Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,258 Year: 3,515/9,624 Month: 386/974 Week: 0/275 Day: 0/18 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22462
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 511 of 672 (915759)
02-17-2024 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by K.Rose
02-17-2024 1:19 PM


I know PaulK already responded, but I've got a slightly different take.
K.Rose in Message 504 writes:
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.
PaulK questioned this, too. Without first nailing down what you mean by the "process in between" I'll just say that if we have a theory of the "process in between" then we must have a lot of data and evidence about that process and understand it so well that we were able to formulate a theory about it.
If the "process in between" is between two species then the process is evolution.
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.
I'm not sure that the reasoning you think you see is circular, but it appears to go something like this:
  1. We have confirmed in the present-day that evolution takes place within species.
  2. We see evidence in the past of change beyond species boundaries.
  3. We fit this evidence into evolutionary theory.
  4. We conclude that we explained change beyond species boundaries in the past in terms of evolution.
I would quibble with step 3 only because where it says "fit" I believe you're thinking "force", as in, "We force this evidence into evolutionary theory." The actual task is to see if evolutionary theory can explain the evidence. Nothing is being fit or forced into anything.
And no barrier to change beyond the species level has ever been found. As others have explained, evolutionary change is gradual and is a continuum. There are no abrupt changes from one species to another.
Concerning the fossil record's concurrence with evolution, if we find a horse ancestor from 50 mya and another horse ancestor from 40 mya, and if the earlier fossil was more different from modern horses than the later fossil, then that is consistent with evolutionary theory. But if the differences were opposite then that would be a significant problem for evolution. That we never find fossil progressions in geologic layers that are in the opposite direction is why the fossil record is so confirming of evolution.
If the world is ancient but evolution is false then the fossils would be in some other order than a nested tree. And if the world is only 7000 years old and all the fossils are just a jumble left over from Noah's flood then the fossils would again be in some other order than a nested tree, most likely a random order.
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.
Doubt can never be removed in science. Everything is tentative. Science is carried out by humans who are prone to error, and so wrong turns are possible. Tentativity is in part an acknowledgment of that.
But the ever present goal is for science to fit the evidence. If a theory does not fit the evidence then demonstrating that will disprove the theory. But conservative Christians and creationists and IDists have been trying to show evolution wrong for over a hundred years, with no success. Where they have had a great deal of success is in convincing parishioners and laypeople that evolution is wrong. According to a Pew Research Center poll a third of Americans reject evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by K.Rose, posted 02-17-2024 1:19 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22462
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


(3)
Message 512 of 672 (915765)
02-17-2024 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by K.Rose
02-17-2024 2:02 PM


K.Rose in Message 508 writes:
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).
Aren't common descent and common ancestry just part and parcel of the same thing? I think the constraint you're actually applying is that ancestry can't go back more than 7000 years.
I understand why you said what you did. You and your siblings have common ancestry, as do you and your cousins, and so forth. But if you and chimps have common ancestry then that would mean speciation could happen, which you don't accept.
Evolution is a complex theory for which there is some level, between great and miniscule, I think it is agreed, of uncertainty.
At heart evolution is very simple: natural selection working on modified descent. At the genetic level it can be defined as changing allele frequencies in populations over time. That's two definitions in two sentences, hardly very complex.
About uncertainty, all science is tentative, but we can observe evolution taking place in the here and now. Those who believe the world is only 7000 years old can accurately argue that that is too short a time for measurable evolution to take place, at least for the long-lived species that are large enough to leave fossils behind. Some bacteria have very short generation times, several times per hour for some, but they leave no fossils behind.
Other complex theories that come into play, time-dating, geographic occurrences, weather patterns, migrations, solar/celestial anomalies, etc., are necessarily intertwined with evolutionary theory,...
They're intertwined only in the sense that environmental factors are responsible for natural selection.
...and the level of uncertainty increases exponentially as the theories are applied to support one another.
Except for dating methods it's all just changing environments, and evolution drives adaptation to changing environments.
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.
Evidence is at the core of all science, including evolutionary theory.
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.
If as a creationist you believe evidence from the natural world does not prove your views, and if you have no interest in arguing that it can, then why are you here in this thread arguing that it does?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by K.Rose, posted 02-17-2024 2:02 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:24 PM Percy has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 513 of 672 (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: 1.4


Message 514 of 672 (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: 1.4


Message 515 of 672 (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: 1.4


Message 516 of 672 (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: 1.4


Message 517 of 672 (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

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4401
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 518 of 672 (915847)
02-18-2024 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by K.Rose
02-18-2024 7:24 PM


K.Rose in Message 516 writes:
I don’t know if common ancestry and common descent are the same thing in the context of this discussion.
Yep, they are.
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.
Most of us call it "willful creationist ignorance."
Perhaps this forum should have been named “Who Owns the Standard Definition of the Part of Evolution That Contradicts Creationism”.
Well, you suck at coming up with accurate descriptions.
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.
Yeah, that's probably why we don't bother trying to prove anything scientifically. Your attention span is deficient and I suspect your definition of "direct records" would be completely at odds with the rest of science.
We can make an argument supported with scientific evidence, but that is not irrefutable proof.
And that is the exact reason we call it "SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!"
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.
Well, you would still be disappointed because scientists would ignore your machine, because only a conman would try and sell them a machine with "irrefutable measurements."
I think you will find in the "Methods and Materials" section of scientific papers regarding dating of geological materials that their analytical curves are calibrated using multiple bracketing calibration standards and that every sample run includes one or more check samples that are processed identically to the samples. Oh and also, each specimen is usually sampled multiple times to obtain a mean value.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:24 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5945
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 519 of 672 (915848)
02-18-2024 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by K.Rose
02-18-2024 7:24 PM


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.
No, we cannot because you refuse to ever tell us normals what the hell you're talking about!
Why don't you help resolve that situation by telling us just what the fuck you are talking about?
Which, of course, you will never do.
Perhaps this forum should have been named “Who Owns the Standard Definition of the Part of Evolution That Contradicts Creationism”.
What the FUCK are you even talking about? That is complete and utter nonsense!
Evolution is evolution (and NOT the stupid bullshit lies you say it is) and creationism is creationism. EACH MUST STAND OR FALL ON ITS OWN MERITS.
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.
In support of Tanypteryx' reply, Message 518 (which you really should read regardless of your standard practice), you really need to try to gain the most fundamental understanding of how such a machine would be expected to operate.
You make much of "error". Please understand that scientists are very familiar with that concept and have developed methods for dealing with it, so it is no surprise for them (even if it's a total surprise for you).
For example, for my Applied Math BA (a BA since I had already earned my Computer Science degree as a BS -- frankly, I was mainly marking time in the last two years of my enlistment before I could start to apply my main degree) I took two semesters of Numerical Analysis, which included the evaluation of mathematical methods for the various methods of approximating integration et alia (eg, Simpson's Rule for approximating the integration of a function). For each and every method the first and foremost calculation was for the amount of error in the method.
You are astonished and confused by the very existence of error, whereas scientists and mathematicians are quite familiar with error and are quite adept in dealing with it.
And yet you presume to know more about these subjects that the scientists and mathematicians do?
Are you beginning to understand why no sane person will ever take any creationist seriously?
Of course not, because you are a stupid self-unaware creationist.
 
Sorry, but I have other priorities in play. My cable provider is about to switch systems on me, so I must complete my viewing of my DVR recordings.
Sorry, but my management of my binging is far more important than your inability to manage reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:24 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 520 of 672 (915849)
02-19-2024 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 514 by K.Rose
02-18-2024 7:07 PM


quote:
The ”process in between” would be that part evolution in which one species/kind/lifeform procreates into another.

So that’s just the working out of known processes. As I’ve pointed out in an earlier post we also have the Carrion Crow and Hooded Crow which seem to be diverging into different species and ?Ring Species” where some of the subspecies can interbreed and others can’t.
quote:
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.

No.
1) We find evidence of common ancestry in the present (taxonomy and biogeographic distribution - and more recently genetics) and in the fossil record (taxonomy but applied to the past
2) we find evidence that the life on earth has changed over time (the fossil record). We also find that the changes are such that species tend to be preceded by similar species.
3) we observe the processes entirely in the present. We see that selective breeding can change the form of species, we also carry out observations and experiments involving natural selection and mutation.
4). We apply our knowledge of these processes to figuring out the past. We observe that the fossil record is consistent with them, and so - in the present - is the genetics of species thought to be related.
There doesn’t seem to be any circularity there, just a lot of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:07 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9503
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.0


(4)
Message 521 of 672 (915852)
02-19-2024 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by K.Rose
02-18-2024 7:41 PM


K.Rose writes:
I don't see the evidence that demonstrates the critical element of this, the process whereby one species/kind/lifeform becomes another.
That's because I was reporting and explaining what happened, not how it happened.
Darwin's genius is that he didn't just put all the evidence together and create the theory that explains the evidence of organisms changing over time that he saw in the fossil record - and I explained in the ape example - he gave us the mechanism for it too - natural selection.
Every organism born has differences from its parents. If those differences are beneficial in a particular set of circumstances they'll make the organism more 'fit' for its environment and it will be more likely to survive and pass on those traits. 'Survival of the fittest' doesn't mean survival of the strongest, it means that those organisms that best fit their niche at any point in time with survive better than those that don't. He famously showed how finch's beaks change with the availability of seed types - an observation since confirmed by modern science.
Study of Darwin’s finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations - High Meadows Environmental Institute.
Darwin knew nothing of genetics of course - the mechanism that creates the changes - he worked all this out without that knowledge but when molecular biology came along it backed him up completely.
The taxonomy of species was also defined a couple of hundred years before genetics was known about but when the taxa where examined at the molecular level it also fitted almost perfectly with the existing 'tree of life.' It didn't have to but it did.
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.
You haven't told us what your 'process' is yet. From what you have told us I assume that it's that a Christian god poofed everything into existence all at once 7,000 years ago as we see it all now.
Sadly that's not remotely sustainable as a proposition. It's easily disproved by multiple lines of evidence, and in fact, it defies almost all scientific knowledge. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to find problems with biology when you've got a much larger issue with more easily established science. Or maybe that's why.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:41 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22462
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


(3)
Message 522 of 672 (915869)
02-19-2024 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by K.Rose
02-18-2024 7:18 PM


I'm responding to multiple messages, but I identify which ones when I quote the text I'm responding to.
K.Rose in Message 513 writes:
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'll only briefly comment on this since it's not the topic of this thread. Science has already accepted many theories inconsistent with the way some interpret the Bible, but why should that be problem? Why do you need science, a field completely unrelated to religion, to be congruent with your religious beliefs? Science has a different view, so what. So do Islam and Hinduism.
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.
I know exactly how I'd respond. I'd be tremendously excited about this emergence of new ways of interpreting the evidence and would look forward to learning all I could about it.
I feel this way because I'm very interested in understanding how the world works, from physics to chemistry to geology to biology to cosmology. If the diversity of species we see today came about by some means other than evolution then I want to learn everything I can about it.
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)?
I think that if science were to discover that life came about in a way consistent with Genesis that it would cause a great increase in conversions to Judaism and Christianity and a great emphasis on trying to understand God's message through biology.
K.Rose in Message 514 writes:
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.”
I think most of us would think "deficient logic" could only lead to illegitimate conclusions. I don't think many of us would consider what you've just described as "okay". Instead of concluding that millions of people consider the unacceptable to be acceptable, you might ask yourself what they see that you're missing.
For example, why do you think we can only know about what we directly observe. Everyone in the world, including the devout, is constantly deducing what must have happened in the past from evidence in the present. You didn't see the child eat the cookies, but the cookie jar is empty and they're covered with cookie crumbs.
You find a dinosaur fossil in a geologic layer that is 100 million years old. You didn't observe the dinosaur while it was alive, but you know it had two parents and that it was different from those parents due to chromosomal mixing and mutations. In a geologic layer 5 million years younger you can no longer find that dinosaur, but you find a similar one that shares some characteristics with the older fossil but also has some new characteristics. How did that happen? Why would it not happen the exact same way it happens today? Why would you think that some different process did it, one which you've never observed, that you have no evidence for, and that you can't even describe.
You wouldn't conclude that Noah's flood did it because the fossils are not in a jumbled order but are instead ordered with increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth and age of the geologic layers they are found in.
You've mentioned dating several times. Why do you think dating a problem? Do you not believe that 14C was produced and decayed at roughly the same rate as today (the actual dating process takes variations in production into account, as well whether marine or not since the ocean acts as an enormous reservoir of 14C due to runoff from the land)? All the evidence we have says that radiometric decay rates are constant over time. 14C decays into 14N and 40K decays into 40Ar at the same rate today as it did billions of years ago.
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.
I'm not sure how to respond to these points because I've already responded to them several times and can't think what I could say now that would make a difference. Science is tentative. You can never remove doubt in science. It is a fact that there is a scientific consensus about the theory of evolution, indeed about all accepted theories, but that doesn't turn them into facts. They are tentative scientific theories that are open to change in light of new knowledge or improved insight.
You are correct that demonstrating that science has taken a wrong turn is a monumental task. I think it was Kuhn who noted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that new paradigms are championed by new scientists and that those of the old paradigm would tend to retire or become irrelevant or pass away rather than accept the new paradigm.
Fred Hoyle is probably the most famous example. On track for a Nobel Prize for his work on stellar evolution, rather than accept an expanding universe he championed a static one with increasingly bizarre arguments. The Nobel Committee, no doubt wanting to avoid the possibility of an embarrassing acceptance speech, never awarded him the prize he so deserved. This was no doubt a good thing because the acceptance speech would have been memorable. Hoyle was not one to keep his opinions to himself.
K.Rose in Message 516 writes:
I don’t know if common ancestry and common descent are the same thing in the context of this discussion.
How could they not be?
Imagine someone draws a tree that shows all the descendants of a person who arrived on the Mayflower, with that person on the bottom. All those above him are his common descendants, and he is their common ancestor.
And that's the way reproduction happened throughout all time. Every living thing that ever existed on the planet had a parent, or two parents in the case of sexual reproduction.
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.
What I gather from the arguments you've raised so far is that you reject common ancestry, speciation, an ancient Earth and universe, and radiometric dating.
We call the process by which furry land animals descend over time into aquatic creatures “evolution”.
Did you mean to say that land animals descended over time *from* aquatic creatures?
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.
Two things that happen in the same way, one observed and the other not, are not different processes.
The bigger question is why you think reproduction might have been different in the past, and why the difference isn't somehow visible in the fossil record.
Perhaps this forum should have been named “Who Owns the Standard Definition of the Part of Evolution That Contradicts Creationism”.
You originated the thread and can change its name at any time. Just edit Message 1.
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.
Nothing is ever proved in science. There's no such thing as "irrefutable proof." Tentativity is the rule.
But how are ancient fossils and geologic layers not "direct records"?
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.
Dating efforts using multiple techniques is intense in geologic layers not previously dated until some confidence in the age has been established. Naturally calibrating any instruments used in the analysis is essential. Common dating techniques are uranium/lead, uranium/thorium, uranium fission track analysis, potassium/argon, rubidium/strontium, radiocarbon dating (14C, only up to 50,000 years), samarium/neodymium, and more.
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.
Yes, that's the Bible literalist view.
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.
And this is the science view. When you're gathering and analyzing evidence from the real world then you're doing science.
K.Rose in Message 517 writes:
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.
I'm pretty sure this has been explained before, but anyway, speciation is a gradual process. There is no point in time when one species becomes another, but as time passes by a species becomes less and less able to interbreed with the original population. The simplest example is when one species population becomes divided in two, perhaps by the changing course of a river or the rise of a mountain range, then the two populations change over time independently and become less and less able to interbreed. Gradually interbreeding becomes unlikely enough to judge them separate species, but where exactly that point occurs is indeterminate. Where do the hills become mountains? Where does the bay become ocean? Same answer as for speciation: not at any particular point.
Here's another way of looking at it. Imagine a timeline of a species that divides into two populations and both change gradually through time for one million years. Here's what happens. Each "^" represents the two species populations at a point in time:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
0 years                                                                  1,000,000 years
 ^         ^         ^         ^         ^         ^
 |         |         |         |         |         |
 |         |         |         |         |         |
 |         |         |         |         |         |--- Cannot interbreed
 |         |         |         |         |------------- Barely able to interbreed
 |         |         |         |----------------------- Even less able to interbreed
 |         |         |--------------------------------- Less able to interbreed
 |         |------------------------------------------- Able to interbreed
 |----------------------------------------------------- Original species becomes two populations
Note that you cannot identify a point in time where the two populations became two different species. The change was gradual.
In the present, when two species exist at the same time then we can determine if they can interbreed or not
But we know that the species that exist today evolved over time from ancestral species. It's not possible to determine when it became unable to interbreed with its long ago ancestor that no longer exists. The ancestral species didn't go extinct - it merely evolved into this other species. But with none of the original species around it's impossible to determine whether the current species could interbreed with it.
I think someone alluded to this before when you were discussing the hominid skulls. Which ones could interbreed? We can't answer that question. What we can do is make reasonable assessments, such as that species that are as different morphologically as humans and Lucy usually cannot interbreed. It's certainly not conclusive that humans and Lucy are different species, but a reasonable assessment is the best we can do.
But the discovery that what we thought were two species is actually the same species does not in any way call evolution into question, and in fact this has happened a number of times. Finding that two species are actually different breeds of the same species just means that the process of natural selection of modified descent hasn't caused enough change to affect interbreeding.
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.
You're referring to creation ex nihilo by God, right?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:18 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-19-2024 1:23 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 529 by K.Rose, posted 02-19-2024 7:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4401
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 523 of 672 (915872)
02-19-2024 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by K.Rose
02-18-2024 7:07 PM


K.Rose in Message 514 writes:
The ”process in between” would be that part evolution in which one species/kind/lifeform procreates into another.
The ”process in between” is the same process throughout, mutations introduce genetic change during reproduction and natural selection introduces differential reproductive success.
You keep insisting that there is some, unique, separate, distinct but unnamed "process in between" that you cannot name or describe, and you keep demanding that we tell you about it and we keep saying we have never observed that "process in between" and than you ask 100+ more times.
PAY ATTENTION! We cannot make up something that has never been observed and that leaves not a single trace of evidence, just because the ToE doesn't satisfy YOU!
You demand short concise descriptions of evolutionary processes and we supply them and you demand more details and we supply them and you demand more details and we suggest that the primary way to obtain more details than that is to read a textbook or take a class and you demand a more short concise description.
This may not be the circular reasoning you are talking about, but this is certainly the circular discussion you promote. BTW, there must be discussions on google about what circular reasoning really is with regards to science. You should study it if you want to up your game.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:07 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4401
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 524 of 672 (915873)
02-19-2024 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Percy
02-19-2024 12:41 PM


Percy in Message 522 writes:
K.Rose in Message 516 writes:
]We call the process by which furry land animals descend over time into aquatic creatures “evolution”.
Did you mean to say that land animals descended over time *from* aquatic creatures?
I think he's talking about land mammals evolving into whales here, rather than the much earlier evolution of marine vertebrates into land vertebrates. He has such an indirect and odd way of talking so it's never very clear what he means.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Percy, posted 02-19-2024 12:41 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2024 1:41 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 526 by AZPaul3, posted 02-19-2024 1:46 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9118
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 525 of 672 (915876)
02-19-2024 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by Tanypteryx
02-19-2024 1:23 PM


And no understanding of anything scientific. Maybe English is not his first language.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-19-2024 1:23 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-19-2024 1:53 PM Theodoric 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