Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is evolution?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 122 (466216)
05-13-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 10:08 AM


Re: What is a fact?
Consider that the only "facts" that do not involve some measure of interpretation are statements about one's own qualia.
If we wish to give factual status even to statements such as: "There is a tiger", then we must acknowledge that these are "facts" only in the light of well-tested theories which, because they have so far reliably predicted the observations, must faut de mieux be used to interpret them.
Is it possible that the Theory of Evolution as it is being used to explain all of these unobservable past events is not even science?
No. Scientists would have noticed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 10:08 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 05-13-2008 6:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 62 of 122 (466217)
05-13-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Coyote
05-13-2008 12:45 PM


Re: What is a fact?
Coyote writes:
when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become recognized as a fact.
This definition would indicate to me that many times the terminology being used on this forum is not correct. Many interpretations and theories are being called facts when they are not. According to this definition, the observed evidence is a fact. What scientists conclude about that evidence is not a fact.

"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 55 by Coyote, posted 05-13-2008 12:45 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Taz, posted 05-13-2008 9:13 PM Wumpini has not replied

Buckfan328
Junior Member (Idle past 5797 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-13-2008


Message 63 of 122 (466219)
05-13-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
02-14-2008 2:40 PM


My Response to Subbie's Challenge
I am just responding to subbie's original post about whether or not I know "what evolution is" and "what is being preached as evolution." This is my first post on this board so I don't know if 'creos' is an agreed upon term for those like myself who believe in a Creator but I will admit that I prefer to think of myself as a scientist.
Let me preface my comments by saying that whether or not there is an official "theory of evolution" or not (in my experience in the scientific community it tends to be more of a general convergence of ideas on certain key points rather than a codified sort of thing) there is enough controversy surrounding the topic and people on this message boards are from diverse enough backgrounds that it would be foolishness in the extreme to even attempt a discussion of the subject without first agreeing upon the definitions of terms. I agree with subbie that is would be counterproductive to argue against evolution based on what it doesn't say. I further contend that what evolution 'says' depends upon the evolutionist you ask and so it would be much more productive to argue against a particular idea or against a set of beliefs held by a particular individual whose beliefs are well known (set out in a book, paper, post, etc...).
I am not going to source my comments because I am limiting my definition to the convergences of ideas that I mentioned previously. Someone who believes in evolution will likely hold some but not necessarily all of these beliefs. I will list them in the order of what I think are the most widely held and well established beliefs first.
1.) Natural selection and genetic mutation work through a variety of mechanisms to bring about biological change in a breeding population over time. These changes include: changes in allelic frequency for a certain biological trait, introduction of new biological traits by alterations in the genetic code, and loss of old biological traits through alterations in the genetic code. This is commonly referred to as microevolution in some circles and is, I think, scientifically established as true. This is primarily biological argument.
2.) The mechanisms of number one, at work for extreme periods of time are capable of producing and did historically produce, starting from a common, typically unicellular ancestor, all of the biological diversity that we observe on earth at the present time. This is commonly referred to as macroevolution. It is at this point where consensus on the exact pathway taken by evolution begins to diverge both mechanistically (between say punctuated equilibrium and neo-darwinian evolution) and historically (between various attempts at tracing out the exact flow of evolutionary development). This is both a biological and geological argument at present.
3.) The unicellular organism arose at some point in history and in some form from non-life. Commonly referred to as abiogenesis. This is an argument for biology and chemistry. The theories at this point are extremely diverse and not well-established.
4.) The Big-Bang Theory of the origin of the universe. Primarily and argument for physics.
5.) The universe as pre-existant. The philosophical debate underlying everything and one reason I believe that I don't have to reject science in order to believe in a Creator.
I don't know if that answers subbie's question as to whether or not I know what "the ToE says". But I do believe that it demonstrates that as a certifiable 'creo' I at least have a grasp of both the key points of the debate and some of the science that underlies it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 02-14-2008 2:40 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Blue Jay, posted 05-13-2008 8:31 PM Buckfan328 has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 64 of 122 (466227)
05-13-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2008 4:10 PM


Re: What is a fact?
Consider that the only "facts" that do not involve some measure of interpretation are statements about one's own qualia.
There's alot of people who would argue that this statement is not true...

All great truths begin as blasphemies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 4:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 65 of 122 (466235)
05-13-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ICANT
05-13-2008 1:47 PM


Re: What is a fact?
ICANT writes:
Just because a bunch of people agree. Does that make it a fact?
If so there are millions of competent observers who have confirmed repeatedly that there is a God.
I think you missed the "independent" part: nobody on the face of the planet received a "witness" of God without first having access to somebody else's witness. Have you noticed how infrequently we evolutionists cite On the Origin of Species? This is because we have obtained the same answer that Darwin came to by independent (and, frankly, better) means.
ICANT writes:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But, truth stands on its own.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 05-13-2008 1:47 PM ICANT has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 66 of 122 (466238)
05-13-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buckfan328
05-13-2008 4:37 PM


Re: My Response to Subbie's Challenge
Buckfan, you claim to be a scientist. I have decided to disbelieve you in this claim for the following reasons:
1. When asked to define what you think evolution is, you respond with a series of things scientists believe. You should know very well that "theory" does not equal "beliefs of scientists" but "a well-supported model that explains a given phenomenon."
2. You have included abiogenesis a part of the theory of evolution, when abiogenesis is not requisite for the theory of evolution to have effect. If abiogenesis were disproven, the theory of evolution wouldn't suffer at all.
3. You have included big bang theory as part of the theory of evolution, when big bang theory isn't even remotely associated with the theory of evolution.
4. You have included "belief in a pre-existent universe" as part of the theory of evolution, when a pre-existent universe isn't even remotely associated with the theory of evolution.
Buckfan328 writes:
I do believe that it demonstrates that as a certifiable 'creo' I at least have a grasp of both the key points of the debate and some of the science that underlies it.
I personally believe that it demonstrates nothing of the sort. I think it shows very clearly and precisely the exact same mentality that prompted subbie to start this very thread. You have cast evolution as the lump sum of the sciences that defy a biblical universe model, just as laypersons lump all prehistoric animals under the name "dinosaur," when, in fact "evolution" and "dinosaur" have very specific and restricted meanings, and have held these meanings since their very conception.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 4:37 PM Buckfan328 has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 67 of 122 (466241)
05-13-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 4:15 PM


Re: What is a fact?
Wumpini writes:
According to this definition, the observed evidence is a fact. What scientists conclude about that evidence is not a fact.
Fact 1: Mutation is inevitable.
Fact 2: Change in allele frequency is inevitable.
Fact 3: Evolution is inevitable.
Definition of evolution: change in allele frequency over time.
Which one of these facts would you like to dispute?

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 62 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 4:15 PM Wumpini has not replied

Yrreg
Member (Idle past 4924 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 11-21-2006


Message 68 of 122 (466624)
05-16-2008 12:11 AM


Official statements from authorities of evolution theory
Please bear with me, everyone specially the managerial folks here; I am an alien with the present forum software.
I wanted to introduce a new topic in the board where the present thread is located, but I got shunted to this (below) location and the thread got closed after one reply from a moderator.
quote:
Title of new topic: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory
http://EvC Forum: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory -->EvC Forum: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory
Message 1 of 2
05-15-2008 06:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There must be adherents of the evolution theory who are recognized by fellow evolution theory adherents to be most knowledgeable about the evolution theory.
Do we have a society of such knowledgeable people?
If not, shouldn't they organize themselves into a society?
So that they can issue a consensual statement on what is the theory of evolution, accompanied with a copious glossary of terms.
And this society should have a committee to answer all questions about what is the evolution theory and what is not.
In this manner people who are not adherents of evolution theory can get to know officially what the theory is all about and get their doubts cleared up by this society of recognized authorities.
And people who are adherents of the theory can also see whether they have the correct notions of the theory of evolution.
Will that spell the end of discussion forums or debates about the theory of evolution?
Not at all, because there will still be innumerable points which adherents of evolution theory can still discuss among themselves and with non-adherents of the theory.
Yrreg
  —Yrreg
Let me see what will happen here with my present posting of this message, so that I can get on with contributing my opinions on what is evolution.
As I said at the start, I am an alien with the present forum software; I read the rules but there are no instructions on how to operate here in terms of where to post what and how to use the mechanics of the software as regards for example the choice of inactive yes no, or the the time zone, or the dB codes, whatever (I just use what I have learned elsewhere like with the vBulletin software).
Okay, let's see what's going to happen now with me -- a suspension of 24 hours?
But I like the policy of the owners and managers here, they don't have a quota like to fill up every week as in some forums where I had been to, like the IIDB where when I was there and even today most probably they must have at least a quota of banning twenty posters a week, even some of the most sensible and most well-behaved registered members of long history duration.
Yrreg

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2008 12:14 AM Yrreg has replied
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2008 3:30 AM Yrreg has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 69 of 122 (466627)
05-16-2008 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 12:11 AM


Re: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory
Official statements from authorities of evolution?
No such thing. What we do have is "peer-reviewed journals" where everyone fights it out. The best ideas win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 12:11 AM Yrreg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 3:28 AM Coyote has not replied

Yrreg
Member (Idle past 4924 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 11-21-2006


Message 70 of 122 (466654)
05-16-2008 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Coyote
05-16-2008 12:14 AM


About the fact of evolution as distinct from the theory of evolution, a fact is a singular concrete observable event in time and in place.
Do we have any people who have observed a singular concrete event which can be called a fact of evolution?
Most certainly if the pros and cons of the theory of evolution can agree on what or which singular concrete event observable by everyone makes up a fact of evolution, then the pros might not complaint a lot against the cons for not getting the theory of evolution correctly.
Yrreg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2008 12:14 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 6:39 AM Yrreg has not replied

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


Message 71 of 122 (466655)
05-16-2008 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 12:11 AM


Re: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory
You mean something like this?
A report produced by the National Science Foundation and endorsed by the following scientific societies:
* The American Institute of Biological Sciences
* The American Society of Naturalists
* The Animal Behavior Society
* The Ecological Society of America
* The Genetics Society of America
* The Paleontological Society
* The Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
* The Society of Systematic Biologists
* The Society for the Study of Evolution
Will that do? Only I can't see what more you want except that there should be some sort of Science Pope.
Personally, I don't like the Catholic hierarchy, I feel much more attracted to Buddhism. It's such a great religion, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 12:11 AM Yrreg has not replied

Yrreg
Member (Idle past 4924 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 11-21-2006


Message 72 of 122 (466657)
05-16-2008 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 3:28 AM


Thanks, doc, for your list of scientific associations.
Please read my post again, all I am asking is for a singular concrete event which both pros and cons of the evolution theory can accept as a fact of evolution.
quote:
About the fact of evolution as distinct from the theory of evolution, a fact is a singular concrete observable event in time and in place.
Do we have any people who have observed a singular concrete event which can be called a fact of evolution?
Most certainly if the pros and cons of the theory of evolution can agree on what or which singular concrete event observable by everyone makes up a fact of evolution, then the pros might not complain a lot against the cons for not getting the theory of evolution correctly.
  —Yrreg
Yrreg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 3:28 AM Yrreg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Larni, posted 05-16-2008 8:56 AM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2008 12:19 PM Yrreg has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 73 of 122 (466667)
05-16-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
02-14-2008 2:40 PM


quote:
In any event, please tell me what you think the ToE is.
ToE says [as opposed what it does not say], briefly in headings:
1. A process of change.
2. Changes of life forms.
3. The life forms are deivided in groups [speceis], according to common, base traits.
4. The changes are said to occur via speciation [branching in groups]; survival of the fittest [many don't make it, same with the drama of sperm cells, allowing only one fit to succeed]; and Adaptation [learning or acquiring means to prevail environmental conditions].
5. The said changes occur at the micro level, via genes in the dna, and these pass on data [a program], which keeps enlarging its memory over successive generations and time - accumulating signs of good and bad actions, accumulatively. Here, a gene will propell instructions, and the host acts on these impulses - it fails till it succeeds, and when a crevice of elevation is found, it is said to evolve into a higher, more hardy life - this is termed as a mutation - while it helps a life form to progress to a new, higher level, it also destroys the original host form. The micro process has been traced to what is called a retro-virus, which, before perishing away, lodged an implant in a dna's gene, and this was passed on, even as the retro did not survive.
6. While Darwin himself never said all life forms emerge from one molecule, or that there is cross-sepciation, this is the inferred premise, which has been expanded and accepted by the faculty called ToE.
What Darwin or ToE does not say:
1. How life originally began; thus evolution is a process, picked up in mid-point of a process, and refers only to post original life emergence; namely is illustrates a process which has already began. This is not a lacking, because true origins of all things are unknown generally. However, we find a list of pre-life occurences in the genesis morde of evolution, namely anticipating life, and includes the seperation of the elements in critical modes, eg. seperation of water and land, light and darkness, male and female; for sure, life could not have emerged without these precedent events, despite all of the factors nominated in ToE.
2. ToE does not account for the emergence of male/female distinctions. A counter to it is that the origin of life was a dual-gendered entity, which became seperated later [Genesis]. This is a valid premise, as opposed to a male appearing and then a female being found with the exact, recipient traits in a sync mode: the odds for such are not plausable.
3. TE does not account for speech being a unique trait, one which makes modern humans a distinct species. Thus ToE focuses only on skeletal and biological imprints; as opposed to what else, one may ask here. While speech is seen by evolutionists as a mere different form of communication, this does not factor in the correct division of differentials, namely there are millions of communication modes - but only one which is speech. Here, speech has proven itself to be a difference in kind than degree, and no other life form has evolved to attain speech, despite the benefits of time and greater audio dexterity.
4. ToE does not successfully prove its cross speciation, aside from very doubtful and limited lab deconstructionism. Namely, it does not evidence itself in cross-speciation transit points in our midst, citing that this is because it is a very slow pace and takes millions of years. But this is a mathematical glitch: the time factor has no impact when the process is said to be 'on-going', which means w/o pause. This says, every second of time must evidence speciation, in our midst, and upon all places of the planet.
5. The first premise of evolution was recorded in genesis, as well as the first introduction of survival of the fittest, speciation and adaptation: these are cushioned in latent biblespeak, but are evident when read carefully, and was assuredly the means which sparked Darwin's evolution. Lets examine the differences between the two forms of evolution, as a means of understanding what evolution is, within these differences.
Differences between Darwinian and genesis Evolution.
1. Species in ToE are based on skeletal traits, and sub-devided into further sub-groups with common traits within that basic group. These are referred to as species. In genesis also, the life forms are devided in groups, and these are referred to as a 'KIND'. The genesis groupings are based on: immobile, sprouting life form [vegetation]; water based [fish]; air-borne [fowl]; land based [animal] and human. Within these groups, Genesis also caters to micro life forms such as bacteria and virues [swarms; dust], mammals, insects and creepy crawleys. Genesis also caters to a form of speciation, but limits this to a 'kind', namely a fish does not become an animal; a fruit tree does not become a bird; etc. Darwin contradicts genesis here by positing fossil imprints which signify a specie cross-changed from a previous one, bu pointing to certain fossil imprints which fit, like pieces of a jigsaw. However, other reasons can apply aside from cross-speciation here, and there is no evidential track record of a half/bird/half zebra [noting that the time factor does not apply in an on-going process]. In contrast, Genesis allows a saber tiger to evolve into a cat [feline sub-group of animals] - because they belong to the same 'kind' [land based]. There are arguements for and against here - it is by no means conclusive for ToE: the maths, when properly applied, negates ToE, which relies on the time factor.
2. The other factor of differential between these two modes of evolution refers to the transmission mode. Genesis says the seed factor is adequate to transmit all data, including skeletal and dna imprints, requiring no other assistance from any other source or one which goes back millions of years. Here, the seed factor, like speech, is totally disregarded by Darwin. But we have the situation whereby Genesis' mode can function without ToE's time factor, while ToE cannot subsist w/o the seed factor - and this is the proof ToE must overcome to prevail itself - namely it must evidence its various theories without the seed factor. This seed factor, and the speech factor, poses fundamental threats to ToE.
My view: I see the minutae process breakdowns of Darwin as a great knowledge base and contribution for science, but I see this as applying only to sub-groups. I also favour, via my own science based assessment, that Genesis' seed factor, dual-gendered original life forms, speech allocation for a seperate group, and its limitations to cross-speciation - as superios and more plausable than ToE.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 02-14-2008 2:40 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2008 12:20 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 77 by Blue Jay, posted 05-16-2008 1:25 PM IamJoseph has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 74 of 122 (466668)
05-16-2008 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 6:39 AM


Yrreg writes:
Please read my post again, all I am asking is for a singular concrete event which both pros and cons of the evolution theory can accept as a fact of evolution.
Nylon eating bacteria?
Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 6:39 AM Yrreg has not replied

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


Message 75 of 122 (466710)
05-16-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 6:39 AM


Thanks, doc, for your list of scientific associations.
Please read my post again, all I am asking is for a singular concrete event which both pros and cons of the evolution theory can accept as a fact of evolution.
My post was of course a reply to post #68. This why it answers the question in post #68 rather than the one in post #70, and why it has "this message is a reply to message 68" at the bottom.
---
If you want a scientific fact about evolution that creationists will universally admit to be true, then want must be your master.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 6:39 AM Yrreg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024