Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 2/10 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: 3.2


Message 499 of 697 (915729)
02-17-2024 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Dr Jack
02-16-2024 5:03 AM


Important because this diagram is typical of evolution presentations - an apparent explanation/representation/definition of evolution - and my underlying purpose here is to understand why one could have an unshakeable belief in evolution, what is that has proven this to him. This understanding starts necessarily with the definition of evolution. I am getting more and more of an understanding.
The outward implication is that A eventually became N. I am trying to understand how this diagram shows us when one species/kind/lifeform evolved from one to the next, if its purpose is to demonstrate common ancestry.
Also, N is chosen as representative for modern, contrasting sharply with J,K,L,M. Everyday I can see live humans whose skull shape more closely resembles J,K,L,M than N, mine included. If it was possible for J,K,L,M,N to interbreed, what's to prove that these are not just a variety of different humans. If it was not possible for these to interbreed, then what's to prove that they are not just distinct species/kinds/lifeforms.
If potential interbreeding is indeterminate, then how is this uncertainty reflected in the conclusions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Dr Jack, posted 02-16-2024 5:03 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by Tangle, posted 02-17-2024 1:06 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 531 by Dr Jack, posted 02-20-2024 4:42 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 532 by Taq, posted 02-20-2024 10:46 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 535 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2024 11:31 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 500 of 697 (915730)
02-17-2024 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Taq
02-16-2024 1:34 PM


Are we caught up in semantics regarding assumption and conclusion, or does conclusion mean there is no longer consideration for other potential conclusions, i.e., the item is "closed".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Taq, posted 02-16-2024 1:34 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 12:51 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 501 of 697 (915731)
02-17-2024 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by dwise1
02-16-2024 1:40 PM


Once again wise1, the acerbic wit does not disappoint! Some might argue that such diatribes are inappropriate for such settings, but I would strongly disagree. I am staunchly free-speech even if derision is directed at me.
The greater hazard here is that of the message getting lost in the entertaining linguistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by dwise1, posted 02-16-2024 1:40 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by dwise1, posted 02-17-2024 1:23 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 504 of 697 (915738)
02-17-2024 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Taq
02-16-2024 1:42 PM


In a nutshell then, we assume that the present results from the past, without fully understanding the process in between, and then apply present processes to explain the past, such that it fits our theory of the process in between. In simple terms this is known as circular reasoning, but we know that science does and must employ this deficient logic, in the effort to inch ever closer to the truth, when analyzing something that is no longer observable.
Not trying to be clever, just demonstrating that either application of observations and processes, or the combination of the two, do not categorically remove doubt.
The crime scene analogy is perfectly apt in this case, but the peripheral thoughts you introduce are for another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Taq, posted 02-16-2024 1:42 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2024 1:35 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 511 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 3:50 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 539 by Taq, posted 02-20-2024 1:31 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 561 by Dr Jack, posted 02-21-2024 1:35 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 508 of 697 (915752)
02-17-2024 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Percy
02-17-2024 11:43 AM


You are correct, I accept common descent (all of my ancestors had two human parents), but I reject common ancestry (all species/kinds/lifeforms have, ultimately, a common ancestor).
Evolution is a complex theory for which there is some level, between great and miniscule, I think it is agreed, of uncertainty.
Other complex theories that come into play, time-dating, geographic occurrences, weather patterns, migrations, solar/celestial anomalies, etc., are necessarily intertwined with evolutionary theory, and the level of uncertainty increases exponentially as the theories are applied to support one another. Much more to this debate, of course, and for a later thread.
To my own peril I'll say it again, though the repetition may be scolded and the position itself may be rejected out-of-hand, the issue is one of worldviews. The Creationist looks at the world and sees man as a result of God's Creation, and he understands that this cannot be proven by known natural processes and has no interest in arguing that it can be. The Evolutionist looks at the world and sees man as the result of an ancestor that is common to all other life, and is on a perpetual mission to put the final nail in the coffin of evidence, so to speak.
Thus the impasse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 11:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by NosyNed, posted 02-17-2024 2:33 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 512 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 5:08 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 534 by Taq, posted 02-20-2024 11:28 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 513 of 697 (915840)
02-18-2024 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by dwise1
02-17-2024 1:23 PM


Hello dwise1 – First, I have come to understand that my failure to introduce myself, one way or another, as a Creationist at the outset of this forum may have offended you or others. For this failure I offer my sincere, unqualified apology.
Next, I can respond to your counter-question in one of two ways:
#1: I can’t imagine science disproving the Bible so I can’t imagine the effect it would have on me. I realize this response is wholly unacceptable to any interrogator, so we’ll try –
#2: The hell spoken of in the Bible can be summed up as separation from God. If I one day found myself faced with ancient-earth science trumping the Bible, then the effect on me would be one of profound devastation, as I could only conclude I was dead and in hell, separated from God and His blessings for all eternity.
I will also apologize for not immediately respecting this counter-question. For me the sincere questions become somewhat camouflaged midst the jagged rhetorical questions and rapid-fire pejoratives (though these pejoratives still amuse! - we can argue the ‘linguistic’ bit some other time).
My question “…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 [m-to-m evolution]” is not designed to understand the effects on anyone personally, but to understand the effects on society. That is, if the observable parts of evolution are true (DNA observation, natural selection, descent with modification, etc., the stuff Creationists would not disagree with), but we discover that the unobservable parts are not (the stuff Creationists would disagree with), then how would that affect us today? That is, if all species/kinds/lifeforms were created uniquely and distinctly, as Creationism would have it, then what effect would that have today on society as a whole (not just evolutionary biologists)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by dwise1, posted 02-17-2024 1:23 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 514 of 697 (915841)
02-18-2024 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by PaulK
02-17-2024 1:35 PM


The ”process in between” would be that part evolution in which one species/kind/lifeform procreates into another.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CIRCULARITY
1. We use present observations, including fossils, breeding, natural selection, to define evolution.
2. We apply evolution to what we know of the past (fossils).
3. The application of evolution sums up to the present, as would be expected, in apparent validation of evolution.
Please note that I am not calling this an illegitimate process: “….we know that science does and must employ this deficient logic, in the effort to inch ever closer to the truth, when analyzing something that is no longer observable.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2024 1:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2024 12:20 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 523 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-19-2024 12:55 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 515 of 697 (915842)
02-18-2024 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Percy
02-17-2024 3:50 PM


Part of my response to this is in 514 to PaulK.
Regarding the reasoning you laid out:
#1 is valid and acceptable to anyone who has serious interest.
#2 is at the heart of the evc debate, the point of contention, and this debate will, obviously, remain unsettled indefinitely.
#3 refers to revising the theory based on new evidence, a perfectly valid action.
In #4 we reach a conclusion, the conclusion not actually observed, but inferred, with however much scientific rigor, and with at least some of the inference based on the lack of any invalidating evidence.
That doubt can never be removed in science is significant; question is, how big is the doubt, how can it be calculated.
Disproving something in science can be a monumental task, you have to effectively prove a competing theory. Which in this case is Creation, and the process of Creation cannot be proven through natural laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 3:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by Percy, posted 02-19-2024 12:41 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 538 by Taq, posted 02-20-2024 1:22 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 516 of 697 (915844)
02-18-2024 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Percy
02-17-2024 5:08 PM


I don’t know if common ancestry and common descent are the same thing in the context of this discussion. It seems that everyone involved in this discussion should understand very clearly what the point of contention is between Creationism and Evolutionary theory, yet we can’t seem to pinpoint a term for that.
We call the process by which furry land animals descend over time into aquatic creatures “evolution”. We call white bunnies surviving where brown bunnies cannot “evolution”. We consider these the same process, but they are clearly different, primarily in that one can be demonstrated repeatedly and one cannot.
Perhaps this forum should have been named “Who Owns the Standard Definition of the Part of Evolution That Contradicts Creationism”.
This may sound unfair and yes, repetitious, but we cannot prove scientifically that something occurred long ago if we do not have direct records of it. We can make an argument supported with scientific evidence, but that is not irrefutable proof.
Likewise, if I create a machine that can measure things that are one million years old, then I would have to validate/calibrate this machine using samples that are known to be one million years old before deeming the machine’s measurements irrefutable.
The word Creation refers to two different things:
1. God’s process of Creation, a process which is not explainable through natural laws. Matter of fact it is incomprehensible even in the most initial stages of hypothesis.
2. Creation that we see, touch, measure, experience. Going out on a limb I’ll say these are completely subject to natural laws, to the extent to which we can apply them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 5:08 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2024 8:33 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 519 by dwise1, posted 02-18-2024 9:28 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 517 of 697 (915845)
02-18-2024 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by Tangle
02-17-2024 1:06 PM


Thank you for taking the time to lay this out in such detail. I have a fair grasp of how bits of historical evidence are assembled into this explanation, but I don't see the evidence that demonstrates the critical element of this, the process whereby one species/kind/lifeform becomes another.
My belief is in another process. It's true enough that I don't have the scientific data to demonstrate the process that I believe is responsible for our existence, but my belief is not driven by an acceptance of the supremacy of natural law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by Tangle, posted 02-17-2024 1:06 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Tangle, posted 02-19-2024 4:08 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 529 of 697 (915888)
02-19-2024 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Percy
02-19-2024 12:41 PM


Responses to the many topics, in no particular order. I have tried to hit everything, but at the same time I'm sure I overlooked something.
It's been a bit perplexing, on a website billed as E-vs.-C, trying to get concurrence among the members regarding the core difference between E and C. Take common ancestry/descent: I agree with this as long as there is a human at the bottom of my ancestral tree, but disagree if there is a pan troglodyte or some other non-human. We shouldn't need to knock these types of semantics around. Also, there seems to be a feeling that Creationism is anti-science, which is entirely false. Evolution is defined herein so broadly that disagreement with one part of it constitutes disagreement with all of it, present-day DNA observation and natural selection included. Creationists don't disagree with, among other things, observable microbiology, or the ubiquitous, everyday natural selection.
I have a problem with dating methods because they run contrary to my beliefs, and because they are measuring instruments that cannot possibly be validated. I cannot demonstrate that processes were different long ago, but neither can it be demonstrated that they were not. Scientists can base their activities on these dating methods, by all means, but they remain methods that can never be properly validated.
Deficient logic simply refers to incomplete logic that is in need of resolution, and, yes, it will lead to illegitimate conclusions if it is not recognized that it is in need of resolution. Circular reasoning is not necessarily wrong - The three items in the Circularity Summary are not "unacceptable", we simply need to be aware that they are in need of resolution.
The EvC debate will continue, but it's important to understand what is at the root of it.
Technical/scientific properties such as mass, force, material strength, acceleration, momentum, friction, math, chemical reactions, et al., have endless, everyday applications to bettering our standard of living (for lack of a better term). There is great utility in having children begin to understand these from an early age, for themselves and for society.
On the other hand, what does it matter if the copper ore is 1000 years old or 1,000,000,000 years old? Would that affect how we use it? Would we do things differently if our ancient common ancestor was a human rather than a pan troglodyte, would it change how we apply the natural laws we observe and utilize?
One glaring purpose for making evolution and ancient earth mandatory studies for schoolchildren is their utility in refuting religious teachings at a young age. These give children no practical knowledge to apply. This is why allowing evolution but prohibiting Bible study is a purely atheistic educational doctrine. Secularists who support this doctrine may claim they are not atheist, but that doesn't change the fact that doctrine itself is pure a-theism. Rather, we should offer elective courses on these subjects later in their educational career, by all means and along with Bible study offerings.
It's just strange how molecules-to-man evolution is forced on schoolchilldren, particularly when it is surrounded by so much controversy, and since it doesn't have the practical utility of mass, force... and other scientific studies.
You could make a much better argument for mandatory study of Biblical principles. Understanding and practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ would be immediately applicable and fantastic for kids. Ah, but this cannot be allowed, separation of church and state you know.
Your response to “…imagine that tomorrow we discover something that invalidates everything we have come to believe regarding molecules-to-man evolution..." is indicative. It would give you more data to dig into, but, in and of itself, it wouldn't change how we do anything today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Percy, posted 02-19-2024 12:41 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2024 12:24 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 533 by Percy, posted 02-20-2024 11:20 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 536 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2024 11:39 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 537 by Taq, posted 02-20-2024 11:40 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 556 by Percy, posted 02-21-2024 9:37 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 562 of 697 (916010)
02-21-2024 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by Percy
02-20-2024 11:20 AM


When it comes to genetics I agree with natural selection, but I reject the notion that man has descended from some ancient creature (common descent theory). To the evolutionist these two are one in the same, i.e., the evidence for one equals the evidence for the other. However, these are clearly two separate aspects of genetics. Natural selection can be observed and measured repeatedly. Common descent cannot. The evolutionist can call this natural-selection-acceptance and common-descent-rejection anti-science, but it’s a reasonable “show me” expectation of demonstrating a claim.
I apply this same “show me” standard to the various aspects of chemistry, physics, geology, material dating, or dairy farming. If I’m presented with an aspect that cannot be demonstrated repeatedly then I will usually remain objectively open to it unless I have reason to reject it. Common descent cannot be demonstrated repeatedly, and I have reason to reject it.
I appreciate your admonition to get educated, but I’ll point out once again that I’m not here to prove/disprove anything. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and I am asking for the “show me” proof of common descent. I see plenty of paper studies, diagrams, and credentialed assertions, but no concluding proof.
The discussion of courts and schools is a pointless distraction for another forum, and I apologize for perpetuating this, but I must clarify that I do not support mandatory Bible class for schoolchildren. Using man’s law to compel Biblical Faith is profoundly anti-Biblical.
Of course no one here sees it as circular because they see common descent as factual, rather than a proposition in need of proper validation. It's not that either end of the circle is wrong, necessarily, it's that neither end is proven.
Donald Rumsfeld sometimes get credit for pointing out that, in military endeavors, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. This can be applied to pretty much everything in life, to technical designs/theories in particular:
1. The knowns are reliable data and established processes/properties that can be applied.
2. The known unknowns are the risks we wish to mitigate, the problems we wish to solve.
3. The unknown unknowns are everything else, starting with the things we haven’t considered.
Our paper design/theory addresses #2, but it must be validated with physical, repeatable testing.
Addressing and dismissing the unknown unknowns in #3 can only be accomplished with physical, repeatable testing. The more testing in more varied conditions that is done, the greater the uncertainty removed.
Common descent theory has plenty of known and unknown uncertainty to address. We can choose to look past the uncertainty or we can physically, repeatedly test. Paper studies are not the test, they are the framework for the test procedure. And drawing conclusions from “test sample results” of unknown origin or uncontrolled processes is not reliable testing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Percy, posted 02-20-2024 11:20 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Taq, posted 02-21-2024 6:26 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 564 by dwise1, posted 02-21-2024 8:58 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 566 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2024 12:26 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 02-22-2024 8:14 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 575 by Percy, posted 02-22-2024 12:10 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 576 of 697 (916050)
02-22-2024 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by dwise1
02-21-2024 8:58 PM


OK, I'll bite. Though I know a scathing response awaits. I cannot accomplish this simple task because each one of the processes listed takes a relatively long time, certainly longer than 24-48 hours.
I do have to disagree with your first assertion. I would say there has been plenty of adequate observation whether by apple tree farmers or time-lapse photography of seed germination, seasonal foliage cycles, etc. Besides, it's an apple tree, not the explanation of our existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by dwise1, posted 02-21-2024 8:58 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by dwise1, posted 02-22-2024 5:42 PM K.Rose has replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 577 of 697 (916051)
02-22-2024 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by Percy
02-22-2024 12:10 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
In response to the thoughtful remarks from Dr Jack, Taq, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx, AZPaul3, Omnivorous, and Percy.
OK, folks, you have all noted your experience with and disdain for Creationists, so the genetics-evolution-natural selection-common descent-descent with modification back-and-forth semantics are getting tedious. You should understand very clearly which part of “evolution” I reject, and if you don’t you’re better off asking one of the others to explain it.
Circular reasoning is where you start with what you want to end with, or the premise and the conclusion are the same thing. In this instance we say evolution theory shows that B descended from A, even though A & B are completely different creatures that could not possibly reproduce together (say, an extinct land mammal-A and an extinct aquatic creature-B). We then examine the A & B fossils and sure enough, they line up with the evolution theory, apparently proving the theory. The only problem is that you cannot validate/certify the fossil’s ancestry, so the A & B fossils have the same basic problem as the theory, they can’t be proven/certified, they are essentially saying the same thing. The fossils’ ancestry can’t validate the theory’s assertion, and the theory’s assertion can’t validate the fossils’ ancestry.
Of course people use evidence from the past to make decisions, and the evidence they have doesn’t always drive the right decision. Crime investigations can gather evidence from unmeasured, unrecorded, unobserved past events, then come to a decision based on the most likely answer – in a relatively short time - because they must, even though there is still a level of doubt. This is the reasonable doubt standard, and it sometime results in the execution of the innocent. Evolution has no such time constraints, so a much more rigid standard of doubt can be applied. Evolution contradicts my beliefs, so I will hold it to a much more rigid standard of doubt.
The evidence vs. proof/validation discourse is also getting tedious. Paper studies, by definition, cannot account for the unknown. I generally stay away from analogies, because they are, well, analogies, but one seems useful here: You wouldn’t buy a rocket ship or an electric can opener based on a pile of paper studies that show they work, or that show other products with similar parts. You would say “show me that it works” before you bought it. That’s the validation you’d want before you bought your electric can opener or rocket ship.
I did say “Rather, we should offer elective courses on these subjects [evolution] later in their educational career, by all means and along with Bible study offerings” and “You could make a much better argument for mandatory study of Biblical principles”. My apologies if this implied that I support mandatory Bible classes for schoolkids.
I accept common descent back to Adam and no farther based on Biblical Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Percy, posted 02-22-2024 12:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by Taq, posted 02-22-2024 5:39 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 580 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2024 12:22 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 590 by Percy, posted 02-23-2024 9:35 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 581 of 697 (916057)
02-23-2024 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by Percy
02-22-2024 8:14 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Ugh, a painful 3:29. Is this punishment for holding forth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 02-22-2024 8:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 02-23-2024 9:52 AM 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