Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 151 of 205 (547684)
02-21-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dr Jack
02-20-2010 6:33 AM


Futuyma's definition
Hi Mr Jack,
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:
Windsor castle Message 16: In my old text by Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd Ed., he gets right down to the definition of biological evolution on the second page of chapter 1. Futuyma says:
quote:
Thus biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms, or groups of such populations, over the course of generations.
Futuyma had previously explained that the properties about which he is speaking are are those "...in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics, variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several processes." To be a bit more terse, I learned many years ago that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations of organisms over generations.
Don't confuse this with theories of evolution. The above is not a theory. It is a definition that was arrived at during the formulation of the modern synthesis. Theories of evolution are explanations of observed phenomena that fit the above definition. For example, observed change without heredity is not evolution.
I note that this is not significantly different from my original formulation:
Evolution is the change in the frequencies of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation.
The above definition does not specifically mention natural selection either (as most "modern synthesis" definitions do not do), and only alludes to it in the further explanations of the definition terminology, and then he also includes mutation as equally critical.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dr Jack, posted 02-20-2010 6:33 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Jack, posted 02-22-2010 8:00 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 154 of 205 (547924)
02-23-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by ICANT
02-23-2010 12:32 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi ICANT, that's a little jumbled, especially at the end.
Mutation Gene Flow Genetic Drift + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution Natural Selection
Is supposed to be:
quote:
Mutation
Gene Flow
Genetic Drift
Natural Selection + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution
Note that there is no process present in that equation that is not in microevolution except the longer span of time: macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution, as they say just before that:
quote:
The basic evolutionary mechanismsmutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selectioncan produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
The word "can" is there because they don't have to, it is just as possible that some cyanobacteria remain happily as cyanobacteria after all that time.
I think you are reading too much emphasis into the word "transformation" (and personally I don't think they should have used it - "transition" would be better and more descriptive of what is going on, as "transitional" fossils are understood), as it gives the impression of individual organisms morphing into new forms.
quote:
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
This occurs by the simple formation of nested hierarchies with descent from common ancestors after speciation events: a species is a breeding population, when speciation occurs there is no longer a single species, but two (or more) and this is the generation of genera. Likewise when further speciation occurs, the genera become families. It is easier to envisage with clades, imho, as there is less confusion of what the different branches are - they are just lineages of descent from the common ancestor populations.
                         |
|
|
/ \
/ \
/ |
| / \
/ \ / \
/ | | |
| | | / \
/ \ | | / |
/ | | | | / \

At the top we have a single ancestor species population, at the bottom we have a "larger" group of descendant species, all related by common ancestry.
When we "zoom in" to a single species we can see evolution in process, as the species undergoes the change in proportions of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.
When we "zoom out" we see the effects of continual evolution in all species through time, we see specieation and increased diversity, we see the formation of nested hierarchies, and we see the formation of "groups larger than an individual species" that are related by descent from common ancestor populations.
This is macroevolution, and it has been observed.
In the process of this macroevolution the different branches are "transformed" generation by generation by microevolution until at the end they are different appearing than the ancestor population.
quote:
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
This is where I think you go wrong in how you read what they are saying.
If we take the evolution of mammals as an example:
You can start here at REPTILOMORPHA:
Palaeos: Page not found
Reptiliomorpha - Wikipedia
quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Class: Amphibia sensu lato
Subclass: Labyrinthodontia
Superorder: Reptiliomorpha
Reptiliomorpha refers to reptile-like amphibians and the amniotes which evolved from them.
University of Bristol paleontologist Professor Michael J. Benton (2000, 2004) gives the following characteristics for the Reptiliomorpha:
• narrow premaxillae (less than half the skull width)
• vomers taper forward
• phalangeal formulae (number of joints in each toe) of foot 2.3.4.5.4—5
All descendants of reptiliomorphs are still reptiliomorphs.
SYNAPSIDA are descendants of reptiliomorphs:
Palaeos: Page not found
Synapsid - Wikipedia
quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
(unranked) Amniota
Class: Reptilia
Subclass: Synapsida
Synapsids ('fused arch'), also known as theropsids ('beast face'), are a class of animals that includes mammals and everything closer to mammals than to other living amniotes.[1] The non-mammalian members are described as mammal-like reptiles in classical systematics,[2][3] but are referred to as "stem-mammals" or "proto-mammals" under cladistic terminology.[4] Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of the later amniotes, the other major group being the sauropsids (reptiles and birds).
Synapsids are characterized by having differentiated teeth. These include the canines, molars, and incisors. The trend towards differentiation is found in some labyrinthodonts and early anapsid reptilians in the form of enlargement of the first teeth on the maxilla, forming a form of proto-canines. This trait was subsequently lost in the Sauropsid line, but developed further in the synapsids. Early synapsids could have 2 or even 3 enlarged "canines", but in the therapsids, the pattern had settled to one canine in each upper jaw half. The lower canines developed later.
Most paleontologists hold fossilized jaw remains to be the distinguishing feature used to classify synapsids and reptiles. The jaw transition is a good classification tool as most other fossilized features that make a chronological progression from a reptile-like to a mammalian condition follow the progression of the jaw transition. The mandible, or lower jaw, consists of a single, tooth-bearing bone in mammals (the dentary), whereas the lower jaw of modern and prehistoric reptiles consists of a conglomeration of smaller bones (including the dentary, articular, and others).
All descendants of synapsids are still synapsids.
THERAPSIDA are descendants of synapsids:
Palaeos: Page not found
Therapsid - Wikipedia
quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Synapsida
Order: Therapsida *
Therapsida is a group of synapsids that includes mammals and their immediate evolutionary ancestors. Other than the mammals, all lineages of the therapsids are extinct, with the last known non-mammalian therapsids dying out in the Early Cretaceous period (146 Ma to 100 Ma).
Therapsids' temporal fenestrae are larger than those of the pelycosaurs. The jaws of therapsids are more complex and powerful, and the teeth are differentiated into frontal incisors for nipping, large lateral canines for puncturing and tearing, and molars for shearing and chopping food. Their legs are positioned more vertically beneath their bodies than are the sprawling legs of reptiles and pelycosaurs.
All descendants of therapsids are still therapsids.
CYNODONTIA are descendants of therapsids:
Palaeos: Page not found
Cynodont - Wikipedia
quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Synapsida
Order: Therapsida
Suborder: Cynodontia
Cynodontia or cynodonts ("dog teeth") are a taxon of therapsids endemic to all seven continents beginning during the Early Triassic 256 Ma.[1] This taxon includes modern mammals and their extinct close relatives. They were one of the most diverse groups of therapsids. They are named after their dog-like teeth.
Cynodonts have nearly all the characteristics of mammals. Their teeth were fully differentiated, the braincase bulged at the back of the head, and many of them walked in an upright manner. Cynodonts still laid eggs, as all Mesozoic proto-mammals probably did. Their temporal fenestrae were much larger than in its ancestors, and the widening of the zygomatic arch allowed for more robust jaw musculature supporting the evidence of a more mammal-like skull. They also have the secondary palate that other primitive therapsids lacked, except the therocephalians, who were the closest relatives of cynodonts. Their dentary was the largest bone in their lower jaw, as other smaller bones moved into the ears. They were probably warm-blooded, and covered in hair.
All descendants of cynodonts are still cynodonts.
MAMMALIFORMES are descendants of cynodonts:
Palaeos: Page not found
Mammaliaformes - Wikipedia
quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
(unranked): Amniota
Class: Synapsida
(unranked): Mammaliaformes
Mammaliaformes ("mammal-shaped") is a clade that contains the mammals and their closest extinct relatives. Phylogenetically it is defined as a clade including the most recent common ancestor of Sinoconodon, morganuconodonts, docodonts, Monotremata, Marsupialia, Placentalia, extinct members of this clade, and all of its descendants.
Early mammaliforms were generally shrew-like in appearance and size, and most of their distinguishing characteristics were internal. In particular, the structure of the mammaliform (and mammal) jaw and arrangement of teeth is nearly unique. Instead of having many teeth that are frequently replaced, mammals have one set of baby teeth and later one set of adult teeth which fit together precisely.
Mammaliforms have several common structures. Most importantly, mammaliforms have highly specialized molars, with cusps and flat regions for grinding food. This system is also unique to mammals, although it seems to have evolved convergently in pre-mammals multiple times.
Lactation and fur, along with other characteristically mammalian features, are also thought to characterize the Mammaliaformes, but these traits are difficult to study in the fossil record. The fossilized remains of Castorocauda lutrasimilis are a unique exception.
All descendants of mammaliaformes are still mammaliaformes.
MAMMALS are descendants of mammaliaformes:
Palaeos: Page not found
Mammal - Wikipedia
quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by sweat glands, hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain.
Living mammal species can be identified by the presence of sweat glands, including those that are specialized to produce milk. However, other features are required when classifying fossils, since soft tissue glands and some other features are not visible in fossils. Paleontologists use a distinguishing feature that is shared by all living mammals (including monotremes), but is not present in any of the early Triassic synapsids: mammals use two bones for hearing that were used for eating by their ancestors. The earliest synapsids had a jaw joint composed of the articular (a small bone at the back of the lower jaw) and the quadrate (a small bone at the back of the upper jaw). Most reptiles including lizards, crocodilians, dinosaurs (and their descendants the birds) use this system, as did non-mammalian synapsids such as therapsids. Mammals have a different jaw joint, however, composed only of the dentary (the lower jaw bone which carries the teeth) and the squamosal (another small skull bone). In mammals the quadrate and articular bones have become the incus and malleus bones in the middle ear.
Mammals also have a double occipital condyle: they have two knobs at the base of the skull which fit into the topmost neck vertebra, and other vertebrates have a single occipital condyle.
All descendants of mammals are still mammals.
THERIA are descendants of mammals:
Palaeos: Page not found
Theria - Wikipedia
quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Theria (pronounced /ˈθɪərɪə/, from the Greek θηρίον, wild beast) is a subclass of mammals[2] that give birth to live young without using a shelled egg, including both eutherians (placental mammals) and metatherians (marsupials and their ancestors).
All descendants of therians are still therians.
EUTHERIA are descendants of therians:
Palaeos: Page not found
Eutheria - Wikipedia
quote:
Eutheria (Greek: "true beasts") are a group of mammals consisting of placental mammals plus all extinct mammals that are more closely related to living placentals (such as humans) than to living marsupials (such as kangaroos). They are distinguished from non-eutherians by various features of the feet, ankles, jaws and teeth. One of the major differences between placental and non-placental eutherians is that placentals lack epipubic bones, which are present in all other fossil and living mammals.
All descendants of eutherians are still eutherians (which are still therians, which are still mammals, which are still mammaliaformes, which are still cynodonts, which are still therapsids, which are still synapsids, which are still reptiliomorphs).
So we have gone from reptilian ancestors to placental mammals (which includes you and me and bears, but not alligators and kangaroos). In the process we see:
  • the jaw is transformed from a three bone structure to a single bone structure,
  • the teeth are transformed into different types,
  • the skull bones are transformed to create arches,
  • etc etc etc
But none of these transformations occur in a single species, or in a time frame that a typical life-span human could observe directly, they occur over geological time frames, and yet each stage is observed, each transition has a beginning stage, intermediate stages and final stages, and these stages are found in the fossil record. Thus the transformation (transition) of one ancestral form into a quite different modern form is observed in pieces, like the frozen images in a movie film, each picture frozen in mid action, and only when you run the film through the projector do you see the motion, the transformation, the transition in time.
Just because we cannot see\observe\document large scale transitions in real time does not mean that we can see\observe\document the evidence of large scale transitions that have occurred.
Enjoy
... I have been very involved with one of my members that had terminal cancer ...
Thank you for doing what you can. Certainly I can understand how much just a little help is appreciated.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : reworded bits

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 12:32 PM ICANT has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 165 of 205 (548319)
02-26-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ICANT
02-26-2010 10:49 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi ICANT, you need to look more closely.
Your exception is that it includes microevolution which is not supported in the definition of Macroevolution.
...
Could you please point out to me where the definition says it covers microevolution?
As I noted in Message 154:
quote:
quote:
Mutation
Gene Flow
Genetic Drift
Natural Selection + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution
Note that there is no process present in that equation that is not in microevolution except the longer span of time: macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution, as they say just before that:
quote:
The basic evolutionary mechanismsmutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selectioncan produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

color bold italic added for emphasis.
Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, and Natural Selection are all part of microevolution, the change in the proportions of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities:
microevolution + time = macroevolution
There is no other ingredient.
In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley.
Again, as I said in Message 154:
quote:
It is easier to envisage with clades, imho, as there is less confusion of what the different branches are - they are just lineages of descent from the common ancestor populations.
                         |
|
|
/ \
/ \
/ |
| / \
/ \ / \
/ | | |
| | | / \
/ \ | | / |
/ | | | | / \

At the top we have a single ancestor species population, at the bottom we have a "larger" group of descendant species, all related by common ancestry.
This is macroevolution as defined and used by evolutionary biologist. This is macroevolution as defined and used by Berkeley. You have speciation and the formation of larger groups than the original species, as the clade that started with a single species is now a larger group that includes seven species. Without speciation, this increased diversity and the formation of larger groups would not occur, and you would only have one type of organism.
You can think of a species as tunneling through time, and when speciation occurs the tunnel branches, but all evolution occurs inside the tunnel within the breeding population occupying the tunnel at any one point along the various hereditary lineages.
                         a
|
|
|
/ \
/ \
/ |
| / \
/ \ / \
/ | | |
| | | / \
/ \ | | / |
/ | | | | / \
b c d e f g h
The difference between a & b is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & b.
The difference between a & c is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & c.
The difference between a & d is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & d.
The difference between a & e is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & e.
The difference between a & f is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & f.
The difference between a & g is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & g.
The difference between a & h is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & h.
...
The difference between b & c is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b & c populations.
The difference between b & d is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b (or c) & d populations. This has been underway for more generations than the different evolution between b & c, and thus can result in greater difference between b (or c) & d than we see between b & c.
The difference between b (or c or d) & e is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b (or c or d) & e populations. This has been underway for more generations than the different evolution between b (or c) & d, and thus can result in greater difference between b (or c or d) & e than we see between b (or c) & d or between b & c.
This is how diversity increases over time.
In addition to the seven species, we see the formation of several clades of groupings larger than species:
  • b & c form a clade
  • b, c & d form a clade
  • g & h form a clade
  • f, g & h form a clade
  • e, f, g & h form a clade
This pattern of nested hierarchies does not occur within the species envelope, it is only when you step back from the species level that you see this pattern develop.
Because of the longer time (greater number of generations) for different evolution to occur within the different lineages since the respective speciation events, we expect the possibility of:
  • more difference between d and either b or c than between b & c.
  • more difference between f and either g or h than between g & h.
  • more difference between e and either f, g or h than between f, g or h.
  • more difference between any of b, c or d and any of e, f, g or h.
This all that macroevolution involves: evolution within species, division of species by speciation, repeat, again and again and again ...
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : or

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 10:49 AM ICANT has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 169 of 205 (548398)
02-27-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by DC85
02-27-2010 10:45 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi DC85, time for an update.
last I checked the the words were only used by creationists.
Wrong.
From the University of Michigan
quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    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
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
From Berkeley University
quote:
Microevolution
House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolutionevolution on a small scale.
and
quote:
Macroevolution
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scalewhat we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.
Microevolution is the evolution within species, while macroevolution is the effect of such evolution on the diversity of life via speciation events, the divergence of sibling species after speciation, and the formation of nested hierarchies.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:45 AM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 12:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 180 of 205 (561316)
05-19-2010 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Asking
05-19-2010 7:30 PM


Hi Asking, and welcome to the fray.
Setting up a Strawman of evolution and then knocking it down is a common creationist tactic. Sadly the less informed seem to fall for it all the time.
Indeed, and not just because they are under-informed about reality, but because the creationist hoax of misinformation feeds them the kind of information they wish were true.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Asking, posted 05-19-2010 7:30 PM Asking has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 200 of 205 (571440)
07-31-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by barbara
07-27-2010 3:11 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi again barbara,
While I am not a moderator, I am interested in keeping my threads on topic, so if you want to discuss how bacteria can evolve into humans then we should start a new thread.
"The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use"
If you use this simple little bit of dB coding:
[qs]The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use[/qs]
it makes these cute little quote boxes
The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use
You can also use [qs=coyote]The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use[/qs]
and it does this:
coyote writes:
The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use
This makes it much easier to distinguish your quotations of another post from any random phrase you may put in quote marks.
This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future.
No, the purpose of having specific definitions is so that it is very clear what scientists are actually talking about. This improves communication, not build a barrier to it.
For instance, when we say that in evolutionary biology, evolution is defined as "the change in character and proportion of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation," this makes it very clear that we are not talking about the evolution of stars.
Likewise, when we say in astronomy, evolution is "the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime,"(1) this makes it clear that we are not talking about the evolution of biological life forms.
This of course, can be made even clearer by using the terms "biological evolution" and "stellar evolution" so that they should not be confused by people unfamiliar with the specific terminology.
This is usually done when addressing lay people, but the adjectives "biological" and "stellar" are usually taken as stated when communicating within each science.
Sports terminology also does this, as does engineering and chemistry, etc. This is not special to science, and the reasons for are the same: to be more specific about what is being discussed so that it can be understood better.
So when you see creationists making silly statements like those in Message 1, you know that they are not helping people understand evolution.
Enjoy
REF:
(1) - Stellar evolution - Wikipedia
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 3:11 PM barbara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by barbara, posted 08-01-2010 4:04 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 205 of 205 (571577)
08-01-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2010 9:14 AM


TOPIC PLEASE?
Sorry but discussion of evolution is not the topic
the topic is Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Please start a new thread to continue discussions

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2010 9:14 AM Dr Adequate 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