Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


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 76 of 122 (466711)
05-16-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 8:55 AM


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.
You're wrong.
Except, of course, the bits that are written in IAmJosephese, rather than English, which are not even wrong.
You will have to choose between being wrong and being meaningless, 'cos you can't do both simultaneously.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 8:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:29 PM Dr Adequate 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 77 of 122 (466716)
05-16-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 8:55 AM


In order to save time and pixel-ink, I have decided to focus on the errors in a single sentence of your post.
IamJoseph writes:
...it fails till it succeeds1, and when a crevice of elevation is found, it is said to evolve into a higher2, more hardy life - this is termed as a mutation3 - while it helps a life form to progress to a new, higher level2, it also destroys4 the original host5 form.
(superscripts are mine, and correspond to comments made below)
1. If it fails, it fails. In evolution, failure = death. You don't get a second chance for evolutionary success if you're dead.
2. "Higher" beings only exist in religions. I know of worms that have been evolving longer than you have, and who have accrued more adaptations to their environment than you have, and have been infinitely more successful at reproducing than you have, so I see no reason why you are evolutionarily "higher" than that worm.
3. A mutation is a random change event in DNA. What you have described here could be thought of as an adaptation, or a synapomorphy, or simply, a novel trait. These are very different from what scientists call "mutations."
4. An offshoot from a single population can eventually become a distinct species without "destroying" the original species.
5. "Host" is a nice science-fiction term, but, in real science, it refers to mutualistic and parasitic relationships, not to evolutionary relationships.
---
Five misconceptions in one sentence (syntactically, it's actually just a clause, but let's not mince words), one of which was used twice. I think it should suffice to say that Subbie has been vindicated. Obviously.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 8:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

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


Message 78 of 122 (466725)
05-16-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Blue Jay
05-16-2008 1:25 PM


All that I said was correct - w/o the jargon. Millions of efforts fail, millions of times. When one succeeds, just like one in a billion sperm cells aspiring to connect with an egg, this starts the evolution thread. The stray success is what we call a mutation. Of coz, I am simply repeating what ToE says, which is not to say I agree with all of it - there is also much jargon in the ToE religion, which in recent years is being disputed by numerous scientists and biologists.
I listed two of the biggest problems confronting ToE: it has to prove that speech is more than 6000 years old - no excuses available anymore; it has to re-define what it means by an 'on-going' processs - this makes the time factor irrelevent. One cannot hide behind unprovable scenarios forever.
The highest species is definitely mentioned by a religious document, the same one which introduced evolution, and which placed humans a seperate category, and the final life from; this is vindicated w/o any confusion, and no need to wait millions of years or check it out in a lab. That's real science. This upsets many - but all religions compete, including ToE, which has become absolutely talibanic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Blue Jay, posted 05-16-2008 1:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Perdition, posted 05-16-2008 5:31 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2008 5:37 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 05-16-2008 7:52 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 99 by Larni, posted 05-20-2008 9:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 79 of 122 (466727)
05-16-2008 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2008 12:20 PM


quote:
You're wrong.
No, not any place. You may be satisfied with why we have to wait millions of years to witness transit evidences of speciation, in 'open' form and pervasively, when a process is said to be 'on-going', but my maths rejects it.
The time factor is irrelevent even if a partial measure of speciation begins, and even if this initial process takes 300 million years; because 300 million years ago plus 1 second - the on-going process continues pervasively, and we should witness speciation every second. Do the maths again.
ToE also dismisses the critical preparation factors of the elements which anticipates life. I expect a whole measure of corrections to be forthcoming by new brave scientists not worried by career blackmail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2008 12:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by subbie, posted 05-16-2008 5:35 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 80 of 122 (466728)
05-16-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 5:19 PM


Any change is a mutation, whether it succeeds or not.
Humans are not the highest species, they are merely the species we belong to.
All current life forms could be considered the "final" lifeform from our perspective. But even that is incorrect, because were you to look at the Earth in a few million years, and the species living will be completely different, including humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:19 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 81 of 122 (466730)
05-16-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 5:29 PM


quote:
You may be satisfied with why we have to wait millions of years to witness transit evidences of speciation, in 'open' form and pervasively, when a process is said to be 'on-going', but my maths rejects it.
Speciation has been observed, in real time, in both the laboratory and real world setting. We don't have to wait millions of years to witness "transit evidences of speciation," if I correctly suss your meaning. I'm not particularly confident in this assumption, but that's as close as I can get to anything remotely intelligible and related to the preceding conversation in this thread.

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 79 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:29 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 82 of 122 (466731)
05-16-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 5:19 PM


quote:
...there is also much jargon in the ToE religion
...it has to prove that speech is more than 6000 years old - no excuses available anymore
...but all religions compete, including ToE, which has become absolutely talibanic.
The theory of evolution is not a religion. Claiming it is does not make it so. And the only folks who do make this claim appear to be fundamentalists with a very narrow view of religion.
Speech no more than 6,000 years old? Are you espousing a young earth view, or what? If so, you are choosing to ignore a world of evidence in favor of a narrow view of scripture disputed even by most of the world's Christians.
And again the claim that the theory of evolution is a religion. Have you no pride, nor shame, that you can post such obvious nonsense?
The theory of evolution is a science, one of many characterized by adherence to the scientific method (sci·ence, pronounced sahy-uhns):

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:19 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:47 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 83 of 122 (466733)
05-16-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coyote
05-16-2008 5:37 PM


Its very much like a religion, much of the foundation is one of 'belief'; there is no proof in science for ex nehilo, or a complexity emerging from random, nor a process w/o a causation factor. These are akin to religious premises.
The demand for a name older than 6000 as a confirmation, is hardly a religious factor. We have no history per se of modern humans before this date. A name does not even require writings - it can be recalled same as a folksong or a recipe. It is going to look very strange that speech emergence only alligns with religion, but not science: and you ask me if I'm shamed? If its not akin to a religion, why do you accept it so freely, when no evidence exists!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2008 5:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by subbie, posted 05-16-2008 5:54 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2008 6:22 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 86 by Perdition, posted 05-16-2008 6:35 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 84 of 122 (466734)
05-16-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 5:47 PM


quote:
Its very much like a religion, much of the foundation is one of 'belief'; there is no proof in science for ex nehilo, or a complexity emerging from random, nor a process w/o a causation factor. These are akin to religious premises.
Well, perhaps there's no "proof in science of ex nehilo [sic]" because science makes no claim of creation ex nihilo, and science doesn't involve proof.
There's plenty of evidence of "complexity emerging from random." It's pointless to try to describe this to you since you have more than amply illustrated in this thread that you simply don't understand the claims of the ToE, so you wouldn't understand the evidence in support of it.
What you have done quite nicely is demonstrate how deeply (at least some) creos misunderstand the ToE. Thank you for that.

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 83 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:47 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 85 of 122 (466741)
05-16-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 5:47 PM


quote:
Its very much like a religion, much of the foundation is one of 'belief'; there is no proof in science for ex nehilo, or a complexity emerging from random, nor a process w/o a causation factor. These are akin to religious premises.
Sorry, not so. In science there is evidence and theory. Neither of these is analogous to what you have in religion, scripture, divine revelation, and dogma. That is why there is so much emphasis on faith in religion; there is no good evidence for many or most claims, so things must be taken on faith.
quote:
The demand for a name older than 6000 as a confirmation, is hardly a religious factor. We have no history per se of modern humans before this date. A name does not even require writings - it can be recalled same as a folksong or a recipe. It is going to look very strange that speech emergence only alligns with religion, but not science: and you ask me if I'm shamed? If its not akin to a religion, why do you accept it so freely, when no evidence exists!
No history of modern humans before 6,000 years ago? False. I have excavated a number of archaeological sites older than that date, and found quite a lot of "history." Many of my colleagues have excavated far older sites. What about the famous cave paintings, some of which are far older than 6,000 years?
And how do you know speech emerged with religion at 6,000 years? There really is no evidence for that. Folks now believe speech as we know it emerged somewhat over 50,000 years ago. (I feel it is far older, but I am not an expert in that field.) The origin of religion is more difficult to pin down, but there is behavior among Neanderthals that might have been religious (ritual burial of the dead). And that too is far older than 6,000 years.
I think you are speaking from belief rather than knowledge. On another site I post to I use the following as a tagline: Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Good advice here as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:47 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 7:11 PM Coyote has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 86 of 122 (466744)
05-16-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 5:47 PM


Speech Emergence
How do you knwo when speech emerged? Speech would come long before written language.
Mechanically, the hyoid bone in your throat is the bone that gives us the ability to speak. This bone is present in many mammals, including all the great apes, but in humans it is lower in the throat, giving us more room for more tongue movement. This bone has been found in much the same place in the skeletons of neanderthals, making it highly likely that they had some form of speech, and meaning that the ability to speak is far older than a mere 6,000 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:47 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 87 of 122 (466747)
05-16-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Coyote
05-16-2008 6:22 PM


What is a fact in the theory of evolution, and change?
science doesn't involve proof. -- Subbie
1. [Evolution is] A process of change. -- Dr Adequate
Granting though not conceding that science doesn't involve proof, nonetheless it does involve evidence and other ways and means acceptable to every party in a discussion for arriving at as much certainty as everyone finds satisfactory for drawing conclusions that meet and overcome the skepticism of everyone in the discussion.
In the matter of the theory of evolution, therefore prior to everything else, we want to establish first at least one and then another one and then still another one... a fact of evolution.
But first again, what is a fact as opposed to a non-fact?
I submit that a fact is a singular concrete event that is observable by everyone.
And next I also submit in agreement with Dr Adequate that evolution in the theory of evolution has to do with the fact of a process of change, or in one word, change.
Shall we give our attention then to what is a fact in re theory of evolution and also to the fact that evolution is a fact of change?
You see people who come to a discussion must first be in agreement on concepts and terms; refusal to come to this first step for any productively successful discussion, i.e., satisfactory to all parties in the discussion, is a hint to observers that though it is most convenient to the discussants not to come to agreement as regards concepts and terms, it is altogether of no productive ends at all, and people will just leave the discussants to themselves to waste their time, but not to waste the time of observers.
Yrreg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2008 6:22 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 05-16-2008 7:55 PM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2008 8:12 PM Yrreg has replied

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


Message 88 of 122 (466749)
05-16-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 5:19 PM


IamJoseph writes:
All that I said was correct - w/o the jargon.
Which of the five were just jargon issues?
IamJoseph writes:
...it fails till it succeeds1, and when a crevice of elevation is found, it is said to evolve into a higher2, more hardy life - this is termed as a mutation3 - while it helps a life form to progress to a new, higher level2, it also destroys4 the original host5 form.
(superscripts are mine, and correspond to comments made below)
1. How is this a jargon issue? Failure in evolution means you die or you don't reproduce. Either way, your genes are completely gone, and will never be around again. In evolution, you succeed until you fail: you keep adapting to the environment, or else you die. As soon as you can no longer keep up with the environmental changes, you die. You should have said the exact opposite of what you did say, so I guess you could construe this as a “jargon” issue.
2. Evolution does not proceed toward a “higher” goal of any flippin’ kind: it goes “up” and “down,” depending on what is better suited to the environment. Loss of a trait (like legs) could not possibly be construed as “higher” or “more complex” in any conceivable way, but it makes snakes, caecilians, glass lizards, legless lizards, dolphins, seals, etc. more suited to their environment. If jargon issues Include saying things that are wrong, you are right that you have a jargon issue here.
3. You're right about this one: it's a jargon issue. You got yours from X-Men, where "mutation"="cool new trait/ability." In evolution, "mutation"="random change in a DNA sequence." But, your statement was “this is termed a mutation,” which shows that you really haven’t read scientific materials at all, so it’s more than just a jargon issue.
4. You say the new type automatically replaces the old type. Read here for thorough refutation (and unbridled mockery) of this idea. If ignorance is a “jargon” issue, then you’re right about this one being a jargon issue, too.
5. So, this one is also a jargon issue. But, you should really learn the jargon, anyway, because that’s how people tend to communicate with one another.
Some other "jargon" issues:
From Message #73:
IamJoseph writes:
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.
Retro-viruses can indeed cause changes in genome structure. However, so can UV rays, free radicals, random errors in the molecules that transcribe DNA, and a whole boatload of other mechanisms. So, if recognizing only one of several known mechanisms is a jargon issue, you’ve got another jargon issue here, alright.
IamJoseph writes:
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.
Nobody really gives a wet slap what Darwin said anymore: he is not our prophet, and isn't even considered a real authority on evolution anymore. I know more about evolution with my B.S. degree in biology than Darwin ever did. When we have a question about how things happen, we do an experiment, or we talk to a modern specialist, we do not consult The Origin of Species. So, when you say "look what Darwin said," expect scientists to instantly consider you a moron who doesn't know how science (or evolution) works.
IamJoseph writes:
The highest species is definitely mentioned by a religious document, the same one which introduced evolution, and which placed humans a seperate category, and the final life from; this is vindicated w/o any confusion, and no need to wait millions of years or check it out in a lab. That's real science.
This is called quote-mining. It works well with the Bible (where it's called "Bible-bashing"), because every word of the Bible is supposed to be sacred and absolutely true. However, in scientific papers, it doesn't work: in order to make the paper cohesive, scientists have to write a few sentences that are not "sacred" (meaning, they're not part of the science)”so you don't get to just pull words out of stuff written by scientists and use it as scientific proof of anything, unless the words are the results of the experiment the paper is reporting on {AbE: and those words are still accepted in science today}.
For example, just because Darwin alludes to a Creator and that stuff in The Origin of Species, doesn't mean he has scientifically shown that a Creator exists. If you have read the book, and were paying attention, you would note that his mentioning of a Creator does not follow directly from the work that he did. That makes it part of his opinion, not part of his science.
So, if quote-mining (or Origin-bashing, if you want) is a jargon issue, you've got another jargon issue to fix.
If these all count as "jargon" issues, than the word "jargon" is as expansive and meaningless as the word "center."
Edited by Bluejay, : One addition.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:19 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 89 of 122 (466750)
05-16-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 7:11 PM


Re: What is a fact in the theory of evolution, and change?
There is a considerable body of scientific literature detailing many hundreds of 'facts' of evolution, many of which are replicable by anyone with a modicum of training. I don't see why we should have to redefine and negotiate all of the terms involved in evolutionary science everytime some new evolution-skeptic who hasn't bothered to familiarise themselves with evolution before deciding to be skeptical shows up.
I agree that discussions which get stuck in definitions often get nowhere, but I don't see that insisting that we have just such discussions obviates the problem. Should we really have to educate everyone who comes to the boards with an inadequate understanding of basic evolutionary theory, and often basic biology?
Doesn't the fact that these people haven't bothered to familiarise themselves with what evolution actually entails and yet have decided to take up an anti or skeptical position suggest that it is going to be an uphill struggle to have any meaningful debate with them about the scientific evidence, or 'facts' if you will, for evolution?
You seem to be calling for an inordinate amount of consensus, isn't there a point where we have to decide that some people are just so far from the centre of the discussion that their views need not be taken to account when reaching a consensus. when we are discussing planetary orbits do we really need to invite the Flat Earthers to the table? Would that tend to make things more or less productive do you imagine?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 7:11 PM Yrreg has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 90 of 122 (466752)
05-16-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 7:11 PM


Re: What is a fact in the theory of evolution, and change?
quote:
You see people who come to a discussion must first be in agreement on concepts and terms; refusal to come to this first step for any productively successful discussion, i.e., satisfactory to all parties in the discussion, is a hint to observers that though it is most convenient to the discussants not to come to agreement as regards concepts and terms, it is altogether of no productive ends at all, and people will just leave the discussants to themselves to waste their time, but not to waste the time of observers.
You are coming into the world of science, it is up to you to learn enough about that world to be able to communicate. That includes learning the terms, and just how they are used.
Many of the terms used in science are specialized, while some of the common terms are used in ways that are different from the ways a layman might use them.
I have a lot of terms defined on this page. You might brush up on how these terms are used.
You might pay particular attention to "theory" as well as "fact" in those definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 7:11 PM Yrreg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Yrreg, posted 05-18-2008 3:50 PM Coyote 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