|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22941 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 829 From: Orlando,FL Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K.Rose Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.7
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22941 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22941 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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:
I need to leave for class now. Gotta hustle! (that's the first class)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K.Rose Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: |
Can you provide an exceptional example of such a fossil sequence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K.Rose Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K.Rose Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.7
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K.Rose Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: |
Please see Message 70.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K.Rose Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: |
Please see Message 68.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024