|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4452 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Hi guys.
Let's clarify a few things. "for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones."...Is this not the goal of evolution? Maybe that would have read better as: Is it not the goal of the study of evolution to provide a logical and consistent way as to how this happened in natural history? So yes, I sit on the fence a bit with the definition that started this conversation. Because in one sense, it doesn't give a reasonable definition of what evolution involves, but in another sense it gives a definition of the purpose of what the science of evolution does in our society. I think that the definition should be understood in this latter sense.Maybe it could be rephrased like this "Evolution is the biological mechanism which allows us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record (according to a secular interpretation of the fossil record)" I think this is a reasonable definition of the function of evolution in secular science, and therefore I think both definitions are valid: 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.
and
evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Maybe that would have read better as: Is it not the goal of the study of evolution to provide a logical and consistent way as to how this happened in natural history? The goal of evolutionary biology is to find out all the facts about evolution and explain them. Or at least as many as possible. But this is barely relevant to the definition of evolution.
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. Well that's wrong in two ways. First, it conflates evolution, the theory of evolution, and evolutionary biology. Secondly, that is not what the suggested mechanisms were suggested for, nor the only thing that they are used to explain. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Arphy,
Maybe it could be rephrased like this "Evolution is the biological mechanism which allows us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record (according to a secular interpretation of the fossil record)" This is still not a definition of what evolution is, but rather it is a statement of what the process of evolution explains if you use a proper definition of evolution (ie the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation).
I think this is a reasonable definition of the function of evolution in secular science, ... In this you would mirror what Berkeley has to say about what evolution explains: An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: The definition is descent with modification (eg Darwin's formulation), and evolution by this definition "helps us to understand the history of life." This also says nothing about whether evolution must "progress" towards an imaginary pseudo goal of "increased complexity" or not. Likewise one can say that gravity can be roughly defined as the attraction between masses, and this helps us to understand how our solar system functions. We don't need to include the orbit of Uranus in our definition of gravity, as it is something that exists regardless of the definition of gravity, and it is explained by the definition of gravity.
therefore I think both definitions are valid:
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.
and
evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation. Except that the creationist "daffynition" (see below) does not explain the diversity of life, as noted in Message 22:
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. So no, creolution does not help us "to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record" as it fails in each one of these tests, and these are but a few of the examples that could be brought to bear. That is epic fail in the explanatory department. From Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.:
quote: It's that simple. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : creolution instead of it for clarity 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4452 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
This also says nothing about whether evolution must "progress" towards an imaginary pseudo goal of "increased complexity" or not. But the thing is it may not have to but according to secular natural history overall IT DID!
So no, it does not help us "to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record" as it fails in each one of these tests
What??? now i'm confused. Are you saying that evolution does NOT "help us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record". Wasn't quite ready for that comment. Not sure what to do with that. Please explain.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But the thing is it may not have to but according to secular natural history overall IT DID! And according to secular natural history it DID rain in Las Vegas this Thursday, but that is not part of the definition of "rain".
What??? now i'm confused. Are you saying that evolution does NOT "help us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record". Wasn't quite ready for that comment. Not sure what to do with that. Please explain. He's saying that your made-up definition of evolution does not help us to do that. What he calls the "creationist "daffynition"". The actual theory of evolution does allow us to understand these things, but what creationists want evolution to mean doesn't. Presumably this is why they do it. They invent their own theory of evolution which any biologist can tell them is wrong. Then they pretend that this is the theory of evolution. Then they proudly proclaim that it's wrong. Yes, the theory of evolution that creationists have invented is as wrong as everything else that creationists have made up. But this has nothing to do with the merits of the actual theory of evolution, does it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Arphy,
But the thing is it may not have to but according to secular natural history overall IT DID! The instances of increased complexity are explained by both, the instances of decreased complexity are only explained by the real definition of evolution. So if it's 51-49, overall you are correct, but the creolution definition only applies to 51% of all the diversity of life, while the evolution definition applies to 100% of all the diversity of life. Given the overwhelming amount of bacteria in the world 51% may be optimistic.
But the thing is it may not have to but according to secular natural history overall IT DID! Are you sure? I'm not. It could well be that the "more complex" forms of life only account for 30% of the biomass.
So no, it does not help us "to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record" as it fails in each one of these tests What??? now i'm confused. Are you saying that evolution does NOT "help us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record". Wasn't quite ready for that comment. Not sure what to do with that. Please explain. Sorry, it is creolution that fails, "it" refers to creolution not evolution. I've edited the post to make this clear, thanks. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...secular natural history... As opposed to what other kind of natural history? Hint: there is no other kind of natural history. There is dogma and scripture and revelation and the like, but those do not qualify as natural history, nor do the interpretations based on such religious beliefs qualify as natural history. The closest antonym for natural history would be religious apologetics.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
But the thing is it may not have to but according to secular natural history overall IT DID! Sure, for the most part. The thing is that increased complexity is not required and there are exceptions to this supposed rule. For example there are many groups of organisms that have remained relatively static over long periods of time. As RAZD has noted, the real Theory of Evolution can explain this; the strawman version does not. Look at it this way.
FictionalAtheist writes: Christianity, as it is strictly interpreted in technical terms, deals with people gathering in a big building each Sunday morning and singing hymns. It may be true that Christians gather and sing, but it is not a definition of Christianity. People may gather and sing because they are Christian, but that doesn't explain what Christianity actually is. What about exceptions? Some Christians might not sing, or gather on a Saturday, yet they are still Christians. Be honest; if you saw a definition of Christianity like that, wouldn't you want to point out how bad it was? Now imagine that almost every atheist you spoke to insisted upon using this definition, or one just as bad and you'll have a fair idea what it can be like to discuss evolution with creationists. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4452 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Hi RAZD
I really don't see much difference in the definitions:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
and
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. You suggest that an increase in complexity has not necessarily occured with the majority of life and therefore a definition which puts too much emphasis on this is wrong. Yet I think that an increase in complexity is the defining feature of secular natural history, therefore I think it is valid to mention it, especially as stasis and loss of complexity are more of byproducts of trying to understand the rise of complexity. Because otherwise evolution is seen as more a "sorting mechanism" rather than a "creative mechanism". so tell me, why do think berkley felt it necessary to include the sentence "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." in their definition? Because according to you this shouldn't be part of the definition of what evolution is razd writes: . So why add it? Is this any different from what me or your creationist source did? If not, then don't complain. If it is, how so? but rather it is a statement of what the process of evolution explains Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
This is off-topic. Please, no replies to this message in this thread. --Admin
Which universe is this forum discussing - a finite or infinite one? There are only two options here, and whichever one settles on - everything they say thereafter must allign with their preamble. I ask because apples and oranges apply with each selected preamble. Usually, this question becomes corrupted with a runaway pseudo qualification of limited and conditional versions of finite. So to prempt: What applies with a non-conditional and absolute definition of which ever preamble is selected? This says that in a finite uni, at one time there was no: TIME SPACE MATTER ENERGY FORCES QUARKS LIGHT DARKNESS HEAT/COLD CONTRACTIONS/EXPANSIONS. PARALLEL UNI's In fact, in order to learn, I would request those who do not accept a finite universe, to please play devil's advocate: what applies if the uni is accepted as totally and absolutely 'FINITE'? I ask this because devil's advocate debate is a legitimate eye opener and a most scientific mode of arriving at the most correct premise. Have a go! Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Add note at top.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You're looking for the philosophy department.
Try down the hall. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Which part is not scientific?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I really don't see much difference in the definitions ... Well, if they're all the same to you, then why not just agree that from now on you'll use the same definition as everyone else? Why insist on saying something that everyone else thinks is wrong when you could say something that everyone else thinks is right, if to you it makes no difference which you say?
You suggest that an increase in complexity has not necessarily occured with the majority of life and therefore a definition which puts too much emphasis on this is wrong. Yet I think that an increase in complexity is the defining feature of secular natural history ... It's a feature of natural history, to be sure. But it is not part of the definition of evolution. It's not even part of the definition of natural history, any more than the rise and fall of the Roman Empire is part of the definition of history.
so tell me, why do think berkley felt it necessary to include the sentence "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." in their definition? I don't think they did. I think the first sentence in that section was the actual definition, and the rest was commentary. And I think they said: "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life", because this is true. Do you, a creationist, think that this statement is so true that it ought to be included in the very definition of evolution? And are you, a creationist, so certain that the history of life includes the evolution of "higher" organisms from simpler ones that this would then implicitly be part of the definition of evolution? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Which universe is this forum discussing - a finite or infinite one? I don't know, and, as this has nothing to do with the definition of evolution, I am, at present, not particularly interested.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Arphy,
I really don't see much difference in the definitions: ... That is because you are only looking at the part of evolution that conforms to your understanding of creolution, and you are ignoring the parts that are different. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
Yet I think that an increase in complexity is the defining feature of secular natural history, therefore I think it is valid to mention it, ... Curiously what you think is irrelevant to the fact that science defines the terms in science. Science does not need to add observations about natural history to the definition of evolution.
so tell me, why do think berkley felt it necessary to include the sentence "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." in their definition? Because according to you this shouldn't be part of the definition of what evolution is It isn't, they didn't. Read the paragraph again: An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: Let me parse that for you. Read the beginning of second sentence: "This definition encompasses ... " This tells you that the definition is limited to the first sentence: "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification." The second sentence tells you that this definition is applicable to the whole diversity of life: "This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)." The third sentence summarizes what the application of this definition does: "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." Also notice that "increase in complexity" is not mentioned at all on that page, nor the next (which begins a new section on patterns): The History of Evolutionary Thought - Understanding EvolutionThe History of Life: Looking at the Patterns nor the next page The family tree - Understanding EvolutionThe Family Tree So they have discussed the formation of family trees and the whole history of life without mentioning "increase in complexity" at all. In fact I can get through the whole section on definition (1 page), patterns (6 main pages 18 subtopic pages), mechanisms (7 main pages 38 subtopic pages), microevolution (3 main pages 3 subtopic pages), speciation (4 main pages 11 subtopic pages) and macroevolution (3 pages 3 subtopic pages), without "complexity" being mentioned at all, to say nothing about whether it must increase or not. One would think that if this concept really really really was absolutely critical to understanding evolution that it would at least be mentioned somewhere in those first 97 pages teaching you about evolution at the most basic (101) level, yes? Don't you wonder why it isn't? Perhaps - just perhaps - it is not mentioned because your impression of what is important to evolution is false, and your impression is false because it is based on creationist definitions that are false.
Is this any different from what me or your creationist source did? Yes, because the real world definition of evolution does explain the diversity of life and the creolution daffynition fails to do this. Yes, because there is no mention of complexity in the real world evolution definition, nor in the application of that definition to the study of life around us. Yes, because there is no mention of progression in the real world evolution definition, nor in the application of that definition to the study of life around us.
Is this any different from what me or your creationist source did? Curiously, Berkely also includes a section on misconceptions about evolution, including one on progressive development: Misconceptions about evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: Is this any different from what me or your creationist source did? Yes, because the real world definition of evolution does explain the diversity of life, and the creolution daffynition absolutely fails to 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024