Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Theory of Evolution
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1 of 60 (456486)
02-18-2008 10:10 AM


In http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution? I was ask for and I gave my opinion on the ToE.
quote:
My definition: http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?
The Theory of Evolution is a change over time where all living things came from a pea sized universe that expanded into what we see and what we do not see today. The Big Band Theory tries to explain what happened in the material universe from T=O+ until present. The Theory of Abiogenesis tries to explain how life came into being on a lifeless planet. Once this life appeared the Theory of Biogenesis tries to explain how all living lifeforms extinct and living today came from this first or many life cells.
It seems 2 people realized where I was coming from with my definition.
http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?
RAZD writes:
This is the "kitchen sink" conflation of every possible meaning of evolution. I'll make no other comments at this time, other than note the OP request:
http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?
Granny Magda writes:
ICANT,
I think that part of the problem here is that you are talking about evolution in a more general sense of the word,
It is preached on this site there is only one type of evolution.
If you disagree please check: http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?.
The reason this is a fact is because a part of biogenesis, biological evolution can be proven and some of the processes have been agreed to by creationist. Myself included.
In this topic I would like to discuss:
Why is it that makes no difference how a question is worded if it includes the word evolution it can only mean biological evolution?
Why the process from singularity until today is not evolution Or why it is evolution?
Why abiogenesis is not evolution or why it is evolution?
In http://EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition -->EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition Phat asked:
Phat writes:
Does evolution have a narrow definition or a broad definition?
For this topic I would like to take the Definition of evolution given by Catholic Scientist here:
http://EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition -->EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition
quote:
In the vaguest sense, evolution is just change over time.
I will be presenting evidence to affirm that everything from singularity to present day is evolution and is taught as such.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-18-2008 11:04 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 02-18-2008 1:21 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 5:42 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 27 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 3:27 AM ICANT has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 60 (456496)
02-18-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
02-18-2008 10:10 AM


Hi ICANT,
I'm going to take a brief moment to explain the painfully obvious to you. If you don't get it then I don't think you're ever going to get it.
ICANT writes:
It is preached on this site there is only one type of evolution.
No it isn't. You can even go to the [forum=-2] forum and find discussions of stellar evolution. Just type "stellar evolution" (including the quotes) into the search box for that forum.
Evolution, like most words in the English language, has more than one definition. Subbie explained precisely which one he meant when he asked how creationists define evolution. If you want to ask how people define other meanings of evolution then propose a thread.
I will be presenting evidence to affirm that everything from singularity to present day is evolution and is taught as such.
Did you take physics in high school, or did they at least teach physics at your high school? If so, did they call it physics or evolution?
In college I took an astronomy course, which included cosmology and the Big Bang. They called the course astronomy, not evolution, and they called the cosmology section cosmology, not evolution.
If you joined a discussion board about the sport of running, would you insist that running had to include running for political office, running a company, and machinery that is in operation? Of course not. So why are you insisting that threads about biological evolution have to include other definitions of evolution?
I'll promote this thread if you really want because I'm sure some useful clarifications and explanations will be contributed, but this is all really very simple and shouldn't need to be explained.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 10:10 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 11:52 AM Admin has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 3 of 60 (456504)
02-18-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-18-2008 11:04 AM


Re-Simple
Hi Admin,
Admin writes:
I'll promote this thread if you really want because I'm sure some useful clarifications and explanations will be contributed, but this is all really very simple and shouldn't need to be explained.
If it is so simple why is there so much controversy over the word evolution?
I would like to see the three questions I asked discussed.
As to where you can put it that you won't be giving all of us time outs I have no idea.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-18-2008 11:04 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 02-18-2008 12:19 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 1:33 AM ICANT has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 60 (456506)
02-18-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ICANT
02-18-2008 11:52 AM


Re: Re-Simple
ICANT writes:
As to where you can put it that you won't be giving all of us time outs I have no idea.
Your problems are caused by going persistently off-topic and failing to follow moderator requests. This topic is for discussing what you were trying to discuss in the What is evolution? thread, where it was off-topic. So unless you're planning to go off-topic in your own thread there should be no problems.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 11:52 AM ICANT has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 60 (456509)
02-18-2008 12:19 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 6 of 60 (456513)
02-18-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
02-18-2008 10:10 AM


If it is so simple why is there so much controversy over the word evolution?
I would like to see the three questions I asked discussed.
As to where you can put it that you won't be giving all of us time outs I have no idea.
As Admin has already pointed out to you, the word "evolution" has many uses in the English language.
When someone talks about the evolution of a star, it has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution. Even if stars were static and never-changing, and "stellar evolution" was compeltely disproven, biological evolution would remain seperate, and valid so long as it remains a highly accurate model.
When we talk about the evolution of automobiles, it has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution.
The word "evolution" is used in the English language in the szame way that the word "theory" is flung about - both have very specific meanings when you are talking about the Theory of Evolution. In science, the word "theory" does not mean "an idea I had one day" like it can in common usage, and "evolution" does not simply mean "change over time."
You're acting as if the dictionary definitions can somehow be used to argue over what the Theory of Evolution actually states. It cannot. You're equivocating over specific usage of language and actively attempting to obfuscate any real discussion over the Theory of Evolution. Stop it. Continuing in this vein identifies you as either compeltely incapable of comprehending the most basic of logical and scientific principles, or you are deliberately attempting to spread misinformation and frustrate anyone with an IQ above freezing.
Why is it that makes no difference how a question is worded if it includes the word evolution it can only mean biological evolution?
This site is specifically targetted at the Creation vs Evolution debate - that meaning biological evolution. Unless you specifically state that you'd like to talk about "stellar evolution" or are otherwise using the word in the broader sense as opposed to the specific Theory of Evolution, we will automatically assume you are referring to biological evolution.
Why the process from singularity until today is not evolution Or why it is evolution?
You can refer to any process of gradual change by using the broader definition of the word "evolution," but that does not, in any way mean that what you discuss has anything remotely to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. As Admin so aptly mentioned, the former would be like referring to Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, and David Koreshians as Christians - it's accurate in the broad sense, but discussion of Mormonism has no bearing on mainstream Christianity.
Why abiogenesis is not evolution or why it is evolution?
Abiogenesis fits perfectly with evolution, but even if abiogenesis were compeltely false, the Theory of Evolution would remain accurate. Evolution only deals with life after it exists, and does not care how life first came to exist. It can be god, space aliens, abiogenesis, or magic fairies - the Theory of Evolution still accurately describes the observed process of allele frequency changes over generations guided by natural selection.
They are seperate. One can be true, and the other can be false. You're treating them as if both need to be true, and that's not the case. There is a difference between
IF a AND b THEN c
and
IF a OR b THEN c
You're approaching this in the former sense, where abiogenesis are mutually dependant. They are not. The relationship between evolution and abiogenesis is more like the latter logical expression, where either one or both can be true and each has no bearing on the other.
For this topic I would like to take the Definition of evolution given by Catholic Scientist here:
http://EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition -->EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition
quote:
In the vaguest sense, evolution is just change over time.
I will be presenting evidence to affirm that everything from singularity to present day is evolution and is taught as such.
In the broadest sense of the word, ICANT, this is true. It is not true when dealing specifically with the Theory of Evolution, which makes very specific statements about a narrowly defined subject.
Your word games are irrelevant, ICANT. Nobody with intelligence or even basic education on the subject here or elsewhere claims that the Theory of Evolution speaks to cosmology, physics, or anything else unrelated to biology.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 10:10 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 5:28 PM Rahvin has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 7 of 60 (456535)
02-18-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rahvin
02-18-2008 1:21 PM


Re-Evolution
Hi Rahvin,
In my OP I stated:
quote:
It is preached on this site there is only one type of evolution.
Percy tells me in Message 2
quote:
No it isn't.
DrJones stated in: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?< !--UE-->
DrJones writes:
So why is it called the Theory of Evolution then?
Because it describes evolution in biological organisms.
abiogenesis is a kind of evolution.
No its not.
The expanding universe is a kind of evolution.
No its not.
Cars have evolved.
Airplanes have evolved.
No they haven't.
Rahvin writes:
we will automatically assume you are referring to biological evolution.
This is the point I have been trying to make. We assume.
I have no problem with biological evolution as you will find the definition I agreed to at: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?< !--UE-->
My problem appears when it is stated this way.
The Theory of Evolution = biological evolution, as if biological evolution is the only type of evolution.
Rahvin writes:
This site is specifically targetted at the Creation vs Evolution debate - that meaning biological evolution.
I just searched the FAQ and RULES and I find no mention that the Evolution in the names means biological evolution.
Rahvin writes:
You can refer to any process of gradual change by using the broader definition of the word "evolution," but that does not, in any way mean that what you discuss has anything remotely to do with the biological Theory of Evolution.
I have no problem with the statement: the biological Theory of Evolution.
I have no problem with the statement The Theory of Biological Evolution.
I just have a big problem when you say Theory of Evolution = biological evolution.
I think all creationist have a problem with this statement, because there are so many things that evolve.
Rahvin writes:
if abiogenesis were compeltely false, the Theory of Evolution would remain accurate.
The Theory of Evolution would be accurate even though The Theory of Abiogenesis Evolution would be False.
I assume you just defined The Theory of Evolution as biological evolution.
Rahvin writes:
You're approaching this in the former sense, where abiogenesis are mutually dependant. They are not. The relationship between evolution and abiogenesis is more like the latter logical expression, where either one or both can be true and each has no bearing on the other.
Abiogenesis is dependent only upon the process that brought life into being.
Biological Evolution is totally dependent upon abiogenesis taking place which it did. Biological evolution as I have agreed to earlier in this message has and is taking place.
Rahvin writes:
In the broadest sense of the word, ICANT, this is true. It is not true when dealing specifically with the Theory of Evolution, which makes very specific statements about a narrowly defined subject.
I am glad that you agree that evolution has a broad meaning.
Then you make the statement The Theory of Evolution makes very specific statements about a narrowly defined subject.
I will assume you have reverted back to the meaning of The Theory of Evolution being biological evolution.
Rahvin writes:
Your word games are irrelevant, ICANT. Nobody with intelligence or even basic education on the subject here or elsewhere claims that the Theory of Evolution speaks to cosmology, physics, or anything else unrelated to biology.
I am not the one playing word games.
You again state The Theory of Evolution can only refer to biology.
Six times you state The Theory of Evolution = Biological Evolution.
In my OP I asked the question: Why is it that makes no difference how a question is worded if it includes the word evolution it can only mean biological evolution?
Why is this Forum named Biological Evolution instead of ToE?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 02-18-2008 1:21 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 02-18-2008 5:59 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 10 by Rahvin, posted 02-18-2008 6:36 PM ICANT has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 60 (456537)
02-18-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
02-18-2008 10:10 AM


A different tack
In this topic I would like to discuss:
Why is it that makes no difference how a question is worded if it includes the word evolution it can only mean biological evolution?
Why the process from singularity until today is not evolution Or why it is evolution?
Why abiogenesis is not evolution or why it is evolution?
Let's take a different tack to try to avoid all the different uses of the word "evolution" so that we can see what we are talking about.
quote:
The Theory of Evolution is a change over time where all living things came from a pea sized universe that expanded into what we see and what we do not see today. The Big Band Theory tries to explain what happened in the material universe from T=O+ until present. The Theory of Abiogenesis tries to explain how life came into being on a lifeless planet. Once this life appeared the Theory of Biogenesis tries to explain how all living lifeforms extinct and living today came from this first or many life cells.
It seems 2 people realized where I was coming from with my definition.
http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?
RAZD writes:
This is the "kitchen sink" conflation of every possible meaning of evolution. I'll make no other comments at this time, other than note the OP request:
The different events you have included here are
(1) The "evolution" of the universe at the beginning, via the "big bang" hypothesis.
(2) The "evolution" of life from chemical precursors.
(3) The "evolution" of the diversity of life since the beginning.
You forgot a couple -- the evolution of stars, as they form, mature, and expire, and the evolution of forms from one to another, fetal evolution as the organism develops, flower evolution as the flower forms a bud, opens, expires. Evolution of designs and they make incremental and other changes (tv, computers etc).
This is what I called the "kitchen sink" conflation, because what you are lumping together all the different fields that explain how things came to be the way they are. Each of these involve change over time.
What I see it doing is placing {all scientific study of how all things work and came to be} under the umbrella of "evolution" -- and place it in opposition to creation. I find this is the way most creationists think of "evolutionism" - even incorporating a world philosophy that rejects belief.
It is preached on this site there is only one type of evolution.
The reason this is a fact is because a part of biogenesis, biological evolution can be proven and some of the processes have been agreed to by creationist. Myself included.
I'm confused by this. Why does the level of evidence have anything to do with which version of evolution is discussed when discussing biological change?
There are many types of evolution -- that is not disputed -- the question is which one you are talking about at any one time, and being careful not to equivocate from one to another. This is the main reason I'm trying to move away from using the "E" word.
Enjoy.

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.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 10:10 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 7:04 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 9 of 60 (456540)
02-18-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
02-18-2008 5:28 PM


Evolution
The Theory of Evolution = biological evolution, as if biological evolution is the only type of evolution.
It's just a name. The theory of evolution is just the name of the principle theory in biology. If you are talking about The Theory of Evolution, most people would assume you are talking about the Theory of Biological Evolution, because that's the only theory referred to as 'the theory of evolution'.
You might want to be pedantic about it, but you can't force everybody to change the way they use words. Darwin himself didn't like the word, but eventually gave up and went along with it. Since you can't change the words people use, it is incumbent on you to try and understand what they mean when they say things, rather than trying to pick apart the technical difficulties in the words being used.
You again state The Theory of Evolution can only refer to biology.
Actually, it can refer to a banana, my nonexistent car, my watch, your eyes, or a chimpanzee. However, when a speaker uses the words "The Theory of Evolution", you would be best not falling over yourself to think they might mean a banana or stellar evolution, but that they are referring to a theory of biological evolution that explains the changes that occur in biological populations as being due, in part, to allele frequency changes which are driven by a variety of factors such as natural selection and recombination.
Why is this Forum named Biological Evolution instead of ToE
Biological Evolution is about the change in populations of life.
The Theory of Evolution is the theory that explains how populations of life change.
One is a fact, the other explains the fact.
Just like Gravity and the Theory of Gravity. Diseases and the Germ Theory of Disease and so on and so forth.
If we are talking about the theory of gravity, we aren't talking about situations of great import/seriousness or dignity - we are talking about stress tensors and spacetime distortions.
Now, if you want, you can continue using these words in a manner differently than everybody else - but that would simply cause communicational difficulties. It would be easier for you to simply use the words in the same way everybody else does than for you to change the way everybody else uses the words.
The thing is, that once a phrase or a word becomes popular - even if it is technically wrong, it's not going to be easy to change. I can understand you don't like it, but if you don't get used to it, you're just going to be spending a lot of time trying to be understood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 5:28 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 02-18-2008 6:57 PM Modulous has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 10 of 60 (456545)
02-18-2008 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
02-18-2008 5:28 PM


Re: Re-Evolution
Hi Rahvin,
In my OP I stated:
quote:
It is preached on this site there is only one type of evolution.
Percy tells me in Message 2
quote:
No it isn't.
DrJones stated in: http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?
quote:
DrJones writes:
So why is it called the Theory of Evolution then?
Because it describes evolution in biological organisms.
abiogenesis is a kind of evolution.
No its not.
The expanding universe is a kind of evolution.
No its not.
Cars have evolved.
Airplanes have evolved.
No they haven't.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
we will automatically assume you are referring to biological evolution.
This is the point I have been trying to make. We assume.
I have no problem with biological evolution as you will find the definition I agreed to at: http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?
My problem appears when it is stated this way.
The Theory of Evolution = biological evolution, as if biological evolution is the only type of evolution.
So, you like to play word games and whine that the word "evolution" can be used to describe things other than the Theory of Evolution?
As long as you understand that when you say "the stars have evolved" as if it has anythign at all to do with the Theory of Evolution, you look like an idiot, I have no problem with that.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
This site is specifically targetted at the Creation vs Evolution debate - that meaning biological evolution.
I just searched the FAQ and RULES and I find no mention that the Evolution in the names means biological evolution.
ICANT, if you don't understand that basic fact that "evolution" in this context means the Theory of Evolution, which is excusively related to biology, then you are a fool.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
You can refer to any process of gradual change by using the broader definition of the word "evolution," but that does not, in any way mean that what you discuss has anything remotely to do with the biological Theory of Evolution.
I have no problem with the statement: the biological Theory of Evolution.
I have no problem with the statement The Theory of Biological Evolution.
I just have a big problem when you say Theory of Evolution = biological evolution.
There is only one Theory of Evolution. It refers to biology. There is no Theory of Evolution regarding stars, or cars. There is only one, and it makes statements relating only to the change in allele frequency in populations of living organisms.
The Theory of Evolution is biological evolution. It has nothing to do with stellar evolution, or automotive evolution. If you think otherwise, then you either do not understand, or you are being deliberately obtuse.
I think all creationist have a problem with this statement, because there are so many things that evolve.
That's the statement of a person who argues about dictionary definitions rather than the concepts themselves. Dictionaries list seperate definitions for single words for a reason, ICANT - they mean different things depending on context. When one speaks about the Theory of Evolution, they are referring to biological evolution, unless they specifically state that they are using it in the broader definition of the term.
When we say that "ICANT doesn't understand what evolution is" we do not mean that you are incapable of picking up a dictionary and copying text to us. We mean that you consistently insist upon assigning claims to the Theory of Evolution that are outside of its scope, and then attack that strawman.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
if abiogenesis were compeltely false, the Theory of Evolution would remain accurate.
The Theory of Evolution would be accurate even though The Theory of Abiogenesis Evolution would be False.
I assume you just defined The Theory of Evolution as biological evolution.
YES.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
You're approaching this in the former sense, where abiogenesis are mutually dependant. They are not. The relationship between evolution and abiogenesis is more like the latter logical expression, where either one or both can be true and each has no bearing on the other.
Abiogenesis is dependent only upon the process that brought life into being.
Specifically it refers to "life from non-life." This is typically understood to be the process by which nonliving organic chemicals spontaneously self-assemble into the earliest form of what we call "life," and before which life did not exist. This typically is understood to preclude direct divine intervention, but does not necessarily do so - it's simply a process. It shows very good promise as a hypothesis, and has had outstanding success thus far, but researchers have not yet succeeded in completely creating life from nonlife in an environment duplicating conditions of the early Earth (which does not include cloning, designer bacteria, or other forms that could be called abiogenesis but require a pre-existing "donor cell's" DNA).
Biological Evolution is totally dependent upon abiogenesis taking place which it did.
It is not, in any way, dependant on abiogenesis. Even if life has "always existed" in this Universe in some form or another, the Theory of Evolution is still an accurate model of the change in allele frequency of living populations. If life arrived on Earth via an alien spacecraft, or a comet impact, or god (depending on whether we are allowing divine creation of life from nonliving materials to be referred to as abiogenesis, as the deity could be thought of as alive), the Theory of Evolution still accurately describes the change in allele frequency in living population.
Biological evolution as I have agreed to earlier in this message has and is taking place.
Indeed.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
In the broadest sense of the word, ICANT, this is true. It is not true when dealing specifically with the Theory of Evolution, which makes very specific statements about a narrowly defined subject.
I am glad that you agree that evolution has a broad meaning.
No, the word has seperate meanings, one of which is broad, and the other is not. When one speaks regarding the Theory of Evolution, they are referring specifically to biological evolution as described by Darwin and others.
Then you make the statement The Theory of Evolution makes very specific statements about a narrowly defined subject.
I will assume you have reverted back to the meaning of The Theory of Evolution being biological evolution.
Again, ICANT, this is why dictionaries have multiple definitions for individual words - they can have very different meanings depending on context, like Percy's "running" example earlier.
If someone says "I went running last night" do you assume they meant they operated machinery, or did complex mathematics, or any of the other borader definitions of the word "running?" Or do you assume they went outside and ran, the specific, narrow definition that refers to a form of exercise?
Rahvin writes:
quote:
Your word games are irrelevant, ICANT. Nobody with intelligence or even basic education on the subject here or elsewhere claims that the Theory of Evolution speaks to cosmology, physics, or anything else unrelated to biology.
I am not the one playing word games.
Really? You're the one equivocating over the definition of a word, ICANT. everyone else understands it.
You again state The Theory of Evolution can only refer to biology.
Six times you state The Theory of Evolution = Biological Evolution.
In my OP I asked the question: Why is it that makes no difference how a question is worded if it includes the word evolution it can only mean biological evolution?
Becasue that is what is most often referred to when the word "evolution" is used. When someone says "evolution is false!" what is the most reasonable conclusion? That they are saying that Darwinian biological evolution is false?
Or are they talking about the evolution of automobiles?
Come on, ICANT. Surely you aren't that stupid.
Why is this Forum named Biological Evolution instead of ToE?
I would guess because of people like you. Note that there is no forum here named "nonbiological evolution," or "the evolution of cars," or "the evolution of stars."

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 5:28 PM ICANT has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 60 (456546)
02-18-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
02-18-2008 5:59 PM


Re: Evolution
Modulous writes:
Now, if you want, you can continue using these words in a manner differently than everybody else - but that would simply cause communicational difficulties. It would be easier for you to simply use the words in the same way everybody else does than for you to change the way everybody else uses the words.
Case in point. Among physicists, or at least American physicists, we use the term "hydrogen burning" to describe the fusion of hydrogen atoms that goes on in the sun. We also use the term "helium burning" to describe the fusion of helium atoms in the later stages of a star. Non-physicists have pointed out to me that I was wrong because they thought I thought what goes on in the sun is combustion. I had to explain to them that "hydrogen burning" is a popular phrase among physicists even though it has nothing to do with combustion.
Will physicists stop using "hydrogen burning" to describe hydrogen fusion anytime soon? I doubt it. It's just a name.
Ok, back to inactive mode. I really need to stop reading ICANT's posts. It's not good for my health.
Added by edit.
Stellar evolution is an entirely different thing than biological evolution. The idea and mechanisms are different. If I see ICANT try to equate the two again, my head will explode.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 02-18-2008 5:59 PM Modulous has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 12 of 60 (456547)
02-18-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
02-18-2008 5:42 PM


Re: A different tack
Thanks RAZD,
RAZD writes:
I'm confused by this. Why does the level of evidence have anything to do with which version of evolution is discussed when discussing biological change?
Welcome to the club.
RAZD writes:
What I see it doing is placing {all scientific study of how all things work and came to be} under the umbrella of "evolution" -- and place it in opposition to creation. I find this is the way most creationists think of "evolutionism" - even incorporating a world philosophy that rejects belief.
Yes and since about 80% of the people in the US have some type of belief in God it causes a big problem.
But by limiting the Theory of Evolution to only cover Biological Evolution is where the problem shows itself.
The confusing part of my statement to you is that I was hinting at a little deception on the part of Evolutionist. If they can put everything under the umbrella of The Theory of Evolution and mean The Theory of Biological Evolution they can claim evolution to be proven. Even though they are only refering to Biological Evolution the man in the street doesn't know that. So he believes Evolutionist are saying all things that evolve are proved, which to most would include abiogenesis as life coming from non life.
RAZD writes:
There are many types of evolution -- that is not disputed -- the question is which one you are talking about at any one time, and being careful not to equivocate from one to another. This is the main reason I'm trying to move away from using the "E" word.
RAZD I don't think you have to get rid of the E-Word. I think if you will refer to The Theory of Biological Evolution that would solve the problem you have with the E-Word.
The problem arises when you say The Theory of Evolution and then only talk about Biological Evolution.
Because as you pointed out there are many types of evolution and when you say ToE creationist think you are including everything that evolves.
You forgot a couple
I think the stars are a part of the universe.
I think plant life is part of the diversity of life.
I did leave out all things that man makes.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 5:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by subbie, posted 02-18-2008 7:15 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 15 by bluescat48, posted 02-18-2008 8:04 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 9:09 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2008 6:48 PM ICANT has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 13 of 60 (456548)
02-18-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
02-18-2008 7:04 PM


Re: A different tack
The confusing part of my statement to you is that I was hinting at a little deception on the part of Evolutionist. If they can put everything under the umbrella of The Theory of Evolution and mean The Theory of Biological Evolution they can claim evolution to be proven. Even though they are only refering to Biological Evolution the man in the street doesn't know that. So he believes Evolutionist are saying all things that evolve are proved, which to most would include abiogenesis as life coming from non life.
It appears that you believe that "Evolutionists" are being intentionally misleading and purposefully conflating different meanings of evolution when they talk about the Theory of Evolution. Do you have any evidence to support this contention, or is it something you made up in your head?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 7:04 PM ICANT has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 14 of 60 (456549)
02-18-2008 7:16 PM


Topic retitling and move will happen sometime later tonight
Be warned - A change and move will be coming.
I don't want to disrupt things by making the move right now, but I do have strong feelings about the matter:
The topic title is misleading. I think it should be something along the lines of "Types and subtypes of Evolution".
It should NOT be in the "Biological Evolution" forum. It should be in the "Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution" forum.
Admin and/or AdminNosy can take this discussion to the Private Administration Forum. To the rest, this is not a topic of further discussion.
Adminnemooseus

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 15 of 60 (456561)
02-18-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
02-18-2008 7:04 PM


Re: A different tack
ICANT
The problem arises when you say The Theory of Evolution and then only talk about Biological Evolution.
That is, due the fact, that the only "Theory of Evolution" is biological evolution. The evolution of stars is not called the theory of evolution, it is called stellar evolution.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2008 7:04 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-18-2008 9:21 PM bluescat48 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