Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is evolution?
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 31 of 122 (456297)
02-16-2008 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
02-16-2008 9:09 PM


Clarification
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.
Yes, I too realize that the OP was ambiguous.
I chose the words I did because I was prompted to begin this thread by ICANT's statements, so don't read too much of my intention from the particular choice of words. However, I do think Percy is much closer to what I was looking for than was ICANT.
While it might be of some small interest to hear people's descriptions of what individuals have told them that the ToE means, it's considerably more important to learn what creos think scientists are talking about when they talk about the ToE.
It's been quite clear to me for a long time, and it's vividly illustrated in this thread already, that when creos attack the science behind the ToE, they are usually talking about a great number of things that have nothing to do with the ToE. More specifically, they seem to want to lump together any scientific discipline that they believe undermines their religious ideas.
What's not clear, and probably can't be answered in this thread, is to what extent this conflation of multiple ideas is unintentional ignorance or a willful attempt to mislead. Or in other words, as a professor once told me, the question is whether they are "knaves or fools."
For purposes of this thread, I want to know what creos think that scientists who are doing work in the field of biology are talking about when they say the ToE. I would also consider acceptable a description from someone doing work in the philosophy of science. This is the reason, in particular, why I would like a citation to a source to establish that in fact someone with some level of authority supports the description that creos are laying out.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 02-16-2008 9:09 PM Percy has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 32 of 122 (456415)
02-17-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
02-16-2008 9:09 PM


Re: Trying to Get on Topic
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
then an evolutionist can only point out what is actually true, which is that evolution does not include the origin of life.
Before I stick my neck out too far I would like to ask a question.
Who determines this statement is true or false?
In other words what type of person would I have to produce to say that it does include the origin of life?
I would just like to know what would be acceptable before I present my evidence.
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 30 by Percy, posted 02-16-2008 9:09 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 02-17-2008 10:26 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 4:02 PM ICANT has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 33 of 122 (456419)
02-17-2008 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
02-17-2008 9:27 PM


Re: Trying to Get on Topic
As I said in the OP:
quote:
I would like give you creos an opportunity to prove that you in fact do know both "what evolution is" and "what is being preached as evolution."
I then clarified that, for purposes of "what is being preached," I'm looking for what
quote:
scientists who are doing work in the field of biology are talking about when they say the ToE. I would also consider acceptable a description from someone doing work in the philosophy of science.
Thus, for purposes of this thread, that's who you would have to produce to show how the ToE is "being preached."

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2008 9:27 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 12:10 AM subbie has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 34 of 122 (456432)
02-18-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by subbie
02-17-2008 10:26 PM


Re: Trying to Get on Topic
Hi subbie,
Did you misunderstand my question?
I asked specifically about evolution including the origin of life.
I would like to add going back further also.
I do have evidence I just want to get a clear statement as to what would be acceptable evidence.
I think I made it clear in a message to Percy I was through talking about what was being preached.
I am only concerned with supporting my definition for ToE.
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 33 by subbie, posted 02-17-2008 10:26 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-18-2008 2:49 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 02-18-2008 8:02 AM ICANT has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 35 of 122 (456435)
02-18-2008 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
02-18-2008 12:10 AM


The topic concerns biological evolution - Period
I do feel a certain empathy towards your perspective - I, being an alleged geologist, do feel a certain resentment that biology had claimed the term "evolution" to be synonymous with "biologic evolution". As a matter of fact, this (sub)forum's name was originally just "Evolution". I was the one behind changing it to "Biological Evolution" to make it clear it was not a forum pertaining to non-biological varieties of evolution.
Regardless, however, of the vagueness of the topic title and message 1, in not specifically saying biological evolution, this topic is indeed in the "Biological Evolution" forum and indeed is about biological evolution. The fundamental presumption is that life did somehow come into existence, and then the processes of biological evolution kicked in.
Considerations of cosmological evolution belong in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. Considerations of geological evolution belong in the Geology and the Great Flood forum. Consideration of whatever evolutionary process that lead to the origins of life belong in the Origins of Life forum.
Bottom line - This topic is about BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION! Any further objections on your part about this matter are not going to be tolerated by forum management.
Adminnemooseus
Incidentally, a statement I include in my non-admin mode's "signature" is:
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
That is my personal one sentence summary of the most broad definition of evolution, of which biological evolution is a subset.
See the topic How do you define the word Evolution?, where I discuss the above quoted at message 8.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 12:10 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 36 of 122 (456461)
02-18-2008 7:46 AM


Re-My Final Post this Topic
I asked for and received clarification of what would be allowed in this topic. Message 35
In Message 1
I'm not asking you to provide any evidence for or against any theory.
No evidence required.
I'm not asking you to argue for or against it.
No argument required either way.
In fact, I'd rather you not argue against it in this thread.
No arguing against at all.
I just want you to describe what you think the ToE says.
My opinion asked for.
My opinion given Message 7
Then all kinds of arguing breaks loose.
I was admonished in Message 19 concerning my opinion.
In Message 20 I gave my definition of (evolution) (biogenesis)as I had agreed to with RAZD in another thread.
I was then given a 24 hour time out by admin. which I deserved because I had argued with an admonition.
Since I have nothing further I can add to this topic other that my definition in Message 20 I will start a new topic to discuss my opinion concerning the ToE.
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."

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 37 of 122 (456462)
02-18-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
02-18-2008 12:10 AM


Re: Trying to Get on Topic
At least you're giving up on the cosmological claims and are in the field of biology now, so go for it.
But you might want to read the part in my previous post where I said that abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked. A seed is not a tree, but one can ask at what point does a seed become a tree? There's an ambiguous period of transition about which people could disagree. In the same way, non-life is not life, but at what point does non-life become life? There's an ambiguous period of transition about which people could disagree.
But there is absolutely no doubt that the theory of evolution first proposed by Darwin applies to all life today, to all life during the period of the dinosaurs, to all life during the age of reptiles, to all life during the age of fishes, and to all life when there were nothing but single-celled organisms. Only somewhere around 3.8 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million years, is there an ambiguous period where there could be widespread disagreement about whether it was life or not.
In a universe full of ambiguities, the transition period from non-life to life is not a very large one and forms just a tiny, tiny period of the total time of billions of years when the principles of evolution have been operating on the lifeforms of this planet. It is these principles of evolution that operate on actual already-existing life that subbie is asking about.
There's another point to be made. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists out there. I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding one somewhere who wrote something sufficiently misworded as to be interpreted as saying that evolution includes abiogenesis. That's not really what you want. You also don't want the pronouncements of some kook.
Some huge percentage of biologists are very clear about the fact that abiogenesis and evolution are separate though related areas of study, so what point is served by seeking dissenting views far outside the consensus. It would be like saying, "I want to learn about Christianity, so I think I'll go read the Book of Mormon." I mean, sometimes it's like creationists are working as hard as they can to acquire misinformation. We're trying to debate the actual, for-real theory of evolution as formulated by actual biologists, so that's what you should be trying to learn about.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 12:10 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 8:09 AM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 122 (456525)
02-18-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
02-17-2008 9:27 PM


not who, what
In other words what type of person would I have to produce to say that it does include the origin of life?
But this is still not thinking with your {science} hat on. What a person says is not evidence, no matter what kind of authority he\she is.
The question you need to ask is what kind of evidence do you need to produce to show that the study of evolution (ie the science) via the Theory of Evolution (presumably your version of it on this thread) requires an investigation of origins of life.
ie -- what about the origin of life (OOL) prevents me from studying the evolution of beak size in Galapagos Finches or investigating the fossil record to determine homologies and lineages.
Who determines this statement is true or false?
What determines that this statement (evolution does not include OOL) is true or false is looking at actual studies of evolution and seeing if you need to include OOL or not.
No expert opinion needed.
Enjoy.

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 32 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2008 9:27 PM ICANT has not replied

McCartlennstarrison
Junior Member (Idle past 5874 days)
Posts: 6
From: U.S.A.
Joined: 02-05-2008


Message 39 of 122 (458191)
02-27-2008 4:33 PM


I have a quick question about evolution, and instead of making a new topic for a very simple question I decided I would ask here.
Let's just get this out of the way, I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the theory.
Anyway, someone I know brought up the lack of "in-betweeners" as an argument against evolution. As in, why isn't there half-ape half-human creatures walking around today? (I'm pretty sure the theory says we didn't evolve from apes, but rather we had a common ancestor, but that's beside the point.)
I'm fairly certain that this represents a violently gross misconception of the theory. This is probably a very stupid question, but please excuse my ignorance. Could some one explain to me, so I can explain to this person, that this argument doesn't make sense?

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-27-2008 4:42 PM McCartlennstarrison has not replied
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2008 4:55 PM McCartlennstarrison has not replied
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 05-11-2008 9:04 PM McCartlennstarrison has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 122 (458195)
02-27-2008 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by McCartlennstarrison
02-27-2008 4:33 PM


Anyway, someone I know brought up the lack of "in-betweeners" as an argument against evolution. As in, why isn't there half-ape half-human creatures walking around today?
Are you talking about transitionals (
(I'm pretty sure the theory says we didn't evolve from apes, but rather we had a common ancestor, but that's beside the point.)
FYI, humans are apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by McCartlennstarrison, posted 02-27-2008 4:33 PM McCartlennstarrison has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 41 of 122 (458198)
02-27-2008 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by McCartlennstarrison
02-27-2008 4:33 PM


McCartlennstarrison writes:
Anyway, someone I know brought up the lack of "in-betweeners" as an argument against evolution. As in, why isn't there half-ape half-human creatures walking around today? (I'm pretty sure the theory says we didn't evolve from apes, but rather we had a common ancestor, but that's beside the point.)
This has been discussed recently on these forums. Go here to see how a whole bunch of us responded to this question.

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by McCartlennstarrison, posted 02-27-2008 4:33 PM McCartlennstarrison has not replied

andrew
Junior Member (Idle past 5800 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-11-2008


Message 42 of 122 (465919)
05-11-2008 5:50 PM


A great resource for evolutionary biology scientists
http://www.scigyre.com
News in evolutionary biology, many communication facilities. Free registration.
This message was used to create a new "Links and Information" topic. Any follow up material should go to that new topic, not into this topic. - Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 43 of 122 (465932)
05-11-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by McCartlennstarrison
02-27-2008 4:33 PM


If you walk from New York to San Francisco and you take snapshot pictures of yourself at random locations, will you have a picture to show us that you were half in New York and half in San Francisco?
The point is this is a nonsensical question, just like the question "how come there ain't a fossil that's half human and half gorilla?" Might as well ask why are unicorns hollow?
Added by edit.
I just want to make clear something. There is a difference between being ignorant about something and ask a question that is well-informed in regard to knowledge of one's own ignorance and being ignorant about something and ask a question that is completely off the wall.
For example, say that you have never seen a car before, that you've never even heard of it. Then you see someone driving a car along. You stop the person to ask about the car. Remember that you've never known of its existence before. You ask "how many little horses do you have under there (you're referring to the hood)?" This question tells me that not only have you no idea how a car works at all but that you have taken another step and presume that it works more or less like a horse carriage.
We get nonsensical questions like this all the time here. There are no answers to these nonsensical questions.
I'm not trying to be mean. I just want you to understand these kinds of questions have no real answer to them simply because the questions themselves make no sense. So, don't expect an answer like "there are 50 little horses under my hood..."
Now that I think about it, here is something for you to doodle about. How would you go about explaining to a native tribesman (who has never seen an engine before) the mechanics of a car and how it runs? Think about it for a minute and you will see our pain when we try to explain evolution to people.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by McCartlennstarrison, posted 02-27-2008 4:33 PM McCartlennstarrison has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Wounded King, posted 05-12-2008 4:22 AM Taz has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 44 of 122 (465976)
05-12-2008 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Taz
05-11-2008 9:04 PM


For example, say that you have never seen a car before, that you've never even heard of it. Then you see someone driving a car along. You stop the person to ask about the car. Remember that you've never known of its existence before. You ask "how many little horses do you have under there (you're referring to the hood)?"
You mean that isn't what horsepower means???! Should I stop putting hay in the fuel tank?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 05-11-2008 9:04 PM Taz has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 45 of 122 (465986)
05-12-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
02-18-2008 8:02 AM


What is Evolution?
The title "What is Evolution" appealed to me, so I was thinking of posting on this thread, however I was afraid that I would immediately be off topic. I think I will try anyway. If I am leading this astray, then tell me and I will disappear.
The definition that I have come to understand for the theory of biological evolution is:
There are changes occurring in populations of life over time and these changes are sufficient to explain the diversity in life we see on the planet today.
However, what I am hearing preached about biological evolution is much different. It may be that what I am hearing is not what people on this forum are intending to say.
The message that I am hearing preached is that life began as a one cell organism, and over billions of years has made tiny, tiny steps that accounts for all the big, big changes and this is possible because we have lots and lots of time. It is compared to walking from New York to Paris or something.
Two recent comments that were made may clarify my confusion, and possibly the confusion of others, related to this subject.
Percy writes:
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.
It does not seem that the creation/evolution debate is limited to the theory of evolution introduced by Darwin. Even in your recent post 37, I get that impression.
Percy writes:
In a universe full of ambiguities, the transition period from non-life to life is not a very large one and forms just a tiny, tiny period of the total time of billions of years when the principles of evolution have been operating on the lifeforms of this planet. It is these principles of evolution that operate on actual already-existing life that subbie is asking about.
Here you bring up billions of years. Does the theory of evolution need billions of years? Not in my understanding if it is in operation today. It only needs billions of years if you are trying to explain the change from a one cell organism to the complex life we have today. That would only seem important if you are attempting to pinpoint the origin of life rather than only looking at changes in existing life. Therefore, it seems that scientists are merging geological, and origin of life theories with the Theory of Evolution. When I listen to what is being preached it is a combination of all of these theories.
When we discuss the Creation/Evolution debate, no offense intended to biologists, but biological evolution is only a small part of that debate in my mind. Cosmological origins, Abiogensis, and Geological Dating Methods play a more significant role in the debate in my mind than the Biological Theory of Evolution. Everything could have been fully created 10,000 years ago, and the Biological Theory of Evolution could have been operating exactly as theorized by scientists from that time until today, and I would have no problem with that theory whatsoever. However, scientists do not say that. They conclude that evolution has been going on for billions of years, and that life started as a one cell organism from non-life. This may not be part of the theory, however it is preached as part of the theory, and these conclusions about the age of the earth and the origin of life come from other areas of science.
So, what I hear preached about evolution is that everything you see today, living and non-living, came about through natural changes over billions of years. That may not be what scientists want to preach, but that is what I hear. And, that is what I consider to be the basis of the Creation/Evolution debate.
I have one additional observation about cross-cultural communication. Over the years, it has been my experience that when different cultures attempt to communicate it can be very difficult for them to exchange complex ideas even if they share a common language. I deal with this on a day to day basis, and many times I find that what I thought I said is not what they thought they heard. I see this as part of the problem here. The scientific (sometimes atheistic) culture seems so much different from the layman religious culture that it could be very difficult for them to communicate with each other at times. It may be something to consider.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 02-18-2008 8:02 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2008 9:38 AM Wumpini 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