Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,282 Year: 5,539/9,624 Month: 564/323 Week: 61/143 Day: 4/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 48 of 698 (914949)
02-07-2024 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Theodoric
02-07-2024 9:47 AM


Your definition of Theory in Message 41 - "A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers." - is very much in agreement with mine.
The key is in the testing. A theory is a hypothesis that can be subjected to empirical testing that will either disprove or fail to disprove the hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 02-07-2024 9:47 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 02-08-2024 3:25 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 596 by Taq, posted 02-23-2024 11:31 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 49 of 698 (914950)
02-07-2024 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nwr
02-07-2024 12:22 AM


But within Physics we have very clear definitions of force, pressure, momentum, reflection/refraction, gravity, et al.
Science is not really a technical category of its own. At it's core it's a method for substantiating hypotheses.
Mathematics is not a science, it's a quantification method that can be proven at a rate of 100%. The experiment will always produce the same result, by definition.
But Evolution is not such a broad category as Physics, and even if it were there are key principles in Evolution that demand controlled experimentation and supporting empirical results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 02-07-2024 12:22 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 8:02 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 71 by nwr, posted 02-07-2024 9:38 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 52 of 698 (914953)
02-07-2024 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2024 4:19 PM


If the process is not so abrupt as "new life forms popping into existence", if the process is gradual, successive, subtle mutation, then we should see a fossil record that is littered with mostly "in-between" life forms. But we don't see that. We see populations distinct life forms that were here, and then they were gone.
The fossil record may present different creatures that perhaps have similar skeletal structures, or respiratory systems, but that doesn't mean one evolved from the other. This is where Evolution seeks to fill in the "missing link blanks" with an explanation, rather than demonstrating with empirical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2024 4:19 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2024 7:34 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 56 by kjsimons, posted 02-07-2024 7:43 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 64 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2024 8:14 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 02-08-2024 3:30 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 53 of 698 (914954)
02-07-2024 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Admin
02-07-2024 7:15 PM


Thank you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Admin, posted 02-07-2024 7:15 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 57 of 698 (914958)
02-07-2024 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by dwise1
02-07-2024 7:20 PM


From all of these replies it is evident that Evolution is not so much a science as it is a worldview. Every life form can be explained through nebulous concepts such as "modified descent" or "life doing what life naturally does". As new lifeform phenomena are encountered, then a new elements are introduced to these nebulous concepts - Evolution is a "living" "theory".
I suspect this is why no concise Evolution definition has been offered. To do so hazards too much accountability, it compromises too much wiggle room

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by dwise1, posted 02-07-2024 7:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by kjsimons, posted 02-07-2024 8:08 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 8:29 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 84 by Theodoric, posted 02-08-2024 3:32 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 60 of 698 (914961)
02-07-2024 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by AZPaul3
02-06-2024 9:59 PM


Science, at its core, is characterized by perpetual inquiry and relentless skepticism.
The scientific method can be defined generally as Concept>Data Collection>Hypothesize>Test>Observation>Empirical Data>Conclusions. And these conclusions must be accompanied by an error statement, a probability figure, and a confidence figure.
Evolution lacks the substantiating part of the Scientific Method: Testing-Empirical Data.
I understand that all technical advancements begin as ponderance and speculation, but at some point we have to get serious and demonstrate that our proposals have merit. Perpetually modified explanations in and of themselves are not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 02-06-2024 9:59 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 8:52 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 02-08-2024 3:35 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 63 of 698 (914964)
02-07-2024 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
02-07-2024 7:39 PM


Apologies, I received these links in previous discussions. Though I must say I found them of little interest, also.
And please see Message 60 for a better understanding of meaningful data I am looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 7:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 02-08-2024 3:38 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 68 of 698 (914969)
02-07-2024 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rahvin
02-07-2024 7:34 PM


Can you provide an exceptional example of such a fossil sequence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2024 7:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 02-08-2024 8:02 AM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 69 of 698 (914970)
02-07-2024 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by dwise1
02-07-2024 8:56 PM


A good part of this discussion string has been me pleading for a definition of Evolution. I provided my own understanding of Evolution in Message 5 in that hopes that I might be corrected with the official definition of Evolution. Alas, I only managed to bring scorn upon myself.
Evolution strikes me as remarkable in that it is so widely accepted yet so thoroughly unsupported by the Scientific Method. And the farther we delve into the details the more incoherent it becomes, the more debatable it becomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 02-07-2024 8:56 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-08-2024 8:31 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 70 of 698 (914971)
02-07-2024 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
02-07-2024 8:52 PM


I'm very interested to see just a small sample of this mountain of evolutionary process empirical data. Keeping in mind that empirical data is derived from experimentation, or from direct observance & recording of the phenomenon.
And no, direct observation of the fossil record doesn't count.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 8:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2024 9:54 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 02-08-2024 8:51 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 73 of 698 (914977)
02-08-2024 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by nwr
02-07-2024 9:38 PM


Please see Message 70.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nwr, posted 02-07-2024 9:38 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 74 of 698 (914978)
02-08-2024 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2024 8:14 PM


Please see Message 68.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2024 8:14 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2024 7:05 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 79 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-08-2024 12:02 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 94 of 698 (915004)
02-08-2024 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
02-08-2024 8:02 AM


Thank you for putting this example together, but the evolutionary process in question is the one governing the descent of one life form from another, e.g., aquatic creature to land animal, bird to lizard, etc.
Variance within like life forms is to be expected, particularly across generations and geographies. I'm assuming all of the skulls shown above are from horses, exhibiting variance. Skulls from present-day dogs would show a more striking variance; however, they are still all dogs.
The evolutionary process in question is the one that would demonstrate that all life forms come from a common ancestor. The processes that result in variance (genetics and natural selection) are not that process.
One other observation - If the fossil record is so incomplete, what certainty can we have of any conclusions drawn from this record?
On one hand the Evolutionist says the fossil record is replete with transitional life forms, and on the other hand he says it is highly incomplete. How can it be both ways?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 02-08-2024 8:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2024 5:12 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 02-08-2024 6:06 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 102 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-08-2024 6:21 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 96 of 698 (915006)
02-08-2024 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by PaulK
02-08-2024 5:12 PM


I see.
If they are different species, then how can we be sure that on descended from another? Where is that evidence, and how do we demonstrate that descent from one species to another is even possible, outside of scholarly explanations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2024 5:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2024 12:20 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 97 of 698 (915007)
02-08-2024 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by kjsimons
02-07-2024 8:08 PM


OK folks, great discussion but can we get back to demonstrating, empirically, the more profound and contentious tenets of Evolution, i.e., all life has common ancestry? Below is a hi-level summary of Evolutionary principles and methods, as far as I can gather from our discussion:
1. All known life forms from ancient remains to the present are studied for common traits.
2. An intricate hypothesis, Evolution, linking these life forms to common ancestry has been constructed.
3. Evolution is a naturalistic and - very importantly - random, non-directed process that occurs over vast populations over great periods of time.
4. As anomalies/questions arise they are either woven into the explanation, or they are set aside for later consideration.
#1 and #2 are inarguably scientific endeavors. They may just be thoughts, maybe something more, but we have to start somewhere.
#3 is where the hand-waving and supposition begin, as in “It happens so gradually over such a long period of time that we can’t see it, but we know it’s there”. This is where the conscientious scientist would construct an experiment to confirm/reject the house of cards.
#4 is where the hardcore application of the Scientific Method to #3 is cast aside for the inferior pursuit of additional analysis, and technical explanation aligned with explanations previously advanced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by kjsimons, posted 02-07-2024 8:08 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Tangle, posted 02-08-2024 5:42 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 104 by Theodoric, posted 02-08-2024 8:55 PM K.Rose 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