Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 151 of 305 (428951)
10-18-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Medis
10-18-2007 6:25 AM


Sorting through the confusion
Welcome to the fray Malangyar,
evolution: "theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits." (From MSN Encarta)
You would do better to use a definition as used by scientists, such as:
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).
We also have a whole thread on the The Definition for the Theory of Evolution, with the result:
Message 158
(1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.
(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.
(3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
(4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:
  • theories on how change is enabled
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
  • theories on how changes made within each generation are selected
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate)
    ... etc
Now it may be interesting to flesh out #4 with the lists of theories from natural selection to genetic drift to punk-eek to runaway sexual selection ... etc.
The conclusion was that there is no one overall theory of evolution, but we can arrive at a statement that is a synthesis of numerous tested and validated theories for how evolution happens. This can be stated at different levels of detail as seen above.
In fact, YOU CAN SIMPLIFY the definition of evolution, and end up with something like:
"evolution is the development, through various stages, of one living organism into another living organism not at all like it"
First, lets not confuse the process of evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in species from generation to generation. We also had a whole thread on Definition of Evolution (it branched off from the other one due to confusion between evolution and the theory of evolution).
Second, this is not a theory of evolution because it does not explain how evolution occurs: it is just an observation of the fact of evolution. A scientific theory explains a process.
Third, your definition implies a direction in evolution to create new forms. There is no such direction, no purpose to make new organisms. You are confusing result with process.
So what's the difference between the two definitions? Well, the latter one is simply a definition of evolution by its effects, not how those effects came about. It basically cuts away all the other stuff one might argue about (Such as natural selection) and gets right to the core of the problem, the effects of evolution.
But you can, in fact, still simplify that definition and reach something which doesn't include natural selection. All you'd need is the theory that a living organism will always come from another living organism and you're all set.
But is also not evolution - it is not restricted to hereditary changes - and it is not a definition of the theory of evolution, like the previous one was.
It's just a much simplified definition of evolution by its effects and it can in fact be proven as a scientific theory without ever mentioning natural selection.
In fact you save yourself a lot of trouble because you don't have to go into ANOTHER proof, for example a proof of natural selection.
Even if one explanation of how the effects of evolution occurred was proven wrong, the effects would still be there.
So evolution, by its most simplified definition, would still be standing.
First, scientific theories in all sciences are never proven. They are tested to see if they can be invalidated (proven wrong) but they can never be proven right (the next test may prove them wrong).
Second, you are now confusing the evidence that evolution has in fact occurred with the theory that explains how it occurs. Evidence is fact and not subject to proof or disproof: a rock is a rock. A fossil is a fossil.
No, in fact it isn't. And you're talking about microevolution here right? Let me get this straight, I'm always talking about macroevolution, because that's where most creationists have a problem. You might say microevolution proves macroevolution, but creationists won't accept that.
Look back at the Berkeley definition for the theory of evolution. What is "macroevolution" and how does it occur? Whether creationists have a problem or not is immaterial to what the science of evolution actually says, what the theory of evolution actually is as used in the science of evolution, what the process of evolution actually is -- or the evidence that evolution has occurred.
Yes please, a source from a scientist or a scientific article saying that observations of nature are just as good experiments as repeated experiments in a lab. (Not trying to annoy you or anything)
Every field study ever made. For an example try:
  1. Grant, P. R. (1986) Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J.).
  2. Grant, B. R. & Grant, P. R. (1989) Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population: The Large Cactus Finch of the Galápagos (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago).
In some cases such field studies are better than lab experiments.
Thus, all the crap about natural selection being implausible or whatever doesn't matter because evolution would still be standing. It's a giant red herring. In fact if you present this simple proof to creationists you get right to the core of the problem which is: What is science? How does science proceed? Is biology as much a science as physics and chemistry? What kind of logic does science use?
Natural selection being implausible is crap: it has been observed happening in field studies.
If you want to start a topic on what science is then go to Proposed New Topics to post a new topic. Perhaps one on the definition of science: then we can apply it to biology and see that yes indeed biology is a science.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : welcome

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 149 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:25 AM Medis has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 152 of 305 (428957)
10-18-2007 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by iceage
10-18-2007 3:45 AM


Re: Ray Martinez Destoys Modern Biology....
Ray's been promising this paper for going on two years now. Most of us stopped holding our breath awhile ago. I'm really excited that he appears to be ready to publish by the end of this year - although publication dates have slipped quite a bit in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by iceage, posted 10-18-2007 3:45 AM iceage has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 305 (428962)
10-18-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Medis
10-18-2007 6:25 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Thus, all the crap about natural selection being implausible or whatever doesn't matter because evolution would still be standing. It's a giant red herring. In fact if you present this simple proof to creationists you get right to the core of the problem which is: What is science? How does science proceed? Is biology as much a science as physics and chemistry? What kind of logic does science use?
This is why I started out with asking whether or not the testing of evolution (Say, an excavation) could be seen as scientific.
So, you seem to be asking whether the theory of common descent, that all known species have evolved from a single ancestral species, can be tested in a scientific manner?
The answer is, "yes." Douglas Theobald has written an essay that explains the manner in which macroevolution has been and continues to be tested.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:25 AM Medis has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 154 of 305 (428975)
10-18-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Medis
10-18-2007 6:25 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
No, in fact it isn't. And you're talking about microevolution here right? Let me get this straight, I'm always talking about macroevolution, because that's where most creationists have a problem. You might say microevolution proves macroevolution, but creationists won't accept that.
The separation of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a complete fabrication from Creationists. Science makes no such distinction. The model describing the change in genetic traits over generations has no mechanism for some "barrier" that somehow stops these small "micro" changes from adding up to larger "macro" changes. Creationists don't accept a lot of things that are factual.
I NEVER SAID IT WAS A COMPETING THEORY WITH EVOLUTION! I said it was an explanation of how evolution OCCURRED. Which is absolutely 100% true especially from a scientific viewpoint! And to say that it is not a theory is simply absurd! Of course it is a theory, just like magnetism, atomic structures, gravity and electricity.
But you're still not quite understanding the actual relationship between natural selection and evolution, and this is why you're getting so much flak at the moment. As another poster, Jar, is fond of saying, you're confusing the map for the territory. The territory (actual evolution, the real and observed change in traits over generations) exists. It's irrefutable, you can actually go and see it. The Theory of Evolution is the map - it describes the mechanism by which the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs, which includes natural selection (not a theory in its own right, but a mechanism), genetic drift (likewise), etc. The territory (evolution)is simply fact. The map (the Theory of Evolution) changes as new data is discovered about the observations it models.
Similarly, gravity is an observation. We know, through direct observation, that this force exists. The Theory of Gravity describes the mechanism by which gravity works.
A Theory must involve a mechanism, becuase a Theory must be able to make testable predictions and thus be falsifiable. A scientific Theory is 100% different from, say, a detective saying "I have a theory."
One such as you should know that science doesn't proceed by showing that theories are irrefutably true (Fact). It proceeds by showing, through repeated testing, that they're NOT FALSE.
This is true. A Theory is held to be less tentative through additional scrutiny and attempted falsification. But observations (ie, allele frequency changes over generations)are fact. This is why the distinction is important.
Evolution just happens to be a theory which is so well founded that most scientists see it as fact. Even though it is, essentially, a theory just like gravity. I mean, gravity is also, essentially, a theory. It's just so well founded by repeated testing and observation all over the globe that it is seen as fact.
N, evolution is a fact. It's observable, just like gravity. The Theory of Evolution is the model describing the mechanism by which evolution happens, and that model is what has been tested. Through repeated testing, it has shown to be highly accurate in modeling the observed phenomenon. It may seem like a small semantics nitpick to you, but I assure you the difference is significant.
And you don't even have to believe me, believe this post of the month from the Talk.Origins archive:
Please, no bare links. Post a quote if you would like to cite someone else's work, or sum it up in your own words. But beyond that: a post of the month on a web forum is not the same as a peer reviewed journal, and neither does such a post necessarily reflect proper usage of terms or understanding of ideas. In other words: a post on another forum is irrelevant. Your understanding is still flawed.
But you know what I don't really think you're reading this. You don't care what I say, you're just skipping over it and pushing the reply button so you can have the last word. Because if you were really reading this with an open mind, you would have realised that I never said, in the last post, or any other post, that natural selection was a competing theory with the theory of evolution.
What are you, 12? Let's be a little more grown up here, please.
In fact I explained that it was an explanation of how evolution proceeds.
You just misunderstood me because you wanted me to be wrong.
No, several people "misunderstood" you becasue your use of terms is incorrect, and you seem to have a few misunderstandings of your own regarding Theories andevolution in particular.
No, Percy, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Natural selection is one explanation of how evolution occurred and even if it was proven wrong evolution (As in my latter definition) would still be standing. I'm not saying this just so I can have an opposite opinion of yours, I'm saying it because it's the truth. Think about it.
Close but still not on the mark. See above.
Actually there is. All you have to assert is that a living organism always comes from at least one living (parent) organism. That's all. Of course, a further explanation would be natural selection, but even if that was proven wrong, you would still have evolution standing. (Notice, I'm not saying natural selection is wrong, I'm just saying you could still argue for evolution even though natural selection WAS wrong)
Simple descent from a parent without a selection mechanism does not accurately model allele frequency changes over generations. This is where your semantic mistake is spilling over into your understanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Yes, it's a fact as far as you can say something is a fact in science. You and I both know that a theory is always a theory, just like gravity is a theory. It's just so well substantiated that it is perceived as fact. At the end of the day though, it's still a theory.
This is true, except that observations are facts. That evolution has and is occurring is an observed fact, for instance, just as gravity's effect on our space probes, on the moon and planets, etc is an observed fact. The Theories are the models detailing the mechanisms that explain the observations.
But wouldn't the repeated observation of the fossil simply be a repetition of the same experiment again and again? I mean wouldn't it be better to have three experiments under three different conditions than three experiments under the same condition?
The "fossil record" covers a lot of individual fossils, and each one is an experiment in itself. Each fossil could potentially disprove the Theory of Evolution. Each one supports it, instead.
Yes please, a source from a scientist or a scientific article saying that observations of nature are just as good experiments as repeated experiments in a lab. (Not trying to annoy you or anything)
That's part of the basic scientific method. Basic stuff. Observations are fact.
Yes of course when the scientific community today talks about evolution they talk about all the theories that have something to do with evolution. But you can, in fact, still simplify that definition and reach something which doesn't include natural selection. All you'd need is the theory that a living organism will always come from another living organism and you're all set.
And yet that doesn't accurately model observed reality any longer. "Simplified" definitions are nice for TV documentaries and jr high biology classes, but not for science or meaningful debate.
The best part about all of this is that you don't even have to believe me. Ian Johnston at the Malaspina University-College has written an excellent proof of evolution where he does in fact simplify the case of evolution to its utter core, thereby neatly sidestepping 80% of all the bullshit creationist argument.
Read it here: Error
While it is certainly possible to argue individual aspects of the Theory of Evolution in order to win a debate by ignoring what the opponent will not accept, it has no bearing on what the actual scientific Theory includes. Also, again: no bare links, please.
Thus, all the crap about natural selection being implausible or whatever doesn't matter because evolution would still be standing. It's a giant red herring.
Natural selection is one of the largest components of the Theory of Evolution. You don't need to address it in an individual debate, but saying that its falsification would let the Theory stand is false.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:25 AM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 11:45 AM Rahvin has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 155 of 305 (428980)
10-18-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Medis
10-18-2007 6:25 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Hi Malangyar,
You're getting enough replies correcting you on the same points that I'll spare you my version. Suffice to say that evolution, the theory of evolution, natural selection, and so forth, already have well-established scientific definitions. If you're opposed to evolution then you need to develop criticisms of what it actually is, rather than what you think it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:25 AM Medis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Rahvin, posted 10-18-2007 11:08 AM Percy has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 156 of 305 (428996)
10-18-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
10-18-2007 10:12 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Hi Malangyar,
You're getting enough replies correcting you on the same points that I'll spare you my version. Suffice to say that evolution, the theory of evolution, natural selection, and so forth, already have well-established scientific definitions. If you're opposed to evolution then you need to develop criticisms of what it actually is, rather than what you think it is.
--Percy
Hey Percy,
I don't think our new friend actually opposes evolution. In fact, he seems to be trying to suggest that large parts of the debate be ignored as irrelevant red herrings, because evolution stands even without such components as natural selection.
While he's getting plenty of responses due to some semantics errors and basic misunderstandings about both evolution in particular and scientific theories in general, it doesn't sound like he's our newest Creationist.
As a side note, I think this is a great time to point out that the supposed "bias" of this site against Creationists is right now being demonstrated as a bias against non-facts. We pile up on other Evolutionists just as quickly if one of us makes a significant error. The fact that Creationists are typically more often removed from fact and reality is the cause of the appearance of bias, as well as the typically emotional response and persecution complex demonstrated by most Creationists.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 10-18-2007 10:12 AM Percy has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 157 of 305 (428998)
10-18-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Medis
10-18-2007 6:25 AM


talk origins on facts and theories
Evolution just happens to be a theory which is so well founded that most scientists see it as fact. Even though it is, essentially, a theory just like gravity. I mean, gravity is also, essentially, a theory. It's just so well founded by repeated testing and observation all over the globe that it is seen as fact.
And you don't even have to believe me, believe this post of the month from the Talk.Origins archive: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: November 2005
And I almost agree with you and the paraphrased professor. However, gravity is a fact, not a theory. The Theory of Relativity explains this fact (curvature of space time). Evolution itself (and indeed, many statements about natural history) are facts. That Henery VIII was King of England is a fact, that animals share a common ancestry is also a fact. Neither are theories in a scientific sense. Historians sometimes call things theories when they are not sure about them, and they later get promoted to historical fact; different terminology for different disciplines. And you don't have to believe me, check out this post at Talk origins from a professor of biochemistry at Toronto University.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:25 AM Medis has not replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3890 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 158 of 305 (429007)
10-18-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Rahvin
10-18-2007 10:03 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
RAZD writes:
First, lets not confuse the process of evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in species from generation to generation. We also had a whole thread on Definition of Evolution (it branched off from the other one due to confusion between evolution and the theory of evolution).
Second, this is not a theory of evolution because it does not explain how evolution occurs: it is just an observation of the fact of evolution. A scientific theory explains a process.
Third, your definition implies a direction in evolution to create new forms. There is no such direction, no purpose to make new organisms. You are confusing result with process.
Actually it does. ”Through various stages” (e.g. reproduction). It doesn’t need to explain it in detail. And no there is no direction in the definition, it just says that living organisms will develop into other living organisms not at all like them. There is not “intended direction” in this.
RAZD writes:
First, scientific theories in all sciences are never proven. They are tested to see if they can be invalidated (proven wrong) but they can never be proven right (the next test may prove them wrong).
Second, you are now confusing the evidence that evolution has in fact occurred with the theory that explains how it occurs. Evidence is fact and not subject to proof or disproof: a rock is a rock. A fossil is a fossil.
1. I never said they were.
2. In fact I said the exact same thing you’re saying:
Malangyar writes:
One such as you should know that science doesn't proceed by showing that theories are irrefutably true (Fact). It proceeds by showing, through repeated testing, that they're NOT FALSE.
3. No, the evidence doesn’t prove evolution by itself. You need to set up a theory for it to prove evolution. You can furthermore set up a theory of how evolution proceeds. (Natural selection) You can even combine those two theories and call them the theory of evolution. (Which is what is usually meant by evolution today)
Of course you can always take the opposite step and simplify the theory to not include natural selection. Evolution would still hold even without natural selection. One evidence of this is the fact that the theory of evolution (Without natural selection) had been around for decades before Darwin came forth with natural selection.
RAZD writes:
Look back at the Berkeley definition for the theory of evolution. What is "macroevolution" and how does it occur? Whether creationists have a problem or not is immaterial to what the science of evolution actually says, what the theory of evolution actually is as used in the science of evolution, what the process of evolution actually is -- or the evidence that evolution has occurred.
Eh, what’s your point? I was just stating that I’m talking about macroevolution here.
RAZD writes:
Every field study ever made. For an example try: In some cases such field studies are better than lab experiments.
Thank you. So my understanding is that observations of nature that are in accordance with a specific theory can be interpreted as experiments on the same level as lab experiments.
RAZD writes:
Natural selection being implausible is crap: it has been observed happening in field studies.
I never said it was crap.
Chiroptera writes:
So, you seem to be asking whether the theory of common descent, that all known species have evolved from a single ancestral species, can be tested in a scientific manner?
Yeah I did a couple of posts ago but crashfrog provided an article about a way of testing macroevolution and I regarded that as answer enough. I must admit though that I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.
My other question was about the nature of science, more precisely if repeated observations of nature (Such as excavations) could be used as experimental evidence on the same level as repeated observations of experiments in labs. This has also been answered with a yes and a source.
What I’m trying to argue now is that evolution can in fact be proved even without pulling natural selection into the fray, as Ian Johnston does.
Rahvin writes:
The separation of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a complete fabrication from Creationists. Science makes no such distinction. The model describing the change in genetic traits over generations has no mechanism for some "barrier" that somehow stops these small "micro" changes from adding up to larger "macro" changes. Creationists don't accept a lot of things that are factual.
Fair enough. What I mean by macroevolution is a change from one organism into another not at all like it over a succession of generations. What I mean by microevolution is small changes over a smaller amount of generations.
Rahvin writes:
But you're still not quite understanding the actual relationship between natural selection and evolution, and this is why you're getting so much flak at the moment. As another poster, Jar, is fond of saying, you're confusing the map for the territory. The territory (actual evolution, the real and observed change in traits over generations) exists. It's irrefutable, you can actually go and see it. The Theory of Evolution is the map - it describes the mechanism by which the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs, which includes natural selection (not a theory in its own right, but a mechanism), genetic drift (likewise), etc. The territory (evolution)is simply fact. The map (the Theory of Evolution) changes as new data is discovered about the observations it models.
Similarly, gravity is an observation. We know, through direct observation, that this force exists. The Theory of Gravity describes the mechanism by which gravity works.
A Theory must involve a mechanism, becuase a Theory must be able to make testable predictions and thus be falsifiable. A scientific Theory is 100% different from, say, a detective saying "I have a theory."
Yes I do understand the relationship between the two. Natural selection is an explanation of how evolution occurs. You can prove the (Simplified) theory of evolution even without natural selection. I’ve already provided proof of it here: Error
Rahvin writes:
This is true. A Theory is held to be less tentative through additional scrutiny and attempted falsification. But observations (ie, allele frequency changes over generations)are fact. This is why the distinction is important.
Yes that would be what most people understand as microevolution. I know that macroevolution and microevolution according to science is one and the same, but people still distinguish between the two in the way I presented above. (For whatever reason) And the fact remains that you don’t even have to use microevolution to prove evolution. The fossils are enough.
Rahvin writes:
N, evolution is a fact. It's observable, just like gravity. The Theory of Evolution is the model describing the mechanism by which evolution happens, and that model is what has been tested. Through repeated testing, it has shown to be highly accurate in modeling the observed phenomenon. It may seem like a small semantics nitpick to you, but I assure you the difference is significant.
No, evolution is a theory and I provided a link to talk.origin where a teacher explained this. Here it is: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: November 2005
Now you might not want to read it, but it’s still there. Observations are facts, the theory of evolution connects these observations.
Rahvin writes:
Please, no bare links. Post a quote if you would like to cite someone else's work, or sum it up in your own words. But beyond that: a post of the month on a web forum is not the same as a peer reviewed journal, and neither does such a post necessarily reflect proper usage of terms or understanding of ideas. In other words: a post on another forum is irrelevant. Your understanding is still flawed.
It’s all in the link. The teacher explains that evolution, just like gravity is a theory. It wouldn’t take make than a couple of minutes to reach the post and understand. My understanding might be somewhat flawed, but if you won’t even take the time to see where I got my understanding from how can you ever convince me that your understanding is better?
Rahvin writes:
What are you, 12? Let's be a little more grown up here, please.
No, but a lot of you guys are acting like it just cause I’m not the ordinary run of the mill "servant of the elite". You guys aren’t really reading my posts or trying to understand where I’m coming from. You just think I need to be “beaten down”. The attitude of your posting reflects this. It's really laughable to call yourselves scientific and post with such an attitude.
Rahvin writes:
No, several people "misunderstood" you becasue your use of terms is incorrect, and you seem to have a few misunderstandings of your own regarding Theories andevolution in particular.
At least I don’t rule out I might have a few misunderstandings, you act as if you’re the one and all.
Rahvin writes:
Simple descent from a parent without a selection mechanism does not accurately model allele frequency changes over generations. This is where your semantic mistake is spilling over into your understanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
No it doesn’t, but I never said it did. That’s where natural selection (Or any other scientific theory you might have) comes in, to further explain how evolution proceeds. The fact of the matter is, you can link the fossils together by reproduction, if you want further detail, you take natural selection. Many creationists attack natural selection, but even if they did disprove natural selection, there would still be the additional layer of reproduction which would be sheer insanity to try to disprove. They would have to disprove that living organisms always come from living organisms which isn’t scientific in any way because we’ve only observed living organisms coming from living organisms.
Rahvin writes:
This is true, except that observations are facts. That evolution has and is occurring is an observed fact, for instance, just as gravity's effect on our space probes, on the moon and planets, etc is an observed fact. The Theories are the models detailing the mechanisms that explain the observations.
Microevolution might be, but macroevolution? For macroevolution we have the fossils (fact) and the difference between organisms (fact). Then we have the theory that living creatures always come from at least one parent living creature. (We’ve never observed anything else) So how do connect these facts? How do we explain them? With the theory of evolution. From the fossils we see that simple organisms existed millions of years, and that the organisms become more complex the further you go up through the layers. If you combine this with the fact that living organisms always come from living organisms you get the theory of evolution: That organisms develop through various stages into other organisms not at all like them. And we can make a prediction with this theory: That every time we do an excavation we’ll find the same pattern of simple organisms at the bottom and more complex organisms at the top. HOW did the organisms become more complex? One theory is natural selection, but that’s another argument.
Rahvin writes:
The "fossil record" covers a lot of individual fossils, and each one is an experiment in itself. Each fossil could potentially disprove the Theory of Evolution. Each one supports it, instead.
Yes, but you’re taking it out of context. He was referring to taking a fossil into a lab and running repeated experiments on it.
Rahvin writes:
And yet that doesn't accurately model observed reality any longer. "Simplified" definitions are nice for TV documentaries and jr high biology classes, but not for science or meaningful debate.
You can always add more detail to theories, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the simplified versions are wrong. And if you’re dealing with an audience of lesser knowledge a simplified definition which proves exactly the same thing can be very useful. Especially when debating.
Rahvin writes:
While it is certainly possible to argue individual aspects of the Theory of Evolution in order to win a debate by ignoring what the opponent will not accept, it has no bearing on what the actual scientific Theory includes. Also, again: no bare links, please.
Yes but this is not just individual aspects of evolution, this is the core of macroevolution. If you’d taken the time (No more than 15 min for one as intelligent as you, I’m sure) to read the bloody essay: Error you’d have realised this. Does it have a bearing on what the modern theory of evolution includes? You’re damn straight it does. Does it explain all the things that modern evolution theory includes? No, and it doesn’t have to to provide a rational “proof” of macroevolution.
Rahvin writes:
Natural selection is one of the largest components of the Theory of Evolution. You don't need to address it in an individual debate, but saying that its falsification would let the Theory stand is false.
No, you’re wrong, and instead of answering I’ll respond by quoting Ian Johnston responding to one objection to his proof that I provided a link to above:
Ian Johnston writes:
Objections to Darwin
A number of those taking issue with the case made for evolution point to some real or apparent difficulties with Darwin's account of how evolution proceeds (that is, through natural selection). Again, as the original article points out, such objections are irrelevant. The general case in support of evolution derives none of its strength from Darwin's work and would remain exactly as it is if we had never heard of Darwin or if we decisively refuted his theories. Such objections are easy to make, of course, because scientists themselves are always calling attention to certain problems with parts of Darwin's theory, but they do not affect in the slightest the argument for evolution made in the essay. The theory of evolution was well known long before Darwin. His grandfather wrote a poem about it, and, some forty years before Darwin's book first appeared, Lamarck published a comprehensive theory of evolutionary change. What's significant about Darwin's writing is not the general account of evolution but his description of how evolution proceeds.
To repeat the point: Darwin's theory is an account of how evolution works. If there are problems with that theory or even if it is discredited, that does not disprove the existence of evolution. Just because we have problems agreeing how something works, that does not entitle us to claim that the phenomenon does not exist. If we're not exactly sure how salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?
Hence, any appeal to problems with, say, the mutation rate or to the probabilities of random changes producing complex structures or to what is going on at the microscopic level, however pertinent they may be to a discussion of natural selection, are irrelevant to the argument presented for evolution.
(My emphasis, from: Error)
I rest my case. (Until further notice)
Percy writes:
You're getting enough replies correcting you on the same points that I'll spare you my version. Suffice to say that evolution, the theory of evolution, natural selection, and so forth, already have well-established scientific definitions. If you're opposed to evolution then you need to develop criticisms of what it actually is, rather than what you think it is.
lol, this is laughable. You’re so prejudiced that, although I never said, in any post, that I was against evolution, you still think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Your reply is a joke, I’m sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Rahvin, posted 10-18-2007 10:03 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2007 12:04 PM Medis has replied
 Message 163 by Percy, posted 10-18-2007 1:07 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 164 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2007 1:15 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2007 3:33 PM Medis has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 159 of 305 (429019)
10-18-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Medis
10-18-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
You can prove the (Simplified) theory of evolution even without natural selection. I’ve already provided proof of it here: Error
You can demonstrate that macroevolution has occurred without reference to natural selection, where macroevolution means 'change in life on earth over geologically significant time periods'. Darwin did it, he needed to do it, to show there was something that needed explaining. He explained it primarily through chance variation and natural selection (though he added other ideas in there too) You can also prove gravity exists without reference to curvature of space-time, Newton did it, for example.
I wasn't aware that this was under dispute? However, if you took away natural selection - a great swathe of the theory would be removed and the theory would be very very weak. Whatever new theory emerged, would be quite different from the current one.
You need to set up a theory for it to prove evolution.
Except for the fact that your source, Ian Johnston, just said you didn't need to do that - and he didn't do that. He just pointed at the evidence and said 'see, it must have happened...how is a different question altogether'
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 11:45 AM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 12:31 PM Modulous has replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3890 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 160 of 305 (429030)
10-18-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Modulous
10-18-2007 12:04 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Modulous writes:
Except for the fact that your source, Ian Johnston, just said you didn't need to do that - and he didn't do that. He just pointed at the evidence and said 'see, it must have happened...how is a different question altogether'
So you're saying he's proving a fact?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2007 12:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2007 12:45 PM Medis has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 161 of 305 (429035)
10-18-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Medis
10-18-2007 12:31 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
So you're saying he's proving a fact?
Well, he's demonstrating that something is in fact, a fact. Proof is not a word I'd use, but if you want to use it loosely, then yes - he's proving a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 12:31 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 1:01 PM Modulous has replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3890 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 162 of 305 (429040)
10-18-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Modulous
10-18-2007 12:45 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Modulous writes:
Well, he's demonstrating that something is in fact, a fact. Proof is not a word I'd use, but if you want to use it loosely, then yes - he's proving a fact.
Lol Modulous I'm sorry but it just sounds totally weird. I mean it sounds absurd, the title of the essay is "A Short Proof of Evolution". Why would you write a proof of a fact? Why would you even need to prove an observation?
I don't think it's a fact. I think it's a theory. Of course, I could be wrong. Please correct me.
BTW thanks for being the only guy with a somewhat resonable attitude, I appreciate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2007 12:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2007 1:25 PM Medis has replied
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2007 5:16 PM Medis has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 163 of 305 (429042)
10-18-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Medis
10-18-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Percy writes:
Percy writes:
You're getting enough replies correcting you on the same points that I'll spare you my version. Suffice to say that evolution, the theory of evolution, natural selection, and so forth, already have well-established scientific definitions. If you're opposed to evolution then you need to develop criticisms of what it actually is, rather than what you think it is.
lol, this is laughable. You’re so prejudiced that, although I never said, in any post, that I was against evolution, you still think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Your reply is a joke, I’m sure.
You mean to say you're not opposed to evolution? Interesting. We don't usually see misunderstandings like yours from non-creationists. But whatever your position, criticisms either of evolution itself or of the views of others on evolution need to be based on what evolution actually is, rather than what you think it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 11:45 AM Medis has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 305 (429045)
10-18-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Medis
10-18-2007 11:45 AM


Explaining science
What I’m trying to argue now is that evolution can in fact be proved even without pulling natural selection into the fray, as Ian Johnston does.
If by "proved" you mean that enough scientific evidence has been collected that evolution, common descent, can be considered a demonstrated fact, then the answer here is "yes" as well.
I have already provided link to the evidence that supports evolution; I will provide it again. The nice thing about Dr. Theobald's essay is that he also makes the effort to explain why the evidence he discusses is evidence in the sense that science uses the term.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 11:45 AM Medis has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 305 (429046)
10-18-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Medis
10-18-2007 6:25 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
But wouldn't the repeated observation of the fossil simply be a repetition of the same experiment again and again? I mean wouldn't it be better to have three experiments under three different conditions than three experiments under the same condition?
Yes, just as it would be better to have three fossils to observe than one.
Yes please, a source from a scientist or a scientific article saying that observations of nature are just as good experiments as repeated experiments in a lab.
But this is like asking for a source saying that chemical experiments done in beakers are just as valid as those done in test-tubes. I don't think that any scientist has ever bothered to say this in so many words.
If you like, though, plenty of our members are scientists, and I'm sure that one will be glad to say so. (I'm a mathematician, which is not quite the same thing.)
But it is evident from the practice of scientists that this is what they think. They are quite happy, for example, to confirm the theory of gravity by looking at the orbits of planets.
Yes of course when the scientific community today talks about evolution they talk about all the theories that have something to do with evolution. But you can, in fact, still simplify that definition and reach something which doesn't include natural selection.
Look, if you want to call the theory that evolution occurred "the theory that evolution occurred", then I'll be right behind you cheering you on. But if you want to call this "the theory of evolution", then that's just muddying the waters, because that phrase already has a meaning.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:25 AM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 1:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024