Jump to content


Photo

Definition Of Evolution And Other Related Topics


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

#1 am6019a@gmail.com

am6019a@gmail.com

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Washington, DC

Posted 27 August 2009 - 02:56 PM

Arguments about Evolution tend to wonder towards radiometric dating, abiogenisis, age of earth, etc. While these are all related issues, to argue them all at once is confusing at best.

So definitions:

EVOLUTION is the FACT that offspring look like their parents in predictable ways. This is clearly the layman definition.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY is a theory that uses the above as the basis for some sort of logical supposition. Because so many scientist are convinced of the validity of evolutionary theory, most people don't differentiate between the fact of evolution and the theory developed upon it.

and a THEORY is a possible explanation of observable facts. The strength of a theory is determined by how successfully it predicts previously unknown phenomenons (things that happen).

Clearly evolution is true, the question is what sort of theories can we build with evolution? Speciation, is something that can be observed in the laboratory and natural setting and something evolutionary theory would need to explain.

The similarity in ape and human genome is something evolutionary theory doesn't have to explain, but it offers a possible explanation which is compelling for some.

So what is modern evolutionary theory? That environment puts pressure of the things that live in it, and some of those things reproduce more successfully than others.

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 August 2009 - 03:23 PM

You may wish to read some forum information before you proceed with the misunderstanding that people here will fall prey to your equivocation:

http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

http://www.evolution...m/forum_faq.htm

This one is very important because it deals with the definition of evolution:

http://www.evolution...ndefinition.htm

If you think you can frame your arguments like this...

Posted Image

...you're in for a rude awakening. Maybe, before you come in here all pumped up with the notion that we must not understand evolution and therefore that's why we reject it, you should consider getting to know what it is that we do understand. You might even learn a thing or two.

#3 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 August 2009 - 07:17 PM

So what is modern evolutionary theory?  That environment puts pressure of the things that live in it, and some of those things reproduce more successfully than others.

View Post

What is modern evolutionary theory? That third-rate propaganda, repeated often enough, can succeed in the face of logic and an overwhelming array of obvious facts.

#4 am6019a@gmail.com

am6019a@gmail.com

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Washington, DC

Posted 27 August 2009 - 07:29 PM

You may wish to read some forum information before you proceed with the misunderstanding that people here will fall prey to your equivocation:

...you're in for a rude awakening. Maybe, before you come in here all pumped up with the notion that we must not understand evolution and therefore that's why we reject it, you should consider getting to know what it is that we do understand. You might even learn a thing or two.

View Post


Whoa! I don't understand what people could fall prey to in my post. I not making argument for anything right now except the value of some precise definitions, nor am I speaking directly to you Mr. Nagy. There are a lot of people on this forum trying to have a lot of different arguments at the same time.

The article that you pointed to (which I have read) is another explanation of same thing, but has a bit of a basis towards creationism. I am trying to be as neutral as possible in this post. If the term evolution is not neutral in your eyes, then maybe we can come up with another word to describe children looking like their parents.

It is not common to separate the word evolution from evolutionary theory, but it is useful. Theories are, after all, built around observable data.

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 August 2009 - 08:50 PM

...then maybe we can come up with another word to describe children looking like their parents.

View Post

Heredity


The problem with evolution is that it purports to explain the heredity between these two:

Posted Image

Posted Image

#6 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 August 2009 - 09:50 AM

EVOLUTION is the FACT that offspring look like their parents in predictable ways.  This is clearly the layman definition.

View Post


That is neither evolution, nor is it a fact. That is commonly known as heredity. Evolution would be offspring being something other than the progenitor (i.e. another species).

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY is a theory that uses the above as the basis for some sort of logical supposition.  Because so many scientist are convinced of the validity of evolutionary theory, most people don't differentiate between the fact of evolution and the theory developed upon it.

View Post


So many people were convinced that peoples of African decadency were subhuman as well (see the Dredd Scott decision), where’s that majority today? I guess the majority isn’t always correct is it?

and a THEORY is a possible explanation of observable facts.  The strength of a theory is determined by how successfully it predicts previously unknown phenomenons (things that happen).

View Post


The problem here is that you’re attempting to inflate your model (not theory) on phenomena that doesn’t exist (i.e. macro-evolution). Therefore the strength of your model is determined by how un-successfully it predicts previously unproven phenomena (or things that never happened).

Clearly evolution is true, the question is what sort of theories can we build with evolution?  Speciation, is something that can be observed in the laboratory and natural setting and something evolutionary theory would need to explain. 

View Post


Clearly evolution is an unproven and incorrect model that has adherents willing to proselytize them-selves based solely on faith statements.


The similarity in ape and human genome is something evolutionary theory doesn't have to explain, but it offers a possible explanation which is compelling for some.

View Post


I like the way you espouse “Clearly evolution is true” on one hand, then say “but it offers a possible explanation which is compelling for some” on the other. Which is it? Can’t you make up your mind?

So what is modern evolutionary theory? 

View Post

A fairy tale….

#7 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 August 2009 - 09:51 AM

Posted Image

View Post


;)

#8 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 28 August 2009 - 11:01 AM

Heredity
The problem with evolution is that it purports to explain the heredity between these two:

Posted Image

Posted Image

View Post



Adam!

You should have picked a picture of a guy with a beard! that way I could have said the green leafy bits at the top were the same as hair, and his beard were like the roots!

But oh well.

Yes Evolution does say that at some point way in the past that plants and animals had a common ancestor. But what if they didn't? Is it possible for Modern Evolutionary Theory to have more than one progenitor life form?(Sorry I needed to change this, it didn't make any sense after I posted it)

If multiple life forms came about at the same time in the primordial ooze, then its possible that the only similarity is that they both came from the same ooze.

If not though it is possible that there was a common ancestor, single celled organism, that could eat other things as well as get nutrients and energy from light/heat sources.

But really this line of thinking (multiple progenitor species) probably isn't accepted among Evolutionary Scientists.

#9 am6019a@gmail.com

am6019a@gmail.com

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Washington, DC

Posted 30 August 2009 - 10:39 PM

That is neither evolution, nor is it a fact. That is commonly known as heredity. Evolution would be offspring being something other than the progenitor (i.e. another species).

If you want to call it heredity, that is fine with me, I just want to make sure we are all using the same terminology. The important thing is the idea, that children look like their parents in predictable ways. Does anyone disagree with this notion? If so, why?

The problem here is that you’re attempting to inflate your model (not theory) on phenomena


I am also fine with using the word model. I don't see any useful difference between a model and a theory. Does anyone think there is a useful difference between the words? If so, what is it? Again, the important thing is the idea. What do you call something that uses observed fact to predict previously unobserved events?

What I really want to point out is that there is a distinction between heredity and heredity theory. The difference is that we understand the mechanisms of heredity, it is an observable fact that children inherit genes from their parents in certain ways. Heredity theory, or a whatever we want to call it, would use heredity to describe something else that we don't, as of yet, understand. Of course then you have to come up with a good reason why you think you theory/model/idea is right, but that is another problem, outside of what we are talking about right now.

Therefore the strength of your model...


This isn't my model, I haven't proposed a model of any kind. I am not interested in picking any one model right now. All I want to do is make sure we are all talking about the same thing. There is no point in having a conversation with anyone if we can't agree about our terminology.

I like the way you espouse “Clearly evolution is true” on one hand, then say “but it offers a possible explanation which is compelling for some” on the other.  Which is it? Can’t you make up your mind?


In my first post I was using evolution in the way you use heredity. I was just trying to say that heredity is not something in question. Now, if you consider any theory which is based on heredity, this is something which is "compelling for some."

#10 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 31 August 2009 - 12:22 AM

I'm not terribly impressed with the recent newcomers who don't bother to read any extant threads, but rather choose to assume nobody here knows what they're talking about. The term 'arrogant' keeps insisting that it should be employed.

Pretty insulting to their predecessors, if you ask me, this business of assuming none of them had ever bothered to become familiar with even the basic evo playbook and commence equivocating on common terms.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 August 2009 - 04:11 AM

Adam!

You should have picked a picture of a guy with a beard!  that way I could have said the green leafy bits at the top were the same as hair, and his beard were like the roots!

View Post

Here you go. These probably are more closely related, after all. We may need DNA samples but I hear it's like drawing blood from a turnip: ;)


Posted Image

Posted Image

#12 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 August 2009 - 05:20 AM

I'm not terribly impressed with the recent newcomers who don't bother to read any extant threads, but rather choose to assume nobody here knows what they're talking about. The term 'arrogant' keeps insisting that it should be employed.

View Post


Yes, and they pretend to feel terribly offended when someone suggests they do a little of their own research. And their buddies come to their defence with a big pitty party :D

In High School and at the university, if a student tried that garbage they’d be laughed out of class (along with their facilitators). If one of my students tried it, they would receive some additional scholastic exercises to strengthen their understanding on said subjects. ;)


Pretty insulting to their predecessors, if you ask me, this business of assuming none of them had ever bothered to become familiar with even the basic evo playbook and commence equivocating on common terms.

View Post


You get used to it after a while. What gets me is when someone comes in here “acting” polite, but after a while you detect their time wasting, equivocating denial tendencies as they surface. :lol: And this is even worse (IMHO) than the other kind of deniers.

#13 am6019a@gmail.com

am6019a@gmail.com

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Washington, DC

Posted 31 August 2009 - 11:40 AM

What gets me is when someone comes in here “acting” polite, but after a while you detect their time wasting, equivocating denial tendencies as they surface.  ;) And this is even worse (IMHO) than the other kind of deniers.

View Post


Okay, I get it, my name time says atheist, so I am a jerk. I will stop pretending to be polite.

There is nothing worth doing that doesn't take a lot of work. It would take an extraordinary mind, or a decade in intensive study to poke significant holes in the current theory of evolution, the origins of the universe, abiogenisis, etc.

I have looked at every link I have been asked to click on, I have gone to every web page supporting the young earth, all in good faith. I tried my best to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that is all I leave with. The people I have seen arguing against the current body of theory aren't doing enough work.

I know many of you all think academics are crack pots, but I don't understand why. I am typing on a computer developed by academics, posting a message developed by academics. If I get sick I go see a Doctorate of Medicine. AND I KNOW there are a lot of really stupid people who get very advanced degrees, but the community is not monolithic. For crying out loud, people are stilling looking into perpetual motion machines and that was debunked years ago.

The real problem on this forum is that no one can agree on the simplest thing. How do you know truth from fiction? How do you know when you have a reached end of a line of reasoning?

I am certain someone will post that this isn't them. Of course it isn't you, it is just everyone else. In the same way congress is full of lairs, but not my congressman or everyone but me doesn't know how to drive.

So you can reply to this, insulting me, insulting atheist and scientist everywhere, or you can go back to school and really learn how to take the institutions you distrust so much.

Peace.

#14 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 August 2009 - 12:37 PM

Okay, I get it, my name time says atheist, so I am a jerk.  I will stop pretending to be polite.

View Post


Am, you haven’t been here long enough for me to have been talking about you. And, there are a number of atheists who post here who definitely don’t fall within the parameters of my post, and are as polite as anyone else I know (not the fake politeness I was speaking of). So don’t play the “Just because I’m and atheists you’re calling me a jerk” card, cause it’s not going to work here.

Those I was speaking of know who they are, and won’t refrain from coming here to equivocate their case (the one’s who haven’t been banned for numerous rules infractions). So don’t get yourself in a huff…


Peace out…

#15 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 September 2009 - 09:22 AM

Just for fun, try plugging some of the various bogus definitions of 'evolution' into the following:

While accepting evolution isn't part of Catholic teaching, there is nothing in Catholicism that rejects evolution, unlike the fundamentalist sects. As of now the vast majority of Catholics accept evolution and I know the last Pope accepted evolution and encouraged other Christians to accept it too. I want to say the current Pope accepts evolution but I'm not 100% sure.

View Post

"The change in allele frequencies isn't part of Catholic teaching..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users