|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is a part of the process, isn't it? You can't get from a single cell life form to where we are today without it. And Columbus couldn't have gotten from Europe to America without a ship.
Are you saying macroevolution is a fact? Yes, just like I'd say that it's a fact that Columbus got from Europe to America by ship. But you are missing my point.
If so please present the empirical testable reproducable experiments that make it a fact. Otherwise it is an assumption. Please present the "empirical testable reproducable experiments" that show that Columbus sailed to America. Otherwise it is an assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Respondents should take into account their correspondent's level of understanding, and responses should be at roughly the same level of detail. Really? If I were to follow that rule most of my posts would read like this: "Duh ... evolution GOOD ... you wrong". Then I'd hit the creationist over the head with a club fashioned from the femur of a mammoth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, as well as one can under the circumstances.
Short form Micro evolution, changes that occur in species. Macro evolution changes that occur above species. I guess I'll need the long form: as I noted in Message 19 quote: So if this is not what you mean by macroevolution, then what kind of changes do you mean, and how do you think they occur? Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. Does something else occur "above species" that is not covered by that?
The only thing you observe in the fossil record is a complete species of a creature. Other than having some similarities to other species the only way you can say one came from the other is by assumption. We've discussed the pelycodus speciation event before, where one species divides into two, and each daughter population then proceeds to evolve in different ways, diverging one from the other as the generations pass. And we've discussed foraminifera before, this is a phylum not a species, and the fossil record shows many consecutive speciation events, ending up with mutiple species, new genera and new families that have evolved from original populations. Now either you are using different definitions of changes, species and macroevolution, or you are in denial of the evidence. So now you need to provide your definition of species as well as a more thorough definition of macroevolution, and you need to define what type of changes you mean. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
There is a place for that, but I detest posts that take up three or four screens of text, addressing each and every point in great detail; and in fact I rarely read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of such posts. So the question becomes whether it is possible to demonstrate that a definition is false in a short and succinct manner. If it can, then this is the proper and preferred course of action. If it cannot, then do you result to insult (in effect) or do you provide a post of the necessary minimum length to make the point? Does making inflammatory posts add to the debate? Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My aim in Message 9 was to point out that creationists include macroevolution in any discussion of evolution. Yes, yes, you said. But this doesn't entitle you to rewrite the English language. More pertinently, it does not give you the ability to rewrite the English language. Let me give you another analogy. Suppose you denied that the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg. Suppose that you were passionately convinced that it was sunk by evil magic pixies. Well, it's a free country. You can say that if you want. Now, suppose that you were so obsessive about this subject that the only time you ever refer to icebergs is to loudly deny that they sunk the Titanic. Well, it's a free country, and you can be as monomanaical as you please. But suppose it occurred to you that, since you personally only ever refer to icebergs to deny that one sunk the Titanic, you could make your ravings on this subject shorter by redefining the word "iceberg" so that henceforth it should mean: "A massive floating body of ice broken away from a glacier which sunk the Titanic". Then instead of saying: "I don't believe that an iceberg sunk the Titanic", you could save a second or two by saying: "I don't believe in icebergs". But you can't do that. Yes, it's still a free country, but you cannot rewrite the English language for your own convenience, because you simply can't. You may --- there's no law against it, just as there's no law against levitating. But you can't, because it's impossible. You can't change the English language. You can't make "cat" mean "dog" even if you really really want to. In the same way, you can't change the meaning of the word "evolution". Yes, it would make your sentences shorter and easier to type if you could redefine the word "evolution" so that it meant whatever it is that you want to deny, but you can't. It is simply not possible for you to change the meanings of words. "Evolution" means evolution. It does not, and never will, mean "the particular facts about evolution which some guy on some discussion forum on the Internet who calls himself ICANT wants to deny". Now, the really stupid thing about all this is that creationists already have a term meaning: "the facts about evolution which I personally don't believe". They call it "macro-evolution". Of course, since the meaning of the term depends on the personal beliefs of the creationist using it, there is a certain amount of ambiguity about the term. Nonetheless, if you were to say: "I don't believe in macro-evolution", we should all understand you as meaning: "I don't believe in the facts about evolution that I don't believe in", and we could take it from there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member (Idle past 380 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Micro evolution, changes that occur in species.
so a lot of Micro evolution cannot lead to Macro evolution? This logic among creationist really confuses me...
Macro evolution changes that occur above species. The only thing you observe in the fossil record is a complete species of a creature. Other than having some similarities to other species the only way you can say one came from the other is by assumption. yeah because saying things are complex therefore they were designed isn't a far larger stretch then looking at transitions such as this.... Not to mention DNA similarities such as 98% of DNA shared with chimpanzees... Evolution is crap it has no basis in reality. Assuming a creator created everything as a "full species" is not a stretch at all...
There is no first hand accounts. They can not be reproduced. They are not in a continual process today, therefore can not be observed. We've seen plenty of them but you deny them by saying it's "micro evolution" even though you have yet to explain why a lot of "micro evolution' cannot lead to "macro evolution" Edited by DC85, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
yeah because saying things are complex therefore they were designed isn't a far larger stretch then looking at transitions such as this.... You got that from one of my recent posts, didn't you? I should say that that in itself isn't a terribly good example of a transition as such, because in the picture (though not in the fossil record) there's such an enormous gap between Archaeopteryx and the modern bird. That's the whole point of the picture --- it's to show that Archaeopteryx is much more like a non-avian dinosaur than it is like any modern bird. It's actually a cut-down version of this picture, which shows one more intermediate form.
But there are lots more. Any picture showing the whole range of dinosaur-to-bird intermediates just wouldn't fit on the screen of a computer. Anyway, my point is that you probably shouldn't use my picture as an example of a transition, because although it is a transition (dinosaur, Archaeopteryx, modern bird) that's not what the picture is trying to show. There are much better pictures that would illustrate your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member (Idle past 380 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
You got that from one of my recent posts, didn't you? I should say that that in itself isn't a terribly good example of a transition as such, because in the picture (though not in the fossil record) there's such an enormous gap between Archaeopteryx and the modern bird. That's the whole point of the picture --- it's to show that Archaeopteryx is much more like a non-avian dinosaur than it is like any modern bird. I did however to make such a short post I didn't have the will to look more in depth for images for a sarcastic post I shouldn't have done in the first place. laziness on my part
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4510 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Taz writes: ICANT writes: "Micro"evolution is a fact. "Macro"evolution is an assumption. It was not observed and no experiment can be run to reproduce the claimed results. Thus there is no empirical evidence. Then give us the definition of these words and we'll go from there. Don't go there. We went to 425 posts in the Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others) thread and ICANT never did come upwith a real definition of "kind." I anticipate a similar degree of success in getting him to explain what he really means by micro- and macroevolution. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes: We've discussed We have discussed many things, including the present subject. So I have a question since I was apparantly alseep when the announcement was made. When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, I'm going to ask you to focus on the issue of definitions.
We have discussed many things, including the present subject. We have, and as I recall, you define macroevolution as something that does not occur, but I'd like you to verify that. This is why I've asked for clarification of your last statements:
Message 33: Short form Micro evolution, changes that occur in species. Macro evolution changes that occur above species. I guess I'll need the long form: as I noted in Message 19 quote: So if this is not what you mean by macroevolution, then what kind of changes do you mean, and how do you think they occur? Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. Does something else occur "above species" that is not covered by that? So I'll be looking for that definition.
When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated? Feel free to start a thread on this, but it is off topic here. This thread is not about validating evolution, but about how and why creationists get wrong. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes: We have, and as I recall, you define macroevolution as something that does not occur, but I'd like you to verify that. This is why I've asked for clarification of your last statements: Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation. I have said and continue to say this has never been observed to happen. There is no first hand accounts. It can not be reproduced. Therefore my conclusion it never happened.
RAZD writes: So I'll be looking for that definition. I don't have a definition that I have not read here or on a site that was referenced here.
RAZD writes: When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated? Feel free to start a thread on this, but it is off topic here. This thread is not about validating evolution, but about how and why creationists get wrong. I beg to disagree. The question I asked is about macro evolution. You made this statement in another thread that:
RAZD writes: This can be found here. Message 167 When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. That was written 06-04-2007 7:23 AM . So I asked the question again. When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated? If it has not been validated yet then you can not claim macro evolution has happened. The only thing you can say is "I believe it happened because micro evolution occurs". 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated? Back before I graduated from high school, I'd imagine. As soon as it became clear that one DNA code determines 99.8% of the proteins present in all life on Earth, and that the other 0.2% is determined by slight alterations of that same code. And that 0.2% is probably way on the high side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I have said and continue to say this has never been observed to happen. There is no first hand accounts. It can not be reproduced.
If this is your criterion for whether something happened or not, you are living in a dream world. Therefore my conclusion it never happened. Just try to think of all the things for which there are no first hand accounts and which can not be reproduced. You have been caught out by your religious beliefs and forced into defending a ridiculous position. And, no doubt, you'll defend that absurdity to the end of the internet. That's pretty sad. As Heinlein noted: Belief gets in the way of learning. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, lets see if we can clarify the issue then.
Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation. An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: Berkeley says that large scale evolution is the descent of daughter species from a parent species. In other words, evolution (the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation) occurs within species; different sub-populations can evolve different hereditary traits due to selection in different ecologies and over time these can accumulate until daughter populations can no longer interbreed; at this point speciation has occurred; after this point each daughter species will continue to evolve (via the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation) and they will evolve independently. At this point large scale evolution according to the Berkeley definition has occurred. Speciation and subsequent evolution of daughter populations has been observed, thus according to the Berkeley definition large scale (macro) evolution has been observed. Macroevolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: So now we look at a larger time scale of the diversity of life, and what we see are multiple speciation events creating a nested hierarchy of relationships. Again, however, the evolution along every one of those lines is still the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, and what you are seeing is the accumulation of different adaptations to different ecologies by this basic process. After speciation the differences between daughter species accumulate. When the daughter populations also have a speciation event then there is even more diversity compared to the parent population. What is macroevolution? - Understanding Evolution
quote: In other words it involves the evolution of a genus with two or more species, by the speciation of a parent population, and then this becomes a family as the daughter populations have speciation events:
This is the evolution above the species level, of groups larger than an individual species. In this example we first see the evolution of a genus by the speciation of the parent population, and we end up with the evolution of a group of 5 species called a family. But let's not just take Berkeley's word for it: The Process of Speciation
quote: Macroevolution is the formation of a nested hierarchy, by evolution within species, by speciation, and by the subsequent divergent descent of daughter species from their common ancestors.
I have said and continue to say this has never been observed to happen. There is no first hand accounts. It can not be reproduced. Multiple speciation events have been observed, therefore macroevolution - as the term is used by evolutionary biologists in general and Berkely and UMich in particular - has been observed, recorded, and documented. Now we can also define macroevolution in terms of cladistics (and not be confused by species growing into genera and then into families) as the formation of nested clades by descent from common ancestor populations via speciation and (subsequent divergent) evolution (within each daughter species). Once more, if you disagree with this, then you need to define the basis for your disagreement, as this is how the term is defined and used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024