Consideringlily, Oncedeceived and defining evolution

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived; Evolution is both 'decent with modification' and 'a change in allele frequencies in populations over successive generations', and it is even an explanation of biodiversity, but the theory is not centered or dependant on universal common ancestry.

I agree, but it is a common premise within the evolutionary model. Would you agree with that?

More than one common ancestor is possible if we're talking about all life on earth, because at the very base of the tree-of-life, at the point when the most basic taxonomic 'domains' of life emerged, each appears to have acheived the ability to maintain homeostasis (currently the definitive criteria for "life") independantly after an initial period of significant horozontal gene transfer, which is often linked to the concept of "primordial ooze". After that point, inherited [evolutionary] genetic patterns take over. But technically, that would leave three common ancestors for life on earth, rather than just one. Whether we have one common ancestor or three or five, doesn't matter. Evolution explains diversity, and does include various teirs of common ancestry, but doesn't require any number of ancestors to start with.

Again I agree, but it is common language to allow "universal ancestor" when addressing descent. Perhaps I should have said the "last" or more most "recent" common ancestor of all living things?

Apart from that, your first post in this thread is surprisingly well-written. Did you write it entirely yourself? Or did you cut-and-paste at least some of it? I'll believe whichever answer you give me. I'm just surprised because (to my experience) it is uncharacteristic of anti-evolutionists to accurately define anything evolutionary without exhibiting bias and usually some vitriol too.

I have never claimed to be an anti-evolutionist. If you thought that was the case that is probably why you were somewhat surprised.

I believe that I have noted all links that I have used in this tread when cutting and pasting. Thank you for your graceous assessment. I do really appreciate that and I mean it. It is rare for someone to take anything I say and forget the biases and look at the words.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Honestly, it is only possible to hold a Creationist viewpoint if you misunderstand evolution.

That is a cold hard fact I learned myself.

Perhaps that is the problem, maybe you assume that everyone is like you?

Regardless, just look at what you have done. You have simply ignored my responses for evolutionary discourse and went right to the Creation dogma.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Honestly, despite the fact that I do not immediately disagree, you are making a few logical fallacies here.

Oncedeceived is, by own statement a creationist. It is true that many creationist arguments arise from a misunderstanding of evolution. However, this does not mean á priori that Oncedeceived holds to those misconceptions. There are several reasons this can be. A few I can think of offhand:
1. She may not be a 'standard' creationist. In other words, she may have particular reasons to name herself a creationist, which could nevertheless be compatible in some way with evolution.
2. She may hold a standard (young earth) creationist viewpoint (although I see no indication of this) and understand evolution. In that case, the reasons for her to reject evolution might just not be scientific.
3. Perhaps a combination of 1 and 2.

And I'm sure there may be a number of other options there. Point is that this thread should be addressing whether oncedeceived and you have a good understanding of evolution (and honestly, I for one won't go for the 'one is better then the other'-schtick, I think that is pretty pointless). So that should be the focus of discussion. I fail to see how the fact that oncedeceived perceives herself as a creationist adds to addressing that point. I also fail to see how misunderstandings of evolution by creationists in general address the understanding of oncedeceived.

Although generalizations are fun and help nicely divide the world, I fail to see how generalizations are usefull in the context of this thread.

Thank you Tom for keeping to the purpose of the thread and not letting biases or differences be part of this discussion. I appreciate that so much.

Thanks for keeping an open mind and being fair to the both of us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Consistent, no. Does it mean she doesn't understand it, also no. The purpose of this thread, as I can understand it, is discussing the latter, not the former. The two are not necessarily related.

Exactly.

I don't feel I'm 'aiding' her in any way. Note that I have asked her for clarification of her viewpoints in earlier posts and if I see things that I feel are unclear I will in the future. I will attack her on what I perceive as errors of understanding and reasoning just as much as I will attack you on those.

Which is very fair and even handed in my opinion. I don't want aid I want to be judged on my own presentation on ToE.

I see Oncedeceived not so much portraying a misunderstanding of evolution, as more an á posteriori fitting of bible verses to what seems convenient to her regarding the evidence. From my perspective most interesting would be to focus discussion on why she chooses the Cambrian explosion as a point of creation and not a time earlier and whether there are factual errors or errors in understanding there. Because for the rest, she doesn't seem to produce really big misunderstanding of the theory of evolution in my opinion.

That is because it is not my claim. I really hate to address this here due to the possibility of taking the thread in the direction that Lily would like to go but I will take up this point and address it.

I said that the Cambrian Era supports Genesis in regard to the vast diversity of life forms that "swarmed in the waters". I have never claimed that life formed in the Cambrian in fact I understand that there probably were many life forms pre-cambrian but they were less diverse and most likely not as high in abundance (although, we can't really know due to lack of fossil evidence.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

She originally said she had an equal or better understanding of evolution than me. That is why this thread became personal.

It became personal long before that. You were the one that thought you should "help" me understand ToE.

 

[Lilandra]

Than that is the view you should be attacking, not the fact that creationists in general have a misunderstanding of evolution, but this part of her reasoning and why you think it is faulty and shows a misunderstanding of evolution.

I attempted to have her post her position several times. She refused and is still refusing to address it because it will demonstrate my point. I finally posted it myself.

You failed to see how it was relevant.

That doesn't address the point I made. There are creationists, although not many, that have a good understanding of the theory of evolution, even of science, but reject both on the issue of creationism because they feel their interpretation of the bible trumps science. These people reject evolution for other reasons then scientific ones, but do understand evolution. I never said I agree with those views, I said that, if oncedeceived has such a view, she does understand evolution. Whether she accepts evolution or not is not the purpose of this thread. The purpose is to determine who understands it better. One can understand a line of reasoning and still reject it.

My point is that she has demonstrated a misunderstanding of evolution. The Cambrian Explosion/Genesis thing is a prime example. Her acceptance or rejection of it is not an issue.

I believe I have posted enough to support that. You are welcome to your opinion.

Even were we to strictly go by the definitions we posted. I gave examples of my understanding. She cut and pasted.

 

[Lilandra]

It became personal long before that. You were the one that thought you should "help" me understand ToE.

Yes, I admit I am interested in helping people understand the TOE. That is part of the reason I teach science.

I am no longer interested in helping people, who demonstrate repeatedy that they are intellectually dishonest.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. If you aren't whining about being picked on, you are denying things you posted yourself. If you are called on it, you simply post that it is not what you meant.

 

[Lilandra]

Perhaps that is the problem, maybe you assume that everyone is like you?

No, for example you are not like me.

Regardless, just look at what you have done. You have simply ignored my responses for evolutionary discourse and went right to the Creation dogma.

Actually you have been tossing out the words bias and dogma liberally. I addressed your points some more than once.

Even if I were Richard Dawkins himself, your understanding of evolution is flawed or it isn't. It is quite simple to compare a Genesis like event(that you describe) with evidence of what happened during evolutionary history.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I have never claimed to be an anti-evolutionist. If you thought that was the case that is probably why you were somewhat surprised.

I am indeed surprised. Am I to believe then, that despite all you've told me before, you're really a theistic evolutionist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am indeed surprised. Am I to believe then, that despite all you've told me before, you're really a theistic evolutionist?

No, I am a Creationist. But that doesn't mean I am an anti-evolutionist either.

 

[Aron-Ra]

No, I am a Creationist. But that doesn't mean I am an anti-evolutionist either.

Don't tell me what you don't believe. Tell me what you do believe. Then tell me why, and please be specific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you all want to discuss my Creationist views we will do so in another thread. I would like to continue the thread as it was began. I will give a run down on the Cambrian Era which will show that I understand the data that we have in fossil evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I attempted to have her post her position several times. She refused and is still refusing to address it because it will demonstrate my point. I finally posted it myself.

Exactly. We are not discussing my position as a Creationist.

You failed to see how it was relevant.

Because it isn't.

My point is that she has demonstrated a misunderstanding of evolution. The Cambrian Explosion/Genesis thing is a prime example. Her acceptance or rejection of it is not an issue.

False.

Even were we to strictly go by the definitions we posted. I gave examples of my understanding. She cut and pasted.

I cut and pasted in response to support for my words. You did the same thing many times in your other thread.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. If you aren't whining about being picked on, you are denying things you posted yourself. If you are called on it, you simply post that it is not what you meant.

1. When did I say I was being picked on?
2. When did I deny things I posted?
3. Posting in part is trying to clarify if someone misunderstands. I think that is pretty common.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, for example you are not like me.

Example?

Actually you have been tossing out the words bias and dogma liberally. I addressed your points some more than once.

What?

Even if I were Richard Dawkins himself, your understanding of evolution is flawed or it isn't.

Again, what are you talking about? This doesn't even make sense.

It is quite simple to compare a Genesis like event(that you describe) with evidence of what happened during evolutionary history.

Really. Huh, imagine that.

 

[Aron-Ra]

If you all want to discuss my Creationist views we will do so in another thread. I would like to continue the thread as it was began. I will give a run down on the Cambrian Era which will show that I understand the data that we have in fossil evidence.

No I think what I'm asking is critical to that. Because I don't think your contentions lie in the Cambrian era at all. Creationism seems to be all about trying to keep humanity separate from other animals. Since my primary interest is in taxonomy, that's where my questions will lead. Now, do you contest that humans can be accurately classified as apes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No I think what I'm asking is critical to that. Because I don't think your contentions lie in the Cambrian era at all. Creationism seems to be all about trying to keep humanity separate from other animals. Since my primary interest is in taxonomy, that's where my questions will lead. Now, do you contest that humans can be accurately classified as apes?

I don't contest that.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Now, do you contest that humans can be accurately classified as apes?

I don't contest that.

OK then, what aspect of our taxonomic classification do you contest, and why?

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK then, what aspect of our taxonomic classification do you contest, and why?

Again this goes to Creationism rather than my understanding or knowledge of ToE.

If you would like to ask questions in regard to Taxonomy to determine whether or not I understand the system I would be glad to do that.

 

[Lilandra]

Again this goes to Creationism rather than my understanding or knowledge of ToE.

If you understand evolution, but still contest certain parts of it, then there must be some sort of logical or evidentiary reason you have chosen to do so.

There is no other way to contest a scientific theory.

It is not about whether you identify yourself as a Creationist or not.

It is about on what basis you contest the ToE.

If it is based on faulty reasoning or a misunderstanding of the evidence, it will color your understanding of the ToE.

If you would like to ask questions in regard to Taxonomy to determine whether or not I understand the system I would be glad to do that.

Taxonomy or the Fossil record (supporting a Genesis style creation) Cambrian whichever you choose to defend is fine with me.