Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 9 of 205 (545891)
02-05-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-03-2010 10:23 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi RAZD,
Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at Berkeley
It is not necessarily easy to see macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
The basic evolutionary mechanismsmutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selectioncan produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument.
And is the part that they can not accept as having happened.
There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions.
Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption.
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 1 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2010 12:04 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 02-06-2010 12:40 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2010 4:52 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 14 of 205 (545912)
02-06-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coyote
02-06-2010 12:04 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
They cannot accept it based on religious belief, not empirical evidence.
They don't accept it based on a lack of empirical evidence.
Coyote writes:
They rely on belief. (You really should end all your posts with "Amen" or "Hallelujah," as what you are presenting us is nothing more than catechism and witnessing.
Would you please point out which sentence is catechism and which is witnessing?
ICANT writes:
Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at Berkeley
When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument.
And is the part that they can not accept as having happened.
There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions.
Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption.
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 10 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2010 12:04 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 15 of 205 (545915)
02-06-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
02-06-2010 12:40 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi Taz,
Taz writes:
I never understood why creationists like to make such a distinction between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution.
"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.
Taz writes:
Let's look at other things that have evolved through time. Have you ever seen a society macroevolve? Have you any evidence at all that a society macroevolved from sword fighting in the battlefield to fighter jets?
You got a good example there if the sword evolved into the fighter jet. Instead of the jet being created by mankind.
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 11 by Taz, posted 02-06-2010 12:40 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2010 11:18 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 02-06-2010 11:53 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 16 of 205 (545917)
02-06-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
02-06-2010 4:52 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi Dr Adequate,
Dr Adequate writes:
But it should not be included in their definition.
Why not?
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.
Dr Adequate writes:
That is merely a historical fact about what evolution has brought about.
Are you saying macroevolution is a fact?
If so please present the empirical testable reproducable experiments that make it a fact.
Otherwise it is an assumption.
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 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2010 4:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2010 8:59 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 26 of 205 (545937)
02-06-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
02-06-2010 11:18 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi RAZD,
Hope you are doing well.
My aim in Message 9 was to point out that creationists include macroevolution in any discussion of evolution.
Also that macroevolution had no first hand accounts and anything that put forth is by assumption.
RAZD writes:
"Micro"evolution is a fact.
"Macro"evolution is an assumption.
Can you please provide a definition of these?
Short form
Micro evolution, changes that occur in species.
Macro evolution changes that occur above species.
RAZD writes:
There is massive amounts of evidence of this type of change in the fossil record. You've seen it. Every transitional fossil is evidence of macroevolution - as the term is used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists.
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.
There is no firsthand accounts. They can not be reproduced. They are not in a continual process today, therefore can not be observed.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2010 11:18 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2010 3:42 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 6:34 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 36 by DC85, posted 02-07-2010 7:02 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 40 of 205 (546124)
02-08-2010 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
02-07-2010 3:42 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2010 3:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2010 7:28 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 42 of 205 (546150)
02-08-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
02-08-2010 7:28 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
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:
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.
This can be found here. Message 167
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2010 7:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 02-08-2010 9:14 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2010 9:15 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2010 11:01 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 02-09-2010 1:14 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 56 by pandion, posted 02-11-2010 1:43 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 46 of 205 (546164)
02-09-2010 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
02-08-2010 11:01 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi RAZD,
Quoting Berkeley:
RAZD writes:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.
ABE to correct quote from Berkeley.
quote:
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
That looks a lot like my definition of macro evolution.
RAZD writes:
Once more, if you disagree with this, then you need to define the basis for your disagreement,
You did an awful lot of explaining trying to convince somebody that macro evolution has been validated. Without addressing my question.
RAZD writes:
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.
This can be found here. Message 167
When was macro evolution validated?
Whether you answer or not this is my last post here. I am satisfied it has not been validated or you would have already confirmed that it had.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"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 45 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2010 11:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 6:53 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 7:34 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 62 of 205 (546602)
02-12-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by pandion
02-11-2010 1:43 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi pandion,
I could not resist this one.
You said:
pandion writes:
These are speciation events (macro-evolution) in progress.
Berekely says:
"Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation"
ABE to correct quote from Berkeley.
quote:
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
So, how can a speciation event be macro evolution when macro evolution is the changes above speciation?
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : correction for quote

"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 56 by pandion, posted 02-11-2010 1:43 AM pandion has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 02-12-2010 7:53 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 153 of 205 (547852)
02-23-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
02-12-2010 7:53 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi Percy,
Sorry it took so long to get back to this as I have been very involved with one of my members that had terminal cancer and her family.
So to clear up things here is the complete definition of micro and macro evolution according to Berekely.
quote:
Defining Microevolution
Microevolution is evolution on a small scalewithin a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.
If you could zoom in on one branch of the tree of life scalethe insects, for exampleyou would see another phylogeny relating all the different insect lineages. If you continue to zoom in, selecting the branch representing beetles, you would see another phylogeny relating different beetle species. You could continue zooming in until you saw the relationships between beetle populations. Click on the button below to see this in action!
But how do you know when you’ve gotten to the population level?
Defining populations
For animals, it’s fairly easy to decide what a population is. It is a group of organisms that interbreed with each otherthat is, they all share a gene pool. So for our species of beetle, that might be a group of individuals that all live on a particular mountaintop and are potential mates for one another.
Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population.Berkeley
Definition: What is Macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to see macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
The basic evolutionary mechanismsmutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selectioncan produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
Mutation Gene Flow Genetic Drift + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution Natural Selection
A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it’s not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion yearsmore than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.Berkeley
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 66 by Percy, posted 02-12-2010 7:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2010 10:27 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 02-25-2010 7:39 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 156 of 205 (548238)
02-26-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
02-25-2010 7:39 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi Percey,
Percey writes:
("Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation") was in error.
I realize I left out the word generally. (generally=usually as a rule)
Your exception is that it includes microevolution which is not supported in the definition of Macroevolution.
In the second paragraph of the definition it says:
quote:
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
So it does not refer evolution at the species level.
Could you please point out to me where the definition says it covers microevolution?
In the third paragraph it says:
quote:
It is not necessarily easy to see macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
There are no firsthand accounts of macroevolutionary history.
There are firsthand accounts of microevolutionary history.
In paragraph 4 it says:
quote:
Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.
There is no firsthand evidence so we have to figure it out in our little finite minds what has taken place. Then in our little finite minds we have to figure out how it happened.
In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley.
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 155 by Percy, posted 02-25-2010 7:39 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 02-26-2010 11:11 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 02-26-2010 12:00 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2010 9:29 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 159 of 205 (548250)
02-26-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wounded King
02-26-2010 11:11 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes:
When speciation occurs the product is 2 closely related individual species, this therefore is the evolution of groups larger than 1 individual species, QED.
When we have speciation we have two species. Just as in my avatar, there are two species of horses as they are not breeding populations.
Now we have two species. Any changes in these two species is microevolution. Is it not?
How can speciation be the evolution of groups larger than speciation?
Wounded King writes:
If you look at the very next page from Berkeley 'Patterns', you will see that it includes speciation as one of the 4 patterns of macroevolution.
I am not disputing that speciation does not happen. It does.
I am disputing that macroevolution has taken place.
There is no firsthand evidence for such an event.
It only happened in the minds of men as they figured out what they thought happened and then figured out how they thought it happened.
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 157 by Wounded King, posted 02-26-2010 11:11 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by DC85, posted 02-26-2010 6:43 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 167 by Wounded King, posted 02-27-2010 4:40 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 160 of 205 (548253)
02-26-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
02-26-2010 12:00 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
I don't know that anyone can explain anything to you. You get an idea in your head, you dig in your heels, and that's about the end of it no matter what the facts are.
Look at it this way. If your interpretation is correct then speciation is neither microevolution or macroevolution. Now how much sense would that make?
I thought microevolution produced speciation.
Is that correct?
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 158 by Percy, posted 02-26-2010 12:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Percy, posted 02-26-2010 2:42 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 162 by Dr Jack, posted 02-26-2010 5:41 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 175 of 205 (548662)
02-28-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Wounded King
02-27-2010 4:40 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes:
It isn't, it is the evolution of groups larger than a single species. When your two horses are sufficiently reproductively isolated as to be considered distinct species then your original group of 1 species has become a group of 2 species and is therefore a group larger than a single species.
Which one of my horses is not a horse?
Would it be the 57 pound mare or the 2300 pound Stallion?
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 167 by Wounded King, posted 02-27-2010 4:40 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2010 11:35 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 177 by lyx2no, posted 02-28-2010 11:39 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 178 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2010 4:55 AM ICANT 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