Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 8:41 PM
21 online now:
JonF, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,099 Year: 5,136/19,786 Month: 1,258/873 Week: 154/460 Day: 96/58 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


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 responded

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

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 47 of 205 (546166)
02-09-2010 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
02-08-2010 8:59 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
ICANT writes:

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.


There is no first hand account of Latin evolving into Spanish and other modern day romance languages. None. A language has never been directly observed to evolve into a completely different language.

Based on your logic, every criminal activity should be dismissed from the courtroom if there are no first hand accounts and that they were not directly observed. Never mind all the finger prints. Never mind all the motives. Never mind all the forensic evidence.

Actually, there is no first hand account of the 6 day creation of the universe either. And it has never been observed to happen. Ever. It can not be reproduced. At all.

I see you've fallen back to defending a ridiculous position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2010 8:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-09-2010 1:22 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2618 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 48 of 205 (546167)
02-09-2010 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taz
02-09-2010 1:14 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Taz writes:

I see you've fallen back to defending a ridiculous position.

Don't forget also claiming that his question hadn't been answered when he didn't get the anwer he wanted. And then running away.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 02-09-2010 1:14 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2596 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


(1)
Message 49 of 205 (546179)
02-09-2010 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
02-07-2010 3:49 PM


Re: why not show why a definition is false?
quote:
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.


RAZD, time for a little soul-baring.

Coyote finds your lengthy posts hard going. Percey, with breath-taking condescension, suggests that you should tailor them to the level of comprehension of your correspondent.

The real reason you should consider shortening your posts is far more machiavellian- the more arguments you make, the easier it is for your adversary to evade the truly telling ones.

If you posit arguments A, B, and C your adversary will choose the weakest of your points, counter that, and pretend the other two never existed.

I know this, because it is a strategy that was used extensively against me (until I shortened and sharpened my posts) and one that I myself employ ( in fact I was called on it once, by Wounded King I think, who advised the rest of the board not to post "extraneous material" to me).

You are a skilled and knowledgable debater, RAZD. Don't let me and my kind of the hook by giving us easy options!


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2010 3:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 7:38 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2596 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 50 of 205 (546180)
02-09-2010 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
02-09-2010 12:34 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
quote:
When was macro evolution validated?

Whether or not ICANT returns, he (or she) has illuminated a very salient point in the Evolution/Creation debate.

I am a Creationist. And I believe in macroevolution.

The problem was succinctly described by Dr Lee Spetner, in the foreword to his book Not By Chance."Evolution" has at least two (and probably more) meanings.

Is "descent with modification" evolution? Then I believe in it.

Is "macroevolution" evolution? Well, insofar as it means speciation through sexual isolation and subsequent genetic mutation resulting in an inability to reproduce with the previous organism, yes, I do believe in it.

The problem is, as Lee Spetner points out, that evolutionists then take these two (observed) processes and use them to "prove" a completely different proposition: the idea of speciation to a higher level of morphological complexity. Eyes, lungs, retractable claws and all manner of mind-numbingly complex features all become the result of genetic copying mistakes and fluctuations in the environment.

And that's where "the observed" parts company with "the inferred".

Does mutation create a new species? Yes it does. It is observed. Does it create an eye? No. Not in a gogillion years, in a million different universes at once.

Edited by Kaichos Man, : too many paras

Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2010 12:34 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 7:54 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 55 by Huntard, posted 02-09-2010 9:01 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 58 by misha, posted 02-11-2010 9:51 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 51 of 205 (546183)
02-09-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
02-09-2010 12:34 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi ICANT

You did an awful lot of explaining trying to convince somebody that macro evolution has been validated. Without addressing my question.

That is because your question has nothing to do with the definition of macroevolution.

Rather your question relates to a testable prediction of macroevolution: if macroevolution is the formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestors, then related groups of organisms should have a common ancestor population, and if all life is a related group, then there should be a common ancestor population.

The evidence to date shows that all life is related to a small set of original populations of single cellular life. This observation is based on only having evidence of single cellular life at the earliest point where life is known to have existed, and it is validated by the genetic information of similarity of DNA in all forms of life.

When was macro evolution validated?

Whenever a nested hierarchy of descent from a common ancestor population has been observed. The forams in particular show multiple nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor populations.

Whenever nested clades by descent from common ancestor populations via speciation and (subsequent divergent) evolution (within each daughter species) are determined in the fossil record, in the genetic record and in the world around us today.

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.

In other words, you will not state the basis of your belief, your definition of something additional to the formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor populations, other than the formation of nested clades of descent from common ancestral populations by speciation and evolution within species.

In other words, don't bother correcting your misunderstanding/s, particularly if if threatens your beliefs, better to leave the debate before you need to do that.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2010 12:34 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 52 of 205 (546184)
02-09-2010 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Kaichos Man
02-09-2010 6:28 AM


Re: why not show why a definition is false?
Hi Kaichos Man,

The real reason you should consider shortening your posts is far more machiavellian- the more arguments you make, the easier it is for your adversary to evade the truly telling ones.

If you posit arguments A, B, and C your adversary will choose the weakest of your points, counter that, and pretend the other two never existed.

Yes I've noticed that you do this.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 6:28 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 02-09-2010 8:59 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 53 of 205 (546185)
02-09-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kaichos Man
02-09-2010 6:53 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi Kaichos Man, thanks.

Is "descent with modification" evolution? Then I believe in it.

Is "macroevolution" evolution? Well, insofar as it means speciation through sexual isolation and subsequent genetic mutation resulting in an inability to reproduce with the previous organism, yes, I do believe in it.

Curiously, it does not matter what you believe, but yes, speciation is the generally accepted - by biological scientists - boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. Because evolution occurs within species what we see after speciation is different evolution in the daughter populations that rather inevitably leads to greater divergence from each other as they live in different ecologies.

Macroevolution then is the formation of nested clades by descent from common ancestor populations via speciation and (subsequent divergent) evolution (within each daughter species).

The problem is, as Lee Spetner points out, that evolutionists then take these two (observed) processes and use them to "prove" a completely different proposition: the idea of speciation to a higher level of morphological complexity. Eyes, lungs, retractable claws and all manner of mind-numbingly complex features all become the result of genetic copying mistakes and fluctuations in the environment.

Ah, but you have it backwards (or Spetner has it backwards - not having your reference it's hard to tell). What you have is a "higher level of morphological complexity" in the fossil record. "Eyes, lungs, retractable claws and all manner of mind-numbingly complex features" don't have to occur for evolution or macroevolution to be true, rather they need to be explained by evolutionary processes because they are there in the fossil record and in the record of life as we know it today.

This gets into the definition of the theory of evolution, a definition that can be succinctly defined as the hypothesis that evolution and speciation are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from history and from the life around us today.

And that's where "the observed" parts company with "the inferred".

Does mutation create a new species? Yes it does. It is observed. Does it create an eye? No. Not in a gogillion years, in a million different universes at once.

Once again, your opinion is completely incapable of altering reality, however this is not a matter of the definition of the terms evolution or macroevolution or even of the theory of evolution rather it is a question of the application of those definitions to the evidence to see if they can be falsified by the evidence.

Perhaps you would like to start (another) thread on the evolution of the eye?

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 6:53 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-12-2010 3:48 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 54 of 205 (546192)
02-09-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
02-09-2010 7:38 AM


Re: why not show why a definition is false?
RAZD writes:

Yes I've noticed that you do this.

And you've just done it, too!

Kaichos Man's primary point is that the longer your posts the easier it is to evade your most salient points.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 7:38 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 403 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 55 of 205 (546193)
02-09-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kaichos Man
02-09-2010 6:53 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Kaichos Man writes:

Eyes, lungs, retractable claws and all manner of mind-numbingly complex features all become the result of genetic copying mistakes and fluctuations in the environment.

And that's where "the observed" parts company with "the inferred".

Does mutation create a new species? Yes it does. It is observed. Does it create an eye? No. Not in a gogillion years, in a million different universes at once.


So, it's impossible for, say, a lizard to develop, say, a cecal valve?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 6:53 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-12-2010 6:01 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
pandion
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 56 of 205 (546464)
02-11-2010 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
02-08-2010 8:59 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
ICANT writes:

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.


But it has been observed. Lines of Drosophila used in research and teaching that are available from commercial biological supply labs across the country were derived from wild stock captured in southern California decades ago. In order to maintain genetic consistency it has not been desirable nor necessary to introduce infusions of wild stock. However, it has been found that many of the lines are no longer able interbreed with the ancestral populations, nor are separate laboratory lines able to interbreed.

But wait! There's more.

Apples were introduced to North America from Europe. They were first introduced to Massachusetts. From there they were introduced to the Ohio valley. Legend has it, by John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed). At any rate, this was done in the early 1800s. Since apple trees were not native, there were no native pests. However, in the 1850s, apple crops in Ohio began to be infested with worms. These are the larvae of what is now known at the apple maggot fly. This insect does not exist in Europe, the origin of apples, and had never existed in North America before. Research has shown that apple maggot flies are probably evolved from hawthorn maggot flies. They are almost identical but do not seem to interbreed. The breeding time of the two maggot flies is separated by several weeks and is synchronous with the fruit that they infest. The insects breed and lay eggs at the time that the host plant sets fruit.

Since then, similar infestations have happened in other introduced members of the Rosaceae family, such as pears and cherries. These are speciation events (macro-evolution) in progress. The insects no longer interbreed and have evolved to prefer a specific host.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2010 8:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2010 7:35 AM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2010 12:52 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 57 of 205 (546476)
02-11-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by pandion
02-11-2010 1:43 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
But it has been observed. Lines of Drosophila used in research and teaching that are available from commercial biological supply labs across the country were derived from wild stock captured in southern California decades ago. In order to maintain genetic consistency it has not been desirable nor necessary to introduce infusions of wild stock. However, it has been found that many of the lines are no longer able interbreed with the ancestral populations, nor are separate laboratory lines able to interbreed.

Could I have some links and references please?

Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by pandion, posted 02-11-2010 1:43 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
misha
Member (Idle past 2736 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 58 of 205 (546501)
02-11-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kaichos Man
02-09-2010 6:53 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Does mutation create a new species? Yes it does. It is observed. Does it create an eye? No. Not in a gogillion years, in a million different universes at once.

Could mutation produce a light sensitive cell in a multicellular organism? And could this be beneficial to an organism?

Could mutation cause that organism to produce two light sensitive cells? And could this be more beneficial than an organism with one light sensitive cell?

Could mutation cause an organism with two light sensitive cells to produce a third? And could this be more beneficial than an organism with two light sensitive cells?

What is the maximum number of light sensitive cells that a mutlicellular organism could produce?

Could mutation cause these cells to be more efficient?

Could mutation cause some of these cells to be more sensitive than others to different kinds of light? And could this be more benificial to the organism?

Maybe you should request a new thread about possible evolution of the eye.

Edited by misha, : edited for formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 6:53 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 59 of 205 (546595)
02-11-2010 10:13 PM


Sorry to barge in here like this. But I just skimmed through 4 pages of what i thought was somewhat off topic ranting. Why did nobody seem to take any notice of what modulous wrote. Would it have shortened the thread too much? Did it sound like he was being the fun police and stop you from a good rant. If people haven't read it yet, please read modulous' post 5.

Now to add my bit, this is more of a reply to the OP. When you (RAZD) say that a good definition of evolution is "evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation." then this may be all well and good but to be fair there's not too many people interested in arguing about this. What people do have a problem with is the question of origins. Your definition above makes no mention of this. So what do we call the belief that living things began as simple organisms but these diversified to the extent that we now also have very complex organisms? What should we call it? What is this secret word that everybody seems to pretend doesn't exist? Although I have heard it defined a few times by evolutionists no less as the "General theory of Evolution". Is this appropriate or must the world continue to walk in darkness as to what this word that describes this belief is? Or is it ok to just say "evolution" and depending on the context of a person's argument realise the sense in which it was meant and continue on the conversation instead of detouring into the one of the all time favourite arguments that evolutionists use, namely that those "creationists don't even have a clue as to what evolution means" and then pull out the "evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" card. And bingo the creationist is shown to be completly ignorant of the debate. Yah!
Meanwhile the creationist is left sitting wondering if the evolutionist even wants to get into a debate about origins or whether they are actually more interested in playing word games.

There we go. Added a bit of a rant myself, except I think it was hopefully a bit closer to dealing with the OP.

Arphy


Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Granny Magda, posted 02-11-2010 11:27 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2010 12:21 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2010 12:34 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 60 of 205 (546596)
02-11-2010 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Arphy
02-11-2010 10:13 PM


Hi Arphy,

When you (RAZD) say that a good definition of evolution is "evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation." then this may be all well and good but to be fair there's not too many people interested in arguing about this. What people do have a problem with is the question of origins.

Would it be unfair then, to expect those people to say "I would like to talk about origins", rather than give misleading definitions, such as those in the OP?

If folks want to talk about origins, great, but they shouldn't label it evolution, because first origins are not part of evolution. All one does in such a case is create a strawman (and unnecessarily hand evolutionists an easy way of scoring cheap points, as you have quite rightly pointed out).

So what do we call the belief that living things began as simple organisms but these diversified to the extent that we now also have very complex organisms?

Universal common ancestry? That seems to sum it up.

What is this secret word that everybody seems to pretend doesn't exist?

Sometimes there just isn't a word that directly corresponds to what we want to say. That just means that we have to use slightly more cumbersome language, but surely it is better to do that than use words incorrectly and risk obfuscating our own arguments.

I would rather use a cumbersome phrase that communicates exactly what I want to say than use a word imprecisely and confuse everyone.

Or is it ok to just say "evolution" and depending on the context of a person's argument realise the sense in which it was meant and continue on the conversation instead of detouring into the one of the all time favourite arguments that evolutionists use, namely that those "creationists don't even have a clue as to what evolution means" and then pull out the "evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" card. And bingo the creationist is shown to be completly ignorant of the debate. Yah!

This may a fair criticism of some conversations on this forum and the like, but seriously; look at the quotes in the OP.

quote:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

"Strictly interpreted". "Technical terms".

In my opinion it is unacceptable to use such language and then get it so very badly wrong. Let's be clear; this is not a message board conversation, it is not ad libbed, it is not by some lone amateur. The quote is taken from a page which clearly poses as being educational. They had every opportunity to get it right, yet they still messed it up.

I think it is entirely appropriate to criticise such a mistake.

Meanwhile the creationist is left sitting wondering if the evolutionist even wants to get into a debate about origins or whether they are actually more interested in playing word games.

I do sympathise. It must be frustrating. On the other hand, you should perhaps save some of your indignation for well organised creationist sites, like AiG, because that's where creationists are getting these bad definitions from. These people should know better than to equip their followers with already undermined arguments. Feeding people such false definitions only serves to foster misunderstandings.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Arphy, posted 02-11-2010 10:13 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Arphy, posted 02-13-2010 5:19 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019