Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 121 (373589)
01-01-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by MurkyWaters
01-01-2007 6:09 PM


Re: Timeline #1: Earth > 8,000 years old

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

This post is completely irrelevant to my quote regarding “Billions of years” dating methods as this is not one.
I didn't say it was. It's the first base, a foundation on which to build a solid understanding of the actual age of the earth.
Plus it is completely irrelevant to our topic regarding definitions,
You won't move off the pot on definitions, even when I propose using my definition only for "micro"evolution.
You also won't deal with forams without bringing up the age of the earth, therefore the next step is to deal with the age issue.
... I will not respond further except to say that there are different interpretations of this data.
It seems that your primary response is not dealing with evidence.
Things like the flood being impossible during the dendrochronology time frame -- 8,000 years for the Bristlecone Pine. If the flood could not have occurred in a YEC timeframe then your comments on foram "blooms" is also refuted.
There is fantasy and there is reality. Shall we see which is which?
Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-01-2007 6:09 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-02-2007 1:08 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 121 (373590)
01-01-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by MurkyWaters
01-01-2007 5:58 PM


Still stuck on definitions.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

False. Most definitions said nothing about ANY change over time.
Please go back and read the definitions again, you are just plain wrong.
Given in Message 1
Evolution Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
ev·o·lu·tion
3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Evolution - Wikipedia
In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes. Evolution is potentially the source of the vast diversity of life: theoretically all contemporary organisms may be related to each other through common descent as products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554675/Evolution.html
Evolution, in biology, complex process by which the characteristics of living organisms change over many generations as traits are passed from one generation to the next. The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient organisms to develop into the tremendous and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today. It addresses how, over the course of time, various plant and animal species branch off to become entirely new species, and how different species are related through complicated family trees that span millions of years.
(bold and italics in the original)
(color yellow highlight for empHASis)
Given in Message 17
American Heritage Dictionary:
Bartleby.com:
quote:
3. Biology. a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary:
quote:
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
Evolution Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
quote:
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:
quote:
2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
WordNet:
quote:
2: (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
encarta.msn.com/.../dictionaryhome.aspx
quote:
1. BIOLOGY theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. BIOLOGY developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material.
Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data
quote:
1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus
quote:
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:
Darwin's theory of evolution
evolution - Wiktionary
quote:
2. (biology) The change in the genetic composition of a species' population over successive generations.
Dictionaries and vocabulary tools for English language learners | Wordsmyth
quote:
1. the continuous modification and adaptation of organisms to their environments through selection, hybridization, and the like.
evolution: Meaning and Definition of | Infoplease
quote:
3. Biol.change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/
quote:
The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms;
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus
quote:
a gradual process of change and development
(SPECIALIZED) Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear.
OneLook Dictionary Search
quote:
A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s
quote:
6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.
http://www.rhymezone.com/?loc=bar
quote:
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
Online Dictionary, Language Guide, Foreign Language and Etymology
quote:
3. biol. The cumulative changes in the characteristics of living organisms or populations of organisms from generation to generation, resulting in the development of new types of organism over long periods of time.
http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=evolution
quote:
2.[n] the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.
http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn
quote:
2. evolution, organic evolution, phylogeny, phylogenesis -- ((biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms)
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/theory_of_evolution
quote:
Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/
quote:
In biological terms: a change in the genetic composition of a population over time.
UCMP Glossary: E
quote:
evolution -- Darwin's definition: descent with modification. The term has been variously used and abused since Darwin to include everything from the origin of man to the origin of life.
Dinosauria On-Line
quote:
changes in the character states of organisms, species, and clades through time.
Biology Dictionary Online | BiologyOnline.com
quote:
2. a process of development in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by the differentiation of its parts, a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.
Archaeology Wordsmith
quote:
A theory of biology about the gradual or rapid change of the form of living organisms throughout time that reflects adaptive change; it is the theory that all forms of life derive from a process of change via natural selection.
Topic: Evolution
quote:
Development of the living organism through gradual changes in its characteristics by mutation over long periods of time. Thus one species may evolve into two or more different species, any of which and/or the original species, may become extinct. Evolution proceeds by means of natural selection and adaptive radiation.
http://www.dddmag.com/Glossary.aspx
quote:
The process of cumulative change occurring over successive generations.
Home Design Discussions - GardenWeb
quote:
Organic evolution is any genetic difference in organisms from generation to generation.
http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/index.php
quote:
In Darwinian terms a gradual change in phenotypic frequencies in a population that results in individuals with improved reproductive success.
Page not found - MIT Press
quote:
A process operating on populations that involves variation among individuals, traits being inheritable, and a level of fitness for individuals that is a function of the possessed traits. Over relatively long periods of time, the distribution of inheritable traits will tend to reflect the fitness that the traits convey to the individual; thus, evolution acts as a filter that selects fitness-yielding traits over other traits.
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_E.html
quote:
(a) In Biology the theory that complex and multifarious living things developed from generally simpler and less various organisms.
http://iaspub.epa.gov/trs/search$.startup
quote:
The biological theory or process whereby species of plants and animals change with the passage of time so that their descendants differ from their ancestors, i.e. development from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations.
(bold and italics in the original)
(color yellow highlight for empHASis)
Again the definitions given in message 17 were ALL the ones I could find on the internet. They ALL address the issue of change over time in one way or another.
You are taking my words out of context and missing the point as usual. Where did I say speciation has not occurred? It most certainly has. If you would have bothered to read further, the point of my comments was that evolution “is only occurring today by YOUR definition, not the real one”.
What you said was:
Message 26
There are NO experiments or observations in today’s world that can show evolution has occurred because it supposedly happened in the past.
Speciation IS evolution.
You need to get the point of understanding that if you are arguing against evolutionary biology you WILL USE the definitions of evolutionary biology OR you are arguing against SOMETHING ELSE.
The "real" definition of evolution is the one evolutionary biology uses: simply stated it is change in species over time (or some more complex variation on that theme, like change in frequency of alleles within populations in succeeding generations etc). The list above confirms this.
... the point of my comments was that evolution “is only occurring today by YOUR definition ...
Again, lets use that definition, confine it to "micro"evolution, and see where that leads us as we look at the past - the fossil record of the progress of evolution in time. What are you afraid of? Reality?
If you took a snapshot of life as we know it today, it would look no different than the fossil record and would be arranged by evolutionists as having evolved when the truth is that it was created when we took the snapshot. There is no evidence that one kind of organism evolved into another.
The forams refute this silly concept, for they are not just snapshots they are mpegs.
You cannot get the same arrangements in different ages no matter how you play fantasy games with the results. You just do not find modern species in the past, and when you get back all the way to 3.5 billion years ago ALL you have are cyanobacteria. In between there is progressive development that introduces new organisms into the time frame, along with removal of extinct ones. You cannot take a "picture" today with living tyranosaurs. You cannot take a picture 3 million years ago with Homo sapiens in it.
Gould said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.
Please. Stop with the misrepresentation of the truth. What Gould was arguing FOR was punctuated equilibrium - evolution. This is "quote mining" again, and it is just plain false representation of what was said.
Nor does Gould claim that there is NO change during periods of stasis, just that the rate of change is different, slower, than during the periods of punctuation.
Gould can also be wrong, as was demonstrated in the case of the forams and where he is on record as saying it did not apply. Dawkins thinks that Gould overemphasizes the differences in rates.
That’s a hoot. What is your evidence that it HAS occurred?
We are here.
Either by evolution from abiogenesis developed life, evolution from space seeds, or evolution from created life. IF we are here by evolution from abiogenesis developed life THEN abiogenesis HAS occurred. In that event the probability is now 1.0. That is reality. Math cannot rule out that possibility.
There would be little random mixing if the bloomings occurred after the main flood event and there is no reason that they couldn’t have taken much longer than a day to settle.
You're talking a year of sediment every minute. 500,000 years worth. You're also talking about sorting the forams into discrete layers even though there is no difference in density between some in all the different layers and there IS some difference in density for different species IN each layer. Mixed in with the forams some layers are oil producing and some are not. You are also talking about sediment and forams that DO have different rates of settlement being continuously mixed. You need to mix and sort at the same time.
Simulate it. Run an experiment and duplicate it. Do the actual WORK instead of positing fantasies based on your presuppositions. That is how science works.
How hypocritical! I’m NOT supposed to be insulted when you say that I am deluded and gullible and that creationism is nothing but presupposition?
And you post this nonsense about "little random mixing if the bloomings occurred after the main flood event" without having a single piece of evidence that this can even in fact occur and the whole concept is based on the presupposition that the flood occurred.
But if your going to get huffy about it, how about actually presenting something OTHER than ad hoc explanations based on presuppositions. Something like evidence.
The way I and most other people that I know use the phrase “I believe” is equivalent to “I recall” and that’s the way I was using it.
If so my mistake. But my point remains about belief (and recall -- it would be better to search the facts eh?)
What gall and arrogance to suggest that what I believe is irrelevant (based on the work of scientists),
The point is that what you - or I - believe is irrelevant to what is the reality. You can believe that the earth is flat and that the universe revolves around it, but that will have zero effect on what really happens in the universe.
What you can do is test your beliefs against reality, and when your beliefs are contradicted by evidence you can either discard or revise the belief based on the evidence or you can discard the reality. Your choice.
... you go on to confirm that my recollection is absolutely correct in that they are indeed index fossils, so I’m not sure what has gotten your goat in that regard.
The absurd claim that forams date the sediments and then the sediments date the forams. Index fossils are used for relative dating of layers where they are found because we know from evidence which are the older species and which are younger from layers where one is over the other - the relative dating is based on the geological column. Where sediments CAN be dated they verify the actual ages of the sediments and guess what? Those ages CONFIRM the relative dating based on the geological column.
It is not circular reasoning, both methods date the fossils by dating the sediments: one from relative position in the geological column and one from radiometric or other suitable dating methods.
There are numerous examples that evolutionists have cited of organisms that have remained the same since they first appeared in the fossil record (or for millions of years). Then there are always the many embarrassing examples like the coelacanth that was thought to have been extinct. Are you suggesting that these examples invalidate the theory?
Sorry to burst your balloon, but those species have evolved over time.
They either evolve or they become too susceptible to disease and parasites and predators that DO evolve and they go extinct. The fossil record shows this again and again. We observe this in our own lives with diseases evolving.
The various species of coelacanth - that are alive today are not any of the species that were alive 65 million years ago (when this family of organisms - including many different species, "coelacanth" is not a species but a group of species - were originally thought to have gone extinct).
If you don't think so then try to find examples where the same scientific species name, like Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis (the two existing species of coelacanths), is used for an archaic fossil and a modern organism..
See http://www.dinofish.com/ for more information on the modern species.
The basis of the debate is your misconceptions regarding the definition of evolution. Definitions do not depend on the evidence, so you are simply avoiding an argument that apparently you cannot defend. Since the evidence seems to be a sore point for you, I suggest we abandon evidence completely. Unless it has some direct relevance (or I just happen to feel like it), I will no longer be responding to any “evidence” until we can agree on the definition of evolution (to which the evidence pertains). To be honest, it seems unlikely at this point, but definitions nevertheless are the topic of this debate.
LOL. Nice try. This is a new one for A Guide to Creationist Tactics I believe.
You have presented NO evidence, just a series of ad hoc arguments, and YOU refuse to accept the definition used by evolutionary biology.
Now you want to abandon evidence altogether ... and rely on what? Fantasy?
You need to make a decision whether you are going to move on to actually discuss evidence or whether you will remain in willful denial or ignorance or just keep dancing around the issue and never address it.
What would invalidate it then?
Fossil evidence of Homo sapiens during the age of dinosaurs or some other equally anachronistic find of a too modern fossil in too old a location. Genetic evidence that shows wholesale horizontal transfer for a feature between species rather than descent from a common ancestor. A hopeful monster sudden appearance of a whole new species with a completely new feature with no evolutionary predecessor. There are many things that would invalidate evolution, but the list is much smaller than it was due to the number of times such things have NOT happened.
This means that the theory is robust, that it has been validated in every test to date, but is still a theory.
The multitudinous, varied and pervasive evidence is fact and shows that evolution has in fact occurred, but not that the theory is fact.
It does not mean that the theory MUST be validated the next time.
Enjoy

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-01-2007 5:58 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:34 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 121 (373591)
01-01-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by MurkyWaters
01-01-2007 6:09 PM


Timeline #2: Earth > 10,434 years old

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

It just doesn't stop adding up to an old age. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away either.
Continuing with simple annual dating systems - ones where annual records are made by some process where we can measure them ...
More tree-rings:

European Oaks

My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates.
The common name for this species is "Post Oak" due to its natural resistance to rot thus making a good material for posts in ancient constructions. This also means that there are a lot of samples that are referenced to and associated with archaeological finds, finds that can be dated by other means, including historical documents as far back as the history goes.
Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating (3)
quote:
Oak is a highly preferred species to use in dendrochronology - in fact, the longest continuous tree-ring chronology anywhere in the world was developed in Europe and is currently about 10,000 year in length. This chronology is providing scientists new insights on climate over the past 10,000 years, especially at the end of the last Glacial Maximum.
Because ring-porous species almost always begin annual growth with this initial flush, missing rings are rare in such species as oak and elm. In fact, the only recorded instance of a missing ring in oak trees occurred in the year 1816, also known as the Year Without a Summer. A volcanic eruption in the year 1815 caused much cooler temperatures globally, thus causing oak trees to remain dormant. Therefore, no clear annual ring was formed in 1816 for certain locations in Europe.
Occasionally, offsets in oak tree rings can be problematic when trying to crossdate the rings. Dendrochronologists therefore must be careful when working with oak species, as these rays can cause a misdate of one year.
Note that sources of error are identified and accounted for. Crossdating is one method to check for errors. Another is to build two independent chronologies from the same species in two different locations. For an idea of the accuracy of the data and the amount of error involved we have this:
Not Found (4)
quote:
The Holocene part of the 14C calibration is based on several millennia-long tree-ring chronologies, providing an annual, absolute time frame within the possible error of the dendrochronology, which was rigorously tested by internal replication of many overlapping sections. Whenever possible, they were cross-checked with independently established chronologies of adjacent regions. The German and Irish oak chronologies were cross-dated until back into the 3rd millennium BC (Pilcher et al. 1984), and the German oak chronologies from the Main River, built independently in the Gttingen and Hohenheim tree-ring laboratories, cross-date back to 9147 cal BP (Spurk et al. 1998).
Due to periodic narrow rings caused by cockchafer beetles, some German oak samples were excluded from IntCal98. Analysis of these tree rings, with an understanding of the response of trees to the cockchafer damage, allowed some of these measurements to be re-instated in the chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue).
The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements.
There was not a large difference in the calculated k values between early and recent measurements in the Belfast lab for the Irish oak samples when the previously applied laboratory error multiplier on the more recent data set is considered; however, the early measurements of German oak were more variable than those of Irish oak. The recent Heidelberg data sets had smaller k values than older measurements. The reason for the early variation is partly due to the fact that these samples were measured to help place a tree in the dendrochronology as it was being built instead of measured consecutively, and also because many of these samples contain only a few tree rings but are being compared to decadal samples.
Uncertainty in single-ring cal ages for dendrochronologically-dated wood is on the order of 1 yr for highly replicated and cross-checked chronologies and is therefore ignored in the analysis.
There are several things to note here. First, is that there are three (3) main chronologies: one of Bristlecone Pine and two of European Oak, one German and one Irish. Second, is that originally one oak chronology was "not good enough" to be included in the IntCal98 - because it was off by 41 years in (then) ~8,000 years, an error of 0.5%. Third, is that when one oak chronology was corrected, it was not the odd one out, but the one that previously agreed with the Bristlecone Pine chronology. Fourth, now the Bristlecone Pine chronology is now considered "not good enough" - because it is off by 37 years in ~7600 years, an error of 0.5%. Fifth, that where some German Oak samples had been placed by carbon-14 levels in the earlier chronology (used in IntCal98) these are now placed by additional tree samples that fill in the consecutive chronology (and these initial carbon-14 levels are not now used to place those samples). Finally, that the European Oak absolute chronology now extends back to 9,147 years BP with cross dating and including all three in one data set means that the error involved is on the order of 0.5% - over the whole period of time covered. The IntCal04 discussion doesn't give the breakdown on the actual ages of each chronology, but it refers to a paper that does.
Content Not Found: Ingenta Connect (abstract) (2)
The combined oak and pine tree-ring chronologies of Hohenheim University are the backbone of the Holocene radiocarbon calibration for central Europe. Here, we present the revised Holocene oak chronology (HOC) and the Preboreal pine chronology (PPC) with respect to revisions, critical links, and extensions. Since 1998, the HOC has been strengthened by new trees starting at 10,429 BP (8480 BC). Oaks affected by cockchafer have been identified and discarded from the chronology.
These are just three examples of dendrochronologies, the three that happen to be the longest absolute chronologies. There are many species of trees used for dendrochronology, and many different chronologies. Several chronologies are "floating" - do not have a fixed begin date - and many of those are older than the dates discussed here. All the species show the same trends in world climate whenever they overlap. The climatological trends correlate the ages from one species to the others, thus any errors that would invalidate dendrochronology would need to apply to each (and all) species in each (and all) locations at the same time. Here we need only discuss the three long absolute chronologies and how they validate each other.
Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950(1), so this is really 10,434 years ago (in 2007).

Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.

This is now older than most if not all YEC models for the age of the earth.
This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
And this is still just the start: three different dendrochronologies that correlate age with climate and that match - wiggle for wiggle - within 0.5%.
Enjoy.


References
  1. Anonymous "Before Present" Wikipedia. Updated 28 Dec 2006. accessed 17 Jan, 2007 from Before Present - Wikipedia
  2. Friedrich, Michael et al, "The 12,460-Year Hohenheim Oak and Pine Tree-Ring Chronology from Central Europe”a Unique Annual Record for Radiocarbon Calibration and Paleoenvironment Reconstructions" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1111-1122(12) accessed 17 Jan 2007 from Content Not Found: Ingenta Connect (abstract)
  3. Martinez, Lori, "Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating" Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. Updated Oct 2001. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating
  4. Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Not Found

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : updated information

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-01-2007 6:09 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:38 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 121 (373847)
01-02-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MurkyWaters
01-02-2007 1:08 PM


Dealing with the issues

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

How does evidence that the earth is young support the contention that it is billions of years old?
We start first by reviewing evidence that invalidates a young earth, then see where the evidence leads us once we have rid ourselves of YEC preconceptions.
We start with no presuppositions. We observe tree rings are annual in trees in the modern world, and from that deduce that they are annual in the past when they appear the same as ones we know are annual. We observe some instance of false rings, partial rings or missing rings, and note which species are more susceptible to these errors and which are not, and we develop means to test for and eliminate the errors due to false rings, partial rings and missing rings. We also note the % difference this makes in the total results and use that to develop the possible range of error in the data. We observe that tree rings also show climate variations by the relative widths of the rings, and we use that to match trees that overlap in time to form an extended chronology longer than the life of any one tree. We verify this with known extreme climate instances like the "little ice age" and note that this shows up in the tree chronology just where it occurred in historical documents.
So far this evidence shows that the earth is at least 10,000 years old by these counts with NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,000 years. This invalidates any YEC model that is (a) younger than 10,000 years or (b) has a WWF during the last 10,000 years.
Having evidence that refutes a concept means that this needs to be explained before you can continue to claim such elements in your argument.
And as I said this is but the tip of the iceberg. There's more, a lot more.
No, my response to the forams was abbreviated as to not get distracted down that road. It was only meant to show that there are other reasonable explanations possible. Dealing with the age issue first is irrelevant and detrimental to our topic.
Your other "reasonable explanation" involked a WWF which has been invalidated, and thus is NOT reasonable.
Your other "reasonable explanation" also involved impossible sorting of forams and sediment - impossible due to the time constraints, and thus is NOT reasonable.
Dealing with the time issue is crucial for you to remove the invalidation of the flood, before you move on to the issue of dealing with the sorting issue problems.
Yes, and you won’t move off the pot on evidence because you don’t seem to have a response to my questions regarding the definitions.
What evidence.
The definitions that you presented in Message 8 were discussed and dealt with in Message 9 -- including your false representation of the berkely definition and the later (Message 10) selective omission from the lexicon.biology definition -- and further refuted in Message 17, neither of which you have addressed with any further "evidence" to the contrary.
All the definitions show evolution is change in species over time, including the ones you presented.
Your contention that evolution is about the change from molecule to life is not supported by the definitions of evolution: this has been refuted, and thus repeating it is NOT providing evidence but repeating a mistake.
Some discussions of evolution (not definitions) include the evolution of life over the last 3.5 billion years, but they are not about definitions of evolution or theories of evolution, but the science of evolution - the compiled sum total of what we know and what we theorize based on all the evidence and all the theories. They also are NOT about the development of life from non-life.
The only one that supports your position is by ONE biologist, and sorry to say, he is not the field or the science of evolution. As noted previously, Kerkut's 'general' theory, is not the theory of evolution.
I’m fine with that IF you tell me what your definition of “molecules to man” evolution is?
That is NOT evolution. The SCIENCE of evolution doesn't even cover that spread, and the science necessarily covers more than the theories that are in the science.
The development of molecules to life is abiogenesis.
The development of life from life is evolution. Specifically change in species over time, but it STARTS with species.
What exactly does “using my definition only for ”micro’ evolution” mean?
You complain that my definition of evolution as change in species over time is too simplified for the general theory of evolution.
You agree that speciation occurs and has been observed.
So what I am proposing is an interim solution: rather than bicker over whose grand vision of evolution is correct, lets start with what we know: we have speciation, we have an accepted process by which it occurs that many people, creationist and evolutionist alike, call "micro"evolution, and let's see where that definition and strict usage leads us in a review of the evidence.
Then, I’ll understand that you mean “adaptation” when you use the term “micro-evolution” (even though the term is misleading by including evolution in the context) and that you mean “molecules to man evolution” when using the term “evolution”.
Sorry, but you do NOT get to redefine scientific terms to suit your beliefs. As noted several times already, you either use the terms as defined and used in the science of evolutionary biology or you are not discussing evolutionary biology but some personal fantasy about evolutionary biology. We are supposedly discussing evolutionary biology and not some fantasy version, therefore we will use the scientific definitions.
It is commonly accepted by evolutionary biologists and creationists that "micro"evolution refers to speciation. It IS change in species over time. It is not just adaptation, but mutation and selection of all variations that improve reproduction and survival as well as neutral variations that don't seriously impair survival and reproduction.
Change in species over time can be more than that, but for now we can agree to use this for "Micro"evolution and see where this leads us.
As noted in Message 17
Tell you what Murk, let's start by discussing "Micro"evolution.
We can start by stipulating that:
  • refers to speciation and
  • nothing beyond the causes up to and including speciation,
  • has been observed to occur and is
  • thus a fact.
    That it involves
  • change in species over time,
  • mutation as an observed fact,
  • natural selection as an observed fact, and
  • some other minor mechanisms such as genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer by viruses and the like.
    That it does NOT involve
  • sudden large scale change or
  • sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities.
Then we can discuss the evidence for "micro"evolution in genetics and in the fossil record.
The purpose will be to fully define what "micro"evolution is and what "micro"evolution is NOT.
When we are done with "Micro"Evolution (MiE) then we can move on to "Macro"Evolution (MaE).
It's called common ground. A compromise position. A way to move forward.
I get the impression that you want to move on to something where you think it’s going to be a slam dunk and don’t have to think anymore, perhaps in areas where you have material already prepared. Well I have news for you . the “evidence” isn’t going to be any easier than the definitions.
I want to move on.
The question is not the evidence, but whether you will accept or deny evidence that exists. I do expect any denial to put you in increasingly untenable positions, but that will depend on what is denied eh?
For example, evidence that the earth is young would invalidate the theory of evolution since the process would have taken billions of years to accomplish (something which is not lost upon evolutionary proponents of an old age).
As noted evidence FOR a concept is not enough to validate that concept. There is evidence FOR a flat earth and evidence FOR a geocentric earth, but neither of these are valid due to the evidence that REFUTES those concepts.
It is likewise easy for find evidence of young PORTIONS of the earth, due to the tectonic and geological processes, but none of it invalidates an old earth.
There IS evidence that {refutes\invalidates\disproves} a young earth, and thus any referral to that concept MUST deal with that evidence before it can proceed on a rational basis. Denial of that evidence will not accomplish that.
It also appears that we need to address this before you can discuss the issue of MiE without introducing YEC concepts that are invalidated by this information, therefore in the interest of moving the debate forward from bickering over MaE issues, and in order to rationally discuss MiE issues, it appears we need to deal with the age of the earth issue FIRST.
While fictional, I do have a favorite and entertaining story here if your interested - The Parable of the Candle | Answers in Genesis
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the way that dating methods are actually developed and used, so this ridiculous straw man argument is more of a ill-conceived comic parody of reality than anything else.
That you think it is significant enough to post shows either (a) vast ignorance on how dating methods are developed and used, (b) willful gullibility in accepting such a silly story as being anything like reality without investigating it further, or (c) both. It's a joke - on you - and a poor one at that.
I've omitted portions where all you have done is repeated your position and where the issue is irrelevant until we can move beyond the age of the earth and MiE. This is similar to other arguments you have made that I have not answered for the same reason.
Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-02-2007 1:08 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:20 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 45 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-05-2007 10:22 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 121 (373862)
01-02-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MurkyWaters
01-02-2007 1:08 PM


Timeline #3: Earth > 12,405 years old

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

It just doesn't stop adding up to an old age. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away either.
Continuing with simple annual dating systems - ones where annual records are made by some process where we can measure them ...
More tree-rings:

Adding German Pines to the mix

Tree rings (and other systems of independent measurements of actual age of items) are used to calibrate the Carbon 14 dating method to make it more accurate than it is uncalibrated. The scientists doing this are very concerned with the accuracy of the data.
NOTE: we are NOT discussing carbon 14 dating yet, just the evidence from tree-ring chronologies and the accuracy of the data.
From INTCAL04 TERRESTRIAL RADIOCARBON AGE CALIBRATION, 0-26 CAL KYR BP
Tree-Ring Data Sets (0-12.4 cal kyr BP)
For inclusion in the calibration data set, dendrochronological dating and cross-checking of tree rings is required. A few exceptions were made for post-AD 1320 Douglas firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii), which have robust ring production in the Pacific Northwest environment. Calendar ages for these trees, which had well-known felling dates, were determined by ring counting after inspection of the well-developed rings by H C Fritts (Stuiver 1982). X-ray densitometry was later used to confirm the ring counts.
The Holocene part of the 14C calibration is based on several millennia-long tree-ring chronologies, providing an annual, absolute time frame within the possible error of the dendrochronology, which was rigorously tested by internal replication of many overlapping sections. Whenever possible, they were cross-checked with independently established chronologies of adjacent regions. The German and Irish oak chronologies were cross-dated until back into the 3rd millennium BC (Pilcher et al. 1984), and the German oak chronologies from the Main River, built independently in the Gttingen and Hohenheim tree-ring laboratories, cross-date back to 9147 cal BP (Spurk et al. 1998). The North American trees that form part of the 14C calibration curve prior to AD 1320 were cross-dated with either the Sequoiadendron master chronology or with a Pacific Northwest Douglas fir chronology (Stuiver 1982).
Due to periodic narrow rings caused by cockchafer beetles, some German oak samples were excluded from IntCal98. Analysis of these tree rings, with an understanding of the response of trees to the cockchafer damage, allowed some of these measurements to be re-instated in the chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue).
The 2 parts of the German Preboreal pine chronology (PPC), which were formerly floating, have been linked and cross-matched dendrochronologically to the absolutely-dated Holocene oak chronology. Including additional new finds, the south German part of the PPC is prolonged into the Younger Dryas and now starts at 11,993 cal BP. New pine chronologies from Switzerland and eastern Germany extend the PPC to 12,410 cal BP (Friedrich et al., this issue).
Note that "floating" chronologies are ones where the beginning are not known. There are many other floating dendrochronologies that extend further into the past, but they are not discussed here as they can't be tied by climate correlations to the existing absolute dendrochronologies.
Note further that the absolute European (German & Irish) Oak chronology was independently validated to almost 3,000 BC, or almost 5,000 years ago.
As evidence of the level of accuracy they are looking for there is this reference to the Bristlecone Pine data:
The Arizona Data Set
The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically-dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements. Applying this shift to the Tucson data results in a close fit to the wiggles of the German oak, which would not occur if there were an error in the dendrochronology of either series. Because of this offset, the IntCal working group has decided not to include the BCP record in IntCal04.
What they are essentially doing with all these dendrochronologies is building an overall dendrochronology independant of genus or species. The method for matching elements of some species dendrochronologies is the same as it is for matching sample elements within species dendrochronologies: they match up the patterns of climate with annual rings. So we have the German Oak running to10,429 BP and the German Pine running from 9891 BP to 12,410 BP and it overlaps the German Oak for 538 years. We can again be {minimalist\parsimonious\generous} and say that the error in this date is 0.5% (to include the Bristlecone Pine) and the minimum age then is 12,410 BP - 0.5% + (2007-1950) = 12,405 years.

Minimum age of the earth > 12,405 years based on this data.

This is now older than ALL YEC models for the age of the earth that I am aware of, meaning that the YEC concept is invalidated.
This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 12,410 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
And this is still but the tip of the iceberg.
Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : updated age information.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-02-2007 1:08 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:23 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 121 (373909)
01-03-2007 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by MurkyWaters
01-03-2007 12:34 AM


No Progress here.
Definitions are the topic of this debate, not the evidence. You have continually refused to respond to my questions regarding the definitions. Would you like to concede that you don’t have an answer? We can agree to disagree, however that’s somewhat empty when you have refused to respond. Nevertheless, I will agree to do that if you feel it’s at that point. If that’s the case, we can both provide a summary of our positions and end it (or continue with a few rebuttals). If we can’t change the posted definitions on this forum, this may at least result in dual creationist/evolutionist definitions.
Definitions are ONE of the topics. I have dealt with your questions as far as I need to, not because I don't have an answer but because most of it is irrelevant and just do not apply to the issue.
There is no such thing as a "creationist definition" of evolution. All this amounts to is a straw man fallacy that is irrelevant to the real issue of what evolution is in the SCIENCE of evolution. THAT is the "real" evolution.
There is ONLY a scientific definition used by evolutionary biology scientists. Any thing else does not address evolution BY DEFINITION.
It was unnecessary to repost all of the definitions again. I’ve clearly refuted this silly concept of ANY observed change as being evolution both through sources and logic.
Where? by bald assertion and repetition of same old position with no new information? That's not a refutation. By using false misleading and quote mined statements by evolutionist taken out of context?
I highlighted the places where each one dealt with change over time.
You seem especially hung-up whenever you see the word "billions" and other references to long periods of time. To deal with that you need to deal with the age of the earth before proceeding.
Roger Lewin wrote: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
Then let's discuss how far microevolution can get us and see where we are when that is done.
Refusing to make any move forward is not helping this debate. All you have done is stone-wall on the first topic and refuse to move forward on either path I have suggested that can help resolve the issue from a different angle:
Microevolution, and
Age of the Earth.
From you response to microevolution it appears that we need to discuss the age of the earth first before proceeding with that as well.
Then we can come back to microevolution and THEN proceed with the discussion of macroevolution.
You need to decide to move the debate forward.
So do we discuss the age of the earth or do you keep stone-walling?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:34 AM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:43 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 121 (373910)
01-03-2007 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by MurkyWaters
01-03-2007 12:38 AM


Re: Timeline #2: Earth > 10,000 years old
I've suggested a way that we might proceed with the evidence in another post.
No, all you have done is to continue stone-walling. The only way to advance is to start with MiE and then proceed with MaE later.
Thankfully, this post is another on the evidence which is irrelevant to our topic of definitions.
The original post had several topics, one of which was definitions, which have run into a dead end due to your persistent stone-walling on using your pet definition instead of the scientific defintion for evolution.
Another was the age of the earth. It seems your position on evolution (both MaE and MiE) cannot be dealt with properly until we get the issue of the age of the earth out of the way, as it influences your response.
If definitions of evolution include billions of years it is because that is what the evidence shows. If you object to that then you need to deal with the age of the earth before continuing.
Gee, can you slow down! I'm probably going to have to take another short break soon and I may not be able to keep up so it will get confusing.
Go ahead and take a break, when you come back be prepared to deal with the age of the earth issue.
If you want to move forward.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:38 AM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-05-2007 12:00 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 121 (374912)
01-06-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by MurkyWaters
01-04-2007 11:20 PM


Review. Again.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

This will be long as it has to address several issues that keep reappearing in your posts.
Message 41
The stream of evidence (like tree rings and others) that you apparently want to discuss INSTEAD of definitions! Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t definitions the topic of this debate? Once we are done with definitions, we can close this out and start a new discussion.
Definitions is ONE of the elements to be discussed. Read Message 1 again and you will see this is the case.
Others mentioned are The Age of the Earth, What Evolution "Says", "Information" and Creationists Did it First, with the opening caveat at the beginning of my comments that "I will take these issues to start with (keeping others for later to keep the debate simple) "
The debate is about evolution versus creationism. That starts with definitions that we can agree on, but the definitions are not the whole debate.
This is soundly refuted in Message 21. Thus repeating this is NOT providing evidence but repeating a mistake.
Nope.

Regarding Message 21

I have highlighted comments you made in yellow to emphasis elements that will be commented on after the whole quote (including some other irrelevant comments) in order to do this all at once instead of piece-meal:
American Heritage Dictionary:
Bartleby.com:
quote:
3. Biology. a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
This reference also includes “A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.” This makes it clear that evolution is much more than simply change over time. A certain type of change is required that makes it more complex and “better” and results in the historical development of an entire group of organisms.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
Evolution Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
quote:
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
This source also includes “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.” Again, indicating a certain type of change, not just any change. In addition, the historical development of a biological group infers its origins, not just any change.
encarta.msn.com/.../dictionaryhome.aspx
quote:
1. BIOLOGY theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. BIOLOGY developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material
Notice that “all species” have developed from earlier forms of life. Also not just ANY change is valid but a certain type of change is required that results in “new and different” organisms.
Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data
quote:
1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.
This says nothing about what evolution is. The process by which different kinds of living organisms developed could be popping out of rocks despite the fact that it is “especially” by natural selection. Dictionary definitions are usually not complete but an attempt to summarize to the fewest words which often create ambiguity and are therefore not the best source for complex scientific issues. You’re beloved talk.origins disagrees with definitions from dictionaries and encyclopedias as well.
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus
quote:
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:
Darwin's theory of evolution
Notice this definition includes “millions of years” as an essential part of the definition. It also states that it is everything contained in Darwin’s theory of evolution, which if expanded appropriately includes everything I have been saying.
http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/
quote:
The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms;
Again dictionary definitions are not the ideal source for complex scientific concepts. Evolution is now a “sequence of events” which I’m not sure agrees with either of our positions (ie it’s not the change, but the events themselves). It then uses the term in the definition it is trying to define. This is similar to several other definitions you quoted which I’ve not bothered to reference.
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus
quote:
a gradual process of change and development
(SPECIALIZED) Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear.
Note that “New types of creatures develop”, not simply the change in the beak size of a finch (which remains a finch), is essential. Also, it’s interesting to note that this definition concludes that evolution is the cause of the disappearance of species from which others have evolved. Many organisms thought to have been extinct, from which modern species have developed, are often found alive today. In addition, many fossils finds are nearly identical with their modern counter parts. The creationist explanation for this is much more satisfying and logical than the evolutionist’s which tend to become very convoluted.
OneLook Dictionary Search
quote:
A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.
Note that this includes the “history of the steps”, not just any change. Of course, this history by inference with the other definitions includes it development from a common ancestor billions of years ago. This is similar to several other definitions you’ve supplied, so I’ve not bothered to reference them.
Online Dictionary, Language Guide, Foreign Language and Etymology
quote:
3. biol. The cumulative changes in the characteristics of living organisms or populations of organisms from generation to generation, resulting in the development of new types of organism over long periods of time.
Again, notice that “new types of organisms” must result “over long periods of time”. This would ELIMINATE the Galapagos finches as examples of evolution which neither resulted in a new type or organism nor did it take a long period of time. Thank you. This should put that thread to rest.
Biology Dictionary Online | BiologyOnline.com
quote:
2. a process of development in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by the differentiation of its parts, a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.
Notice that the organism must become “more and more complex” and “change according to certain laws”, again indicating that a certain type of change is required, not just any change. This is common with many of the definitions.
Archaeology Wordsmith
quote:
A theory of biology about the gradual or rapid change of the form of living organisms throughout time that reflects adaptive change; it is the theory that all forms of life derive from a process of change via natural selection.
Again, evolution is “the theory that all forms of life” have resulted from a process of change, not just any change.
Home Design Discussions - GardenWeb
quote:
Organic evolution is any genetic difference in organisms from generation to generation.
I had to highlight this one. This is hardly a reliable or universal source and I have to believe you must find this definition to be as ridiculous as I do. Nevertheless, is this what you really believe? Irrespective of definitions, I assume you believe that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Do you really believe that any genetic difference in organisms in a following generation proves or even implies that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor? This is a “design” feature for organisms to adapt to their changing environments. Otherwise we would all have been extinct long ago. In fact many genetic differences do in fact result in disease or deformity. Instead of “evolution” they would more likely result in extinction.
So, what can we conclude? Dictionary definitions are typically not technical, incomplete and abbreviated. You have presented these as valid definitions of evolution. Therefore, if we consolidate the definitions to make them complete, the consolidation ought to be valid as well. These definitions in summary define evolution as consisting of the following essential components:
1) A slow gradual process over many generations and millions of years
2) A specific type of change which transforms a simple form into a more complex and significantly different or new type of form, not just any change. (As the American Heritage Dictionary states “A gradual process by which something changes into a significantly different, especially a more complex or more sophisticated form. Biology (evolve): to develop by evolutionary processes from a primitive to a more highly organized form”.
3) The complete historical development of all species on earth from their origin
As noted above I have highlighted your comments in yellow that are pertinent to this following comment:
What you are quibbling about is not that evolution is the change in species over time, but the degree of change. You keep thinking that there is some additional change going on that is not change but something else, and this is your refutation that evolution is not change over time? Please.
The other quibble you have is over the time scale. Again and again you express annoyance at any mention of time that exceeds 6000 years. This really has nothing to do with evolution being change in species over time, but over the age of the earth and the time that has occurred being included in the above definitions, time YOU have a problem with.
In a nut-shell evolution is change in species over time, you have CONFIRMED this with your comments, and the only quibbles you have are the degree of change and the amount of time.
Take your last "conclusion" again:
3) Over the course of time “entirely new” species have developed indicating that a certain type of change which supports the rest of the theory, not just any change, is required.
That is still just change in species over time. What you are including is your preconception of "something else" being included and your incredulity that it could occur to the degree that it has or that it had the time to occur.
That is not a refutation.
A couple of other points regarding two of the above comments of yours:
Again, notice that “new types of organisms” must result “over long periods of time”. This would ELIMINATE the Galapagos finches as examples of evolution which neither resulted in a new type or organism nor did it take a long period of time. Thank you. This should put that thread to rest.
Hardly, seeing as not enough time passed for speciation to occur. You yourself said "neither resulted in a new type or organism nor did it take a long period of time" thus this is just an example of natural selection on existing traits within a population and has not reached the level of speciation. Given more time that is a possibility but that time was not given.
I had to highlight this one. This is hardly a reliable or universal source and I have to believe you must find this definition to be as ridiculous as I do.
The Galapagos finches example is still a "genetic difference in organisms from generation to generation" because the frequency of the alleles for the different sized beaks changes within the population, first towards larger more robust beaks and then back to smaller slender beaks. In each case there were existing genes within the population for natural selection to operate on when one type was favored over the other for survival. Yes this is evolution, it just has not been "captured" by the process of speciation yet. This is change in species over time at the sub-species level.
Yes, I agree. When I was talking about origins of life in my original post, I meant from the first prototype. Despite the fact that many definitions do reference origins from non-life, my purpose in ignoring abiogenisis for now was because I felt we would get sidetracked on another major debate without finishing the first one.
We could work on this basis, and come back to abiogenesis later if you want. I also think you inflate "some" to "many" a bit quickly, but that is a minor quibble. But you keep raising it, as you did later:
In fact, all these sources conclude that the definition must contain the following key features:
” A certain type of change that supports the development of molecules to man,
This is stone-walling if you keep going back to this issue.
Then we can discuss the evidence for "micro"evolution in genetics and in the fossil record.
The purpose will be to fully define what "micro"evolution is and what "micro"evolution is NOT.
“Micro evolution” is NOT evolution, Period. There’s nothing left to discuss.
This is you stone-walling on the definition of evolution by trying to exclude elements of evolution that ARE included.
I have suggested a compromise position, that we set the bar a little lower to discuss "micro"evolution so that we then have a basis to tackle the issue of "macro"evolution.
Evolutionists admit that they do not find any evidence for “micro-evolution” in the fossil record.
The foraminifera. Message 25

Conclusions

Message 21 does not in any way refute the definition of evolution as change in species over time, rather it confirms it.
Message 21 does show a preconception on your part of some other mechanism being involved that you still define as change, just some mysterious "other" change that somehow is not change.
All your quibbles over evolution being the change in species over time have to do with the degree of change, not whether it occurs, and the time frame over which it occurs.

Back to Message 41

I’m fine with that IF you tell me what your definition of “molecules to man” evolution is?
That is NOT evolution. The development of molecules to life is abiogenesis.
Just like micro-evolution is NOT evolution. You are again misrepresenting my argument. I have already stated more than multiple times that I’m willing to ignore abiogenesis in any definition we use. That is a separate issue (of whether it should be included) that we haven’t discussed and I’m willing to put off for now. If you prefer, I’ll use “goo to you” evolution. This covers change from the first prototype into the diversity we see today. I’m only trying to provide a temporary term to distinguish (in a meaningful way) your definition of evolution from mine without having to restate it every time.
Again your main issue here is the degree of change and the time frame, NOT change in species over time per se.
Personally I find slogans ("molecule to man" and "goo to you") to be more distractive than descriptive, especially when they carry connotations that have nothing to do with the science of evolution and everything to do with the argument from incredulity. But if that is what you need to insulate yourself from the issue then feel free -- as long as we are agreed that abiogenesis is NOT part of our discussion for now.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the way that dating methods are actually developed and used, so this ridiculous straw man argument is more of a ill-conceived comic parody of reality than anything else. It's a joke - on you - and a poor one at that.
The joke is on you because the story is not a joke, poor or otherwise. It’s called a parable. Ever heard of that before?
Yes I've heard of parables before. They make a basic pretense at reflecting the truth, but are not restricted to doing so and there is no validation to the "truth" implied in them, they are fiction stories designed to have a moral implication, and not talk to whether what they say is really the truth or not, just what they want you to believe is the truth.
par·a·ble
n. A simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.
Emphasis on simple?
They are fantasy.
This particular one is also a fraud and a scam and a con, as it portrays dating methods in a false way and ignores completely the whole issue of validation and testing of the methodology so that the system accurately measures dates rather than random candle drippings.
This is typical of creatortionista lies and misrepresentations designed to cater to the willingness of gullible people who want to believe there are problems with science and who don't spend the time to check and see if what the creatortionista is saying bears any real relevance to the truth.
I'll mix my replies in with your questions in yellow below:
I’ll start by re-asking some of the questions you have refused to answer that are designed to facilitate THOUGHTFUL contemplation. Here is the middle ground. Let’s see where this leads us.
1) Restated from above - If evolution theory is “change is species over time”, which everyone agrees has been proven to be true, then why do you suppose there is any debate about whether evolution is true?
Evolution has been observed in specific instances to occur, and these instances are FACT, but the theory that says it will happen the next time, or that this is what has always occurred in the past is still just theory, as those instances are not observed facts.
2) What would honestly invalidate the theory that “species change over time” when this has already been proven to be true?
Sudden change within a generation - creationist "macro"evolution type change. Mixing of gene lines instead of descent from ancestors. Observations of supernatural interference.
3) Do you disagree that changes relevant to evolution observed in species must be directional and support the movement from simple to more complex organisms?
Yes. "Direction" is a human observation based on (ego?) preconceptions. Nature is not directed in the choice of what mutations occur, it is directed in the matter of which organisms survive and reproduce, and the ones that do that will be most successful at doing that, whether they are simple, complex, simpler or more complex. As long as an ecological niche exists for simple single cell bacteria to live, reproduce, thrive and multiply, those ecological niches will be filled with simple bacteria that have no need to become more complex to fill that ecological niche. The same condition applies to all ecological niches. Where diversity occurs is where the ecological niches change and then the organisms that are better adapted to those niches will be the ones to live, reproduce, thrive and multiply, whether they are imple, complex, simpler or more complex.
If so, how do you justify defining evolution as simply any change when that change does not create new features ...
Why should it have to create new features?
and support the notion that all life evolved from a common ancestor?
Because children come from parents. Daughter species come from parent species.
4) Can you provide any examples (beside propagandist evolutionary internet sites with no official affiliations), where evolutionary scientists have protested against sources which characterized evolution as “all life on earth evolving from a common ancestor over millions of year”, as misrepresenting what evolution is?
I have several problems with this. First you are "begging the question" (logical fallacy) by pre-excluding everything YOU consider to be propoganda, and second you are again conflating theory with science. The theory of evolution is basic, change in species over time (or similar statements as previously noted). The science of evolution involves more than theory, as it makes predictions and deductions based on the theories and the evidence. The science investigates whether the theory can be applied to all changes and all time since life first occurred.
5) I have contended that change in species over time is simply an observation. How can you defend this as a “mechanism”?
Not mechanism, theory. The mechanisms are mutation and natural selection (plus some other mechanisms listed in my short list for what is "micro"evolution - the ones that lead to speciation).
Mechanisms are involved in bringing about the observation but are not the observation itself. What is the theory that you are attempting to substantiate through this observation of change in species over time?
The theory that species change over time.
The observation itself?
Facts that are the basis for and that are later found to support a theory are not the theory, they are the observations that form the basis for and that are later found to support the theory.
In other words, the observation of change in species over time proves change in species over time? Instances of observed change in species over time confirm it occurred in those instances, nothing more and nothing less.
Please respond.
I have, more than once.
I’ve already made 2 reasonable and fair suggestions on how to continue - 1) Starting with defining evolution as macro-evolution and seeing where that leads us or 2) Reviewing the definitions from a LOGICAL standpoint starting with my questions. If these are unacceptable, the last and perhaps only alternative is to post a summary of our positions (and perhaps a rebuttal) and then end it.
(1) So what is "macro" murk? More change over more time? What is the mechanism for "macro" that is different from and distinguishable from micro? We are still talking about change in species over time (as noted above in the comments on message 21), so in order for us to make any kind of microheadway on this issue you need to define what YOU think this is about -- or we will just get more stonewalling from you on what is "not" evolution according to your personal beliefs.
(2) I have, several times. You need to address those answer to move forward. The main problems you have are with the degree of change involved and the time frame involved. To address these from a logical standpoint we need to discuss "micro"evolution and the age of the earth to show that erroneous thinking based on false preconceptions are interfering with understanding of the issue. I have suggested doing this in several ways and you have refused to participate.
Your third option is you completely stonewalling on the definition of evolution and refusing to accept where you can be wrong. This would be you leaving the debate after failing to deal with the issues.
Message 42
I'll be happy to refute this evidence when we've finished our prior discussion on definitions. ...mw
I'll be happy to answer all your refutations when you post them. And then proceed with more information on why this evidence is valid on so many levels that the refutations cannot apply to all of them equally and at the same time.
Message 43
If you didn’t address my arguments the first time, why should I present something new? Talk about repetition!
I have addressed them before, and I have again. If you don't read them the first time then they will need to be repeated.
I can recap again in the summary post that I have recommended. I have suggested 3 different paths we can take that I feel are fairer in my prior post. Take your pick. . mw
Your three choices are (1) You keeping your definition, (2) you keeping your definition while we debate whether to end up at (1) or (3) and (3) you keeping your definition and pulling out of the debate because you can't accept being wrong.
On the other hand I have suggested going to a compromise at a lower level where we CAN agree and seeing where that leads us, and I have also suggested discussing things that affect your ability to accept being wrong, and you have - so far - refused to participate.
Message 44
The only way? That is always your solution. Your way or the highway, despite the evidence. I am not the one stone-walling. You want to move on because you have logically lost the case.
In spite of evidence to the contrary you are unwilling to even admit that you could be wrong about your definition and have refused to budge from that position.
The only way to get around that stone wall is to look around the ends and at the foundation for it. Dispel the mythos for the reality. Beating your head against a wall only feels good when you stop.
I do not object to it, you do. I support the definitions that contain billions of years because that is a critical and essential component of evolutionary theory. If “billions of years” is disproved, so is evolution, so it must be part of the definition.
Again, this shows that you are caught up on the time frame, and not the issue of change in species over time.
If billions of years is disproved, then all that means is that evolution did not occur over billions of years. It would still be going on today, and the only issue would be the time frame.
We can talk about "last-thursdayism" where everything observed was created de novo last thursday, complete with the appearance of immediate history and vast age, and evolution would still be occurring today.
The only issue of time frame is how far back evolution can explain the change in species over time, not whether it can explain it at all.
I just wanted to briefly clarify the options so that you wouldn’t have to look back. There are actually 4 I've mentioned.
1) Let’s discuss the definitions from a Logical standpoint rather than simply fall back on what you might happen to “believe” is the definitions used by others. I’ve already clearly demonstrated the inconsistency in what others believe and in fact the opposition to the CISOT definition by many scientists, biologists included. Technical and non-technical sources also disagree.
2) Assume temporarily that evolution is defined as Macro-evolution and start with evidence for it first and see where that leads us. Then move on to Micro-evolution.
3) End the definitions and move on. However, if this option is chosen, I would like to take the time and summarize our positions on the definitions. If nothing else, this will clearly document our discussions and the valid evidence we have presented for each side. I want to do this so I can more clearly point to this when I have discussions with others. We put a lot of work into our arguments and it would be a shame if it just got lost in the thousands of posts that no one ever reads again.
4) Rather than simply move on to evidence, I think it would be very interesting if we could compile a list of the evidence that supposedly “invalidates” each other’s theories. Then we can take turns selecting the ones we think are most “damaging” and see where that goes. I provided a little more detail for this option in a prior post.
You have my answer to the first three above.
As for the last one, the earth is old and there was no flood. This invalidates any position based on a young earth model and on a world wide flood.
Feel free to address that issue. Starting with Message 28, Message 33 and Message 36.
Message 45
I see all this talk from evolutionists on this site about how creation theory has been “invalidated”. When are you guys going to get it through your heads that it is impossible to invalidate a theory based on an “INTERPRETATION” of historical data? We all have the same evidence. The difference is how we interpret the evidence. The silly notion that you do not have presuppositions is almost humorous. Let’s take your tree rings for instance. You start out by saying “with NO presuppositions”. However, you have presuppositions and you don’t even realize it. Your presupposition is uniformitarianism. You are assuming that everything has always been the same for thousands of years.
No, we deduce that there is no reason to assume a change when we see absolutely no evidence for such a change either in the evidence at hand or any other evidence.
There is no change in the basic way the tree rings look, whether they are from last year or 8,000 years ago, they still have winter growth and summer growth patterns and show typical climate variations with no extreme conditions. Certainly they show no sudden discontinuity in the data that a world wide flood would produce.
Deduction is not presupposition, it comes AFTER looking at the data.
However, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that this is not the case and that there was a WWF. When you make that assumption instead (a valid one, not only from other evidence, but because we have eyewitnesses to the event), the rings (and carbon 14 dating), can be explained much more accurately.
Eyewitness. RIIIIGHT. The evidence for the world wide flood is the bible and the evidence for the bible being fact is? Presupposition. Coupled with denial of evidence that is contradictory - not a solid foundation at all.
quote:
delusion -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
Logic requires rational thinking eh?
For example, we all know today that natural selection itself is insufficient to explain how evolution might have occurred. When that realization was first made, do you think evolutionist threw up their hands and said “oh well, I guess that just invalidates our theory, we’ll have to propose a whole new one”! Of course not, they looked for OTHER mechanisms that could be use in conjunction with natural selection (mutations).
Natural selection was known about and discussed long before Darwin. It was felt at that time that this caused species to stabilize.
Darwin added that IF there was a mechanism for change THEN the diversity of life we see could be explained, that species would NOT stabilize - even though he did not know what the mechanism for change was (he deduced its existence and made it a theory).
Yes mutation has since been shown to be that mechanism for change, but that does not alter the fact that evolution is change, rather it validates Darwin's prediction based on his deduction.
They looked for and found the mechanism that was predicted by Darwin's theory. That is how science works.
Now mutations are also being questioned by scientists as being sufficient (since they never provide beneficial changes that provide an increase in information). What will be proposed next?
LOL. You've been reading waaay too much ID and creationist propoganda.
Beneficial mutations have evolved, they've been observed, based on mutation and natural selection.
Denial does not make this evidence disappear or render it invalid, it just shows you are in denial.
The only discussion I am aware of that involves significant mechanism other than mutations is during the formation of first life, where horizontal gene transfer may have played a more dominant role.
This is not a "new" mechanism either, as we have known about it for some time (see short list regarding "micro"evolution mechanisms at the end of Message 17:
We can start by stipulating that:
  • refers to speciation and
  • nothing beyond the causes up to and including speciation,
  • has been observed to occur and is
  • thus a fact.
    That it involves
  • change in species over time,
  • mutation as an observed fact,
  • natural selection as an observed fact, and
  • some other minor mechanisms such as genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer by viruses and the like.
    That it does NOT involve
  • sudden large scale change or
  • sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities.
But I know of no evolutionary biologist that feels this is sufficient to discredit mutation and natural selection as operating mechanisms that do in fact cause evolution, or that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain virtually all of the evidence.
There is always the possibility of other mechanisms being involved: that is part of this being science and not dogmatic belief - the tacit understanding that what we know is incomplete and therefore subject to change. Over time. Based on new evidence and new deductions and theories.
Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : otpy
Edited by RAZD, : final wording

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:20 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by MurkyWaters, posted 02-25-2007 8:27 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 121 (380722)
01-28-2007 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by MurkyWaters
01-03-2007 12:38 AM


Re: Timeline updates
I've updated Message 28 and Message 33 with references and some new information.
I'll wait to post more when you are ready to confront the evidence.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:38 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 121 (381785)
02-01-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by MurkyWaters
01-04-2007 11:23 PM


Evolution 101 Link

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Maybe this will help you understand the difference between the definition and the different applications:
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote:

The definition


Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation


Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
Evolution is change (modification) in species (population) over time (generations = descent). The amount of change possible is related to the amount of time available.
Within one generation the amount of change possible in a population of a species is a shift in the frequency of alleles within that population. Some alleles are added (mutation), some are eliminated (death before reproduction), and some are more numerous than before while others are less numerous (drift or selection).
Change from generation to generation is sometimes additive -- resulting in a trend -- and sometimes revertive -- fluctuating about a basic pattern.
If you are looking for "macro"evolution to operate on the same time scale (or less) than "micro"evolution, you are looking in the wrong place and the wrong time.
Over the course of 3.5 billion years "micro"evolution adds up to the diversity of life as we know it -- all the living and extinct species on this planet. Yet each step is a "micro" step: change in species over time:
minimum "micro"evolution = ∑(change in species over time)generation a to generation a+1
maximum "macro"evolution = ∑(change in species over time)3.5 billion years
maximum "macro"evolution = ∑(minimum "micro"evolution)3.5 Byr/generation-time
... but every step is by "micro"evolution.
Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : banners
Edited by RAZD, : wording for clarity

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:23 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by MurkyWaters, posted 02-25-2007 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 121 (385936)
02-18-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by MurkyWaters
01-05-2007 10:22 AM


Re: Dealing with the issues

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

We all have the same evidence. The difference is how we interpret the evidence.
Ignoring evidence is not an alternative interpretation. An alternative explanation confronts and deals with the evidence, it shows HOW it came to be and HOW it supports your position. It confronts and deals with the evidence that contradicts the concept or it relinquishes the field.
Let’s take your tree rings for instance. You start out by saying “with NO presuppositions”. However, you have presuppositions and you don’t even realize it. Your presupposition is uniformitarianism. You are assuming that everything has always been the same for thousands of years.
False.
It assumes that the tree rings are tree rings. Then it looks at the evidence of those tree rings to see where the evidence leads.
Nor is "uniformiarianism" taken, but rather the opposite -- that the environment HAS changed in the past, we have the evidence for it -- just that the evidence is NOT for the extreme "non-uniforitarianism" of the world wide flood or a young earth. Both of these are fantasies not supported by evidence.
You have no reason to introduce extreme non-uniforitarianism without any evidence for it: this is not an alternative interpretation it is clutching at straws, making up myth, and fabricating fantasy.
You particularly do not have any valid kind of "alternative interpretation" to introduce extreme non-uniformitarianism when the evidence shows otherwise. You have to play with the cards dealt. Confront the evidence and explain ALL of it.
However, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that this is not the case and that there was a WWF.
There can be evidence FOR any possible conclusion you want to reach - even that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun orbits it. The real issue is dealiing with the evidence that INVALIDATES the conclusion -- that is what science does. The young earth and WWF concepts are invalidated by the evidence.
It is not a matter of an alternative interpretation, it is a matter of explaining the evidence -- ALL the evidence. Without confronting the evidence that invalidates both the young earth model and the WWF concept all you are doing is ignoring evidence, not "interpreting" it.
Ignorance is not interpretation.
Then scientists propose explanations for why certain data does NOT invalidate their theory and look for other explanations.
Any scientist that does not deal with the evidence that DOES invalidate their theory is not doing science, and will quickly be cut to shreds by his peers. Cold Fusion.
For example, we all know today that natural selection itself is insufficient to explain how evolution might have occurred. When that realization was first made, do you think evolutionist threw up their hands and said “oh well, I guess that just invalidates our theory,...
Typical straw man. Again, what the original theory by Darwin included was variation and natural selection, he just did not know at the time what the source of variation was. Now we do. That is an increase in knowledge.
What will be proposed next?
What the evidence shows. All the evidence.
I see all this talk from evolutionists on this site about how creation theory has been “invalidated”.
If you can't deal with the evidence that invalidates the theory then you do not have an interpretation of the data.
The earth is old. That is what the evidence shows. Deal with it.
There was no world wide flood. That is what the evidence shows. Deal with it.
Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-05-2007 10:22 AM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by MurkyWaters, posted 02-25-2007 11:25 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 121 (385960)
02-18-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by MurkyWaters
12-31-2006 5:27 PM


Microevolution Case #2 - Pelycodus

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Continuing with the working definition of "micro"evolution from Message 17:
We can start by stipulating that:
  • refers to speciation and
  • nothing beyond the causes up to and including speciation,
  • has been observed to occur and is
  • thus a fact.
    That it involves
  • change in species over time,
  • mutation as an observed fact,
  • natural selection as an observed fact, and
  • some other minor mechanisms such as genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer by viruses and the like.
    That it does NOT involve
  • sudden large scale change or
  • sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities.
Speciation is the generally accepted dividing line (currently) between "macro"evolution and "micro"evolution, in both biology and creationism.
In biology the process of "micro"evolution is mutation, genetic drift, etc, causing variation within the gene pool, and then selection by survival and breeding to pass genes on to the next generation, or natural selection of "more fit" individuals over "less fit" individuals for the particular {environmental\inner-population} dynamics that prevail.
In creationism this is often referred to as "variation and adaptation" but is the exact same mechanism, just using a different {words\names} to say the same thing (possibly to hand wave away any implication that we are really discussing "evolution").
In biology the process of "macro"evolution - where the term is used - is simply the accumulation of differences between populations that have become dis-linked after speciation has occurred: the more time that passes the greater the likelihood (or opportunity) for differences to be noticeable as being "significant" to human observers.
In creationism there is often a "cognitive dissonance" issue regarding "macro"evolution (what evolution actually says happens) and a common belief that something else happens on a comparatively brief time-scale and that causes some kind of sudden significant change or some kind of extra change.
The point of this discussion of "micro"evolution is to see how far we can go in explaining the evidence with the mechanisms of "micro"evolution, and see if we need some additional mechanism to explain some additional or extra kind of change.
There are several definitions of "species" that make this "dividing line" a little muddy. Most of the muddiness involves asexual species, species that reproduce only by cell division. In essence each individual is a sub-population that does not interact genetically with the other sub-populations (except by horizontal gene transfer, which is not necessarily species inter-specific either). Thus in asexual species the definition is fairly arbitrary: they are classed into species by the degree of similarity within groups. This is similar to the classification of species into higher taxons in traditional taxonomy.
The real issue for "macro"evolution with creationists apparently involves sexual species, so the species definition for asexual species is not that big an issue. For sexual species it is fairly well accepted that the failure to breed between two populations is sufficient evidence of speciation -- whether the two population can breed and produce viable hybrids is not considered relevant when the two populations by behavior don't breed. Certainly using sexual species and this definition of speciation to show speciation occurs will avoid any concern that the definition involved is arbitrary.
We can use ring species, such as the Asian Greenish Warblers(1) (Phylloscopus trochiloides) to demonstrate that it doesn't take much difference to create a behavior barrier to mating:
quote:
In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow.
West Siberian greenish warblers (P. t. viridanus) and east Siberian greenish warblers (P. t. plumbeitarsus) differ subtly in their plumage patterns, most notably in their wing bars, which are used in communication. While viridanus has a single wing bar, plumbeitarsus has two. Around the southern side of the ring, plumage patterns change gradually.
Male greenish warblers are very active singers, using song both to attract females and to defend their territories. Each male has a repertoire of song units, and songs are made by stringing together units in various ways. There is much geographical variation in both the song units and the rules by which units are assembled into songs.
There is a clear gradient in song characteristics around the ring, with the northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus differing dramatically in their songs.
A modest change in plumage and mating song and there is no breeding behavior between the two populations. Remove the intermediate varieties and speciation has occurred. To visualize speciation occurring in time rather than space all one needs to do is consider the intermediate varieties to be ancestral rather than geographically removed.
One wing bar to two is not a significant change, but it is a change in a feature visible on the two different varieties. Change in mating behavior - song patterns - is a little different: it would not be something that would be recorded in any preserved specimens, but it is a distinctive part of mating behavior for all sexual species.
We can also look at the fossil record to see if there is a similar pattern with such ancestral rather than geographic separations. One such example is Pelycodus(2):
quote:

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.
What we see is a gradual trend towards increase in size with time (what has been called "Cope's Rule" as hypothesized by Edward Drinker Cope, who also first identified Pelycodus jarrovii in 1874, the "type" species of the adapid genus Pelycodus), until a branching point is reached at which time one population rapidly (by comparison - still over a period of many thousands of years) decreases in size.
The distinction of species from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus trigonodus to Pelycodus jarrovii can be considered fairly arbitrary: we don't know whether they could interbreed or not, and the classifications are based on small changes in skeletal structures and size.
Likewise the distinctions between Pelycodus jarrovii and Notharctus nunienus or between Pelycodus jarrovii and Notharctus venticolus could be considered arbitrary (especially in the absence of the other), but the distinction between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus is not arbitrary: there is a clear division between the two populations with no overlap in sizes. Whether they could interbreed or not is not an issue - they were reproductively isolated by the time the top of this diagram is reached. Thus we see the same pattern in ancestral species resulting in non-breeding subpopulations as we saw with the ring species warblers.
Pelycodus is tantalizing here, because the above article goes on to say:
quote:
The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
Where 'genus' is the next level up from 'species' in the standard taxonomy and thus we have a pending "macro"evolution division of species into two different genus taxons.
Nonetheless, what we have here is "micro"evolution with a speciation event that divides a population of primates into two daughter populations, each of which will continue to evolve by "change in species over time" within their respective populations -- by "micro"evolution.
At this point the population dynamics behavior apparently changes between the sub-populations: previous to speciation they were in cooperation, each sub-population accumulating variation and sharing it by gene mixing between the groups; after speciation there is no further gene sharing and the two populations are in competition for the same resources. I say "apparently" because from the standpoint of each individual there is no significant change: each individual behaves in response to in-group and out-group interactions. Prior to speciation all were in-group, and after speciation part are now out-group, and the only thing that changes for each individual is the definitions of in-group and out-group. In all cases (before and after) evolution proceeds in response to selection pressure for survival and breeding. The mechanism by which this is realized is still "micro"evolution - the change is species over time - within each population. Variation and selection. Change in the frequency of alleles within a population. Adaptation and selection.
This apparent change in population dynamics may be one reason for the appearance of "punctuated equilibrium" (punk eek) in some fossil records. In fact one interpretation for Pelycodus evolution involves punk eek (it also includes some additional species and uses an alternate name for Notharctus nunienus - Pelycodus frugiverous - and moves Pelycodus jarrovii higher on the diagram): Possible "Punk Eek" interpretation(3).
Evolution is about opportunity, and what we see here is a gradual evolution of a species to a larger body size until a point is reached where the population divides. One population continues to increase in size, while the other reduces size back towards the original size. The gradual increase in size would mean the species is less adapted over time to the small end of the niche (high tree branches say), but better adapted over time to the large end of the niche (ground foraging, or some other successful behavior), and that at some point the small end would be left vacant by continued increase in size. This would create opportunity for a new smaller species, and this is what we see happening. Initially there is greater opportunity for survival for the two populations to continue to diverge - in size, behavior, habitat, etc - and less opportunity for survival fighting over common ground, until they are sufficiently different that interspecies conflict between them is not significantly different than interspecies conflict with other species. After that point is reached the two diverging populations can co-exist without driving the other towards extinction: this is when non-arbitrary speciation becomes solidified in two viable daughter populations.
Pelycodus is an example of non-arbitrary speciation of one species into two - related - species. The process of that speciation is in accordance with the working definition of "micro"evolution given above.
Enjoy.
References:
  1. Irwin, Darren et al, "The greenish warbler ring species" University of British Columbia on-line, 2005 accessed 18 Feb 2007 from Greenish warblers
  2. Lindsay, Don, "A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate" Don Lindsay Archive on-line, 25 April 1997 accessed 18 Feb 2007 from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus
  3. Carr, Steven M. ""Punctuational" interpretation of Pelycodus evolution" Memorial University of Newfoundland on-line, 2005, accessed 18 Feb 2007 from Pelycodus: punctuated
    - Note that this shows there is some disagreement on the exact evolution path that occurred in this lineage, but that both agree that non-arbitrary speciation occurred at the point where Notharctus nunienus (Pelycodus frugiverous) or Notharctus venticolus have diverged into non-breeding populations. He also has "Gradualisitc interpretation of Pelycodus evolution" at Pelycodus: gradulastic.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : added 'extra' change

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by MurkyWaters, posted 12-31-2006 5:27 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by MurkyWaters, posted 02-26-2007 11:26 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 121 (386324)
02-20-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by MurkyWaters
09-19-2006 8:18 PM


Invalidation of a Young Earth

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Message 44
4) Rather than simply move on to evidence, I think it would be very interesting if we could compile a list of the evidence that supposedly “invalidates” each other’s theories. Then we can take turns selecting the ones we think are most “damaging” and see where that goes. I provided a little more detail for this option in a prior post.
One piece of evidence that contradicts a concept invalidates it. The onus is then on the person supporting the concept to fully explain the discrepancy. This explanation must not just show that the evidence could be wrong, it must show how and why the evidence is the way it is.
Failure to explain the contradictory evidence means that the theory is falsified as written. The only remaining option is to modify the concept so that it fits the evidence.
There is nothing "supposedly" about it. This is how science is done.
We'll take the Young Earth Creation (YEC) Model as a case in point, where you claim the earth and life is "approximately 6000 years old":
Message 8

Creation Theory
God created the first living kinds approximately 6000 years ago.
The evidence of just the tree rings is that the earth is older than 6000 years. The evidence is that life is also older than 6000 years. The evidence for both of these includes the tree ring data that has been presented.
The tree ring data invalidates this 6000 year age element of the god-did-it theory. This data alone extends continuously over the last 12,405 years, which not only makes life (trees) older than 6,000 years it makes a world wide flood in that period impossible.
The YEC model of the age of the earth is invalidated.
Message 36
What they are essentially doing with all these dendrochronologies is building an overall dendrochronology independant of genus or species. The method for matching elements of some species dendrochronologies is the same as it is for matching sample elements within species dendrochronologies: they match up the patterns of climate with annual rings. So we have the German Oak running to10,429 BP and the German Pine running from 9891 BP to 12,410 BP and it overlaps the German Oak for 538 years. We can again be {minimalist\parsimonious\generous} and say that the error in this date is 0.5% (to include the Bristlecone Pine) and the minimum age then is 12,410 BP - 0.5% + (2007-1950) = 12,405 years.
Explain the 0.5% error over 12,000 years between the three different chronologies.
Message 41
Tree ring dating is not reliable and is easily refuted, which I will not attempt to do now since it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Message 42
I'll be happy to refute this evidence when we've finished our prior discussion on definitions. ...mw
Claims that it is "not reliable" do not demonstrate anything. Perhaps you think Don Batten will help you.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441
quote:
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.
This article is discussed in greater detail in another thread (Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud), however he is (a) talking about a tree selected and bred by the timber industry for fast growth, that is (b) in a different subgenus (all pines are in the genus Pinus, so this is like comparing a car with a bus as modes of transportation), (c) he doesn't discuss other sources of error that can mean the tree is older than the ring data, and finally (d) he can - and did - distinguish the false rings from the annual ones, just as dendrochronologists do ("up to five rings per year").
Suffice it to say, the argument from Don Batten is false and misleading and does not answer the question of how all the different dendrochronologies end up with the same climate and annual ring patterns when the scientists have accounted for the known sources of errors in the different tree lines, errors that would occur at different times in different species in different locations, for different reasons, errors that add up to only 37 years in differences between the Bristlecone Pine and the European Oak chronologies.
And we haven't even discussed how the tree ring data is validated by the carbon 14 data yet. The "carbon-14 age" of a sample is really a measurement of the quantity of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the total carbon in the sample. This quantity measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual amount of carbon-14 in the sample. The point here is that it does not matter what creationists think about the validity of carbon-14 dating in particular, radiometric dating in general, or radioactive decay, because two samples of the same age - that lived in the same atmospheric environment and absorbed the then existing levels of atmospheric carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14 (the three common isotopes) - will have the same levels of carbon-14 in the samples today. No fantastic scheme invented to change the way radioactivity works will change that simple fact, for whatever is changed in one sample is changed in all the others of the same time. Thus, when sample {A} is dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it has level {Y} carbon-14 content, and when sample {B} is also dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it has level {Y} carbon-14 content, the carbon-14 content validates the age - because, growing in the same environment, they could not be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon.
carbon | Infoplease
quote:
Carbon has 13 known isotopes, which have from 2 to 14 neutrons in the nucleus and mass numbers from 8 to 20. Carbon-12 was chosen by IUPAC in 1961 as the basis for atomic weights; it is assigned an atomic mass of exactly 12 atomic mass units. Carbon-13 absorbs radio waves and is used in nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry to study organic compounds. Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years, is a naturally occurring isotope that can also be produced in a nuclear reactor.
The method
quote:
Three principal isotopes of carbon occur naturally - C-12, C-13 (both stable) and C-14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%.
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
quote:
Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.
This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta- decay:
Glossary Term - Beta Decay
quote:

During beta-minus decay, a neutron in an atom's nucleus turns into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. The electron and antineutrino fly away from the nucleus, which now has one more proton than it started with. Since an atom gains a proton during beta-minus decay, it changes from one element to another. For example, after undergoing beta-minus decay, an atom of carbon (with 6 protons) becomes an atom of nitrogen (with 7 protons).
Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time.
The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and this can be used to calculate an apparent "C-14 age" from the proportion of C-14 to C-12 in an organic sample (that derives its carbon from the atmosphere) and this "date" can be checked against known dates to determine the amount of C-14 that was in the atmosphere:

(Image based on calibration curvefrom Wikipedia(2) - Both images are in the public domain.)
Note that the "C-14 age" is really a measurement of the actual ratio of C-14 to C-12 isotopes in the sample, and a comparison of that to modern day proportions.
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
quote:
A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:
t = {ln (Nf/No)/ln (1/2)} x t1/2

where t is the "C-14 age", ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14.
These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":
404 Page not found
quote:

This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed and note the following:
  • If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring data caused by false rings (as proposed by Dr. Don Batten), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring age. This is not the case.
  • The false rings would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species used for the overall dendrochronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.
  • The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects.

Conclusions

The actual amount of C-14 in the tree-ring samples match from species to species for the same ages as the tree-rings, regardless of the radioactive decay rate for carbon-14, and this validates that they formed in the same "carbon-14 environment" regardless of radioactive decay afterwards.
Samples that get carbon-14 only from atmospheric sources while living cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.
False tree-rings for each and every one of the different species that were used on the calibrations curve would have to have occurred at the same time in several different habitats, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results.
Anyone wanting to invalidate tree-rings as a viable age measurement method needs to simultaneously explain the correlation of tree-rings to climate between each species and the correlation of tree-rings to carbon-14 levels absorbed in each of the tree-rings in each of the species at the same tree-ring age. This is three different systems having matching data on a year by year basis.
In the absence of a consistent overall explanation for these correlations, the logical conclusion is that the carbon 14 data confirms the dendrochronology age for the Bristlecone Pines, the German Oaks, the Irish Oaks and the German Pines.

Minimum age of the earth > 12,405 years based on this data.

This is now older than ALL YEC models for the age of the earth that I am aware of, meaning that the YEC concept is invalidated based on tree-ring data alone.
This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 12,405 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
And we haven't even gotten to the tip of the iceberg of the data for an old earth.
Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : updated age information
Edited by RAZD, : added great debate banner
Edited by RAZD, : removed extra sentence

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by MurkyWaters, posted 09-19-2006 8:18 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by MurkyWaters, posted 02-27-2007 12:09 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 121 (386350)
02-21-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by MurkyWaters
01-04-2007 11:20 PM


Irreducible Complexity and Evolution and Invalidation
Message 44
4) Rather than simply move on to evidence, I think it would be very interesting if we could compile a list of the evidence that supposedly “invalidates” each other’s theories. Then we can take turns selecting the ones we think are most “damaging” and see where that goes. I provided a little more detail for this option in a prior post.
As noted previously, one piece of evidence that contradicts a concept invalidates it. The onus is then on the person supporting the concept to fully explain the discrepancy. This explanation must not just show that the evidence could be wrong, it must show how and why the evidence is the way it is.
Failure to explain the contradictory evidence means that the theory is falsified as written. The only remaining option is to modify the concept so that it fits the evidence.
There is nothing "supposedly" about it. This is how science is done.
Now we'll take the "Intelligent Design" (ID) concept of "Irreducible Complexity" (IC):
Message 21
However I can provide dozens of examples of biological features that are irreducibly complex, some having a hundred components or more that must be working in perfect unison and harmony to operate properly. Since they could not have evolved independently or in small steps, they MUST have been created that way by an intelligent designer. Even a single example of an irreducibly complex feature invalidates evolution. When we finish with definitions, how about starting there? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There’s more, much more!
Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box, makes a wonderful case of how even the simplest living organisms are irreducibly complex. It is simply impossible that all of the intricate and multiple components which each depend on each other could have evolved independently. To think that our brains, millions of times more complex than any supercomputer designed by man, could have evolved by random chance is the epitome of vanity.
Providing many examples of IC systems does not show that they can ONLY be developed by a designer. To invalidate evolution with it you must show that not a single IC system can evolve. This has not been done. The rest of this is just an argument from incredulity that demonstrates a failure of imagination.
Message 23
Even the simplest forms of life are irreducibly complex with apparatus working together that could not have evolved independently. They are numerous examples of this that I’ve seen over the years for which evolutionists simply wave their hands and say it MUST of have happened somehow.
No hand waving needed nor employed. Complex systems evolve by adding mutations to existing systems. No matter how simple you start, mutation adds complexity to the overall system, and selection gives the opportunity for successful mutations to survive and increase. As those systems evolve further components that were previously part of a complex system become redundant and are either no longer needed or are used for something else. Evolution would not prevent the removal of such a redundant component that is no longer necessary, in fact it would actively encourage it as it reduces energy loading.
For every IC system that an IDist has held up as an example there is an explanation for exactly how it evolved AND there are examples of intermediate developments in related species.
See Dover PA trial thread:
Message 129 Percy quoting from trial transcripts:
Judge Jones on page 64 writes:
We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
Judge Jones on page 75-76 writes:
By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument...Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
Judge Jones on page 80-81 writes:
In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (23:61-73 (Behe)). Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.
Thus there is an absolute failure on the side of ID to demonstrate the exclusive ability of a designer to develop and IC system, and this means that AT BEST it could only be considered a hypothesis that is not tested. To totally invalidate this IC argument all that is needed is for one IC system to evolve within a documented scientific experiment.
But that is not all: The test is in and the concept failed.
Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
Ken Miller on his website ”A True Acid Test"Talks about the evolution of an “Irreducibly Complex” mechanism that fits the definition Michael Behe used when he made the term up ("Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." - p 39):
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
As noted in Ken Miller’s website, just such an "IC" system was seen, observed, and documented as evolving in a couple of experiments run by Barry Hall:
quote:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.
Does Barry Hall's ebg system fit the definition of irreducible complexity? Absolutely. The three parts of the evolved system are:
(1) A lactose-sensitive ebg repressor protein that controls expression of the galactosidase enzyme
(2) The ebg galactosidase enzyme
(3) The enzyme reaction that induces the lac permease
Unless all three are in place, the system does not function, which is, of course, the key element of an irreducibly complex system.
It’s “irreducible” and it evolved. Thus precept (P2) is invalidated, falsified, refuted, and ALL conclusions based on it are invalidate. Q.E.D.
There you have an evolved IC system, no designer need apply. The IC concept is invalidated as a marker of ID, and thus the number and complexity of existing IC systems is irrelevant: they can evolve.
It's that simple.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:20 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by MurkyWaters, posted 02-27-2007 11:02 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 121 (387082)
02-25-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by MurkyWaters
02-25-2007 8:27 PM


Problems. Try reality ...

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

One - please revise your link that makes the page too wide to read.
[url=http...etc]title of article[/url]
The entire point of getting into this debate was to define evolution and creation theory. My opening post was almost entirely about definitions.
Two - as noted before, either you use the definitions used by the science to talk about the science or you are NOT talking about the science.
Evolution IS the change in species over time ... whether it is stated as "descent with modification" (Darwin) OR the "change in the frequency of alleles in a population" OR similar.
The kind of change that we observe in Galapagos finches (and moths and whatever we observe today), is not the KIND of change that can change molecules into man. It is not the KIND of change that supports evolution theory which states that all the diversity of life we see today originated from some common ancestor in a “primordial soup” billions of years ago.
Sorry. It IS what we see in speciation, it IS what we see in the case of the foraminifera. Your strawman is not evolution.
It does NOT support the direction of movement from simple to more complex organisms, but rather it results in a LOSS (wingless beetles, blind cave fish . ) or reshuffling (moths, bacteria . ) of function/information, NOT a gain required by evolutionary theory.
Three - this concept of "information" is bogus -- there is no definition that can be applied to actually measure the amount. However the biggest problem is that "information" is either irrelevant or it does increase. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments:
quote:
Leaving aside the fact that “information” is not defined in any way to measure whether or not there is an increase or a decrease in any evolved changes in species over time, we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such mechanism or function has evolved that would require such an increase. In other words, if we can show that either (P1) or (P2) must be invalid then we have shown that the conclusion is invalid.
...
Thus the deletion of the beta-galactosidase gene MUST have involved the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for the function or mechanism of that gene.
Next what we see is that a DIFFERENT “IC” system evolves to replace the original -- the original “IC” system is not repaired or recovered, but a new and different “IC” system evolved.
Ergo new “information” MUST have evolved that was not in the original organism, the “information” for that organism MUST have been increased. Again, this is the principle of falsification used by science - it invalidates either precept (P1) or precept (P2), and therefore invalidates ALL conclusions based on their combination.
This invalidates the claim that there is only a loss of "information".
You can also see the same thing happening in other evidence - see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy..., Message 18:
quote:
See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)
Walkingstick insects originally started out as wingless insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.
And some gained wings (red). And diversified.
And some lost wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one gained wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).
Gained wings, lost wings, gained wings. The information that is supposedly "lost" is regained no matter how you cut it or where you think this "information" is carried. If the genetic information to make wings is switched off and on then the information that controls that switch is then the "information" that is lost and then gained. You cannot go backwards and forwards and only go in one direction.
This also invalidates the claim that there is only a loss of "information"
You cannot have information defined in any way that can escape the fact that in ONE part of either situation above information MUST be lost and in another it is replaced so that it MUST be gained. By evolution. By mutation and selection. By change in species over time. By the change in the frequency of alleles in a population.
Now that we have disposed of that intellectually vacant (undefined = cannot be measured = useless) concept, AND shown that there is no such barrier, there is no restriction to change in species over time showing new features -- just as we see in speciation and in the fossil record. Just as we see with the lactose and the wings. We've seen it. Change in species over time.
... is not the KIND of change that can change molecules into man.
Four - your continued insistence on "something else" being involved than change in species over time.
Sorry but such assertions of arguments of incredulity and ignorance and hyperbole are unsupported by the actual evidence of what evolution really is and what really happens: change in species over time.
Denial of the evidence does not make it go away either.
#1 - Start with Macro Evolution:
Where have you been? I’ve been defining macro evolution since this debate began.
No, you've just said that it is {something else that it totally undefined} OTHER than change in species over time.
What is your definition of "macro"evolution?
Macro-evolution is not about just any change in species over time. We’re talking about the kind of change that can change one kind of organism into another. And that’s my point. There IS no mechanism that can account for that type of change.
This is not a definition of "macro"evolution, it is claiming that {something else that is totally undefined} happens. Do you think that the fact that there is "no mechanism" for what you think "macro"evolution is could be a CLUE that your concept of "macro"evolution is false?
How much change and in what time-frame? In one sense this occurs at the moment of speciation: one species has become another. They no longer interbreed because they are different. Or do you need the accumulated change from, say, two speciation events, to show that change is continuous and necessarily divergent rather than convergent? That second generation daughter (grand-daughter) species are more different from the original parent species than the intermediate ones?
Either way you cut the evidence, the mechanism by which evolution occurs is change in species over time. That you think one change is bigger or more important than another is irrelevant. All that matters is that species continue to survive and breed to be successful.
Five - you still have totally failed to address the issue of the evidence that shows (1) no world wide flood for over 12,000 years (minimum) and (2) the earth is OLDER than any YEC model.
The evidence invalidates a YEC model and this makes it pointless to discuss any part of a YEC model or any hypothesis based on it. It is falsified.
That's reality.
Enjoy.
ps - hope you enjoyed your rant.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by MurkyWaters, posted 02-25-2007 8:27 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by MurkyWaters, posted 03-01-2007 1:07 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024