Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 211 of 215 (663623)
05-25-2012 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rrhain
05-23-2012 3:18 AM

Now, if you want to complain that this isn't an example of witnessing a new genus, that's fine. Let's have at it.
Didn't you read my post? It's not "new" in the sense that it's just evolved, it's new in the sense that it's just been discovered. They're not claiming anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 05-23-2012 3:18 AM Rrhain has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 212 of 215 (663975)
05-28-2012 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Rrhain
05-21-2012 2:01 AM

Can you break those articles down for me in your own words? There so long and a little hard to understand. I'd rather not just exchange articles. I can get some to for my position.
The moths? No, that wouldn't be speciation.
Isn't that adaptaion? Or we would say variation within a kind.
But the evolution of dogs from wolves? That is speciation.
Or are you going to move the goalposts again? Speciation is, by definition, "macro-evolution." Dogs are a different species from wolves. Before you respond, you have some homework to do: Look up "ring species" and make sure your response isn't immediately countered by what you find.
Huh? I don't doubt speciation happens.
Can you explain "ring Species" to me? Tell me why you are using it in your argument. What does ring species have to do with anything? Is ring species an example of macro-evolution?
You say that as if that were the only thing. Indeed, a terrestrial ungulate becoming an aquatic cetacean would be an example of macro-evolution.
Do you have an example you could show me?
But any speciation event is an example of "macro-evolution" because that's the definition of the term: Evolutionary processes that happen at or above the species level. Any time you ever see speciation happen, you've witnessed macro-evolution.
Ok. I don't want to debate the definition of words or what they mean. I don't have a problem with speciation. I don't even know if the term macro-evolution needs to be used. I'm interested in change. What is changing? I don't care what it's called. What animals change into what animals and how far outside of the species boundry can they go for speciation to occur?
Do you know how far the boundries for speciation to occur in animals is?
Well, we've seen it. You've been given the evidence you claim doesn't exist.
How far are you going to move the goalposts?
Moving the goalposts? I don't know where the goal posts are. If you want to discuss what words mean what I think that's for another thread. If you want to call speciation macro-evolution fine. I agree with speciation. I don't need to use the term "macro-evolution". Maybe it is causing some confusion here.
Me personally? My bio classes didn't go in that direction. Biology is a big field and not everything is population genetics. But surely you aren't saying that I'm your standard of evidence, are you?
No, i'm not.
When was the last time you were in a library let alone a science library? When was the last time you read a journal? Which one? Which article? If you haven't bothered to pay attention to the state of the science as to what has and has not been published, then what makes you think you are in a position to say what has and has not been observed?
I'm not in a position to say anything. I'd like discuss how far speciation can occur in species and what the limits are when it comes to speciation.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2012 2:01 AM Rrhain has not replied

Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 213 of 215 (664007)
05-28-2012 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Rrhain
05-21-2012 2:11 AM

No, I don't "imply." I state directly.
Fair enough, I didn't want to put words into your mouth so I settled for 'strongly implied', but if you want to upgrade that to 'explicitly stated' that's fine.
You did read the references, yes? All of them? There are at least five links I posted and each of them contains many independent references. Is there a reason why you're playing dumb?
I'm not disputing the content of the references, which even a casual examination of my posts would reveal.
I accept that we have observed macroevolution as science defines it.
And since you have read the references and know that we have indeed witnessed it, why are you still talking?
I think I've been quite clear. What is at stake here is not whether we have observed macroevolution as science defines it, but whether we have observed 'macroevolution' a somewhat nebulous term that creationists use to indicate a certain degree of change that we have not or cannot observe but which 'evolutionists' claim has occurred.
Can we please stop playing dumb?
Alternatively, you've misunderstood what I am saying and your expectations of the discussion have led you to erroneously conclude I'm playing dumb.
Simply, we have not observed macroevolution in the sense that the creationists use the term; or at least some creationists, probably many of them, and not consistently. Really, all I'm saying is that some creationists are right when they say words that mean 'there is a degree of change that evolutionists claim has occurred which has not been directly witnessed' even if they do so using technically incorrect terminology to get that meaning across such as 'macroevolution has not been observed'.
When a creationist comes and says the latter we should consider what they mean and maybe address the former. We could make it into a semantic argument and say 'The words you said are technically untrue as we have observed macroevolution'. I prefer to address the pragmatics, the intended meaning of sentences, rather than semantics.
To do otherwise is to muddy up the waters of discussion so that they become frustrating to both parties. If in doubt, you can always ask 'what do you mean by 'macroevolution'. You should probably keep in mind that a creationist is likely to have less formal education, and so their answer might be a bit wonky. They may say 'the creation of new body parts and limbs such as wings etc', one should take from that they mean the earlier statement of 'a certain degree of change has not been observed', and address their concerns thusly.
I might argue something like:
The formation of limbs, for example, necessarily occurred before we could witness it, as we have limbs. Is there a reason you insist that something must be observed before it can be said to be true? What implications does this have for our legal system? History? Astronomy? Religion?
There is much evolution that we have observed. Macroevolution as scientists define it has been observed. However, evidence can still exist that supports events that occur in natural history, before humans could record it, or happening so slowly that no one human acting alone could observe it.
Which I think is a superior way to progress a debate over 'but actually we have observed macroevolution {links to sources}'. Your responses so far haven't completely illuminated me as to your position on this. I am not sure how you've managed to get the wrong end of the stick, but I hope this longer explanation serves to correct your misapprehensions.
Last time I checked, calling someone a "liar" on this board is sufficient to get banned. Are you going to take the appropriate action or are you going to do as you always do and abuse your position as a moderator?
It can be sufficient, but it is not a necessary conclusion. YMMV. Being as I'm the offender, I suggest you post your concerns to the appropriate thread, you know which one, so that a more independent moderator can take a look and see if action is required.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2012 2:11 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ookuay, posted 08-01-2012 1:12 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Junior Member (Idle past 3973 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012

Message 214 of 215 (669652)
08-01-2012 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Modulous
05-28-2012 1:20 PM

That's certainly a good point. We can't expect everyone to know the scientific definitions of the terms we use (the classic example being "theory"). We certainly have witnessed macroevolution as modern science defines. It's too bad that some creationists demand evidence that is impossible or extremely difficult to come by. The original point I was making in this thread was that scientists have made observations but some creationists limit the definition of "observation" to bearing eyewitness. It's certainly mind-boggling when they go on to claim that evolution is therefore not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2012 1:20 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2012 10:45 AM ookuay has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 215 of 215 (669662)
08-01-2012 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by ookuay
08-01-2012 1:12 AM

but some creationists limit the definition of "observation" to bearing eyewitness. It's certainly mind-boggling when they go on to claim that evolution is therefore not science.
Limiting the definition of observing is not the problem. The problem is limiting the definition of evidence to only that which can be observed or directly perceived that is the problem.
I would not use the word "observe" in reference to the earth's core, yet we do have some knowledge about the earth's core based on evidence that has been directly measured, perceived and observed.
It's certainly mind-boggling when they go on to claim that evolution is therefore not science.
Absolutely. The idea is to drag certain sciences (evolution and astronomy and perhaps geology) down to their own level so they can say that evolution is simply a faith based belief.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ookuay, posted 08-01-2012 1:12 AM ookuay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024