see the alleged instances of observed speciation. I'm guessing it is going to show various forms of microevolutionary specimens that no one objects to.

There are many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, if for no other reason than that all species are transitional, except those that go extinct.

Its a stretch that defies imagination that the horse and whale series produced anything of value. Its based purely on conjecture.

The fossil record is full of finely gradated series of species change. What is less common in the fossil record is transitions at the higher levels of classification such as class and order.

Then where does a theory like punctuated equilibrium come in to play that contravenes the supposed finely gradated series? There are no finely gradated series. There are organisms that appear fully-formed in strata just as they are walking around today.

You were probably just responding to something someone else said, but I thought it important to respond to your errors, but I think this may be drifting off-topic.

I don't see how this off-topic, being that the premise of the OP is quite broad.

You're lack of familiarity with the fossil record and with speciation experiments isn't an issue in this thread, and probably disqualifies you from the discussion anyway.

Is that a more gentle of way of saying, shut up, nem... you don't know what you're talking about.?


"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Søren Kierkegaard
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 08-29-2007 9:16 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2007 9:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Wounded King, posted 08-30-2007 7:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19884
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 49 of 212 (418697)
08-29-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2007 8:43 PM


Define macroevolution
All I know is that the fruit fly has been used as an evidentiary claim for macroevolution. I am simply dispelling the notion that it proved anything in favor of macroevolution.

Speciation has been observed during the course of fruit fly experiments. Are you saying that speciation is macroevolution now? Please define what you mean by macroevolution, nem - don't hide it from the debate eh?

I would also like to see the alleged instances of observed speciation. I'm guessing it is going to show various forms of microevolutionary specimens that no one objects to.

Especially if you never define the difference nor say what you expect to see. Moving goalposts and all that, right nem?

Then where does a theory like punctuated equilibrium come in to play that contravenes the supposed finely gradated series? There are no finely gradated series. There are organisms that appear fully-formed in strata just as they are walking around today.

ONE way to find out would be to read the work by Gould and Eldridge. That you are STILL ignorant of punk eek is ONLY your fault nem. It's been discussed several times. There are lots of examples of "graded series" - the stasis parts - but not all records are complete enough to rule out faster evolution during some periods - the punki parts.

I don't see how this off-topic, being that the premise of the OP is quite broad.

The premise of the OP is

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.

So we are talking about the definition of evolution. Now we can discuss what is and is not microevolution and what is and is not macroevolution, but you will need to provide definitions of what you mean by them and what you expect to see.

Is that a more gentle of way of saying, shut up, nem... you don't know what you're talking about.?

You've already proven that you don't on this thread.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 8:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2772 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 50 of 212 (418704)
08-29-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2007 5:49 PM


skipping mud
I wonder that if mudskippers were extinct right now, if evolutionists would make the argument that they were really creatures in transition from water to terrestrial, or vice versa.

If it hadn't been done I would enjoy being the first to make such a suggestion. It need not be extinct to say that its "in transition", I place my bets that there is not one evolutionist on this board that thinks mudskippers are not transitional. (Not a fair bet really, as anyone who understands the theory would say that about any living creature not doomed for extinction) The interesting thing about the mudskipper is that it is so obviously transitional from one environment to the next that it becomes a living example of the likely path that such creatures as Tiktaalic took so long ago.

From message 41 you state:

Shouldn't evidence for macroevolution be so completely abundant so as to be self-evident? Should it really be necessary that you have to find some obscure creature that might qualify, if the theory is as strong as it claims?

Yes the evidence should be abundant and I feel its clearly self evident. No, it should not be necessary to find an obscure creature. There are so many examples that even you manage to bring up an example without even meaning too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-29-2007 11:02 PM Vacate has responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1769 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 51 of 212 (418712)
08-29-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Vacate
08-29-2007 10:27 PM


Re: skipping mud
Vacate:

I place my bets that there is not one evolutionist on this board that thinks mudskippers are not transitional. (Not a fair bet really, as anyone who understands the theory would say that about any living creature not doomed for extinction) The interesting thing about the mudskipper is that it is so obviously transitional from one environment to the next that it becomes a living example of the likely path that such creatures as Tiktaalic took so long ago.

Actually, anyone who truly understands the theory would know that extinction has little to do with this. Chronology does, though. Chronology correlates logically with the placement of individuals in any family tree.

'Transitional' forms that appear to be still going strong today are not the pivot point you speak of. If truly related, the modern form is descended from the transitional form that represents the true pivot point. That original creature had descendants who went off in at least two (often more) directions.

That's why scientists talk of populations and how they change. Populations within a species face different environmental pressures and adapt in various ways. Speciation--the formation of new species--results.

The apparently 'transitional' forms you observe today are different species from the ancient creatures you want to equate them with. Modern coelocanths are not the same species as fossil coelocanths. A modern mud skipper is not Ichthyostega. A modern chimpanzee, or human, is not the same species as the common ancestor of both.

Still, all species are transitional. It may well be that the modern mud skipper is repeating natural history as we speak. It may be evolving into a terrestrial form. Time will tell.

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : No reason given.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : corrected attribution.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Vacate, posted 08-29-2007 10:27 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Vacate, posted 08-29-2007 11:42 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2772 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 52 of 212 (418724)
08-29-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Archer Opteryx
08-29-2007 11:02 PM


Re: skipping mud
Archer Opterix writes:

Actually, anyone who truly understands the theory would know that extinction has little to do with this.

Good point. It can be said, and often I imagine, that I don't truly understand the theory.

What I was thinking of is if the entire species (say the mudskipper) had gone extict before it had had a chance to produce a viable population of decendants of a different species. The result would then be that the mudskipper was never transitional as it never had the opportunity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-29-2007 11:02 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-30-2007 6:49 AM Vacate has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 53 of 212 (418728)
08-30-2007 12:08 AM


Please...
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by AdminSchraf, posted 08-30-2007 11:12 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 54 of 212 (418729)
08-30-2007 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tusko
08-28-2007 6:33 AM


Re: Keeping an open mind
You who bandy words :rolleyes:

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tusko, posted 08-28-2007 6:33 AM Tusko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tusko, posted 08-30-2007 5:48 AM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 55 of 212 (418730)
08-30-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Doddy
08-28-2007 4:12 AM


Re: There are no eyewitnesses - get over it
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Doddy, posted 08-28-2007 4:12 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Doddy, posted 08-30-2007 7:57 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 56 of 212 (418732)
08-30-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
08-28-2007 8:06 AM


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. :eek: Did I just say that???

I would like to say that and not have religious inference bias placed upon me. This would be nice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2007 8:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2007 9:19 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 57 of 212 (418733)
08-30-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by bdfoster
08-27-2007 1:38 PM


Re: What we didn't see before...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bdfoster, posted 08-27-2007 1:38 PM bdfoster has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AdminNosy, posted 08-30-2007 12:22 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

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


Message 58 of 212 (418735)
08-30-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 12:19 AM


An example of poor posting
This is another example of poor posting on your part. You will not receive many warnings.

However, you will only (for now) receive short suspensions. This will give you a chance to continue posting as you learn how to carry on this kind of discussion.

Another suggestion, try to avoid an arrogant tone. You know almost less than nothing about these topics. It shows.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:19 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 59 of 212 (418737)
08-30-2007 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
08-28-2007 7:28 PM


Re: The question is WHY?
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 :cool:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2007 7:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rrhain, posted 08-30-2007 2:14 AM Ihategod has responded
 Message 63 by RickJB, posted 08-30-2007 4:28 AM Ihategod has responded
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2007 8:35 AM Ihategod has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 60 of 212 (418747)
08-30-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 12:27 AM


Re: The question is WHY?
Vashgun writes:

quote:
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.

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.


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 59 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:27 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:04 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
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