|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hmm ... a post containing no facts.
Instead, you just babbled about an imaginary "philosophy" and an imaginary "religion" that you've invented in your head. Ah yes, creationism. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It won't change the fact that your religion includes that which mine excludes through lack. ... Your religious views are the cornerstone for your desire of a monopoly on this definition. If you can't win this definition, you can't confuse people into believing your lies. Conclusion: purpose served. Again, my religion has nothing to do with your definition of evolution. You have no idea what my religion lacks, as you have no idea what it includes. Just characterizing the positions of others as religion does not make it so -- you are still playing word games to deceive yourself: delusion. Conclusion: your purpose is self delusion that you are dealing with something rather than ignoring it.
Restraining the definition to knowable limits makes it less dogmatic and more universally accepted. So limiting it to phenomena observable today makes it more universally applicable -- ie applicable to past times and phenomena? Or do you mean just making it a tolerable definition for everyone, so that they can hide their heads in the sand and delude themselves that evolution does not go on regardless of what they believe? You realize of course that changing the definition does not change the process or any aspect of reality ... so the only purpose served then is the self delusion that you are dealing with something rather than ignoring it.
I un-limited it and then you disagreed. You must have a hidden agenda. You went from saying must be over billions of years to must be over infinite time -- that is not un-limiting it, but making it useless. The only "agenda" I have is that you show logical reasons for your definition and that what you derive is useful. So far all you are doing is throwing ad hoc constructions together without any regard for logical consistency or applicability to reality.
What's wrong with seperation of definition and religious inference? There is no "religious inference" in the definition of evolution you quoted in Message 1 (which was from the thread on the definition of the theory of evolution, not the definition of evolution, btw - which is why you were off topic on the original thread):
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time ... We can observe this in phenomena today, and we can see evidence of this in the fossil record. Whether this occurs from original "kinds" or from life that developed on this planet over 3.5 billion years ago is not restricted by the definition in any way. Your invoking of "religious inferences" as a reason to change the definition is therefore a red herring and not a valid reason.
The usable definition for a kind, is in the kind itself. It should be obvious that a wolf and a dog are related. So all life is of one kind then. Everything is related. The definition is in the kind itself, and it should be obvious, eh? Thanks for clarifying that.
It should be obvious that a wolf and a dog are related. A banana and a wolf is a stretch. Yet they share the same essential DNA made from the same basic building blocks. The only difference is in the arrangement of the DNA pairs within the strands of DNA, but those types of differences in DNA between banana and wolf are the same as the types of differences in DNA between wolf and dog ... there are just more of them. You can take one and artificially modify it to match the other and end up with viable DNA for that species. Thus again they are related and of one kind, it's obvious eh?
I admit that quantifying the process is and would be difficult, the fundamental kinds would be hard to tell, for example: Zebra and horse, both agree in morphology yet which came first? Based on the evidence, Hyracotherium came before either. Their relationship is also based on morphology.
You accuse me of not being in reality, perhaps you would like to define reality? I doubt you can give me a usable definition. If telling the truth is outside reality then I don't want to be in. You have the same problem with defining "truth" ... but I would say that denial of evidence (reality) that contradicts your belief is NOT a way to find reality. As far as an actual definition, I am happy to use a standard definition of reality:
Thus tree rings, fossils and rock layers are objective, observable parts of reality. You can also pursue this further on my Perceptions of Reality. What it comes down to, is that the more objective evidence you need to deny in order to maintain a specific world view (regardless of the basis for it) the less real it is. This would also apply to definitions of terms used in science: if you are not using the definitions used in the science, then you are removed from reality in discussing that science when using your definition: you are deluding yourself regarding the reality of that science. It is not the truth. I can pretend to redefine gravity to only apply to what is observable here on earth, but this will not affect the orbit of planets nor the paths of stars in the universe, and to think so would be delusional. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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. And I've read your posts as well. They lack any substance. They are reminiscent of Rick JB's posts which are pithy, at best, and ad hominem at worst. You'd attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. In the future, perhaps you could make an attempt to be affable instead of instantly trying to blast me out of the water. "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." -Sren Kierkegaard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Likewise, whether evolution happened in any given case depends on the evidence. Thus is the crux of the argument. It is based on observation and subjectivity. You conclude one thing, I conclude another. Evolution, as in variations with in a living organism, or being, or kind, or species, happens everyday. This isn't the argument! Dr. A. and RAZD can chill, at least you Modulous have a cool head. Thank you, even if we disagree.
The definition of evolution make no inferences whatsoever. The definition of evolution does not infer natural history in any way shape or form. The definition of evolution does not even infer that it happens at all and nor should it. The definition merely states that if a change in allele frequency happens, then biological evolution has occurred. I wish I could agree. For the people involved in debate, this would in fact be somewhere along the reconciliation lines. However, to the layman, evolution infers the subsequent theories. Which is why I would like to digress from any form of acknowledging a position in contrast to mine own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSchraf Inactive Member |
Vashgun, are you a Christian?
The reason I ask is because your posts drip with disdain, sarcasm, and insult. I have read the Bible, and I don't recall Jesus speaking to other people that way, nor do I recall Him advocating, well, speaking to people in the disrespectful way you have spoken to anyone who disagrees with you here at EvC. What is your goal here? It it to teach people the error of their ways and that they should believe and think and behave like you do? If so, I suggest dropping the arrogant 'tude, because you will never achieve your goal as long as you maintain it. At any rate, you are certainly being monitored by the moderator team. You are violating multiple Forum Guidelines with nearly every message you post, but we tend to give greater allowances for poor behavior to Creationists because it seems that many of them are not able to conduct themselves in a civil fashion. Anyway, I strongly suggest you start treating others with a lot more civility and respect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Not all conclusions are equally valid. How do we decide which one is correct? IOW, why should we accept your conclusion? What is it based upon?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Again, my religion has nothing to do with your definition of evolution. WRONG!!!! It has everything to do with it. You must understand that your belief in billions of years is a contested theory, and I use "theory" lightly. You believe in the "theory" of evolution, I don't. Therefore, for us to come to any type of terms of agreement we must supplicate our view points. You won't admit that you believe in the theory of evolution. You think it is a fact. I disagree. Instead of calling into question my psychological state, you should educate me with facts instead of assertions relative to your religion.Also, calling what you believe a religion is true, if it is unfair, then calling Christianity a religion is also unfair. Or do you mean just making it a tolerable definition for everyone, so that they can hide their heads in the sand and delude themselves that evolution does not go on regardless of what they believe? If I call evolution a religion, you get all bent out of shape. When you attack my belief with speculative reasoning that you deem superior, I get upset. So we need a definition that remains unbiased. Not to say that we can't observe the effects of evolution. Which is, in my opinion, labeled under observable. So something that happened 200 years ago is knowable and possibly scientific. However, expanding this range to supplicate your belief system is unacceptable.
We can observe this in phenomena today, and we can see evidence of this in the fossil record. Whether this occurs from original "kinds" or from life that developed on this planet over 3.5 billion years ago is not restricted by the definition in any way. Your invoking of "religious inferences" as a reason to change the definition is therefore a red herring and not a valid reason. Again with citing religious dogma. When will you understand, I desire religion out of the definition? Life forming billions of years ago or reference to the fossil record is under deep skepticism. So postulation of unknown hypotheses must meet the same requirements you so readily give to any biblical science or study. And I agree that variations happen, why can't we call these observations variations?
So all life is of one kind then. Everything is related. The definition is in the kind itself, and it should be obvious, eh? Thanks for clarifying that. Where did that come from? All life one kind? No, how about: All life from one source? Your so static in your reasoning, all you can perceive is your own ideal.
Yet they share the same essential DNA made from the same basic building blocks. The only difference is in the arrangement of the DNA pairs within the strands of DNA, but those types of differences in DNA between banana and wolf are the same as the types of differences in DNA between wolf and dog ... there are just more of them. You can take one and artificially modify it to match the other and end up with viable DNA for that species. Thus again they are related and of one kind, it's obvious eh? Until we know everything there is to know about genetics and genetic data, let us (you) drop the arrogance posture. The fact is, relationships are found. The end. Because things are similar doesn't make some fantasy story come to life to result in an observable construct. Which brings me back to the point: Evolution should be carefully used to a specific degree and not a jumped to over hyped conclusion.
Based on the evidence, Hyracotherium came before either. Their relationship is also based on morphology. Scientology doesn't believe in psychology. What that has to do with the relevance of this topic is up for debate.
You have the same problem with defining "truth" ... but I would say that denial of evidence (reality) that contradicts your belief is NOT a way to find reality. As far as an actual definition, I am happy to use a standard definition of reality: Me too, however is all reality subjective or objective or is it transitional?
Thus tree rings, fossils and rock layers are objective, observable parts of reality. This is subjective evidence. calling something blue, that is clearly red is a form of lying. Although you probably don't have any standard, besides yourself, for the accumulation of morals, I don't expect you to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Vashgun responds to me:
quote: Indeed. So give us a definition of "kind" that allows for the variation of species that we currently see that doesn't require evolutionary rates so rapid that each individual would necessarily be a separate "kind." That's the problem: Set "kind" to low down the cladistic level, and the ark becomes a floating city. Set it too high, and you have alligators giving birth to ostriches. If you gave your definition before, please state it again for I have not seen it. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Thus is the crux of the argument. It is the crux of the EvC argument it shouldn't be anything to do with the definition of Evolution though.
However, to the layman, evolution infers the subsequent theories. Does the definition of evolution that was put forward infer this though? Naturally, if you say evolution to a layman he'll think of natural history, but changing the definition won't change that. We'd have to alter natural history to do that - which is an entirely different proposition. However, the definition: 'Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time', makes no inference. Can you show me different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Vashgun writes: ...something that happened 200 years ago is knowable and possibly scientific. However, expanding this range...is unacceptable Because...? 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?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4629 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
First thing to note here is that quantifying the limits of variation would be difficult. I agree to the point of saying it would be impossibly difficult.
Anyone can see how these can be related. I also agree with this statement. The problem comes from the need for more detail. You, and surely every other creationist who has posted about kinds, are always immediatley asked for a useable definition of the word. Don't you wonder why? Lets say that your views become universally accepted. How do you, and your fellow creation biologists begin to re-write the textbooks? Yes its quite obvious that a hummingbird and an ostrich are related, but you can't write textbooks that way. How is it obvious? What defines a bird from a bat or a whale? The questions may sound stupid, but these questions have been answered in the texts - yet you reject them! So how do you suggest it be better described?
It is so simple to look and tell from whence it came. Using your examples presented so far, I would grudgingly agree. Your method of classification is how I imagine the field of biology started out. The problem is with the incredible ammount of things that are not obvious, those things that defy common sense and simplistic classifications. If you cannot think of examples I would suggest that it is you that is now playing stupid. Starfish, Anemone, Thylacoleo, or the Virus (in all its many forms) Where do these fit? Is the starfish just a fish kind? Thylacoleo just an odd kangaroo?
Because you demand a strict definition And such a definition has been lacking in all creationist writings thus far. I believe it to be impossible and would instead be satisfied with an example by example exploration of "kinds". Taken on a case by case basis I still feel that "kinds" either requires lightning fast evolution or a very very sophisticated ark.
You desire the how, I know the why. Interesting how you can see so clearly that there is two different topics of discussion. Two totally different things aren't they? Hows and whys, sort of like black and white, night and day, science and religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xaruan Junior Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
After reading many responses, I began to wonder how it can be so difficult to define evolution in a way that satisifies both parties.
Let me offer my general evolution definition. Hopefully, the simplicity will appeal to all. "The change in a population across generations" This definition doesn't specify at which level the change is taking place.To address the connotation that evolution has in these discussions, I'll modify the simple version a bit. "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" This definition is applicable to both flavors: micro- and macroevolution (if you do believe a distinction is needed). 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. The definitions simply say what it is, not how or why it occurs. While it is almost always implied that evolution refers to evolution of humans from less complex forms of life, this definition contains no explicit claims of saying all life evolved or at what time life started to evolve. Hopefully, simple definitions can be appreciated by both sides of the argument?(By the way, I do accept that humans evolved to what we are now.) The question now should be:"Can the accumulation of changes (over long periods of time) in genetic traits in a population or population(s) result in homo sapiens?" EDIT: Also, just in case it hasn't been said, evolution does not require that changes have to be positive. That's more with natural selection Edited by Xaruan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
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 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?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
And I've read your posts as well. They lack any substance. They are reminiscent of Rick JB's posts which are pithy, at best, and ad hominem at worst. How is posting a recent example of a transitional fossil in response to an utterly groundless assertion that none exist "ad hominem"? I made no personal attacks - I was merely expressing surprise that you continue to use such arguments given your long involvement here. I wrote in response to what you posted - nothing more, nothing less. If seeking to directly correct a falsehood is "pithy" to you then so be it. In any case, this is all OT. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 129 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I honestly don't profess any particular confidence that my view of the world is true; however, it is true that I believe observation of the physical world provides us with the best means of understanding the way the world works.
Do I sense from your post that you are somewhat contemptuous of people who have unshakable faith in their own worldviews? Edited by Tusko, : tyoo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024