I wouldn't call them sad or sick. Evolution just doesn't fit in with their world view and as such they deny it with all their might.
I might almost call that a distinction without a difference.
I'll bet $100 against your $10 that if you go back to them with your new-found knowledge of the scientific method, and explain it to them, they will not slap their foreheads and exclaim: "Oh, how silly we've been".
They'll just come up with some more crap. Let me guess. "No intermediate forms ..."; "The Second Law of Thermodynamics ..."; "No new species have been observed ..."
At which point, feel free to come back to these forums, where we'll help them out. Better still, just tell 'em to come on these forums themselves and debate some people who know the whole subject from A to Z.
But also, let me hazard another guess. Their first line of defense wasn't this rubbish about experiments in laboratories. Their first line of defense was to lie to you about what evolution is. They shifted their ground when they found out that you know what it actually is.
Now, let me tell you their last line of defense. This will be to say that although all the scientific evidence is against them, this is because all scientists are Evil Atheist Liars Who Hate God, and the Evil Scientists just made all the evidence up.
Creationism is "sick and sorry", as I have described it, because it's a paranoid psychosis. You may be luckier than I have been, and honesty compels me to admit that I have myself encountered honorable exceptions to this rule, but I wouldn't bet on it. This is how it goes.
My definition was trying to define (1) located in Chiropteras post above. (1) can exist, and be proven on its own even without (2). I'm trying to understand if this is correct. Especially as Ian Johnston's proof of the occurrence of macroevolution seems to be substantiating (1).
Well, I would say that (1) can exist but that it is a result of evolution not a cause, that it is an observation rather than part of the theory, as the theory explains it.
This goes back to evolution being the change in hereditary traits within populations from generation to generation, from which we can deduce two subpopulations that are isolated diverging over time, becoming genetically different, but having a common ancestor population. With sufficient time these diverging populations become different species, but related by their common ancestry. We can further extend this to apply to any two species -- that at some point in the past they had a common ancestor -- that the logical deduction is that that there was at one time a single population of organisms from which all life has evolved.
To me this is more of a prediction of the theory of evolution than a part of it, and it can be tested with both the fossil record and genetics, tests that have been made and which agree with one another to a remarkable degree, increasingly as more information is added.
My definition was trying to define (1) located in Chiropteras post above. (1) can exist, and be proven on its own even without (2). I'm trying to understand if this is correct.
And yet in my mind (2) is evolution (a good part of it anyway) while (1) is a result of evolution, evidence, and validation of it.
Fair enough, they CAN change into something else.
I would say that sometimes there are opportunities for change, but that change is dependent on both random factors and the forces of selection. In the former they may not provide the change for selection to operate, and in the later, selection may operate against changes being incorporated.
That said I concede that I was wrong in formulating it in that way.
Good.
What I meant to say was, you need to set up a theory for the observations to provide evidence of the occurrence of macroevolution.
Which brings us back to the definition of macroevolution and then lead to the process or mechanisms that result in macroevolution.
That one species can evolve into another.
Speciation occurs when two sub-populations become genetically isolated and no longer interbreed. This too has been observed, although the degree of difference between the two populations is initially pretty small and insignificant.
Consider the ring species, the asian greenish warbler, of which there are 6 subpopulations -- varieties -- 5 of which form a ring around the tibetan plateau with hybrid zones between all but the northernmost two:
quote:In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species.
They overlap in area but do not interbreed, and the difference is a slight change in plummage and a different mating song. They not only do not see the others as potential mates, but do not seen them as competitors.
The degree of change necessary for speciation is small.
Is it not true, that the occurrence of macroevolution is essentially a theory, BUT it has been substantiated by such an amount of observations and experiments (Say, fossils from excavations) that it is now considered a fact by the scientific community?
Again this gets back to the definition of macroevolution. If it is just speciation, then it is a fact because it has been observed. That this can explain the diversity of life as we know it today, in history and in the fossil record, though, is still a theory.
The tree of life based on fossil evidence is a theory of relationships between organisms today and in the past with islands of facts representing known fossils.
The tree of life based on genetic evidence is a theory of relationships between organisms today and in the past with islands of facts representing similar genetic sequences.
That these two theories mostly agree can be taken as substantiation, but not as fact -- there is some (minor) disagreement.
Is it true to say that theories can turn into facts?
It depends on your definitions of facts, laws and theories. I would tend to lean more in the line that theories can become "laws" due to a preponderance of validating evidence and a dearth of anomalies that are not explained. Facts, to me, are things of even greater certainty - tree rings, rock layers, radioactive decay, the speed of light are facts in this regard.
Hmm, I don't think you're all 100% agreeing on the terms...but let me state my understanding (again) so far:
The theory of evolution is the modern theory of evolution, encompassing all things evolution, such as natural selection.
Evolution is considered a fact. Part of evolution, the occurrence of macroevolution (Macroevolution meaning for example the evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates) can be proven on its own without using natural selection, as Ian Johnston does in his Short Proof of Evolution.
The thing is RAZD, many people don't consider evolution a fact. And in those cases, it's nice to be able to use a "proof" (Although there is no 100% proof in science) to be able to show them that it is in fact, a fact.
Hmm, I don't think you're all 100% agreeing on the terms...
Scientists don't 100% agree on terms either, but this does not mean there is little agreement.
The thing is RAZD, many people don't consider evolution a fact. And in those cases, it's nice to be able to use a "proof" (Although there is no 100% proof in science) to be able to show them that it is in fact, a fact.
But it is also necessary to be honest and not overstate the position, that what is proven is that many instances of evolution are known, are a fact, but that the whole sequence of events is still theory. Well substantiated and tested theory.
... the occurrence of macroevolution (Macroevolution meaning for example the evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates) ...
Now this is more than just speciation (which many creationists don't see as having enough change), and a rather different issue altogether. This raises the question of how you get from speciation to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates. How do higher taxons come to be and what is their significance?
... can be proven on its own without using natural selection, as Ian Johnston does in his Short Proof of Evolution.
What is so important about not using natural selection? Most creationists I've known have no problem with natural selection, as they claim it is part of the process of change within kinds. See Peppered Moths and Natural Selection.
The theory of evolution is the modern theory of evolution, encompassing all things evolution, such as natural selection.
Evolution is considered a fact. Part of evolution, the occurrence of macroevolution (Macroevolution meaning for example the evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates) can be proven on its own without using natural selection, as Ian Johnston does in his Short Proof of Evolution.
Yes, that's about right.
I wouldn't use invertebrate-to-vertebrate evolution as the clinching argument, 'cos we don't know that much about it. Yes, we have Pikaia and Haikouella, but it's not a complete slam-dunk. When we're talking transitions between major taxonomic groups, reptiles-to-mammals is the best in terms of completeness of the known fossil record, and reptiles-to-birds is the best in terms of being gobsmacking yet true.
It went as expected. After my brief refutation of their claims regarding the non-science of evolution, it went a step deeper, the rejection of science.
Basically they took it to the fundamentals of science. We know that science makes some assumptions, a memorable past, a predictable future and an observable external reality, but the mere fact that science makes these assumptions means that it is just as good as any religion.
I mean, those assumptions are just a way of perceiving things. Of regarding things at a certain angle. How can you say that these assumptions are any better than the assumptions that a religion makes.
When they say "assumptions" I presume they're referring to things that have been empirically verified to be true, and when they say "faith" I presume that they're referring to knowledge based on evidence.
Perhaps you should point this out to them, maybe explained what these two words actually mean.
Basically they took it to the fundamentals of science. We know that science makes some assumptions, a memorable past, a predictable future and an observable external reality, but the mere fact that science makes these assumptions means that it is just as good as any religion.
I mean, those assumptions are just a way of perceiving things. Of regarding things at a certain angle. How can you say that these assumptions are any better than the assumptions that a religion makes.
Those assumptions are faith, are they not?
They are not taken solely on faith. But as noted in msg 201 you'd have to get a clear definition of what that word means.
First: If you don't assume there is an external reality you are living in the matrix. You know nothing about anything at all. Their god disappears as a personal delusion as well.
Additionally: These assumptions work. We are able to (at least we think we are) make things happen in a predictable way. We can (it seems in our delusion) learn about this assumed reality and get useful results.
The thing is RAZD, many people don't consider evolution a fact.
Sorry to stick my nose in like this, but I've always wondered how the fact of evolution can be disputed. Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency over time. We see this happening right before our very eyes. You don't need to wait millions of years to see this. The allele frequency of many populations vary yearly. How on Earth can anyone dispute this fact is beyond me.
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!
... it went a step deeper, the rejection of science.
Of course it did -- that is the only way to maintain fundamentalist beliefs in face of the vast overwhelming evidence and coherence of science in today's scientific perception of reality. There is so much of science that must be wrong for such beliefs to be credible, that the only conclusion for one wedded to belief is that science is all wrong.
Basically they took it to the fundamentals of science. We know that science makes some assumptions, ...
Really there is only one: that the evidence is telling the truth.
We may have some disagreements about what that truth really is, but those disagreements are testable as long as we assume the evidence is true. It may take a while to understand what the evidence is telling us, as it may take invalidating a number of false starts on the path to truth.
How can you say that these assumptions are any better than the assumptions that a religion makes.
Because they are tentative, falsifiable, testable open to alternate explanations, and are not dogmatic. It may seem strange that the main strength of science is in lightly held theories that can be found to be false and readily cast aside, yet this is very like the limber trees -- like palms -- that stand in the way of terrible storms and weather them while stiff and strong trees -- like oaks -- fail. This is so because each failed theory, each falsified concept brings us closer to the truth, the calm after the storm.
Those assumptions are faith, are they not?
No.
Because it does rest on logic and material evidence. The assumptions of science can be tested and falsified, while the assumptions of faith, typically, are not allowed to be.
It went as expected. After my brief refutation of their claims regarding the non-science of evolution, it went a step deeper, the rejection of science. Basically they took it to the fundamentals of science. We know that science makes some assumptions, a memorable past, a predictable future and an observable external reality, but the mere fact that science makes these assumptions means that it is just as good as any religion.
I mean, those assumptions are just a way of perceiving things. Of regarding things at a certain angle. How can you say that these assumptions are any better than the assumptions that a religion makes.
Those assumptions are faith, are they not?
Bloody typical. In order to avoid evolution, they first try to redefine science so that it doesn't include phrases like "Saturn has rings". And then when you point this out to them, they then do indeed throw out the baby with (what they consider to be) the bathwater, and become complete epistimological relativists --- rather than accept one scientific fact which they don't like.
If "an observable external reality" is just a matter of faith, then it is, consequently, a merely a matter of "faith" that I have two legs.
But this is not usually what is meant by "faith". Actually, it's more like what normal people would call "a fact".
It doesn't seem to be what the Bible means by "faith", either.
Perhaps we need another word for "that particular sort of faith which is well-verified by all relevant observations". We could call it "truth", or "science", or "not running away from reality as fast as your legs will carry you".
Sheesh, it's like watching someone file for intellectual bankruptcy.
Basically they took it to the fundamentals of science. We know that science makes some assumptions, a memorable past, a predictable future and an observable external reality, but the mere fact that science makes these assumptions means that it is just as good as any religion.
But hold on ... it occurs to me ... surely those are "assumptions" that they do in fact have "faith" in.
If their only alternative to accepting science is to believe that the Universe is in some way a lie, a cheat, a hoax or a delusion, then in fact they don't believe that, do they? They can therefore say that accepting science requires "faith", according to a very strange definition of "faith", but since they have that requisite "faith", are they not then obliged to accept science?
Well I guess I should've focused more on the fact that the assumptions that science make, are assumptions that all human beings make. If you deny that you make those assumptions, then you are in denial. You shouldn't be breathing or eating, because those things are build on the same assumptions.
E.g. there is an observable reality (Food), there is a predictable future (The food that I put into my mouth WILL proceed to my stomach and eliminate my hunger)...and a memorable past...well it kinda goes without saying...
So...if you don't make those assumptions (Whether you acknowledge that you make them or not), you won't be able to *live*.
I guess that's one of the ways I could've gone about it...but the change from science to "philosophy" kinda caught me off guard. I mean I had expected it, but then again not really. I had prepared for a furious defense of evolution from WITHIN SCIENCE, having printed scientific articles and such, but they merely nodded and proceeded to talk philosophy. Lol, they never even mentioned that I had just refuted their claims from our last discussion.
I had prepared for a furious defense of evolution from WITHIN SCIENCE, having printed scientific articles and such, but they merely nodded and proceeded to talk philosophy. Lol, they never even mentioned that I had just refuted their claims from our last discussion.
It must be remembered that to the creationist, the fundamentalist, the person for whom belief is of paramount importance, that facts are meaningless.
Facts in no way benefit belief, for belief is founded on an absence of facts, often an ignorance of facts and sometimes even a denial of facts.
They live in a world where facts -- if not reality -- are not important.
quote:"The forams may not be representative of all organisms, but at least in this group we can actually see evolution happening. We can see transitions from one species to another," Parker said.
I don't think so. That they may not be representative of all organasms, means something other than the conclusion derived by Parker.
More probably, than equally, it can mean that the resemblences seen are commonplace and pervasive within life forms [humans resemble a host of other animals and birds in expressionisms and body functions]; that one life form may protrude an extension in a manner which resembles another life form's elsewhere without any direct linkage [both fish and humans have eyes]; or that a life form may be graduating only to adapt its own environs, and thus utilises a feature seen elsewhere in another life form [humans copy traits of other life forms to develop cars and planes].
The above anomolies subsist even when the alledged linkages are definitely in the non-absolute and highly exaggerated and elusive category.
quote: In other words, we have evidence from the fossils that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred.
Nothing of the sort has in fact occured, nor do we have any 'evidences' whatsoever - even with the retreat to the million years and fossils escapism: when did this prowess cease occuring and why is it not seen today? If it has not ceased and was/is a continual process, then the time factor does not impact. IOW, it would be evidenced last and next friday, and the period gaps would not hinder: that is what a 'continueing process' means. Naturally occuring oxygen production is a continueing process.
Mathematically, if blue marbles turn to red marbles every 10 days, continually, then we will always see this process in action - even after millions of years. The time factor has no impact in a 'continueing process'; Parker adopted slight of hand casino science here.
The premise that the elevation was not altogether direct and linear upto the present time, or that there were uneven twists and turns how the transit elevations [better, destruction] occured - also does not hinder continueing evidence today of a past millions of years away: these would still be evident - everywhere one looks - without exception - based on the same 'continueing process' premise.
quote: This simple element of the science of evolution is ignored by many creationists who deny evolution. Science does NOT limit its focus on the present
Not so - the reverse applies. Creationists have been following another science, which says the 'seed' [an outgrowth from the host parentage] is responsible for all transmissions of a life form, including heriditary and immediate skeletal and characterestics imprints: ignored by evolutionists altogether.
The fact of evidence for evolution of this factor is thus, and only this:
That it can conduct what is concluded, in the absence of the 'seed' factor.
Reductionist analogy: if you want to assert your car was not made by a car maker, then you have to produce cars w/o car makers.
™ Version 4.2
