Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 2:09 AM
19 online now:
Dr Adequate, Heathen, Pressie, Tanypteryx (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 0/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   What is evolution?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 16 of 122 (456258)
02-16-2008 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hill Billy
02-16-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Whats the difference between a duck?
Um, no, thats rubbish someone else made up in their head ...

Yes, to be fair, some other creationist probably invented that stuff for you.

... and I am repeating in order to answer a question.

Could you direct us to the actual source where you got this stuff with some sort of a link?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hill Billy, posted 02-16-2008 2:45 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 17 of 122 (456261)
02-16-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
02-16-2008 4:18 PM


Re: I Know
Hi Dr,

By the way, when are you guys going to agree on whether the universe is 6,000 years old or 13,000,000,000 years old?

I never thought it was either one.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2008 4:18 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3864
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 18 of 122 (456262)
02-16-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Granny Magda
02-16-2008 4:08 PM


Re: I Know
I don't know, Granny, but ICANT's answers seems heartfelt and honest to me. As far as what the ToE is, he is wrong, but doesn't know it. As for what is being preached he may indeed be right given the stupidity of some people who relay incorrect information. And I think part of his answer may be due to his not understanding what was being preached, whether correct or not.

Either way I think he answered the question to the best of his ability, which is all subbie was asking for.

Edited by AZPaul3, : stupid typos

Edited by AZPaul3, : And more typos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2008 4:08 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 19 of 122 (456263)
02-16-2008 5:21 PM


Getting on Topic
Well, this thread went into the toilet pretty quick.

To ICANT:

The Big Bang theory of cosmology has nothing to do with evolution, not even with biology. If you don't want to accept that then you can't participate in this thread, but please feel free to propose a thread discussing why the Big Bang should be part of biology.

Also, if you can't accept that different people will define the same thing in different ways, then you also can't participate, not here or in any other serious discussion.

To ICANT and Hill Billy:

If you're going to address the part of subbie's opening post that asked for "what is being preached" about evolution, then you also have to address the part where he says:

subbie in Message 1 writes:

I would much prefer that you cite a source for your understanding. I'd also much prefer that you cite a scientific source for your understanding.

It stretches credulity to believe that an evolutionist would claim that evolution includes the Big Bang, or that asking where the first life came from is a nonsense question. If you want to say that these are your own views, fine, but if you want to claim evolutionists told you this then you need to show where they said this.

To some others:

Quit the sarcastic stuff and deal forthrightly with what ICANT and Hill Billy are trying to say.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 6:51 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 7:18 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Hill Billy, posted 02-16-2008 7:25 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 20 of 122 (456269)
02-16-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Admin
02-16-2008 5:21 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

The Big Bang theory of cosmology has nothing to do with evolution, not even with biology. If you don't want to accept that then you can't participate in this thread, but please feel free to propose a thread discussing why the Big Bang should be part of biology.

I get the idea if there was no Big Bang there would be no evolution to talk about.

But that is besides the point.

I was asked for my ToE definition I gave it nobody liked it. what else is new.

I gave a definition for evolution nobody mentioned it.

I gave the definition of what I heard preached as the ToE nobody mentioned it.
Message 7

TOE explains how all life came from this single cell life form. We do not attempt to find out how it formed we just believe it happened.
This single cell lifeform began to change and formed multa cell lifeforms. These multa cell lifeform changed enough over time to produce every living and extinct lifeform that has ever existed on earth and exist today.

My problem is this:
The Big Bang Theory covers everything from T=O+ until present.
ToE as defined by evolutionist here only covers biogenesis. Why is that?
If the ToE is supposed to be The Theory of Evolution it should cover all of evolution. That would cover anything that has ever evolved. Not just Biogenesis.
You do not need a ToE to study biogenesis.
Did the universe not evolve? Or was it full grown to start with?
Did the earth evolve?

Evolution simply stated is change. Change can only happen over time.

I am perfectly willing to give a definition for biogenesis that I agreered with sometime ago.

http://< !--UB www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#91 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#91">www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#91 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#91">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#91< !--UE-->

RAZD writes:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

http://< !--UB www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#94 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#94">www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#94 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#94">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#94< !--UE-->

RAZD writes:

What we are looking at is descent from parent populations and variation and adaptation within isolated sub-populations of species up to the point they become independent daughter populations.

So you are saying this is micro-effects and macro-effects as you put forth in Process #1 and #2.

So these independent daughter populations that don't associate with each other are still fruit flys. Nothing has changed except the way they behaved toward each other.

wiki article writes:

it was observed that the flies would mate only with others from their adapted population.

It did not say they could not mate only that they were observed not to mate.

So yes I agree so far.

Biogenesis (or evolution either one you want to call it} then is the change in heredity traits in populations from generation to generation, with the division of parent species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

This was RAZD'S attempt to come up with a definition that creationist could accept.

Is there anything wrong with this definition that I agreered too.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 02-16-2008 5:21 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 02-16-2008 7:09 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2008 8:37 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 21 of 122 (456270)
02-16-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
02-16-2008 6:51 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
ICANT
My problem is this:
The Big Bang Theory covers everything from T=O+ until present.
ToE as defined by evolutionist here only covers biogenesis. Why is that?
If the ToE is supposed to be The Theory of Evolution it should cover all of evolution. That would cover anything that has ever evolved. Not just Biogenesis.
You do not need a ToE to study biogenesis.
Did the universe not evolve? Or was it full grown to start with?
Did the earth evolve?

You are trying to cover the entire history of the universe and the history of the physical earth and all of earth's life in one subject.

The big bang is a separate topic from either abiogenesis or biogenesis. The evolution of the earth is a separate subject than the evolution of life. ToE relates only to biological evolution.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 6:51 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 7:29 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 22 of 122 (456274)
02-16-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Admin
02-16-2008 5:21 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

If you're going to address the part of subbie's opening post that asked for "what is being preached" about evolution, then you also have to address the part where he says:

I thought I made it clear that what I was hearing preached was my personal opinion. It comes from what I have read over the last year and I do not plan on spending another reading it and marking every little thing that cause my mind to think the way it did.

You must remember I am looking at this from a different view than you are.

So if it is all the same to you we can drop my opinion on what is preached.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 02-16-2008 5:21 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3464 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 23 of 122 (456276)
02-16-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Admin
02-16-2008 5:21 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
If you're going to address the part of subbie's opening post that asked for "what is being preached" about evolution, then you also have to address the part where he says:

subbie in Message 1 writes:

I would much prefer that you cite a source for your understanding. I'd also much prefer that you cite a scientific source for your understanding.

I'm a little confused. I went back and re read the OP. It didn't help. I guess I assumed that Subbie was lookin for sources regarding the theory itself and I did not provide any, thinking I provided a reasonable if somewhat simplistic description. As no one has taken exception to my description of the theory itself are the sources still necessary?

As to what is preached, it may be difficult to cite credible " scientific " sources as I doubt most credible sources would agree with what is being "preached".

If you want to say that these are your own views, fine

I don't, really.

but if you want to claim evolutionists told you this then you need to show where they said this.

Most of this preaching has taken place in person, in my own home, in coffee shops, or at work. For example, my buddy Clint, Who claims to be very science minded and yet is continually misrepresenting what the TOE actually says.( And many other theories as well.) How am I supposed to cite and reference any of the many sermons I have received personally from avowed evolutionists. I will take some time and search the threads here as I'm fairly certain I have read the preaching on this site as well, but remember, not all evolutionists are scientists. In fact, likely most are not, so it's not so strange to believe that many evolutionists couldn't tell you what the TOE actually says.

It stretches credulity to believe that an evolutionist would claim that evolution includes the Big Bang, or that asking where the first life came from is a nonsense question.

Evolutionists are just an other group of people and in that group you will find all kinds. Including some who have no idea about what it is they claim to believe. One of the local grade seven science teachers regularly lumps the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution into one pot called evolution.When I mentioned abiogenesis to her she wasn't really sure what I was talking about. A science teacher!

I think part of the problem is that a great many on both sides of the fence have completely lost sight of the "tentative" nature of science. Many seem to think that because some theories have proven to be reliable that all the rest must be as well.


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 02-16-2008 5:21 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 02-16-2008 9:09 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 24 of 122 (456277)
02-16-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by bluescat48
02-16-2008 7:09 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
Hi bluescat48,

bluescat48 writes:

ToE relates only to biological evolution.

So why is it called the Theory of Evolution then?

biological evolution is only one kind of evolution.
abiogenesis is a kind of evolution.
The expanding universe is a kind of evolution.
Cars have evolved.
Airplanes have evolved.

So what theory covers all this other kind of evolution?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 02-16-2008 7:09 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by DrJones*, posted 02-16-2008 7:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 02-16-2008 7:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Admin, posted 02-16-2008 8:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2008 8:35 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1820
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 25 of 122 (456278)
02-16-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
02-16-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
So why is it called the Theory of Evolution then?

Because it describes evolution in biological organisms.

abiogenesis is a kind of evolution.

No its not.

The expanding universe is a kind of evolution.

No its not.

Cars have evolved.
Airplanes have evolved.

No they haven't.


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 7:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 122 (456281)
02-16-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
02-16-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
ICANT,

So why is it called the Theory of Evolution then?

Because it is about evolution, just not every kind of evolution that can conceivably happen. As evidenced by the FACT that when you pick up a biology textbook that talks about evolution it talks about biological evolution. Pick up a book on stars & it will talk about stellar evolution.

It gives credit to peoples intelligence that when biology is on the table, we won't be talking about stellar evolution, but biological evolution. & dropping "biological" to get the "theory of evolution" should be a safe bet to normal people. No?

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 7:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 27 of 122 (456286)
02-16-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
02-16-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
Hi ICANT,

It's hard to believe you're serious, but whatever the case, we're not going to have such a ridiculous discussion in the science threads, so I'm suspending you for 24 hours. When you return, if you'd like to continue participating in this thread then you're just going to have to accept that the creation/evolution debate is about the theory that Darwin introduced in his book.

Also, in the future, when a moderator makes a request, just follow it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 7:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 28 of 122 (456288)
02-16-2008 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
02-16-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
ICANT,
I think that part of the problem here is that you are talking about evolution in a more general sense of the word, whereas this discussion is meant to be about biological evolution. Let's go back to your Webster's cite;

Merriam-Webster's writes:

1: one of a set of prescribed movements

2 a: a process of change in a certain direction :
unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off :
emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state :
growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d: something evolved

3: the process of working out or developing

4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) :
phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

5: the extraction of a mathematical root

6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

We are only interested in the fourth sense for the purpose of this discussion.

The definition of evolution you quote from RAZD in Message 20 is, of course, quite correct, but the point wasn't really to determine whether RAZD can define evolution. He has demonstrated rather thoroughly that he can.
Your definition, as given here;

ICANT writes:

TOE explains how all life came from this single cell life form. We do not attempt to find out how it formed we just believe it happened.
This single cell lifeform began to change and formed multa cell lifeforms. These multa cell lifeform changed enough over time to produce every living and extinct lifeform that has ever existed on earth and exist today.

is somewhat scanty, but basically right. It isn't really a complete definition of evolution, but rather an over-simplification. It's incomplete, but its not wrong.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 7:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 29 of 122 (456289)
02-16-2008 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
02-16-2008 6:51 PM


Focus on Topic
Biogenesis (or evolution either one you want to call it} then is the change in heredity traits in populations from generation to generation, with the division of parent species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

bi·o·gen·e·sis –noun1. The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms and not from nonliving matter.
2. Generation of living organisms from other living organisms.
3. See biosynthesis.
4. The supposed recurrence of the evolutionary stages of a species during the embryonic development and differentiation of a member of that species. Also called recapitulation.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)

Which definition? I can go with #2, for #3 I'd use biosynthesis, and #4 is no longer used, with recapitulation being invalidated.

I was asked for my ToE definition I gave it nobody liked it. what else is new.

Message 7
The Theory of Evolution is a change over time where all living things came from a pea sized universe that expanded into what we see and what we do not see today. The Big Band Theory tries to explain what happened in the material universe from T=O+ until present. The Theory of Abiogenesis tries to explain how life came into being on a lifeless planet. Once this life appeared the Theory of Biogenesis tries to explain how all living lifeforms extinct and living today came from this first or many life cells.

This is the "kitchen sink" conflation of every possible meaning of evolution. I'll make no other comments at this time, other than note the OP request:

quote:
I would much prefer that you cite a source for your understanding. I'd also much prefer that you cite a scientific source for your understanding. If you can only find creationist sites that support your understanding of what the ToE is, you might seriously want to consider that your understanding is flawed.

I'd agree -- we are talking about the science of evolution, so one should use the definition used by the scientists within that science. This science does not include astronomy or physics.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : sub


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.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 6:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 30 of 122 (456291)
02-16-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hill Billy
02-16-2008 7:25 PM


Re: Getting on Topic
Hi Hill Billy,

The questions you raise indicate that Subbie's question about what is being preached about evolution may have some ambiguity. I assumed he was talking about what the people familiar with evolutionary theory say about it, but you're assuming that it's what the common everyday person thinks evolution is. I come to my interpretation because preaching isn't what you get in normal conversation with friends and colleagues, it's what you get from a person in a position of religious authority, such as someone on the pulpit. I assume Subbie was asking about the views of evolution you've received from people who might actually know what evolution really is.

Hopefully Subbie will clarify soon, but I'm going to run with my own interpretation for now, because it is popular misunderstandings of evolution we're striving to overcome, not promulgate. If you tell us that your views are just those you hear from people you come in contact with in your personal life, I think the typical response from evolutionists would be, "Yeah, we know, the public understanding of science in this country is pretty poor, and when it comes to misunderstandings of evolution creationists must accept the biggest share of responsibility because they've done the most to reduce treatments of evolution in textbooks and classrooms. Given that the average student spends less than a day out of all his years in school learning about evolution it's no wonder so many end up knowing so little about it."

In other words, I wouldn't call the misinformed people you described evolutionists. I would just call them misinformed. It's interesting that they accept the theory of evolution without understanding it, but that doesn't make them evolutionists. It would be like someone calling himself a Christian without knowing anything about the virgin birth, the ministry, the last supper, or the resurrection.

Your own description of evolution was conflicted. In your first paragraph you provided a definition that was was pretty good, I think most people could tell pretty much what you were trying to say, but your closing paragraph reflected popular misconceptions. This tells me that you know what evolution really is, but you choose to instead direct your criticisms at the misconceived version.

There seems little point to criticizing an incorrect definition of evolution. For example, you said that evolutionists claim that questions about life's origins are nonsense, but no evolutionist would ever say that. But when someone says, "Evolution is wrong because life cannot come from non-life," then an evolutionist can only point out what is actually true, which is that evolution does not include the origin of life.

The origin of life is called abiogenesis, and just like evolution is an area of study within biology, abiogenesis is just another area of study within biology, . The study of the origin of life is not nonsense, but saying that evolution is wrong because life can't come from non-life *is* nonsense. It would be like saying that Jesus couldn't have been resurrected because virgins can't have babies - one has almost nothing to do with the other. The events are inextricably linked through the life of Jesus, but they're not directly related to one another. In the same way, abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked because non-life did eventually become life that evolved, but they're not directly related to one another.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hill Billy, posted 02-16-2008 7:25 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by subbie, posted 02-16-2008 10:02 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2008 9:27 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019