Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,176 Year: 5,433/9,624 Month: 458/323 Week: 98/204 Day: 14/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17852
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 106 of 698 (915018)
02-09-2024 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by K.Rose
02-08-2024 5:28 PM


quote:
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?
We cannot claim that this is a record of direct descent - the fossil record is not complete at the level of species.
However, we see this pattern of similar species - a temporal pattern of change. The species from later times are different from those from earlier times. Evolution is the best explanation we have for such patterns - and indeed most creationists would agree that at least part of it was due to evolutionary change. Thus it is evidence for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by K.Rose, posted 02-08-2024 5:28 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 107 of 698 (915026)
02-09-2024 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Tanypteryx
02-08-2024 6:21 PM


I’ll accept that Evolutionism includes a broad category of studies, but there are a couple of essential components in in the Evolutionary process that go beyond mere natural selection and variance within like lifeforms. The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.
My effort here is to understand the evidence showing that this is possible. How does one life form evolve into another? What is the mechanism? Can or has it been observed? Can it be reproduced in the laboratory?
Scientists and Engineers understand the importance of observation and experimentation/testing, and the proper presentation of conclusions and their Certainty, including the Margin of Error, Probability, and Confidence, all derived using standard statistical methods. Note that Scientific Fact has a pretty high Certainty bar: Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence.
If measurable testing and observation cannot be performed, then there is no opportunity to substantiate the validity-certainty of a technical proposition. Great minds spending great resources on great explanations is a reasonable start, but it cannot supplant repeatable demonstration.
These days the Great Deceit of many scientific theories lies in their presentation to the public as implied fact, and in allowing the misconception of factuality to stand.
If Evolutionism can meet the high bar of Scientific Fact, then it should be presented as such. If not, then the Certainty of Evolutionary conclusions must be divulged front and center.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-08-2024 6:21 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2024 1:54 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 113 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-09-2024 2:10 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 117 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2024 3:38 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2024 4:17 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 139 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 6:36 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 02-09-2024 8:45 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 202 by dwise1, posted 02-10-2024 6:04 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 229 by dwise1, posted 02-10-2024 2:00 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 108 of 698 (915027)
02-09-2024 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Tangle
02-08-2024 5:42 PM


What I'm doing is asking questions, prickly though they may be.
Confident Engineers and Scientists are generally eager to explain their hypotheses and address questions, if only to show their knowledge and reinforce their ideas. The good ones can break it down to terms their audience can understand, rather than launching into arcane technospeak.
I have had some thoughtful responses, some a bit impatient, and a great many disdainful. To paraphrase a few: "you don't know what you're talking about", "your questions are nonsensical", "go take a class", "...usual lying", "go away".
The defensiveness and reluctance to engage are quite telling. When you're over the target you'll take a lot of flak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Tangle, posted 02-08-2024 5:42 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Tangle, posted 02-09-2024 1:05 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 114 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2024 2:15 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 122 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2024 4:29 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 151 by dwise1, posted 02-09-2024 6:57 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 02-09-2024 9:04 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 109 of 698 (915028)
02-09-2024 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 12:25 PM


K.Rose writes:
What I'm doing is asking questions, prickly though they may be.
The questions you are asking can be answered with 5 minutes of googling - prickly or otherwise.
quote:
Confident Engineers and Scientists are generally eager to explain their hypotheses and address questions, if only to show their knowledge and reinforce their ideas. The good ones can break it down to terms their audience can understand, rather than launching into arcane technospeak.
You're not interested is understanding anything regardless of how it's explained.
I have had some thoughtful responses, some a bit impatient, and a great many disdainful. To paraphrase a few: "you don't know what you're talking about", "your questions are nonsensical", "go take a class", "...usual lying", "go away".

The defensiveness and reluctance to engage are quite telling. When you're over the target you'll take a lot of flak.

I have had some thoughtful responses, some a bit impatient, and a great many disdainful. To paraphrase a few: "you don't know what you're talking about", "your questions are nonsensical", "go take a class", "...usual lying", "go away".

The defensiveness and reluctance to engage are quite telling. When you're over the target you'll take a lot of flak.
We've seen thousand of people like you here, we can spot you at the first post. We know how this goes. You've finally come out of your closet and told us what your motivation actually is.
K.Rose:
The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.
The fact that the ToE contradicts what's written by superstitious Iron Age desert tribes many thousands of years ago is of no concern to science. It's just unfortunate for your belief system that it turns out to be a fact. It's very, very easy to establish the facts for yourself, just do a short course in biology.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 12:25 PM K.Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 1:16 PM Tangle has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 110 of 698 (915029)
02-09-2024 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Tangle
02-09-2024 1:05 PM


quote:
We've seen thousand of people like you here
We've seen even more people like you, full of arrogance, but hardly any useful contribution, almost always hostile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Tangle, posted 02-09-2024 1:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 02-09-2024 1:24 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 115 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2024 2:52 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 7:13 AM sensei has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 111 of 698 (915030)
02-09-2024 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by sensei
02-09-2024 1:16 PM


sensei writes:
We've seen even more people like you, full of arrogancec, but hardly any useful contribution, almost always hostile.
Cynicism born of experience.
There have been a couple of believers that have come here genuinely looking to understand things but a betting man would not bet on the next one here to be one of them.
Mr Rose here has finally told us that he's a creationist - there is absolutely nothing that anyone can say here that will make him look at the biology - he's only here to troll. Forgive me Christian, it gets depressing and tedious watching malign stupidity at work over and over again.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 1:16 PM sensei has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 112 of 698 (915031)
02-09-2024 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 12:10 PM


The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.
No one is trying to refute biblical creation. It is a religious fantasy that its adherents themselves refuted​ over a century ago. No one is going to expend the bandwidth arguing to defeat a religious absurdity.
How does one life form evolve into another? What is the mechanism? Can or has it been observed? Can it be reproduced in the laboratory?
Lifeforms evolve by a complex process involving genetic modification of the gene pool over many thousands of generations. The mechanism is modification of alleles and their selection/deletion from the gene pool by the environment.
Yes, the mechanism can and has been observed in operation and reproduced in the lab.
Note that Scientific Fact has a pretty high Certainty bar: Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence.
BS. You do not understand the conduct of the scientific disciplines in this world. Only the idiocy and stupidity of religion insists on such terms.
These days the Great Deceit of many scientific theories lies in their presentation to the public as implied fact, and in allowing the misconception of factuality to stand.
The deceit is by politically and religiously motivated groups trying to deny what the universe has shown us. It is that deceit to the public that seeks to mar the scientific findings. See the question immediately above.
You lie about impossible restrictions on a discipline you know nothing about and then complain when they can't be met. Typical errant religious thinking.
Your understandings of evolution and of science are woefully deficient. You need to go back to school (yes, a school where they can give you the semesters of information you cannot get in an internet forum) and pay attention this time.
If Evolutionism can meet the high bar of Scientific Fact, then it should be presented as such. If not, then the Certainty of Evolutionary conclusions must be divulged front and center.
The discipline of Evolution is one of the most well documented well understood mechanisms at work in our universe. Only the desperately religious and the hopelessly ignorant attempt to deny its reality.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 12:10 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 6:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 113 of 698 (915032)
02-09-2024 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 12:10 PM


K.Rose in Message 107 writes:
I’ll accept that Evolutionism includes a broad category of studies, but there are a couple of essential components in in the Evolutionary process that go beyond mere natural selection and variance within like lifeforms. The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.
I don't see how this is a response to anything i wrote in Message 102, or anywhere else, and just what the hell is evolutionism? Rebranding evolutionary biology as evolutionism just makes you look ignorant, immature, and petty.
but there are a couple of essential components in in the Evolutionary process that go beyond mere natural selection and variance within like lifeforms.
Well, when are you going to reveal a "couple essential components" that go beyond natural selection and genetic mutations within a species?
The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here, what is "continuing common ancestry for all life forms?"
continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.
Well, the thing is, biblical creation in all its forms has been refuted by all of science for the last 2 centuries. We just object to dimwits and religious nutjobs trying to force it into science classes.
My effort here is to understand the evidence showing that this is possible. How does one life form evolve into another? What is the mechanism? Can or has it been observed? Can it be reproduced in the laboratory?
You don't actually seem to be trying to understand, you have ignored the questions we've asked you to try and understand what you do know, and you have also ignored every single answer you have been given, so you can drop the act of innocent scholarship.
Yes, we can and have observed many different kinds of mutations in wild and captive (laboratory) populations. We observe changes in allele frequency in populations. We observe populations adapt to changes in their environment. We observe species going extinct because selective pressures were greater or more rapid than genetic variability and descent with modification could adapt them to.
Scientists and Engineers understand the importance of observation and experimentation/testing, and the proper presentation of conclusions and their Certainty, including the Margin of Error, Probability, and Confidence, all derived using standard statistical methods.
Yep, that would be a basic part of their training, but you don't seem to be aware that there is far more to scientific publication, the conclusion is usually just a small section near the end. Often the conclusions also include speculation or new hypotheses to be explored.
Note that Scientific Fact has a pretty high Certainty bar: Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence.
Note that this is just something you just made up. If not, please show your references.
If measurable testing and observation cannot be performed, then there is no opportunity to substantiate the validity-certainty of a technical proposition.
I don't know why you are discussing a situation where no observations can be made, if you can't observe something how would you get the idea to study it?
Great minds spending great resources on great explanations is a reasonable start, but it cannot supplant repeatable demonstration.
This seems to be rhetorical filler and it shouldn't be repeated.
These days the Great Deceit of many scientific theories lies in their presentation to the public as implied fact, and in allowing the misconception of factuality to stand.
Well, you might want to take that up with the non-scientific media.
If Evolutionism can meet the high bar of Scientific Fact, then it should be presented as such.
Yeah, since "Evolutionism" is something you made up along with "Scientific Fact" none of us care how you present it.
If not, then the Certainty of Evolutionary conclusions must be divulged front and center.
As I mentioned earlier, the conclusions come near the end.

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 107 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 12:10 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 114 of 698 (915033)
02-09-2024 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 12:25 PM


The defensiveness and reluctance to engage are quite telling.
Because the religious stupidity in the face of overwhelming reality is quite boring. You are recycling old creationist arguments that were destroyed decades ago.
When you're over the target you'll take a lot of flak.
That's not flak. That's laughter.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 12:25 PM K.Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by dwise1, posted 02-09-2024 3:20 PM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 118 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 3:46 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(3)
Message 115 of 698 (915034)
02-09-2024 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by sensei
02-09-2024 1:16 PM


full of arrogance, but hardly any useful contribution, almost always hostile.
Sensei, are you familiar with the psychological concept of "projection"?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 1:16 PM sensei has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 116 of 698 (915035)
02-09-2024 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by AZPaul3
02-09-2024 2:15 PM


Because the religious stupidity in the face of overwhelming reality is quite boring. You are recycling old creationist arguments that were destroyed decades ago.
Now explain PRATTs ("Points Refuted A Thousand Times") to him.
FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2024 2:15 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(3)
Message 117 of 698 (915036)
02-09-2024 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 12:10 PM


Hi K.Rose,
I’ll accept that Evolutionism includes a broad category of studies, but there are a couple of essential components in in the Evolutionary process that go beyond mere natural selection and variance within like lifeforms.
There really aren't.
The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.​
Not really. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that demands common ancestry. It's just that when we look at the evidence, such as genetics and the fossil record, we see common ancestry. It is perfectly easy to conceive of a world where there were two origins of life and both of those went on to evolve and diversify into two varied but wholly separate biota. Nothing about the ToE would be violated by such a scenario. It's just that that's not what happened here on Earth.
The fact that Christian creationists dislike the idea of universal common ancestry as much as they dislike the ToE doesn't mean that the two ideas are inextricable from one another.
How does one life form evolve into another? What is the mechanism?
By random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift... you know, all the stuff that you would find in any basic biology textbook. This information is not a secret.
Can or has it been observed? Can it be reproduced in the laboratory?
Yes and yes. I'm curious however; what would you consider a satisfactory example of this? What would you have to see to conclude that - for instance - speciation is real? I ask because in a previous post you said this;
Skulls from present-day dogs would show a more striking variance; however, they are still all dogs.
This is problematic because, as others have already pointed out to you, that is not how evolution works.
If we observed a dog giving birth to a non-dog IT WOULD DISPROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
The ToE would be falsified by such a thing, dead in the water, finito, kaput. Bereft of life, it would rest in peace... it would be an ex-theory, etc. So you can see why I'm keen for you to define your conditions for sufficient evidence. It's no use you demanding evidence for something that no-one is claiming.
Note that Scientific Fact has a pretty high Certainty bar: Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence.
Citation needed I think. Care to share your source for that howler?
Spoiler Alert; you won't be able to show any reputable scientific source for that claim because it's not true.
...Great Deceit... Scientific Fact... Certainty bar: Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence... Certainty of Evolutionary...
What is it with internet Christians and weird capitalisation? It's so odd.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 12:10 PM K.Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2024 4:31 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 118 of 698 (915037)
02-09-2024 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by AZPaul3
02-09-2024 2:15 PM


AZPaul3:
Because the religious stupidity in the face of overwhelming reality is quite boring.
Overwhelming reality? How is reality overwhelming to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2024 2:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-09-2024 3:55 PM sensei has replied
 Message 128 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2024 5:11 PM sensei has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 698 (915038)
02-09-2024 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by sensei
02-09-2024 3:46 PM


Reality overwhelms religious mythology with real data, that's why we call it reality.

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 118 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 3:46 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 5:05 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 138 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 120 of 698 (915039)
02-09-2024 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 12:10 PM


Hi K.Rose,
K.Rose writes:
If Evolutionism can meet the high bar of Scientific Fact, then it should be presented as such. If not, then the Certainty of Evolutionary conclusions must be divulged front and center.
The problem with evolution as I see it is that it is built on a lot of assumptions. Assumptions are not facts as they are only the imaginations of scientist.
The biggest problem evolutionist have is how life began to exist from non life.
Some propose it rode on stuff from outer space be it dust particles or meteorites.
Some propose it came from clay.
Some propose it came from chemicals.
The fact is scientist don't have any information on how life began to exist on earth. There is not one shred of scientific evidence as to how life began to exist or how the universe began to exist. They have a lot of assumptions, a lot of beliefs, and a lot of faith but they deny having any faith.
If you don't know how life began to exist how can you describe how it got to where it is today? We know a lot about life on earth because it exists. There are 2.13 billion critters on earth today and no two of them alike and none in a visible process of changing into another species. Why isn't evolution taking place today if it took place in the past? It just boggles my mind all the assumptions that have to be swallowed to believe what is believed today.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 12:10 PM K.Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Tangle, posted 02-09-2024 5:06 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:12 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 7:38 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024