In
Message 93 of the
abiogenesis thread, marc9000 asks:
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them, and tried to discredit an entire webpage because of it. That webpage’s opening summary used far fewer words than you did, to explain a general, layman’s understanding of how the word evolution is thought of, and used in society. For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not require progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done?
This was my response:
quote:
Sorry, but it is not that simple. The definition given by the website is not just a rewording to make it easy to understand, it is wrong. To repeat:
Message 84: No I don't consider it a credible link, because it portrays a false impression of evolution at the very start:
quote:
your creationist website:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.
Evolution, as it is "strictly interpreted in technical terms" within science is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation.
It looks to me like my version is maybe a couple of letters shorter than your website version, so no it has not "abbreviated" a valid explanation. Nor is my version difficult to understand, so it does not need to be interpreted, especially by someone not part of the scientific community studying evolution. We don't ask mechanics to define law or banking or physics or science to make it "appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way" ... we ask the people involved to explain it.
The problem is not only is this "explanation" not a shorter easier to understand version, it is false, and it gives an entirely false impression of what evolution is about.
For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not require progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done?
See? You fell for it.
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them ...
I gave you a brief synopsis of why your website version was wrong, but apparently you fail to see the error involved.
Let's call your website definition by a more appropriate name: "creolution" (the creationist misinterpretation of evolution)
Creolution: - is the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones by various suggested mechanisms.
Evolution: - is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation.
... and see how "creolution" compares with evolution in their ability to explain the diversity of life around us and what biologists study:
| Comparison by ability to explain: | Creolution | Evolution |
|---|
| Peppered moths | no | yes |
| Galapagos finch beaks | no | yes |
| Wing/wingless/wing/wingless walkingsticks | noyes |
Pelycodus speciation | noyes | | Asian greenish warbler ring species | noyes |
| Therapsids with two jaw joints | noyes |
| Whales | noyes |
| Parasites | noyes |
| Why apes are still living | noyes |
| Why cyanobacteria are still living | noyes |
| Human eye versus octopus versus combination | noyes | The human appendix & vestigial organs | noyes |
Convergent evolution | noyes | | Hominid bipedality before brain | noyes |
Chronological stratigraphic layers of foraminifera | noyes | Common descent | noyes | | Nested hierarchies of descent | noyes |
| Neutral drift | noyes |
| Coelacanths | noyes |
| ... | ...... |
| Direction to evolution | yesno |
| Purpose for life | yesno |
Abiogenesis | yesno |
I could go on, and I expect many people here can provide many additional examples where creolution fails to explain what evolution explains, but I think that should be sufficient to demonstrate the absolute failure of creolution as a viable alternate formulation of evolution.
Now if you think creolution can explain any one of those items where a "no" is in the creo column, then proceed to do so ... without using the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. If you have any doubts about evolutions ability to explain any of the items where there is a "yes" in the evo column, then ask.
If you think that evolution should explain items where there is a "no" in the evo column, then ask. Note that the actual lack of direction and purpose in biological systems shows that, not only is a system that explain direction and purpose unnecessary, it gives the wrong impression.
Any explanation of the diversity of life as we know it, from the life around us, to history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record that fails these simple tests to the extent that your website definition does, does not qualify as "statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way," but either evidence of a poor grasp of reality, intentional falsehoods, delusional distortions of reality, or profound ignorance. Your choice.
That pretty succinctly shows that the creolution definition is incapable of producing the correct results that evolution produces, and as such is a false and misleading definition.
We can do the same thing with other definitions found on other creationist websites.
These false definitions are part of the problem creationists have in understanding the truth about evolution. See
Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for a discussion on why using proper definitions is necessary for honest debate.
Creationists frequently misdefine evolution. This was the subject of a recent exchange between Marc900 and myself beginning with
Message 93 of the
abiogenesis thread. Marc900 offered this definition of evolution from
The Myth of Abiogenesis (a creationist) webpage:
quote:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.
But the actual definition of evolution as used in the science of biology says nothing about progressive development or increasing complexity. There is more than one way to properly define evolution, but this isn't one of them.
Another common creationist misrepresentation is this:
quote:
(Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True?" by A. J. Monty White of AiG):
Evolutionists often say that evolution simply means change. However, in reality it means a certain kind of change. The word is now accepted to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humanswhat might be called from-goo-to- you-via-the-zoo.
This is even worse that the one provided above. One wonders why creationists don't use the definitions used by scientists instead of these hackneyed versions.
One good definition is that
evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation.
Other good definitions used by biological scientists can be found at:
quote:
(Berkeley University):
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
quote:
(University of Michigan):
Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
The creationist misdefinitions of evolution cited above carry with them implications that are not shared by the actual definition, while omitting aspects that are crucial to a proper understanding of the science, and this is why they are so wrong, and why creationists continue to misunderstand evolution. In this thread I would like to discuss those implications in greater detail.
Enjoy.
ps - Also see
Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for a discussion on why using proper definitions is necessary for honest debate, and
"What is Evolution?" by Laurence Moran TalkOrigins for another discussion on this issue.
Edited by RAZD, : original hidden, inserted shorter version for more likely debate per admin suggestion, then added material to provide more information
Edited by RAZD, : debolded
™ Version 4.2