Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

People get confused about the meaning of “random” in this context. We had one poster here who got it wrong and accused scientists of gross dishonesty over it. (Creationists love accusing others and hate admitting fault). There are biases in the process and some people think that means “non-random” (although that’s wrong too).Undirected is better. Maybe it needs expanding to deal with complications - but then you get into explaining stuff like the SOS response

quote:

---

Thank you for putting this example together, but the evolutionary process in question is the one governing the descent of one life form from another, e.g., aquatic creature to land animal, bird to lizard, etc.
​

---

You got a sequence, as you asked. And it’s evidence for the “processes governing the descent of one life form another”. The sequence is a sequence of different species - different life forms.

quote:

---

On one hand the Evolutionist says the fossil record is replete with transitional life forms, and on the other hand he says it is highly incomplete. How can it be both ways?

---

Quite simply. The fossil record is nowhere near complete on the scale of individuals, but as we go up the taxonomic tree it becomes more complete. Intermediates between species are very rare, but intermediates between larger taxonomic groups are less so.That said, there are significant biases in the fossil record, so some parts are more complete than others.

quote:

---

If they are different species, then how can we be sure that on descended from another? Where is that evidence, and how do we demonstrate that descent from one species to another is even possible, outside of scholarly explanations?

---

We cannot claim that this is a record of direct descent - the fossil record is not complete at the level of species.However, we see this pattern of similar species - a temporal pattern of change. The species from later times are different from those from earlier times. Evolution is the best explanation we have for such patterns - and indeed most creationists would agree that at least part of it was due to evolutionary change. Thus it is evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

The Macroevolution link you provided, unintelligible to most laymen, discusses common materials found across lifeforms, which is as much or more of an argument for a Creator. Much as a refrigerator or bicycle manufacturer would re-use favorable design features across various products.

---

Then I guess you didn’t understand even the quoted part. It’s not just reused “materials” - it’s the pattern of “reuse”.

quote:

---

Besides, at issue is the key dynamic of evolution, the linchpin, the one that is foisted ubiquitously on the public, which asserts that one higher lifeform (mammal, reptile) can eventually procreate to a completely different higher life form. Where is the evidence and certainty for that presented, beyond the explanation "Life Form A shares traits with Life Form B and somewhere in-between is where the evolution happened"?

---

The quoted material gives strong evidence that it happened. That, added to the evidence that change over time can and does occur as expected seems good enough. We have a very strong pattern. We have processes expected to produce the pattern. Surely we can reasonably extrapolate the processes to say that they did produce the pattern.(And note, of course that we do have intermediate forms for many steps. For instance tiktaalik and Ichthyostega)For comparison, nobody has directly observed Pluto make a complete orbit of the Sun, but I don’t think that anyone can reasonably deny that we can extrapolate its orbit forwards and backwards - and conclude that Pluto has completed many orbits and will complete many more.

quote:

---

We can take a set of known parents and their off spring, compare their DNA, and draw conclusions - this is legitimate experimentation with hard, empirical data
- but extrapolating these conclusions and extending them to all past and present lifeforms is mere supposition.

---

So where does the extrapolation cease to be valid and why? Have you actually investigated the nature of the similarities? Are you familiar with the evidence of ERVs? Or the structure of Cytochrome C ? Or are you making suppositions?

quote:

---

All I would ask of scientists is to maintain overt separation between biological fact and evolutionary supposition.

---

It is a fact that genetics provides considerable evidence for common ancestry. That is not supposition. Are you happy for that to be taught?

quote:

---

It appears that there is a danger within Scientific disciplines, that when factuality as determined by empirically demonstrable conclusion cannot be had, an arrogant fervor takes hold and the group simply declares as fact the opinion of the most credentialed within the group.

---

That looks like supposition to me. At best. Can you back it up? Neither of the messages you cite has any real support.

quote:

---

Where does the extrapolation cease to be valid? Good question, and it will remain a good question so long as the ancestry in question is/was not available for proper measurement and observation.
​

---

That is not really an answer. All you tell me is that you reject the extrapolation for no good reason.

quote:

---

I accept that Evolutionary biologists read common ancestry into the genetics evidence; however, all genetic evidence points to a Creator.

---

And what exactly qualifies you to pronounce on what the evidence points to when you haven’t even looked at it or learned enough to understand it?

quote:

---

Also, the fact that you have drawn a conclusion from a set of evidence does not make that conclusion fact.

---

Indeed it is the strength of the evidence that determines it. And that is why we can confidently say that - with minor caveats concerning the very earliest life - common ancestry is a fact.

quote:

---

The concept of common ancestry - maybe this is better described as something else, perhaps? - is the part of evolutionary biology that put its supporters at such stark, sometimes virulent odds with the Creationists.

---

You imply that creationists have the right to determine the conclusions that scientists have a right to reach. That scientists are somehow in the wrong for reaching conclusions creationists object to.It would be better to say that common ancestry is the concept that puts the supporters of creationism at “such stark, sometimes virulent odds with” science.

quote:

---

Throughout this string I have requested empirical testing that demonstrates common ancestry for all life forms.

---

And you’ve been referred to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and complained that you couldn’t understand it.If your complaint is that you won’t look for the evidence and don’t know enough to evaluate it then the problem would seem to be with you. It’s hardly a basis for alleging that “a large-scale misrepresentation is being foisted on the public’.

quote:

---

It is supposition, that's why it is prefaced with "It appears".

---

Except that you haven’t presented any basis for it at all. Something must underlay the alleged appearance, but there doesn’t seem to be anything.

quote:

---

See Message 247 for an example of why it appears this way, a.k.a, Fact as Established by the Concurrence of the Credentialed.

---

But Message 247 - even if it were entirely true - only suggests laymen deferring to expert opinion - and to a consensus of expert opinion at that. The majority of participants here - myself included - are laymen. Only one participant in this thread claims to be a scientist.If all you can point to is the behaviour of non-scientists - and if you can’t even get that right - then there is no actual appearance.So it appears that this is just another example of creationist’s love of making false accusations.

quote:

---

This is like a huge problem for you evolutionists. You just don't get what the main point of discussion is. And you don't know how to correctly interpret the p-value in scientific testing. Which is at the core of the scientific method.

---

The issue is how does your supposed example relate to the actual claim by Taq? Message 153Wouldn’t a fair coin produce a “random set of data”? Isn’t the point of what Taq is saying is that there is a significant deviation from chance? How then, can your example be relevant?Perhaps you should take your own advice: Although I will note that you have a history of ignoring it.

quote:

---

Another evolutionist totally missing the point and talking nonsense. It's about the miíinterpretation of the p-value by Taq. Not about what model produces what data.

---

I get it. You’re. Not actually interested in addressing Taq’s claim at all. Either that or you’re just arrogantly dismissing my point without understanding it.

quote:

---

No, you don't get it at all. You think you do, but you fail miserably. Your point is mute, as it does not at all address anything that is up for discussion here

---

My point is that your argument does not address Taq’s actual point. Obviously you shouldn’t be able to reliably tell random data from random data. So it is your argument that is moot (not “mute” - you can’t even get that right).And that’s why you use arrogant bluster instead of actually addressing the issues I raise.

quote:

---

Evolutionary Biology posits a common ancestry for all lifeforms based on a process/mechanism whereby one lifeform eventually procreates into a different life form, and presents this process/mechanism as scientific fact conforming to the Scientific Method. In other words, the claim to scientific factuality means this process/mechanism should be demonstrable per the Scientific Method.
​

---

Evolutionary biology is primarily based on the empirical evidence of common ancestry. Evidence that something has happened is evidence that it can happen. The basic mechanisms are demonstrable in laboratory experiments and you have been given examples.We also have examples of populations currently diverging - the hooded crow and the carrion crow. Or “ring species” like the ensatina salamanders and the larus gulls.

quote:

---

So far all I have seen to support this claim are lengthy explanations pieced together from incomplete and sometimes discontinuous data points. This is necessary up-front work in the effort to prove the process/mechanism, but test data it is not.

---

You are asking me to believe that you did not read Message 146, despite replying to it?

quote:

---

The Bible is not subject to science, science is subject to the Bible. So there is no bar for the Bible, high or low.

---

The Bible is not a science text. Geocentrists argued much as you do. But everyone - almost - accepts that they were wrong.Also, ask yourself why, Creationists do not replicate the breeding experiment found in Genesis 30:37-42. Surely it would be an easy way to prove that the Bible is superior to science.

quote:

---

Yes, I read Message 146. Unfortunately, bacterial mutations are still bacteria, and statistical organization of microbiological data does not demonstrate a macroevolutionary process.

---

The basic processes are mutation and natural selection, and both are demonstrated. The idea that macroevolution requires additional processes is controversial, hardly something to rely on (and I doubt that you know what the suggested processes even are)

quote:

---

From the evidence and explanations I've encountered in my quest for understanding evolutionary theory, I've concluded that evolutionary theory is an elaborate house of cards, a delicate hypothesis built on other delicate hypotheses (ages of rock sediment, locations of ancient seas, ancient weather patterns, etc.). If any element in any theory is incorrect, down comes the house of cards.

---

That’s far from obviously true. Minor errors in any of the above would seem to be easily accommodated and major errors seem implausible. Perhaps you consider Young Earth Creationism to be better because it ignores falsifying evidence?Indeed, can you come up with errors in any of the above which might plausibly occur and would suffice to falsify evolution?