|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The phrase "Evolution is a fact" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5541 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
The original perfect information with all its variability, yes.
No, mutations have played their part -more often to the detriment of the original kind of animal.
You contradicted yourself.
The only beneficial mutations that have ever been shown to exist may be beneficial in certain circumstances -for example wingless beetles on a windy island - but even the beneficial mutations involve a loss of original information.
It's your right to remain ignorant, if that's what you want.
As for crazy - No, i'm a normal person in a normal family, no medication, no strait jacket, fully functional but unconvinced by evolutionary storytelling. I did once believe the sorts of things that you believe but it was before I really considered the other options in any depth, it was in the days when I did not know that there was an option, the days when I swallowed my indoctrination whole.
Crazy was not the best way to describe it, I admit. Confused is probably closer to the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5541 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Well considering that most of the basic body plans that exist appeared in about 3 minutes in the 11th hour geologically speaking (in the Cambrian)I remain unconvinced. Since radiometric dating is the only dating technique that lends any credence to the vast ages required for hypothetical macroevolution to have happened and is far from reliable and since remains of C14 that should be gone from all the 'old' rock layers still persists in measurable quantities (otherwise named "contamination" by those who 'know' that it should not be there) - I find it a somewhat tall tale at best.Besides I still struggle to imagine how my brain could have evolved randomly.
You may have broken the record for cramming the largest number of missconceptions into one paragraph. I'll adress just the last one and lieve the rest for others (My wife is telling me I need to get a life). Your brain did not evolve randomly. Natural selection is not random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
boysherpa Junior Member (Idle past 5393 days) Posts: 19 From: Lomita, CA Joined: |
I enjoyed reading through the posts. I originally submitted the first post in this thread to investigate some semantic issues in the "evolution is fact" rhetoric. I was not taking a side, just interested in the semantics. Here are some observations:
1. There seem to be some conflicting views on facts and reasoning (inference, deduction, induction, etc.). I may have it wrong, but it would seem to me that a particular progressive set of fossils or measurements from them constitute a set of facts, but the reasoning from those facts do not. 2. There seems to be a melding of the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, cross-breeding, etc.), speciation (which is poorly defined), "macro" evolution, and descent (I may have missed some layers or groupings, sorry). This forum would do well to try to clean these definitions up. Most lay people do not have problems with the first two concepts. Some may have religious problems with descent, and therefore "macro". One solution is to first educate on the common ground, since this is where the world works. 3. Early posts indicate the confusion in the use of the terms fact and theory. A fact, in common scientific usage, is a measurable agreed upon and repeatable. A theory is a testable explanation. Evolution, being both "micro" and "macro", is ambiguous in definition. Therefore its testability is questionable. It would seem, from the posts, that "micro" is testable, and has been established as a fact. "Macro", however, seems untestable , but is a perfectly reasonable set of inferences, deductions, and inductions from the facts. 4. To the topic, "Evolution is a fact": I hope you will all understand why I posted this. Evolution is a powerful term, as was revealed by a few of the posts here. Many people respond emotionally and without careful thought, even some on the scientific side. There is widespread ignorance on both sides (yes, on both sides). Education is important, but education includes pedagogy and understanding of culture. 5. Generally, there was good discussion in the posts, and a lack of name-calling and pettiness. Thanks for giving me some good material to read through!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Generally necromancy is frowned upon I thought, but here goes:
1) It takes a minimum of reasoning to determine what you are looking at, so by this logic facts are impossible. After all, it is reasoning to conclude that because one end of an object is level with the end of a foot-long ruler, and the other end is level with the other end of the object, that the object is one foot long. I would consider that a factual observation, not an inference or a deduction. 2) This forum is quite clear on those matters. Religious people take issue with the theory arbitrarily and ignore available evidence at will. 3) No, facts do not have to be repeatable. It also, strictly speaking, does not have to be agreed upon. A theory does not have to be testable, it has to be predictive. Evolution is quite capable of being predictive while being both "micro" and "macro", and is not ambiguous in definition. (Just because you don't understand something, does not mean something is not understood or defined.) Think about gravity; we can pretty much factually determine how objects behave through experimentation, but we don't have the ability to go back in time and measure how galaxies behaved prior to our existence as reasoning beings. This does not mean that gravity, which is both micro and macro, is not a fact simply because we lack data in the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Good of you to come back to your own thread. Finally.
You'd do well to respond to the multiple responses of your first post. Especially since with this your latest response it is woefully obvious you've learned nothing. Good luck on your endeavor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
"Macro", however, seems untestable , but is a perfectly reasonable set of inferences, deductions, and inductions from the facts. 'Macroevolution' cannot be observed directly, but it is testable, by reference to the expected results of 'macroevolution', for example - existence of intermediates in the fossil record.- similarities and differences between the genomes of organisms. - geographical distribution patterns of organisms and fossils. The evidence from these sources, and others, is actually very good. Bear in mind also that 'micro' evolution of the genes and 'micro' evolution of the phenotype are not necessarily closely correlated. What appear to be 'big' changes - such as significant changes in body plan - can be brought about by small genetic changes. And vice versa. I've used the quotes because scientists don't believe there is a fundamental difference or clear boundary between two types of evolution. If you think about it, there is clearly a series of genetic changes that could take us from any organism to any other - there is no 'barrier' there to any particular scale of evolution. This is not to say that all these paths are valid, or that in an individual case any of them are. But there is no theoretical difficulty that would lead scientists to divide up these two. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Peepul responds to boysherpa:
quote:quote: Incorrect to both of you. "Macroevolution" isn't really that big of a term in biology but when it is used, it refers to evolutionary processes that happen above the species level. Since we can see speciation happen, we can observe macroevolution directly. Reproductive isolation, for example, is "macroevolution" since it is involved in speciation. We have observed reproductive isolation occur in as few as 13 generations. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Since we can see speciation happen, we can observe macroevolution directly. Reproductive isolation, for example, is "macroevolution" since it is involved in speciation. We have observed reproductive isolation occur in as few as 13 generations Overall I take your point, Rrhain. However, I don't believe the occurrence of reproductive isolation after 13 generations would correspond to the use of the word macroevolution by creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Overall I take your point, Rrhain. However, I don't believe the occurrence of reproductive isolation after 13 generations would correspond to the use of the word macroevolution by creationists. I guess the obvious question to ask here is what does the word "macroevolution" mean when used by creationists? Is it defined? Where is the dividing line between "macro" and "micro" evolution as conceived by creationsist? If creationists cannot define such a distinction why do they even think such a dividing line must exist? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
I guess the obvious question to ask here is what does the word "macroevolution" mean when used by creationists? Is it defined? Where is the dividing line between "macro" and "micro" evolution as conceived by creationsist? If creationists cannot define such a distinction why do they even think such a dividing line must exist? I wish it was possible to get a clear answer on that, but one has never been forthcoming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Peepul responds to me:
quote: Since we don't let creationists define what "evolution" is (they seem to think it has something to do with the creation of the universe and the origin of life), why would we ever let them get away with defining what "macroevolution" is? In general, when a creationist says "macroevolution," what they mean is, "A bigger evolutionary change than I am willing to admit is possible." This entire concept came up because it was become more and more ridiculous for creationists to claim that there was no evolutionary change at all. We could see the mutations happening. You can run the experiments is less than a week and see the allele frequencies change, watch the mutations arise, observe how they become dominant. So, they switched tactics. Rather than insisting that evolution was impossible, they started to claim that it was only "microevolution." That is, it's the canard of, "Yeah, but they're still fruit flies!" as if the result of the experiment was to have an ostrich hatch from an alligator's egg. Science does understand the concept of big changes compared to little changes, but it also understands that the difference is one of quantity, not quality. "Macroevolution" is really nothing more than a bunch of "microevolution." After all, if 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? How on earth does the genome know that it isn't allowed to change anymore? It is nothing more than the "kind" limitation dressed up in fancy language, just as "intelligent design" is nothing more than creationism without the g-word. They insist that no life can "reproduce outside its 'kind'" without ever defining what a "kind" is. And they don't define it because they know they'll get burned the minute we can show that it does happen. Which, of course, we have. We have directly seen speciation ("Oh, so it's at the Genus level), new genera ("Oh, it's at the Family level), new families, etc. At this point, they give up with trying to remain in scientific terms and make up their own: "Baramin." This, of course, is no better than "kind," but it sounds fancy. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There seem to be some conflicting views on facts and reasoning (inference, deduction, induction, etc.). I may have it wrong, but it would seem to me that a particular progressive set of fossils or measurements from them constitute a set of facts, but the reasoning from those facts do not. If you are going to go down this route, you would end up concluding that the only forms facts can take are: * I am experiencing certain qualia (which may be the product of hallucination).* I possess a certain memory (which may be erroneous). * I am having a certain thought (which may be wrong). All else is inference.
Early posts indicate the confusion in the use of the terms fact and theory. A fact, in common scientific usage, is a measurable agreed upon and repeatable. No. If that was the case then I couldn't say that it was a fact that, for example, Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. Or that I ate pizza yesterday. When it becomes necessary to redefine the word "fact" so that it no longer has its normal usage in order to argue that evolution is not a fact, this is a sign that evolution, in normal usage, is a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Since we can see speciation happen, we can observe macroevolution directly. Reproductive isolation, for example, is "macroevolution" since it is involved in speciation. We have observed reproductive isolation occur in as few as 13 generations. Reference please? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Since we don't let creationists define what "evolution" is (they seem to think it has something to do with the creation of the universe and the origin of life), why would we ever let them get away with defining what "macroevolution" is? Well, it's a term they defined themselves, and not one that science recognizes the need for, so I guess they have the right to say what they mean by it. Unfortunately what they mean by it isn't clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
No, macroevolution was defined within biology a long time ago. It is used, as I understand, only to a limited degree now though.
It is simply changes that are above the species transition level or considerations related to speciation occuring.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024