Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,598 Year: 4,855/9,624 Month: 203/427 Week: 13/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 427 of 697 (915550)
02-14-2024 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Percy
02-13-2024 11:08 AM


OK, Percy, here goes. This may be my last entry, we’ll see, but I want to say it has been fun!
In reply to 388, 389, and 391. Apologies for the long-windedness, tried to just cover some of the main points.
REGARDING THE KITZMILLER COURT CASE
Atheism has sold itself as the neutral position in the separation of church and state battle, when in fact it is most doctrinaire in its absolutist approach to theism. How can you be neutral when you’re in direct competition with all other players? But that’s for another forum. Suffice it to say that Science has managed to align itself with atheism when it comes to things legal, and that’s why the court ruled in favor of science. It was just another bow to atheism, not an endorsement of evolutionary theory validity.
THE UNANSWERD QUESTION FROM MESSAGE 1
My initial request was for a concise definition of Evolution. The answer has been that it’s not so easy to define (which is odd considering that every layman and schoolkid knows exactly what it is given the Zallinger’s March of Progress-type depictions they’ve been spoon fed their entire lives), and the responses have either been broad abstractions (descent with modification), or they have involved lengthy technical monographs that combine present-day data collection with assumption with speculative application to the past. Neither of these types of answers commits to something clear and absolute; they both leave the door open to evading commitment to any type of concrete definition. This is why my initial request is qualified with “concise” – there’s no point in debating phantom concepts.
ADDITIONAL NON-ANSWERS
In this same way the evidence for evolution presented in response to my requests is incoherent to the layman, replete with exhortations to “figure it out before you question it” (general paraphrase). This type of response is perfectly analogous to telling a non-believing secular man who questions the Bible to go read the Bible if he wants to understand the answer to his question, and as a matter-of-fact go read it and understand it before you even raise any questions about it. This is preposterous response, of course, but this is the exact manner and attitude of the “answers” to my questions. A good scientist, like a good preacher, confident in what he seeks to impart, can provide a clear answer tailored to his specific audience.
WILLFUL DISREGARD OF THE OBVIOUS
Creationist scientists would agree fully with many of the DNA and other microbiological observations you and the others have presented. The disagreement comes when the Evolutionist extrapolates those observations to explain that all life has descended from the same initial organism(s), in direct conflict with Creation. This common descent concept is the most important element of the debate, yet the Evolutionist has precisely no direct evidence for this idea of “common descent”, just references to DNA and nested hierarchies. This is not acceptable for an E-vs-C forum; the Evolutionist cannot provide mounds of evidence for the peripheral ideas and then wave hands at demonstrating the part that creates the whole E-vs-C in the first place.
FURTHERMORE
And “accepted scientific theory” is a curious designation. Accepted by whom and, most importantly, why? If it has not been proven then isn’t it just scientific theory? What does “accepted” mean, is it an attempt to claim some unearned credibility? Like the designation “settled science”, “accepted science” flies in the face of genuine scientific principles: Perpetual inquiry and relentless skepticism.
ONE LAST POINT
I may be repeating myself through my entries, but the lack of clear responses demands it (if we want to move the discussion forward). If you want to make a point then it’s incumbent on you to make it very clear. Pressing an argument by hurling out a pile of obscure data is just plain anemic – and very telling. And along with the other points in this entry a very clear pattern emerges.
The Creationist attributes his most important observations to processes that he cannot see, that he cannot explain, and that he cannot demonstrate. This is his Faith.
The Evolutionist attributes his most important observations to processes that he cannot see, that he cannot explain, and that he cannot demonstrate. This is faith.
quod erat demonstrandum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Percy, posted 02-13-2024 11:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by nwr, posted 02-14-2024 6:41 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 431 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2024 7:46 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 434 by Percy, posted 02-14-2024 8:47 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 436 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2024 2:57 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 437 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2024 3:00 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 441 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 11:01 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 444 by dwise1, posted 02-15-2024 2:03 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 457 by Percy, posted 02-15-2024 3:43 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 429 of 697 (915553)
02-14-2024 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by nwr
02-14-2024 6:41 PM


If, in all of that entry, this is what you choose to take issue with, then I must be hitting the nail on the head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by nwr, posted 02-14-2024 6:41 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by nwr, posted 02-14-2024 8:05 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 435 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2024 9:34 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 430 of 697 (915554)
02-14-2024 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by dwise1
02-13-2024 9:33 PM


Hello d,
Maybe it's your warm disposition, your thoughtful replies, or your considered empathies, but of all those who have responded, I think you will answer this question best:
Take the set of all the knowledge we have amassed regarding Evolution and call that KNOWLEDGE.
Now (here's where you suspend disbelief) imagine that tomorrow we discover something that invalidates everything we have come to believe regarding molecules-to-man evolution.
How does that affect the process/products to which we have applied KNOWLEDGE? What laws, inventions, customs, and traditions would we have to re-do?
(and, seriously, some of your linguistics, though caustic, are actually a bit clever and cause me to chuckle)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by dwise1, posted 02-13-2024 9:33 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-14-2024 8:33 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 440 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 10:39 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 489 by dwise1, posted 02-16-2024 1:40 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 438 of 697 (915580)
02-15-2024 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Percy
02-14-2024 8:47 PM


I'll be around unless someone shuts me down or drags me away!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Percy, posted 02-14-2024 8:47 PM Percy has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 446 of 697 (915604)
02-15-2024 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Taq
02-15-2024 11:01 AM


The court case is knocking us off-track. It doesn't support/refute common ancestry and the craven behavior of those who should know better doesn't mean anything. The court thing shouldn't have been introduced to the discussion and I certainly shouldn't have replied to it. My apologies.
I'll allow that you can interpolate data points, but you are extrapolating present-day processes to explain ancient, unobserved occurrences.
The "clear" responses I've received involve exrons, introns, transition/transverion, nested hierarchy, links to essays - These are intriguing words, but I'm not looking for a lengthy argument that I'm supposed to use to convince myself - after firming up my biological background. I'm looking for a demostration or solid proof of these ancient, extrapolated occurrences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 11:01 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by dwise1, posted 02-15-2024 2:28 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 453 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 3:16 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 475 by Theodoric, posted 02-15-2024 11:08 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 449 of 697 (915608)
02-15-2024 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Tanypteryx
02-14-2024 8:33 PM


Interesting that you point out the disinterest biologists have in whether or not school kids or the general public understand evolution. This is where the entire evc contention is summed up: Evolution is presented as fact to an unwitting audience. And it's essentially mandatory curriculum in most industrialized societies.
And you can hardly expect this audience to "become knowledgeable about evolution" in our 30-second soundbite society. Besides, they think they already know what they need to know, based on their much-exploited 30-second attention span - monkeys became man and dinosaurs became dogs.
Which leads to interesting questions;
1. How would you explain evolution to a 4th-grade class?
2. How would you explain evolution to a 10th-grade class?
3. How would you explain evolution to a non-biologist adult with a somewhat technical background?
And then what would you use to demonstrate the explanation?
Maybe this will help get to the level of Evolution definition that I seek.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-14-2024 8:33 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-15-2024 3:40 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 458 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 3:44 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 461 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2024 4:21 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 462 by Percy, posted 02-15-2024 4:26 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 450 of 697 (915609)
02-15-2024 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by PaulK
02-15-2024 2:57 AM


The two positions aren't quite the same. From this forum it's clear that the evolutionary biologists' concurrence diverges somewhere along the path back in time. What was the first ancestor? How many were there? Did life spring forth from inanimate materials/rock. Or maybe there is concurrence on these, you tell me.
This lack of concurrence inarguably throws doubt into the idea that mankind evolved from something else a very long time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2024 2:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2024 3:13 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 459 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 3:55 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 451 of 697 (915611)
02-15-2024 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Taq
02-15-2024 10:36 AM


I have looked at "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". It's a 41,000+ word document not including references, et al., (avg novel: 50-100K words) and it's not an easy read. So, no, I have not devoted the time and energy to comprehending the argument.
I could tell you to go read the Bible to understand why Creation is true, but that would show a dearth of intellectual integrity, and an abundance of intellectual sloth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 10:36 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 3:22 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 456 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2024 3:41 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 464 of 697 (915626)
02-15-2024 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Taq
02-15-2024 3:22 PM


Thank you for the pictures, now maybe we're beginning to get somewhere. Which of those skulls represent creatures that could, if they were here, procreate with modern humans?
And if we were to group the skulls according to "procreateability" among members of the group, what would the groupings look like?
And, of course, how do we know that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 3:22 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Percy, posted 02-15-2024 4:42 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 467 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 4:45 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 477 by Dr Jack, posted 02-16-2024 5:03 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 478 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 5:36 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 484 of 697 (915680)
02-16-2024 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by PaulK
02-15-2024 3:13 PM


From 4000 years ago, no. In corollary, the only members of my family tree that I don't doubt to some degree are those Members with which I have had direct contact, or other members with which the former Members have had direct contact.
But I don't want to convolute the discussion with these thoughts because this brings an interesting question:
Do we use our present-day biological observations to understand ancient events/processes, or do we use ancient events/processes to understand present-day observations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2024 3:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2024 1:08 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 490 by Taq, posted 02-16-2024 1:42 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 497 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 11:43 AM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 485 of 697 (915682)
02-16-2024 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Taq
02-15-2024 3:16 PM


Absolutely not my intention to mock science or those who toil away in advancement of it. I am acutely aware of the need to proceed with what you know, or, in the absence of that, what you think is your best guess.
Many a brainiac science/engineering effort comes to constipation on the insistence of irrefutable evidence. If we did everything this way we'd never get anywhere. They key is to keep track of the assumptions in your endeavor; these are the "open items".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Taq, posted 02-15-2024 3:16 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Taq, posted 02-16-2024 1:34 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 487 of 697 (915686)
02-16-2024 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Tanypteryx
02-15-2024 3:40 PM


I think I am safely withing Category #2, and maybe even Category #3, and if those were the responses to my question "what is evolution" I would be disheartened and would probably just walk away. If I had asked that question then I would have been looking for an answer that I could comprehend in that conversation.
The 4th-grade response is more palatable to me - and to ~99% of adults out there - because it forms a comprehendible concept. And for ~99% of that ~99%, including educated persons, that is the concept they harbor for the rest of their lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-15-2024 3:40 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-16-2024 1:52 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 492 of 697 (915692)
02-16-2024 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by Percy
02-15-2024 3:43 PM


Indeed to the too many topics!
Please pardon my use of the "just" ; "simply", even better "the theory We have all agreed to run with" would have been more appropriate.
"Accepted" can be misconstrued as "we're done, this is our conclusion", which we know is not the case; and to the great scientific unwashed it implies scientific fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Percy, posted 02-15-2024 3:43 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Admin, posted 02-17-2024 10:15 AM K.Rose has seen this message but not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 493 of 697 (915694)
02-16-2024 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by Tangle
02-15-2024 4:21 PM


I was looking for your own personal wording, but thank you for your explanation nonetheless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2024 4:21 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 2:13 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 494 of 697 (915695)
02-16-2024 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Percy
02-15-2024 4:26 PM


Now here's something I can understand, and a better indication of my perception level!
But isn't this straight natural selection, something we can see every day and not really an evc point of contention?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Percy, posted 02-15-2024 4:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 12:06 PM K.Rose 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