Summations Only

Hi agent_509, and welcome back. One thing to keep in mind, is which ones actually apply to evolution, and which ones are red herrings.A short? primer on evolution Mutations can cause changes in the hereditary traits of individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations do so (many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so.The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.The process of evolution (also called "micro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits and their distributions within the sub-populations.Over time, these different responses accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population evolves independently of the other/s.An additional observable result of speciation is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the parent species.With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations.Speciation, and the subsequent divergence of daughter populations, is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.The process of speciation with the subsequent formation of a branching genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations (also called "macro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.References

1. Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide
   An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
2. U. of Michigan on-line course material
   The Process of Speciation

(I recommend reading and studying these references (and other pages they are linked to), as they deal with evolution as taught by evolutionist biologists (an oxymoron) and they use the terminology as it is intended to be used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular.)Thus when we talk about abiogenesis, for example, we can see that we are not talking about starting with a breeding population, so this is not part of the process of evolution.Enjoy

Hi Pressie, Nor do I expect that it has much to do with other deconversions. Creationism has no real problems with evolution -- both micro-evolution within populations and macro-evolution dividing species, are necessary for creationist models to work (all that swift and varied descent from the purported "kinds"). No, the real beef is with abiogenesis and the numbers and forms of original species.This is why so much creationist verbiage about evolution relies on misrepresenting what evolution is actually about. Thus the short primer -- for reference if for no other purpose. As far as I can see, the most telling arguments against a young earth concept are the ones involving the rock solid evidence of vast age, as I have laid out in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? threads. The evidence shows that a young earth concept is just not compatible with the evidence. I wouldn't say never, but it certainly is not common for the truth to be presented and argued correctly in these debates. Another reason for the short primer.Enjoy.

Hi Dawn Bertot,I'll get back to your other thread when I'm more bored. No, I would not agree, because no scientific theories explain why, they only investigate how things work. That is how science works.Explaining why is the role of philosophy and religion, with the more accurate explanations being ones not in conflict with objective evidence of how things work. Such concepts, however, are not tested hypothesis (if not untestable) at best. The ToE does not explain how planets formed, because that is not what is under investigation in biological evolution. That doesn't make the ToE untestable.The theory of gravity does explain - to the best of our knowledge - how planets formed.The theory of abiogenesis explains - to the best of our knowledge - how life formed from the available building blocks that preceded life.From Introduction to Evolution:

quote:

---

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in hereditary traits and changes to their distribution within breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

---

You can't have hereditary traits without lifeforms, ergo (strictly speaking) evolution cannot apply to the formation of life (although some of the development may be similar in process).

quote:

---

(2) Speciation is the process whereby parent populations are divided into two or more reproductively isolated, independently evolving, daughter populations.

​

(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

---

The purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain how the diversity of life developed on this planet.Note that Introduction to Evolution also briefly discusses how the ToE is tested.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : quote boxes

HI Dawn Bertot, So maybe you should stop doing it?Just having a conclusion does not make it scientific, but it does make it logic, a part of philosophy. Except that what the teacher should say is that we don't know, and that philosophy and religion make attempts to answer this question, not science. Why is the sky blue.I know HOW it is blue, but why is it that color?Science explains the how: absorption, radiation of specific light-waves by atoms in the atmosphere.Science does not explain why that specific color happens to be the one we see. Except that science in general, and ToE in specific, does not have any obligation or responsibility to answer why.The obligation and responsibility of science in general, and the Toe in specific, is to answer HOW things work, so that we can predict how they will continue to work, predict what will happen in response to certain inputs. If we don't know why the sky is blue, does that mean that science is invalid, because it only explains how the sky is blue?If we don't know why anything happens, does that mean that science is invalid because it only addresses how things work?If what you are saying is that science is incomplete because it doesn't explain everything, then big whap - that is not a big earth shattering revelation. Except that science in general, and ToE in specific, does not attempt to answer why. The purpose of scientific investigation is to see how things work so that predictions can be made (and tested to refine our knowledge of how things work). Throwing terms at science that don't apply does not change the purpose of science in general, and ToE in specific, to explain how things work. And, curiously, science does not claim to be anything but tentative. Science KNOWS that it is tentative.This means that if you want to find a more complete explanation, that then you must go beyond science, to religion and philosophy, to conclusions that cannot be tested, and then embrace them with faith that they answer the rest of the questions.In my very humble, yet sometimes arrogant, opinion, that is nothing short of delusion. Because we don't know everything, then what we know is necessarily tentative.And if our knowledge is necessarily tentative, then why encumber it with assumptions that we cannot know for sure, nor test for veracity?Enjoy.

Hi again Dawn Bertot, You are free to have, and to express, your opinion. Unfortunately, for you, your opinion has little ability to alter reality. It may affect your ability to communicate effectively, especially if you conflate things to have different meanings than those understood by others. True - you can investigate how the sky is blue, and you can investigate why the sky is blue.That does not mean that investigation into why needs to be included in investigations into how the sky is blue, they are different aspects of investigating the color of the sky.I can also use math in an investigation, but that does not mean that all aspects of the investigation needs to be mathematical.Likewise I can use science in an investigation, but that does not mean that all aspects of the investigation need to be scientific. Correct, just as you cannot change what science is by calling it something else, nor by saying that science includes aspects of investigations that are not covered by science. Nor do your proclamations change the properties of science in general, or evolution in particular, in their ability to study how things work.Back when I was in high school, it was an axiom that all good news stories covered who, what , why, when, where, and how. These are listed to define distinct attributes to the good news story, not synonyms. Why asks the reason or purpose for something happening - what is the purpose for the sky being blue? The question of purpose is answered by philosophy or religion, not by science. How asks the way or manner that something happens - by what mechanism does the sky appear blue? The question of mechanism is answered by science.They are different aspects of the investigation of something happening.An investigation can use science, but it is not limited to just science. Science does not investigate the issue of purpose.Five Ws - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H), or the Six Ws) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering.[1] It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[2]

​

• Who is it about?
• What happened?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did it happen?
• How did it happen?

​

In journalism

​

The principle underlying the maxim is that each question should elicit a factual answer facts necessary to include for a report to be considered complete.[3] Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

​

In the "news style" for newspaper reporting, the Five W's are facts that should be contained in the "lead" (or lede); after the lead, the article becomes more expository. This is the inverted pyramid.

---

Note that this says that for the police or journalistic investigation to be complete the answers to these six different questions need to be answered independently. Curiously, police and journalists are not scientists.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

Hi bluegenes,really? Amusingly, your link shows how the sky appears blue, not why it appears to be blue, it does not show what reason or purpose is served by the sky appearing to be blue.Again I refer you to the list I provided of the 5 w's:

quote:

---

Five Ws - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H), or the Six Ws) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering.[1] It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[2]

​

• Who is it about?
• What happened?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did it happen?
• How did it happen?

---

---

bold added for emphasis.Now I hope you would agree that asking the same question twice would be silly in forming a concise but complete picture yes? Thus we should agree that these are different questions.Curiously, I listed these for the specific purpose of defining the usage of the terms and drawing the appropriate distinctions between them. Please feel free to investigate these terms and meanings in greater detail in reference to this specific detail (google 5W's+H). Curiously, I look at the primary definitions of the words to check assertions like this.Why Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?

---

The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose. I would wager that all those articles you gratuitously refer to actually explain "how" ... want to try and demonstrate otherwise?How Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

1. in what way or manner; by what means?: How did the accident happen?

---

bold added. Pretty clear to me: that "in what way or manner; by what means" is precisely what your link on the blue sky does explain. I'll wager that this is all your articles do as well.Now go back and read your link that explains HOW the sky appears to be blue, and note that it does not explain the purpose for the sky being blue.If your answer fits in the "how" box of the 5W's+H then it is a "how" answer and you can't use it in the other boxes, including the "why" box.For instance, the motive for a crime fits in the "why" box but does not explain "how" the crime was committed, and the explanation for "how" the crime was committed does not explain "why" it was committed.Part of clarity of communication is clarity of word usage. Why would you think I would try to do that?How do I do that by explaining the difference between how and why questions?Dawn is looking for a complete picture explanation, he is looking for the who, what, where, when, why and how explanations.Now, I am trying to explain the difference between the parts that science can explain and what parts it cannot explain. So you shouldn't try to create that confusion. Unless, of course, you agree with him . . . So do you agree with Dawn?Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : quote quoteEdited by Zen Deist, : ...Edited by Zen Deist, : Dawn quote

Hi again bluegenes,Of course you will want to pursue this off-topic nonsense. You need to pay closer attention to the way those words are used in the definition:For what does it rain?
For what reason does it rain?
For what cause does it rain?
For what purpose does it rain?Let's stick to the blue sky rather than follow you down another rabbit hole of red herrings, and try to keep this in the context offered: Who What Where When Why and How.

quote:

---

Again I refer you to the list I provided of the 5 w's:

​

quote:

---

Five Ws - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H), or the Six Ws) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering.[1] It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[2]

​

• Who is it about?
• What happened?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did it happen?
• How did it happen?

---

---

---

Who is it about: the sky.
What happened: it appears to be blue.
Where did it take place: over my back yard.
When did it happen: January 2, 2012 at 11:00 am est.
How did it happen: sunlight photons were absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere and spontaneously re-emitted in random directions, an affinity for blue light by the absorbing molecules means that more blue light was absorbed and re-emitted than other wavelengths, and the random scatter from all visible sectors of the atmosphere results in the appearance of a blue sky, even though the sky is technically transparent.Now it's your turn: why did it happen?Note that to provide a complete answer you need to provide something not already covered by the other questions.Enjoy,

Hi bluegenes,A lot of irrelevant blather, but congratulations: You have added to the description of how it happened that the sky appears blue.You have also used the word evolve without distinguishing which type you are invoking, which can lead to confusion for other people on this thread (astronomical evolution is about changes that happen during the development of stars, planetary systems etc, not biological evolution, which is the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities). * edited to include new information.Now try again: why did it happen?Note that extending your explanation to the big bang, or to provide more detail on the (biological not astronomical) evolutionary elements what were involve, will add to the "how it happened" question.Enjoy.

Hi bluegenes In Message 151 I corrected your misinterpretation of the definition: For what is the sky blue?
For what reason is the sky blue?
For what cause is the sky blue?
For what purpose is the sky blue?And still you have not answered why the sky is blue. For what reason, for what purpose, and for what cause would one use the 5w's +H questions? To help clarify your thinking into discrete aspects of the issues involved.It seems that your inability to explain why the sky is blue, mistaking how it happened for why it happened, proves my point.

quote:

---

The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[2]

​

• Who is it about?
• What happened?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did it happen?
• How did it happen?

---

Enjoy.

Hi bluegenes, Yes, you had misread how cause was used. For what cause is the phrase. Still more of the answer to how it happens that that the sky appears blue,Still no answer to why the sky happens to appear blue.Enjoy.

Hi Butterflytyrant, and thanks for your input. Exactly my point, both to bluegenes and (earlier) to Dawn Bertot (etc). That would be the difference between answering how it happened that the sky appears blue and why it happened that the sky appears blue. You could also have a theological answer (god/s-did-it) to the why question. I am well aware of this and fully agree -- "shit happens" is, imhysao, a valid philosophical answer, and it is not much different from the theological answer that god/s-did-it. I am under no delusion that I deserve to know, or would be capable of understanding, and I am also content with the reply that "we do not know why it happened that the sky appears blue" ... I think you are bang-on.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : spling

Hi Drosophilla,Just a couple of quick comments. That you have proposed 4 possibilities means that your initial claim of there being only two is false, yes?There is also an additional 5th possibility: that the (deist) designer created the universe with all the laws and mechanisms in place to result in the world and universe we see today, that these are the tools used to achieve the results without any need for constant tampering or involvement.Note that evolutionary algorithms have been used to achieve remarkable designs. Really?Or does this get into the how vs why aspect. How and why are different questions with different answers. An excellent idea. This is done by paraphrasing Dawn Bertot (for example) and having him agree with it -- this is an excellent way to show you understand the opposing position in any debate.Advice: tackle one concept at a time.Enjoy.

Hi Drosophilla, And it is easy to say that we do not know the answer, but lets see what we can determine with the scientific method. Then proceed to teach how science is done and what we can know as a result.If students want to pursue concepts of ultimate cause, then they could be guided to a philosophy class.I certainly would have no objection to teaching ID in philosophy class, and the first question I would ask is: Is ID properly pursued?Enjoy.

Hi Granny Magda, just to throw in my 2¢ worth Nor is he presenting what he thinks ID should be doing. ID as it is being used is different from ID as it should be pursued (or at least as it could be pursued). One could go back to the original definitions of ID and then compare them with how it is pursued by various proponentists to see if they are using the concept as designed or using their own interpretations. Just because 95% of physicists feel that the big bang + inflation is the best explanation we have for the formation of the universe does not mean that the 5% pursuing string theory are wrong. This is an argument from popularity fallacy.The original intelligent design proponents predate Johnson and the Wedge Document.Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. ...
... The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in 1802. ...

---

You can think of modern IDists as being Neo-Paleyists (Paley was a Christian).Deism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Deism (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) in religious philosophy is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. ...
... Deism became more prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment especially in Britain, France, Germany and America among intellectuals raised as Christians who found they could not believe in supernatural miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity, ...

---

Creationist ID proponentists assume their god/s first then use ID to find their god/s, and this is necessarily a self-limiting approach and a logically false approach. These people should properly be labelled IDCists for clarity:What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism? | National Center for Science Education

quote:

---

"Intelligent Design" creationism (IDC) is a successor to the "creation science" movement, which dates back to the 1960s. The IDC movement began in the middle 1980s as an antievolution movement which could include young earth, old earth, and progressive creationists; ...

---

This is what you have been identifying as ID.The basic problem with IDCists is that ID and creationism are not necessarily compatible concepts.ID is seen as a way to find god/s by finding evidence of design
Creationism is the preconception\assumption that they know the particular god/sID freed of preconceptions would be the hypothesis that we can determine whether (or not) the universe is the product of god/s. This is deism.Enjoy.

Hi again Drosphilla, And it would be legal under the constitution, as is comparative religion (the separation requires that no one religion be established, and it would be interesting to cover the religious faiths in America when it was founded: several types of non-evangelical christianity (evangelical hadn't evolved back then) , deism, judaism, islam, various native american beliefs, various african beliefs, etc.).You could also (legally) have a history and philosophy of science course, which could discuss how science developed from Aristotle to Al-Biruni (and some other muslims) to Popper to today. Whoa, slow down there.First we need to establish what the scientific process is, what it can do and what limits there are on the process. A briefs introduction to the history and philosophy of science and the development of the scientific method and the concept of falsifiability.A scientific hypothesis needs to be testable (in theory if not in fact), and it needs to make predictions. It is through testing that science approaches an understanding of how things work and eliminates what doesn't work, and it is through predictions that an hypothesis can be tested for broad application.Then we can ask if the ID (or the IDC) hypothesis is scientific.Enjoy.