Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22697
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 61 of 698 (914962)
02-07-2024 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by kjsimons
02-07-2024 7:55 PM


kjsimons writes:
Percy, that's odd, I was able to access Gingerich's website without a login using that link.
Seeing this I tried Firefox and was able to access it. Thanks.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by kjsimons, posted 02-07-2024 7:55 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 825
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


(1)
Message 62 of 698 (914963)
02-07-2024 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 7:50 PM


KRose writes:
From all of these replies it is evident that Evolution is not so much a science as it is a worldview.
Nope, you're the one espousing a "worldview" that evolution as a science has to fit some framework that you have in your mind. Biology is messy, it's analog and doesn't always fit into nice neat formulas or laws like some other sciences but it's still science and there are literally mountains of evidence that has been gathered and reviewed and similar mountains of published papers about said evidence. You're in Michigan, the University of Michigan does research into evolution. I'm sure you could find someone there who would be more than happy to educate you all about evolution. I was a student there back in the early 80's and had the honor of taking a paleoanthropology class from Dr. Milford Wolpoff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:50 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by K.Rose, posted 02-08-2024 5:31 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 120 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

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 64 of 698 (914965)
02-07-2024 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 7:28 PM


K.Rose in Message 52 writes:
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.
Well, I guess you haven't been paying attention, because that's exactly what we find. All fossils are "in between" their ancestors and their descendants. In fact, that's kind of a standard principal of life, all organisms are between their ancestors and their potential offspring. Do you disagree?
But we don't see that. We see populations distinct life forms that were here, and then they were gone.
Please provide specific examples of what you are talking about, since almost all species that have ever existed are extinct. Are you saying they didn't have ancestors because they are now extinct?
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.
That's true. Do you dispute that organisms with a spinal chord and internal skeleton are all members of Phylum Chordata? Do you dispute that the only organisms with feathers are birds and avian dinosaurs? Do you dispute that organisms with 3 major body regions, 6 legs and at most 4 wings are all insects?
This is where Evolution seeks to fill in the "missing link blanks" with an explanation, rather than demonstrating with empirical evidence.
Actually Evolution is a scientific field of study and not a thinking, acting entity.
I think you will find that any speculations in reputable scientific papers or texts are clearly labeled and discussed. This is often to encourage further exploration or observation and discovery. Scientists build on the discoveries of their predecessors, that's part of the repetition in science.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:28 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by K.Rose, posted 02-08-2024 6:02 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22697
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 65 of 698 (914966)
02-07-2024 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 7:50 PM


K.Rose in Message 57 writes:
From all of these replies it is evident that Evolution is not so much a science as it is a worldview.
Could you explain your reasoning?
Every life form can be explained through nebulous concepts such as "modified descent" or "life doing what life naturally does".
The latter might require a little contemplation to see the implications, but isn't descent with modification overtly obvious everywhere? Haven't you observed this yourself with every baby?
As new lifeform phenomena are encountered, then a new elements are introduced to these nebulous concepts
I'm not certain enough of your meaning to comment.
Evolution is a "living" "theory".
I certainly hope so. All theories, even those of physics, are subject to change in light of new information or improved insights.
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.
You were offered a number of concise definitions. My own favorite short definitions are descent with modification winnowed by natural selection, and changing allele frequencies in populations over time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:50 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22697
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 66 of 698 (914967)
02-07-2024 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 8:08 PM


K.Rose in Message 60 writes:
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.
Would that your conclusions possessed the same rigor.
Evolution lacks the substantiating part of the Scientific Method: Testing-Empirical Data.
For just a single counterexample, give this a click: Google Scholar search for "creating new species"
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.
Your conclusions seem to ignore mountains of empirical research on evolutionary topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 8:08 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 9:13 PM Percy has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 67 of 698 (914968)
02-07-2024 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by K.Rose
02-06-2024 7:07 PM


Not so much to rant and rail against, but something against which to debate.
Why?
Why do you think that evolution is something that you must debate against?
Do you think that it somehow conflicts with something that you support? If so, then what? And, again, why? And in what manner?
But at the foundation of these questions is the big one: What do you think evolution is?
You are obviously a creationist. I've been involved with discussing creationism online since about 1986, so for about four decades.
In all that time, no creationist has ever answered the question of what he thinks evolution is. All creationist claims and arguments and statements "about evolution" must be based on what they think evolution is, but everything they say about "evolution" makes absolutely no sense at all. Obviously, their "evolution" is something completely different from what evolution actually is. It would help us greatly in helping creationists to understand what evolution is so that they could actually address and criticize evolution instead of wasting all their time attacking a stupid strawman (ie, their "evolution") that has nothing to do with evolution.
And yet one thing that they will never do is to tell us what they are talking about. Indeed, the one question that terrifies creationists the most is, "What are you talking about?"
Corollary questions are:
  1. How do you think speciation works?
    They seem to think that it's the abrupt massive change of one individual, described by one creationist as "a snake lays an egg and a bird hatches out of it" (seriously, though he was using that as his "definition" of punctuated equilibrim). And that kind of bizarre idea leads to arguments like "Where did that new species find a mate?", or that the new species (eg, the first chicken) would have to have also "evolved" all its major body systems instantaneously.
    Creationists come up with the most insane and insanely stupid ideas. And they refuse to tell us where they're getting that nonsense from.
  2. Just what the hell is an "evolutionist"?
    You just used that word yourself in the OP. What are you talking about?
I need to leave for class now. Gotta hustle! (that's the first class)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by K.Rose, posted 02-06-2024 7:07 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 9:07 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 120 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 120 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 120 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

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 71 of 698 (914972)
02-07-2024 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 7:14 PM


K.Rose in Message 49 writes:
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.
And, indeed, there is a lot of experimentation and empirical results.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:14 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by K.Rose, posted 02-08-2024 5:29 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 72 of 698 (914973)
02-07-2024 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 9:13 PM


K.Rose in Message 70 writes:
And no, direct observation of the fossil record doesn't count.
Says who? You don't make the rules about what science can or cannot observe.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 9:13 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 120 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 120 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

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(1)
Message 75 of 698 (914979)
02-08-2024 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by K.Rose
02-08-2024 6:02 AM


K.Rose writes:
Please see Message 68.
Now you are at the point in your trollish arc where you claim answers were already answered, their challenges met.
If that is so, quote or briefly summarize your rebuttal. Otherwise you are taking up bandwidth that could contain actual meaning. Shall we now debate the progress of the debate? Soon you will tire of this and leave to troll something else you don't understand -- the opportunities are legion.
Why waste your time and ours?
Please see yourself out.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by K.Rose, posted 02-08-2024 6:02 AM 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