Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8950 total)
34 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,177 Year: 22,213/19,786 Month: 776/1,834 Week: 276/500 Day: 39/65 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 447 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 166 of 205 (548365)
02-27-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by DC85
02-26-2010 6:26 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
which means there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution just evolution

Only if there's also no such thing as an inch and a mile only distance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by DC85, posted 02-26-2010 6:26 PM DC85 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:45 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2436 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 167 of 205 (548366)
02-27-2010 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT
02-26-2010 12:20 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
How can speciation be the evolution of groups larger than speciation?

It isn't, it is the evolution of groups larger than a single species. When your two horses are sufficiently reproductively isolated as to be considered distinct species then your original group of 1 species has become a group of 2 species and is therefore a group larger than a single species.

This is really very straightforward, I'm not sure what the problem is that you are having with it.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 12:20 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2010 10:20 PM Wounded King has responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 168 of 205 (548394)
02-27-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Dr Jack
02-27-2010 4:25 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Only if there's also no such thing as an inch and a mile only distance.

last I checked the the words were only used by creationists. They aren't units of measuring anything and have no use as words in science. Something can't "macroevolve" It evolves.

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:25 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2010 12:00 PM DC85 has responded
 Message 170 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 12:23 PM DC85 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


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 microevolution—evolution on a small scale.

and

quote:
Macroevolution
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale—what 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 12:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 447 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 170 of 205 (548399)
02-27-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by DC85
02-27-2010 10:45 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
last I checked the the words were only used by creationists. They aren't units of measuring anything and have no use as words in science. Something can't "macroevolve" It evolves.

The terms are used by scientists, just not a great deal - mostly because they don't form natural categories. Although I suspect the Creationist abuse of the terms has helped drive them to the margins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:45 AM DC85 has not yet responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 171 of 205 (548400)
02-27-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
02-27-2010 12:00 PM


I stand corrected
I stand corrected however I still really don't see the need to differentiate. It would be the same thing. I see the "definition" but don't see the real need for the word as one describes the other. It's not like a unit of measurement

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2010 12:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by xongsmith, posted 02-27-2010 1:14 PM DC85 has responded
 Message 174 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:07 PM DC85 has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1923
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 172 of 205 (548404)
02-27-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by DC85
02-27-2010 12:30 PM


Re: I stand corrected
DC85 writes:
I stand corrected however I still really don't see the need to differentiate. It would be the same thing. I see the "definition" but don't see the real need for the word as one describes the other. It's not like a unit of measurement

Right, as in 1 mile = 63,360 inches every time.

Indeed 10 million micros may or may not equal a macro. It is even possible for 1 micro to be the difference and thus make a macro. Perhaps, like the straw on the camel's back, every macro was precipitated by the last micro in a chain of micros that eventually became too much to hold together.

But an inch will never be a mile, unless it's an inch given to a congressman about to embark on a filibuster.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 12:30 PM DC85 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 1:23 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 173 of 205 (548406)
02-27-2010 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by xongsmith
02-27-2010 1:14 PM


Re: I stand corrected
Right, as in 1 mile = 63,360 inches every time.

Indeed 10 million micros may or may not equal a macro. It is even possible for 1 micro to be the difference and thus make a macro. Perhaps, like the straw on the camel's back, every macro was precipitated by the last micro in a chain of micros that eventually became too much to hold together.

But an inch will never be a mile, unless it's an inch given to a congressman about to embark on a filibuster.

I just figure speciation and evolution were sufficient to describe what's needed but I'm nitpicking and swaying the topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by xongsmith, posted 02-27-2010 1:14 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 447 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 174 of 205 (548423)
02-27-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by DC85
02-27-2010 12:30 PM


Re: I stand corrected
There remains debate whether microevolutionary trends suffice to account for macroevolutionary patterns. For example, it is difficult to see how microevolution can account for the distribution of marsupials or the rise of oxygen metabolising organisms. Gould and Eldridge have (bizarelly, IMO) claimed that special explaination is required for phyla.

Now, personally, I'd argue that treating largely scale processes as deserving of a crudely divided category along speciation lines such as micro/macro but it's not an entirely closed question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 12:30 PM DC85 has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 175 of 205 (548662)
02-28-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Wounded King
02-27-2010 4:40 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi WK,

Wounded King writes:

It isn't, it is the evolution of groups larger than a single species. When your two horses are sufficiently reproductively isolated as to be considered distinct species then your original group of 1 species has become a group of 2 species and is therefore a group larger than a single species.

Which one of my horses is not a horse?

Would it be the 57 pound mare or the 2300 pound Stallion?

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 167 by Wounded King, posted 02-27-2010 4:40 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2010 11:35 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 177 by lyx2no, posted 02-28-2010 11:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 178 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2010 4:55 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 176 of 205 (548677)
02-28-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
02-28-2010 10:20 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Which one of my horses is not a horse?

Would it be the 57 pound mare or the 2300 pound Stallion?


You seem so proud of those horses. If they are really yours, then I would agree. If they are just a photo you found somewhere, then not.

Now what would happen if you turned all of those horses out into the wild and gave them, say, 1,000 years to do their horsie thing? If you looked in 1,000 years I would suspect you would have a single horse species running around doing their horsie thing. The divergent sizes would have been eliminated for the artificial constructs that they are.

And where would that leave your point that they are two different species?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2010 10:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 177 of 205 (548678)
02-28-2010 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
02-28-2010 10:20 PM


Still Lying
Which one of my horses is not a horse?

They are both horses. Do you really expect any of us to believe that you are incapable of distinguishing a higher order categorization from a lower order categorization? Which is not a shape, ICANT, a circle or a square? Which is not a pet: a cat or a dog? Which is not a fruit: an apple or an orange?

Pretense is a form of lying.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2010 10:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2436 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 178 of 205 (548702)
03-01-2010 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
02-28-2010 10:20 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Which one of my horses is not a horse?

Would it be the 57 pound mare or the 2300 pound Stallion?

I'd be inclined to go with Coyote's answer, that in fact you are just being overly simplistic in thinking that the mere fact that those two horses can't interbreed mechanistically means that they are actually differerent species. Unless there is a genetic barrier preventing them from interbreeding with other intermediately sized horses then there is probably a good chance that there is still considerable scope for gene flow among the different horse populations.

Most of the phenotypic diversity selected for by domestic breeding in animals like horses and dogs can at best perhaps be considered examples of incipient speciation since a pre-mating barrier has been introduced for some sub-populations.

What your horses are is more probably the non interbreeding ends of a spectrum of overlapping interbreeding populations, in other words the extremities of a horse ring species.

If one of your horses had lost its ability to interbreed with all other horse populations as well then obviously that would be the one that had formed a new species, it wouldn't have stopped being a horse, but it wouldn't be part of the potentially interbreeding population which is the species Equus Caballus.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2010 10:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Asking
Junior Member (Idle past 3379 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 05-19-2010


Message 179 of 205 (561295)
05-19-2010 7:30 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2010 10:19 PM Asking has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


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 yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019