Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 205 (546923)
02-15-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Arphy
02-14-2010 11:49 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Come on admit it, being an evolutionist (a believer in evolution)means that you believe that all know organisms diversified from a/(or many) unicellular organism(s). Yet this concept is strangly absent from the definition of evolution.
And being a chemist means that you believe that salt is the product of ionic bonding between sodium and chlorine. And yet, "strangely" as you would say, this fact is absent from the definition of chemistry.
How many times and in how many ways do we have to explain this to you? Just because some fact about evolution is obviously true, that doesn't make the truth of that fact part of the definition of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 11:49 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 205 (546924)
02-15-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Arphy
02-14-2010 10:36 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
I don't tend to reply to your posts ...
I guess that realizing that you're hopelessly outclassed is the first step.
How is this a contrast with my comment?
Because according to your definition of evolution, mosquitoes did not evolve resistance to DDT. Because according to your definition, the word "evolution" does not actually refer to what the mosquitoes did.
Let me quote your own "daffynition" (as RAZD would call it):
The voices in Arphy's head writes:
"evolution is a change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation which has allowed them to diversify from a unicelluar organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record."
Now, that is not what happened when mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT. They did not "diversify from a unicellular organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record". They just evolved.
---
And I still want to ask --- WHY? WHY? WHY? What do you think you have to gain by refusing to speak the English language? It's just words, it doesn't affect the facts. What do you have to gain from denying that "evolution" means evolution except for the undying contempt of everyone who is moderately well-educated?
It really does seem that you're being hopelessly wrong just for the sake of it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 10:36 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 1:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 205 (546938)
02-15-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Arphy
02-15-2010 1:16 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
umm, yes they did, according to secular science. They are part of the process of diversification from a unicellular organism, and resistance to DDT is part of this diversification.
Way to quote out of context. But everyone reading this thread can read this thread, and they know that the sentence I wrote before: "They did not "diversify from a unicellular organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record"." was "Now, that is not what happened when mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT."
And I'm right.
What went through your head when you decided to do that. Were you really thinking: "BWAHAHAHA, now I'm going to deceive Dr A as to what he meant"?
Well, you didn't.
As to the question, WHY? It is because the definition is deceptive. It draws people in because nobody is going to argue with the completely obvious statement that a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation occurs in nature. Once people have accepted this people are then taught to accept secular natural history as fact because after all if evolution in terms of a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" is correct then obviously the creationists are wrong and secular natural history is correct. ????C'mon how logical is that!! Not very!!!
Buy, my dear Arphy, it is you and your fellow creationists who are trying to conflate the fact that evolution occurs with all the facts about evolution. You just did it again, when you took my statement about mosquitoes and distorted it. The only person being "deceptive" on this issue is you. If you object to this deception, then STOP PRACTICING IT.
For the rest of your paranoid fantasy, I should urge you to look at reality for half a second. Ask any evolutionist on this forum why they say that "secular natural history is correct", and not one of them, I will wager my own life against a jelly donut, will say: "because a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation occurs in nature".
I'm fairly sure that no-one in the whole world ever has been fooled into accepting "secular natural history" because of dishonest creationist attempts to conflate these two concepts. But if you are genuinely afraid that some day this might happen, then the solution is in your hands. STOP DOING IT. It is we, the evolutionists, who have been insisting again and again that these are two different things. It is you, the creationists, who insist that the word "evolution" should be redefined so that it means both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 1:16 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 205 (546939)
02-15-2010 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Arphy
02-15-2010 3:54 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Yes, it is universal common ancestry that i have a problem with. But the problem is that when the term evolution is used, whether by creationists or evolutionists, universal common ancestry is implied ...
Not to anyone who has read the definition provided by scientists. Only to people who have been tricked by creationist obfuscation.
... the definition "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" does not suggest this in any way.
No, it doesn't.
Hey, you said something that was true!
And it is this unspoken implication which I suggest should be spoken otherwise the definition becomes deceptive.
And there you go talking about "deception" again. Well, who the heck has been deceived?
You yourself are not deceived. Despite your tireless, tiresome attempts to conflate evolution with "secular natural history", you know perfectly well that statements such as "Mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT" are not in fact an endorsement of the whole of "secular natural history". You haven't even managed to fool yourself. And yet you go about wringing your hands with your concern that conflating the two concepts might fool somebody. Not me, not you, not anyone we know. But someone.
Well, if that's such a big worry for you, then STOP DOING IT. Say along with me, with the other evolutionists, and with the biology textbooks, that all "evolution" means is heritable change to a lineage, and that acknowledging the fact that evolution as properly defined takes place is a different thing from acknowledging the whole of "secular natural history". Shout it from the rooftops. If you are genuinely concerned that conflation of the two concepts deceives people, then you should join us evolutionists in telling everyone that these are in fact two different ideas. This is one thing that we should be able to agree on wholeheartedly. But instead you complain that it is "deceptive" to conflate the two concepts, and you insist that the word "evolution" should be redefined so that it conflates them by definition.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 3:54 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 121 of 205 (546952)
02-15-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Wounded King
02-15-2010 8:55 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
I think Dr. A is wrong to place the blame for the conflation of evolutionary theory with the natural history of evolution of life on earth as something that creationists have done.
To clarify my point, I don't think that people like Arphy are exclusively to blame. I just think that they're particularly morally culpable. He thinks that it is "deceptive" to equate the process of evolution with the history of life --- and then he insists that biologists should re-write the English language so as to do just that.
Most people without a biological background will think of evolution in terms of the evolutionary history of life on earth, I would suggest that is the concept that is most commonly tied to the term 'evolution' in the general populace.
Perhaps that might be the first thing that comes into the average man's head when he hears the word "evolution". Nonetheless, it is also true that if I say to the average man: "Mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT", he can consider that proposition on its own merits, and if he agrees that it's true he is in no way agreeing with common descent.
I'm not deceiving that average man by getting him to agree that evolution has occurred. But Arphy would like to redefine the English language so that I would then be able to play some pathetic little trick on him --- so that I could then say: "Ah, you admit that evolution has occurred. Well, according to some guy who calls himself "Arphy" on some forum called "EvC", that means that you subscribe to the whole of "secular natural history". Gotcha!"
But of course I don't want to do that. Arphy wants me to do that. He wants --- nay, demands --- that we should redefine the word "evolution" in such a way that playing such pathetic little word-games would be slightly less stupid than it currently is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Wounded King, posted 02-15-2010 8:55 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 205 (546955)
02-15-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
What I don't understand is why evolutionists are so hot on excluding common descent from the definition of evolution.
It's a delicate question as to whether common descent should be included in the theory of evolution. (I would say no). But it's a complete no-brainer as to whether common descent is part of the definition of evolution. Of course not. Evolution is evolution. The question of whether it has happened in any particular case has nothing to do with common descent.
Suppose, for example, that I had a time-machine, and that I could show you definitively that common descent was absolutely false, but that the proposition that birds evolved from dinosaurs was absolutely true. Would you then reject the proposition that birds evolved from dinosaurs on the grounds that common descent wasn't true?
Evolution is evolution is evolution. In the cases where it's happened, it's happened, and we should call it "evolution" because that is what evolution is called, and this is the case whether or not common descent is the key to understanding biology or just a ghastly mistake.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 124 of 205 (546958)
02-15-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
double post
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 125 of 205 (546976)
02-15-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
02-15-2010 9:03 AM


Re: Are You Talking to Me?
I think the greater danger lies in telling someone who includes common descent in their definition of evolution that they're wrong. We're talking to people who are inconceivably ignorant of science and who in many circumstances have been the target of a great deal of misinformation. Make your distinctions too fine and you're going to lose them.
I agree that we shouldn't be needlessly pedantic in debate. Fine. Fair enough.
But that's not what we're talking about. RAZD's OP was about some bunch of creationists who said: "Evolution, as it is strictly interpreted in technical terms ..." is something that they made up in their heads. And then ICANT jumped in and said that the real definition of evolution should be whatever it is about evolution that he personally dislikes. And then along comes Arphy to tell us that scientists are actually being deceptive unless they use a definition of evolution that would actually deceive people.
It's one thing if creationists are a bit wrong with their terminology but we understand what they mean. In that case, sure, instead of being pedantic we should engage them on the actual issues. But it's a whole other thing when they take it upon themselves to rewrite the English language so that "evolution" doesn't mean what biologists mean when they say "evolution".
It's one thing for them to get it a bit wrong, it's another thing altogether for them to allege that anyone who doesn't join them in their personal error is being "deceptive". At this point it is not needlessly pedantic to point out that they're talking crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 9:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 131 of 205 (547078)
02-16-2010 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Arphy
02-16-2010 3:12 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
Well, I think that if you really care about this issue you should pick a side. Do you want to help your fellow-creationists to cause this confusion in the public mind, or do you want to ally yourself with us evolutionists in our campaign to eliminate it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Arphy, posted 02-16-2010 3:12 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 140 of 205 (547238)
02-17-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dr Jack
02-17-2010 6:19 AM


Re: Equivocation diminishes evolution
But evolution isn't a small part of evolution, it's all of evolution. What else has ever happened that one could describe as evolution?
It's not everything we know about evolution, but it is all the evolution there is. And an example of evolution would still be evolution if it was Lamarckian or front-loaded or Darwinian, and it would continue to be evolution even if it turned out that common descent was the veriest piffle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dr Jack, posted 02-17-2010 6:19 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Jack, posted 02-18-2010 3:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 205 (547499)
02-19-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Jack
02-18-2010 3:50 AM


Re: Equivocation diminishes evolution
Exactly why it's equivocation. You'll note the claims RAZD makes for evolution's explanatory power (in the post I replied to ). The simple change definition of biological evolution has no explanatory power.
True enough --- definitions never do. For that, you need facts.
But just because RAZD spoke inaccurately is no reason why everyone else should abandon precision of thought and language. And it's certainly no reason why we should allow a creationist blunder parity with a scientific definition.
To respond to a faulty Creationist definition such as "Evolution, as it is strictly interpreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones" which is clearly talking about the ToE with a definition that applies only to a tiny, tiny part of the ToE - the part of least interest - progresses nothing. It's simply a debating tactic; a cheap one that obfuscates the very thing we're trying to defend.
The creationist error is obfuscation. Its is true that after giving a correct definition of evolution, it would have further addressed their blunder to give a correct definition of the theory of evolution and of common descent, but then I presume that the people who wrote that nonsense aren't reading this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Jack, posted 02-18-2010 3:50 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 205 (547668)
02-21-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
02-20-2010 9:23 PM


Re: revised
Do you not agree that these observations are explained by evolution as now defined?
Definitely not.
For one thing, it now actually excludes neutral drift, which is on your list.
For another thing, it still doesn't explain the "nested hierarchies". We need the initial condition of common ancestry to do that.
Finally, you make it sound a lot more Lamarckian than Darwinian.
The definition of evolution shouldn't explain things. The Theory of Evolution should. That's what theories do.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2010 9:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2010 4:59 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 185 of 205 (570505)
07-27-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by barbara
07-27-2010 3:11 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
"The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use"
This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future.
But don't you see that what Coyote advocates is not building a language barrier, but destroying one?
Scientists came up with a concept which they decided to call "evolution", and started talking about it in the scientific literature under that name.
If someone then teaches the general public that "evolution" means something different from what scientists actually mean by it, then that's a language barrier. Because it means that anyone who then tries to find out about evolution by reading about it in the scientific literature won't understand what the literature actually means. And then you have a language barrier between the general public and the scientific literature.
A language barrier is what you get when you have two different languages. It is removed by having everyone speak the same language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 3:11 PM barbara has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 188 of 205 (570510)
07-27-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by barbara
07-27-2010 4:31 PM


Re: What about another definition?
"bacteria never turned into Humans"
Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.
Evolution is not about one thing turning into another thing, but about one thing being descended from another thing.
Tadpoles turn into frogs, fish are ancestral to frogs. No fish ever turned into a frog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 4:31 PM barbara has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 205 (571571)
08-01-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by barbara
08-01-2010 4:04 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
All of the information that I have used in a thread comes from articles on the web and it is noted from several different websites on the percentages of microbial DNA verses Human DNA.
Where?
I think it is time unfortunately that the web needs to provide restrictions especially science on who is allowed to educate the masses and have some way to validate its truth.
With malefactors arrested by the Internet Police?
I think the task of enforcing accuracy on the internet, besides being an affront to the civil liberties of people exercising their right to be wrong, is too large for anyone to handle. Google has indexed over one trillion unique urls.
The education in Biology that I learned was over 35 years ago and I am realizing now that what I was taught in school is now wrong.
So far as I am aware, none of the stuff you're coming out with about bacteria was ever taught in schools. Is it possible that the passage of 35 years has clouded your memory somewhat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by barbara, posted 08-01-2010 4:04 AM barbara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2010 10:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024