|
Author
|
Topic: Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
|
K.Rose
Member Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: 02-02-2024
|
|
Message 46 of 703 (914947)
02-07-2024 6:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by Percy
02-07-2024 7:09 AM
|
|
You'll have to add a colon after the http or https to get these to work. It's the only way the links would submit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 7:09 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
K.Rose
Member Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: 02-02-2024
|
|
|
Message 47 of 703 (914948)
02-07-2024 6:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by AZPaul3
02-06-2024 10:36 PM
|
|
But still corn. We haven't turned it into a different lifeform. In fact, these forced mutations would argue against naturalistic evolution and point to intelligent design! Additionally, we can breed animals to favor the development of certain traits - we have demonstrated this aspect of natural selection ad infinitum. But if we get too carried away and cross a horse with a donkey we get a non-procreating mule - also arguing against the sustainability of mutations needed to support naturalistic evolution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 02-06-2024 10:36 PM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by dwise1, posted 02-07-2024 7:20 PM | | K.Rose has replied |
|
K.Rose
Member Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: 02-02-2024
|
|
|
Message 48 of 703 (914949)
02-07-2024 7:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Theodoric
02-07-2024 9:47 AM
|
|
Your definition of Theory in Message 41 - "A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers." - is very much in agreement with mine. The key is in the testing. A theory is a hypothesis that can be subjected to empirical testing that will either disprove or fail to disprove the hypothesis.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 02-07-2024 9:47 AM | | Theodoric has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 02-08-2024 3:25 PM | | K.Rose has not replied | | | Message 596 by Taq, posted 02-23-2024 11:31 AM | | K.Rose has not replied |
|
K.Rose
Member Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: 02-02-2024
|
|
|
Message 49 of 703 (914950)
02-07-2024 7:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by nwr
02-07-2024 12:22 AM
|
|
But within Physics we have very clear definitions of force, pressure, momentum, reflection/refraction, gravity, et al. Science is not really a technical category of its own. At it's core it's a method for substantiating hypotheses. Mathematics is not a science, it's a quantification method that can be proven at a rate of 100%. The experiment will always produce the same result, by definition. But Evolution is not such a broad category as Physics, and even if it were there are key principles in Evolution that demand controlled experimentation and supporting empirical results.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by nwr, posted 02-07-2024 12:22 AM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 8:02 PM | | K.Rose has not replied | | | Message 71 by nwr, posted 02-07-2024 9:38 PM | | K.Rose has replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13108 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002
|
|
|
Message 50 of 703 (914951)
02-07-2024 7:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 6:38 PM
|
|
Posting links has been enabled for your account.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 6:38 PM | | K.Rose has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:31 PM | | Admin has seen this message but not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6077 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 7.1
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 51 of 703 (914952)
02-07-2024 7:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 6:58 PM
|
|
But still corn. We haven't turned it into a different lifeform. Yes, that's how it works. Only creationists expect something different; eg, the often cited "dogs giving birth to kittens". That's not how evolution works, since that's not how life works. Why creationists expect such crazy things is something we cannot understand because they refuse to explain what they are talking about. In order to learn why such creationist utterances as " but it's still corn!" only serves to display one's ignorance, please read this Wikipedia article on monophyly, AKA "nested clades." An ancestral species is in a clade, which is what creationists are trying to describe as a "kind". All species that descend from that species are still in that same clade, even when they form clades of their own. Cousin species who form their own clades are in different clades than their cousins, but they are still in the same clade as their common ancestral species. Every species, including us, are not only members of our own clades, but also of the clades of every ancestor; eg, both of us are in the clades for human, primate, mammal, amniota, tetrapod, chordate (vertebrates), animal. Every species that may some day evolve from humans will form their own clade but will still be in the same clades that we are in. And when you cry out, "But they're still humans!", biologists will point at you and laugh. I'm very busy at the moment, but I'll get back to this topic later. In the meantime, my most concise definition of evolution would be: Evolution is the result of Life doing what Life naturally does. Though that's probably too concise for you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 6:58 PM | | K.Rose has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:50 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
K.Rose
Member Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: 02-02-2024
|
If the process is not so abrupt as "new life forms popping into existence", if the process is gradual, successive, subtle mutation, then we should see a fossil record that is littered with mostly "in-between" life forms. But we don't see that. We see populations distinct life forms that were here, and then they were gone. The fossil record may present different creatures that perhaps have similar skeletal structures, or respiratory systems, but that doesn't mean one evolved from the other. This is where Evolution seeks to fill in the "missing link blanks" with an explanation, rather than demonstrating with empirical evidence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2024 4:19 PM | | Tanypteryx has replied |
|
K.Rose
Member Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: 02-02-2024
|
|
|
Message 53 of 703 (914954)
02-07-2024 7:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by Admin
02-07-2024 7:15 PM
|
|
Thank you!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by Admin, posted 02-07-2024 7:15 PM | | Admin has seen this message but not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4069 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 10.0
|
|
|
Message 54 of 703 (914955)
02-07-2024 7:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 7:28 PM
|
|
If the process is not so abrupt as "new life forms popping into existence", if the process is gradual, successive, subtle mutation, then we should see a fossil record that is littered with mostly "in-between" life forms. But we don't see that. We see populations distinct life forms that were here, and then they were gone. This is actually precisely what we see. Literally every life-form is transitional, and we have some amazing examples of change over time recorded by fossils. You seem to believe that the fossil record is not littered with transitional fossils. This is simply not true, and if anyone told you that, they misled you.
“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers “A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995... "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
1 Corinthians 15:26King James Version (KJV) Nihil supernum
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:28 PM | | K.Rose has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 8:57 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22953 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 6.9
|
|
|
Message 55 of 703 (914956)
02-07-2024 7:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 6:38 PM
|
|
The last one requires a log in, I assume to Professor Gingeric's personal account at the University of Michigan. You said that you have "seen a great deal of supporting data", but the remaining three links do not appear to contain any data. They contain descriptions of what has been deduced or inferred from the data. I only gave them a cursory glance, but they don't appear to contain any data themselves. If you can be specific about any data you would like to see then let us know and we'll see if we can find it for you. For example, if you're interested in how we know that the whale's closest living land relative is the hippopotamus you might look at Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus-whale clade. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 6:38 PM | | K.Rose has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by kjsimons, posted 02-07-2024 7:55 PM | | Percy has replied | | | Message 63 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 8:12 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
kjsimons
Member Posts: 829 From: Orlando,FL Joined: 06-17-2003
|
|
|
Message 56 of 703 (914957)
02-07-2024 7:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 7:28 PM
|
|
KRose writes: we should see a fossil record that is littered with mostly "in-between" life forms What makes you think we don't? Seriously, every single life form (except clones) is an in-between life form, in-between their parents and their children. You do know that fossilization is a rare event and it's even rarer that we would find them. The fact that we have found millions of them is astounding but that's not good enough for you, you want us to have found certain specific fossils showing "in-between forms" whatever you mean by that. And we have but you won't accept that, just as you keep jabbering on that modified corn is still corn because just being different doesn't satisfy you because in your mind they aren't different enough.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:28 PM | | K.Rose has not replied |
|
K.Rose
Member Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: 02-02-2024
|
|
|
Message 57 of 703 (914958)
02-07-2024 7:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by dwise1
02-07-2024 7:20 PM
|
|
From all of these replies it is evident that Evolution is not so much a science as it is a worldview. Every life form can be explained through nebulous concepts such as "modified descent" or "life doing what life naturally does". As new lifeform phenomena are encountered, then a new elements are introduced to these nebulous concepts - Evolution is a "living" "theory". I suspect this is why no concise Evolution definition has been offered. To do so hazards too much accountability, it compromises too much wiggle room
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by dwise1, posted 02-07-2024 7:20 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
kjsimons
Member Posts: 829 From: Orlando,FL Joined: 06-17-2003
|
|
|
Message 58 of 703 (914959)
02-07-2024 7:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
02-07-2024 7:39 PM
|
|
Percy, that's odd, I was able to access Gingerich's website without a login using that link.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 7:39 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by Percy, posted 02-07-2024 8:08 PM | | kjsimons has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22953 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 6.9
|
|
|
Message 59 of 703 (914960)
02-07-2024 8:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by K.Rose
02-07-2024 7:14 PM
|
|
K.Rose in Message 49 writes: But within Physics we have very clear definitions of force, pressure, momentum, reflection/refraction, gravity, et al. And within evolution there are very clear definitions of nucleotide, DNA, gamete, mutation, descent, et al. But you'll get a variety of definitions for physics, just as you did for evolution earlier in the discussion.
But Evolution is not such a broad category as Physics... True. At heart all science is physics. Physics is all-encompassing.
...and even if it were there are key principles in Evolution that demand controlled experimentation and supporting empirical results. Which "key principles of evolution" do you believe are lacking experimental support? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by K.Rose, posted 02-07-2024 7:14 PM | | K.Rose has not replied |
|
K.Rose
Member Posts: 160 From: Michigan Joined: 02-02-2024
|
|
|
Message 60 of 703 (914961)
02-07-2024 8:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by AZPaul3
02-06-2024 9:59 PM
|
|
Science, at its core, is characterized by perpetual inquiry and relentless skepticism. The scientific method can be defined generally as Concept>Data Collection>Hypothesize>Test>Observation>Empirical Data>Conclusions. And these conclusions must be accompanied by an error statement, a probability figure, and a confidence figure. Evolution lacks the substantiating part of the Scientific Method: Testing-Empirical Data. I understand that all technical advancements begin as ponderance and speculation, but at some point we have to get serious and demonstrate that our proposals have merit. Perpetually modified explanations in and of themselves are not science.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 02-06-2024 9:59 PM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2