|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I would give infintely more weight to a definition provided by those who are actually doing scientific work in the ToE than one provided by a non-scientist whose only interest in the field is to promote a political agenda, and whose understanding of the field, if any, is warped by that agenda. Since you are a Darwinist we are not surprised, what is your point? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But the only definition of Theory of Evolution that mattters is: an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator (Phillip Johnson).
Nonsense. There are any number of naturalistic theories that COULD be postulated that do not involve a creator and which would not involve evolution in any way at all. E.g. All living things were created instantaneously by complex and unspecified chemical reactions in clouds before faling to the Earth in a massive hail of beasts. However there is no evidence for any such theory and no evidence to believe it to be true.Unlike the T0E. Your politicised definition is as silly as it is wrong. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Since you are a Darwinist... Before I accept that label from you, I'd want to know how you define a "Darwinist."
...we are not surprised,... You and the mouse in your pocket?
what is your point? My point is that anything that Phillip Johnson says about the ToE is undermined by his motive. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Before I accept that label from you, I'd want to know how you define a "Darwinist."
anyone who isn't in agreement with ray mostly
You and the mouse in your pocket?
i think he thinks he is a queen or something, so maybe its the royal we?
My point is that anything that Phillip Johnson says about the ToE is undermined by his motive.
anything he says is a bunch of BS, he's a lawyer for yahweh's sake! i've read one of his books.. well tried, i just threw it at the wall for the lies in it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
anything he says is a bunch of BS, he's a lawyer for yahweh's sake! Well, I can't hold that against him, since I am too. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As I said I am eager to hear what the theory of evolution predicts about the specific mutations that will occur within a genome. And as I have said, nothing whatsoever, just as the theory of gravity says nothing about how specific dice will fall when thrown. HELLO ... CAN YOU HEAR ME?
Just give me a probability instead of a specifric inference. That would be good enough. If you just want a probability, then feel free to look up mutation rates for mammalian genomes or whatever it is you're interested in. This is data we have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The theory of how evolution happens is by natural processes, mainly natural selection as defined by the biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s. Although the geneticists, as led by Ronald Fisher, are judged to have won the debate, that is, their "change in gene frequencies" is widely held as the correct scientific definition of evolution, the naturalists, as represented by Ernst Mayr and Huxley and Dobzhansky reject reductionistic "gene frequencies" definition. The naturalists favor the traditional understanding; phenotypes, populations, inheritance, individual organisms as the principle object of selection inferred from observations. Darwin refurbished. Thank you for this amusing misinformation. By the way, what century do you think you're living in?
But the only definition of Theory of Evolution that mattters is: an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator (Phillip Johnson). But this is not a definition of the theory of evolution. This is a lie which Phillip Johnson likes to tell about the theory of evolution. Loonies like Phillip Johnson don't get to define scientific terms. Scientists do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
previously Ray writes: The theory of how evolution happens is by natural processes, mainly natural selection as defined by the biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s. Although the geneticists, as led by Ronald Fisher, are judged to have won the debate, that is, their "change in gene frequencies" is widely held as the correct scientific definition of evolution, the naturalists, as represented by Ernst Mayr and Huxley and Dobzhansky reject reductionistic "gene frequencies" definition. The naturalists favor the traditional understanding; phenotypes, populations, inheritance, individual organisms as the principle object of selection inferred from observations. Darwin refurbished. Opponent responds and writes: Thank you for this amusing misinformation. Something that a person who is ignorant of science history and grounded in preconceptions and subjectivity, would say.
previously Ray writes: But the only definition of Theory of Evolution that mattters is: an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator (Phillip Johnson). Opponent responding writes: But this is not a definition of the theory of evolution. This is a lie which Phillip Johnson likes to tell about the theory of evolution. Loonies like Phillip Johnson don't get to define scientific terms. Scientists do. Why would any evolutionist protest the above definition of ToE? By implication said protest is saying that God is not excluded as an explanation in ToE. Where is God IN the ToE? Of course the question is rhetorical. It appears Adequate is confused or just plain angry at any IDist since his point makes no sense. Johnson's definition makes perfect sense as it is axiomatically true: ToE seeks to explain data apart from any Divine Being. As for Adequate's insults concerning one of his rivals: I would imagine that Johnson is not the least bit offended in being called a liar and loon from someone who thinks apes morphed into men over millions of years or that design indicates mindless forces instead of invisible Designer. I, for one, would not be either. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
My point is that anything that Phillip Johnson says about the ToE is undermined by his motive. Which was my point concerning your original point about Johnson. Since you are an evolutionist anything you say (negatively) about Johnson (an IDist) is undermined by your motive. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
By implication said protest is saying that God is not excluded as an explanation in ToE. Where is God IN the ToE? How about we reword your statement to be more inline with scientific thought:
quote: The Theory of Evolution is not an interpretation of data. That would be Natural History which is an interpretation of data that uses the explanatory framework that is the ToE. That is why that is cut out. It does not describe nature producing itself: It is only concerned about biology and nature existed a hell of a lot longer than life has so that is why that is cut out. Finally the ToE does not require the absence of a Divine Creator, it works equally well in a universe with or without one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
One of the many problems with your definition is that there are many Christians, probably the majority, who believe in a divine creator and accept evolution as fact.
How does Johnson reconcile his definition with those people that believe God played a part in evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Ray, I am a Christian.
Ray, I believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen. Ray, I accept that evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is currently the ONLY explanation for the data seen. Sorry but those facts prove that your source, just like Gene Beam the Money up Scotty, is simply wrong. Now back to the thread topic. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Since you are an evolutionist anything you say (negatively) about Johnson (an IDist) is undermined by your motive. My motive is to find the truth, or get as close to it as we can within the limits of our abilities. Please explain how that motive undermines anything I say. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
How about we reword your statement to be more inline with scientific thought: 'an explanatory framework attempting to explain how populations of biological organisms may have changed with the passing of generations with no assistance from a Divine Creator explicitly necessary.' First, I don't like ("explanatory" and "explain") in the same phrase and sentence, this does not work well. But with this aside, I see no real difference between you and Johnson (or my slight alteration of Johnson since I did not put his definition in quote marks). So I guess we then agree? If so, will you answer some of our critics who disagree in this thread?
The Theory of Evolution is not an interpretation of data. Yes it is. ToE interprets data and evidence under Naturalism and Materialism presuppositions. Creationism is an interpretation of the same data and evidence made under the presuppositions of Supernaturalism or Biblicalism.
Finally the ToE does not require the absence of a Divine Creator, it works equally well in a universe with or without one. The whole point of ToE is that Creator not needed to explain nature. This point seems to depart from the point we agreed on above. Where is God IN ToE? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Ray, I am a Christian. Ray, I believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen. Ray, I accept that evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is currently the ONLY explanation for the data seen. Sorry but those facts prove that your source, just like Gene Beam the Money up Scotty, is simply wrong. Now back to the thread topic. Since your last comment admits that your post was off-topic and thus a derailment, if I were a Moderator I would give you a warning. Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024