|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 93 of the abiogenesis thread, marc9000 asks:
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them, and tried to discredit an entire webpage because of it. That webpage’s opening summary used far fewer words than you did, to explain a general, layman’s understanding of how the word evolution is thought of, and used in society. For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not require progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done? This was my response:
quote: That pretty succinctly shows that the creolution definition is incapable of producing the correct results that evolution produces, and as such is a false and misleading definition. We can do the same thing with other definitions found on other creationist websites. These false definitions are part of the problem creationists have in understanding the truth about evolution. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for a discussion on why using proper definitions is necessary for honest debate. Creationists frequently misdefine evolution. This was the subject of a recent exchange between Marc900 and myself beginning with Message 93 of the abiogenesis thread. Marc900 offered this definition of evolution from The Myth of Abiogenesis (a creationist) webpage:
quote: But the actual definition of evolution as used in the science of biology says nothing about progressive development or increasing complexity. There is more than one way to properly define evolution, but this isn't one of them. Another common creationist misrepresentation is this:
quote: This is even worse that the one provided above. One wonders why creationists don't use the definitions used by scientists instead of these hackneyed versions. One good definition is that evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation. Other good definitions used by biological scientists can be found at:
quote: quote: The creationist misdefinitions of evolution cited above carry with them implications that are not shared by the actual definition, while omitting aspects that are crucial to a proper understanding of the science, and this is why they are so wrong, and why creationists continue to misunderstand evolution. In this thread I would like to discuss those implications in greater detail. Enjoy. ps - Also see Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for a discussion on why using proper definitions is necessary for honest debate, and "What is Evolution?" by Laurence Moran TalkOrigins for another discussion on this issue. Edited by RAZD, : original hidden, inserted shorter version for more likely debate per admin suggestion, then added material to provide more information Edited by RAZD, : debolded 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
added some to your suggestion, thanks
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi misha, and welcome to the fray.
I like the American Heritiage Dictionary's definition 3. Biologya. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. I believe it has all the necessary components and doesn't leave much room for obfuscation. And 3b talks to the development of trees of life based on common ancestry: Evolution Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations This is an essential component. We must have successive change to the DNA over generations. Agreed. This is essentially the same as the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, a definition that I commonly use here, and the normal "frequency of alleles" definition found in the literature. One of the reasons I use "hereditary traits" rather than genetic terminology is that the genetics are hard to determine in fossils, but traits can be tracked from species to species.
as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals And as a result of neutral drift. There are some other factors involved as well, so I am reluctant to specify only natural selection.
Notice, evolution is stated as the result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals. I like to think of evolution as being opportunistic, taking advantage of opportunities that variation (mutation) and ecology provide.
and resulting in the development of new species. Except that evolution does not always produce new species, it can produce varieties that have different hereditary traits in their subpopulations, but still be able to breed with the other variety subpopulations.
However, the idea of a new species is entirely based on boundaries instituted by the scientific community. When we use the biological definition of species as a population of potentially interbreeding organisms, and then note that speciation has occurred when interbreeding is no longer possible, then we have a non-arbitrary criteria that can be applied. The problem is to define species change when this does not occur. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html
quote: Here we see a speciation event in fossil record, as there is a clear division of the parent population into two non-interbreeding daughter populations, so this is a non-arbitrary speciation event. You also see a number of species classifications that are arbitrary, and based on the accumulation of change over many generations. At some point the species becomes noticeably different from the basal population (Pelycodus ralstoni), but these divisions are arbitrary.
Of course, this is where most creationists will be held up. They will claim that small changes are incapable of developing new species. And yet non-arbitrary speciation has been observed in the field, in the lab, and in the fossil record. What the creationists will say is that the resulting new species are still members of the "kind" that included the parent population. Dogs will always be dogs, etc.
I like the American Heritiage Dictionary's definition The problem here, though, is not about what you, or I, or Creationist Joe like as a definition, but which one/s best represent how the term is applied in science by the biologists doing the application. If you want to see how fruitless an argument about preferred definitions can get, see Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone). Few hours there I'd like to get back. As a result of that experience I now refer to the definitions given on the BerkeleyU and UMich sites (see Message 1wrong[/i] definition? (Message 1)) as examples of definitions used to teach biology to biology students by biologists. And the other point is that this thread is not so much about what definition biologists and evolutionists use, but what is used on many creationist websites and why these creationist versions are so wrong.
By understanding evolution as a consequence rather than a goal we can see that there is no requirement to move to increased complexity. In some cases simplicity may be more advantageous. And this is one of the reasons why both creationist definitions given in Message 1 are wrong. Enjoy.
I see you are using HTML, and as you are new here, here are some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, please remember that the topic is why creationist definitions are wrong ...
... not what you believe is the current status of science in general and evolution in particular.
"Micro"evolution is a fact. "Macro"evolution is an assumption. Can you please provide a definition of these? In order to assess the validity of your statements we first need to know if we are using the same definitions.
Message 9 Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at Berkeley Because it is not part of the definition. What this shows is how the definition of evolution as used by scientists in general and Berkeley in particular explains the diversity of life as we know it.
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. Macroevolution - as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists - is the change that occurs after speciation, as daughter populations become more diverse over time due to microevolution - as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists - within each species. In both cases the changes are due to descent with modification or the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. 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 Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process thread discusses such transitional fossils. Therefore, either your definitions are different - and you are looking for evidence of something that is not relevant to evolution as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists, or you are in denial of the evidence. If you are using a different definition, then what make you think basing an argument on it is valid? What is your definition?
Message 16 Are you saying macroevolution is a fact? If so please present the empirical testable reproducable experiments that make it a fact. Again - as the term is used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists - macroevolution has been observed in the continued divergence of species after speciation, and as such it is an observed empirical fact. If you dispute this, then you need to provide the basis on which your dispute rests - your definition of macroevolution - and then you need to show why it is a valid argument. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi marc9000,
Because hackneyed versions are often used by scientists as they use evolution as a weapon against religion. Yet neither of the quotes you provided involve a definition of evolution, only a discussion of what some of the observed consequences are.
Why is it okay for militant atheists like Dawkins and Stenger to use the words simple and complex in describing evolution, and it’s not okay for creationists to simply repeat it/agree with it? Because they can be wrong too? Note: I've stopped reading Dawkins as he has gone more into being a militant antitheist than a biologist, and as such is making himself irrelevant in my opinion. More particularly because they are observing what has occurred, not claiming that it must occur. There is a big difference between explaining what has occurred and saying that the end result we see must inevitably occur -- the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Possibilities and probabilities versus inevitabilities. It is probable that some increase in overall complexity will arise from variations, but it is not inevitable that it will continue to do so. Cyanobacteria similar to the first known life still exist, and evolution explains this. Dawkin's also characterizes evolutionary processes as a drunken walk. And curiously, the Dawkins and the Stengers do not define the field of evolutionary biology. Berkeley University also discusses the results of evolutionary processes and how the observed diversity of life can be explained by evolution: An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: Evolution - as defined by the science of evolution - explains what has happened. It is this power to explain the past that makes the definition used by scientists valid and the ones used by various creationists wrong. Compare (again) the explanatory power of evolution as used in science with the creationist definition you had provided:
quote: Let's call your website definition by a more appropriate name: "creolution" (the creationist misinterpretation of evolution)
Creolution: - is the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones by various suggested mechanisms. Evolution: - is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation. ... and see how "creolution" compares with evolution in their ability to explain the diversity of life around us and what biologists study:
I could go on, and I expect many people here can provide many additional examples where creolution fails to explain what evolution explains, but I think that should be sufficient to demonstrate the absolute failure of creolution as a viable alternate formulation of evolution. Now if you think creolution can explain any one of those items where a "no" is in the creo column, then proceed to do so ... without using the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. If you have any doubts about evolutions ability to explain any of the items where there is a "yes" in the evo column, then ask. If you think that evolution should explain items where there is a "no" in the evo column, then ask. Note that the actual lack of direction and purpose in biological systems shows that, not only is a system that explain direction and purpose unnecessary, it gives the wrong impression. Any explanation of the diversity of life as we know it, from the life around us, to history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record that fails these simple tests to the extent that your website definition does, does not qualify as "statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way," but either evidence of a poor grasp of reality, intentional falsehoods, delusional distortions of reality, or profound ignorance. Your choice.
Those are the only two books of that type that I have held my nose and bought for reference some time ago, but of course there are scores of other similar ones that seek to destroy religion, and are saturated with evolution more than anything else. If we go to amazon.com, and look at the first review listed of Dawkins The God Delusion, by Publishers Weekly, we see it stated that he is using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. So you are confusing the work of anti-theistic atheists with the science of evolution?
The definition of evolution is intentionally kept vague and confusing BY SCIENTISTS, so that it can be switched back and forth between being innocent empirical science to an aggressive weapon against religion. Then, when called on its aggression, that aggression is flipped off like a switch, and creationists are blamed for it. There is nothing vague about Darwin's original definition - descent with modification as a result of natural selection - and there is nothing vague about the modern definitions that include the hereditary process by which traits are passed from parent to offspring - the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation can be measured in any population and documented. What other definition is used? Edited by RAZD, : added 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
Obfuscation, misrepresentation, and outright falsehoods are some of the tactics used on creationist websites in order to support their beliefs ... Yet just stating this does not accomplish much in a debate. The typical creationist that reads and uses such websites is incapable of determining their actual validity due to their lack of knowledge about the science of evolution, and just saying it is false makes little impression. What is needed is to show how and why such definitions are false. 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 1433 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 1433 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Species8472, and welcome to the fray.
We have the tendency to hear what we want to hear in order to support our preconceived notion of the subject. This phenomenon is demonstrated quite well by The Simpsons when a tv executive wanted Homer Simpson to represent "bald and impotent men". Homer replied "yup, I'm certainly bald and important." This is called confirmation bias. The flip side, where you don't hear what you don't want to hear in order to avoid conflict with our preconceived notion on the subject, and that is called cognitive dissonance. This is the root of denial. 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Arphy, what's to barge in about talking on the topic?
... then this may be all well and good but to be fair there's not too many people interested in arguing about this. And I've always maintained that creationists should not have any problem/s with evolution per se, rather the issue of contention is common ancestry (how many ancestors when).
What people do have a problem with is the question of origins. Your definition above makes no mention of this. Correct. Evolution has no real attachment to origins, hence the separation of abiogenesis from evolution. Evolution is bedded in the present: what we observe occurring in life today.
So what do we call the belief that living things began as simple organisms ... Origins or abiogenesis.
... 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? This is confusing the definition of the process of evolution with (a) the natural history of life and (b) the predictions of the theory of evolution. The evidence shows only basic (prokaryotic) single cellular life 3.5 billion years ago, with the first known evidence of more complex single cell life (eukaryotes) occurring some 2.1 to 1.7 billion years ago. The first multicellular life appears in the fossil record after that. The evidence of the natural history of life on this planet is not related to the definition of evolution, rather they are the facts that can be explained by the theory of evolution. Evolution (as properly defined in Message 1wrong[/i] definition? (Message 1)) is also not the theory of evolution (or the science of evolution). The process of evolution in different ecosystems results in different results in subpopulations and this can lead (and has led) to speciation, the process where daughter population become differentiated to the point where interbreeding no longer occurs between the subpopulations. The theory of evolution (ToE) is essentially that the process of evolution within breeding populations, and the process of speciation dividing parent populations into reproductively distinct daughter populations, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the life around us, from history, from prehistory, from archeology, paleontology, geology and the fossil record, and from chemistry, microbiology, and the genetic record. The nested hierarchy pattern of descent from common ancestors is a prediction of the theory of evolution, based on evolution within populations, speciation forming reproductively isolated daughter populations, and the subsequent divergent evolution of daughter populations. The theory of evolution works backwards from today into the past, to see if it can explain the natural history of life (fossil and genetic).
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? This is the tentative conclusion reached by biologists in general and evolutionists in particular, from the evidence of natural history (fossil and genetic) and from the prediction of common ancestry based on the 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 ... The problem is that if you just say "evolution" then the creationist will understand (wrongly) one thing, while the evolutionist will understand (correctly) something else, and you will not be talking about the same thing. And yes, evolutionists get to define the proper definition, because they are the scientists studying the process.
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. Except that the evolutionist will likely say that if you want to discuss origins then we can talk about abiogenesis, the development of protobionts from chemical processes and the processes that can then give rise to simple prokaryotic forms. You will note that these processes do not involve the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, and thus cannot be considered to be evolution in the proper technical sense.
Message 69: ... it is the second half that you don't quite agree with:
for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones. And I agree that in a sense evolution as such does not teach this. So you agree that this is wrong, so therefore it should not be presented as a "strictly interpreted in technical terms" definition of evolution, yes? This is, after all, the crux of the thread: that using false definitions does not lead to clear understanding or debate.
However, Is this not the goal of evolution? i.e. that everything that we learn about evolution is used in the explanation of universal common ancestry. Or in other words, the idea of universal common ancestry is fully accepted by most of the scientific world, or seen as a fact, so all that remains is the question of how. And the study of evolution fills in those missing details. So in an evolutionary worldview the effect is that evolution and universal common ancestry cannot be seperated. The goal of the science of evolution is to explain both the natural history of life on earth and the diversity of life as we know it. The theory of evolution predicts common ancestry for related groups, and this theory is tested against the patterns found in the natural history of life (fossil and genetic). So far it looks like the theory of evolution, based on the process of evolution within populations, the process of speciation forming reproductively isolated daughter populations, and the subsequent divergent evolution of daughter populations, is sufficient to explain the evidence of the diversity of life as we know it.
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms
... The above quote shows this. The first half shows what evolution is ... No it doesn't. It does not say a single thing about what evolution is, there is no mention of hereditary traits, breeding populations, and changes from generation to generation. It absolutely fails to define what the process evolution involves.
for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.
... The above quote shows this. ... and the second half shows the purpose for studying evolution. And again, it fails in this because it does not talk about speciation or common ancestry or the formation of nested hierarchies, nor does it talk about explaining the natural history and diversity of life. Instead gives a totally false implication of a necessary progression to increased complexity. It absolutely fails to define what the scientific study of evolution involves. And that is why it is wrong, terribly wrong, to use such definitions in discussions about the diversity of life and the natural history in the fossil and genetic record, and about the role that the processes of evolution (the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation) and speciation (forming reproductively isolated daughter populations) have played in the formation of that natural history. 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024