Consideringlily, Oncedeceived and defining evolution

[Lilandra]

Our position is not necessary. Once again, we are providing evidence of our knowledge of evolution.

As long as I have knowledge of the scientific theory it doesn't matter. My understanding in this thread is only significant in regard to my understanding of the scientific theory of evolution.

All right were this discussion about our understanding if evolution alone you have already proven, you have errors in your understanding.

From terms like differential reproduction and less adapted to the results of the poll this thread is based on.

That would bring this discussion to an end. I really have no time to waste on "did not"..."did too".

If I have issues with it, matters not. Scientists (in life sciences) for example understand evolution and its mechanisms and yet still have differing opinions on data sometimes.

Are opinions important or not? Otherwise, why bring up that scientists have differing opinions.

Whether they have differing opinions or not, no credible life scientist has an opinion other than universal common ancestry of every living thing.

You do.

Based on what understanding of evolution I wonder?

Yet this is not important to our discussion here. What is important is whether I am providing a truthful and knowledgible account of ToE.

Even were your understanding of scientific definitions of evolution perfect, you have a different understanding if you do not accept universal common ancestry.

Why would I? That is not the issue. You felt that I did not have a scientific understanding of ToE. That is the issue and you continue to avoid it.

No, actually I have pointed out errors in your understanding rather than avoiding them.

I posted in the last post the point you were asking about. I forgot what you were referring to and went back to look at your post. You replied before I edited it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In regard to Differential reproduction: I'll get the rest tomorrow.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...on&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=55&client=firefox-a



Principles of Evolution - 6
• Species produce more offspring than can survive.
• Survival depends on ability to compete for food and resources.
• The individuals genetically better adapted to the surroundings survive and
reproduce more offspring (therefore passing on the better suited
adaptations).
• Those individuals having less favorable traits produce fewer offspring, so
that less successful adaptations are not passed on as frequently.
• This phenomenon is called differential reproduction and successive
generations have more individuals with more favorable traits (genetically
better adapted to their surroundings).
• In natural selection, inherited traits that are adaptive (favorable) will
become more frequent in the population at the expense of less adapted
traits, which will appear less frequently in passing generations. Populations
will change through time in response to environmental factors.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All right were this discussion about our understanding if evolution alone you have already proven, you have errors in your understanding.

From terms like differential reproduction and less adapted to the results of the poll this thread is based on.

A mutation is any change in the DNA code or in the process of transcription
and/or translation into protein. People assume that mutations are a bad
thing. But they can make an organism better adapted to their environment.
Mutations are sometimes survival neutral; in other words, at the time of the
mutation, they don't hurt or harm the organism. It doesn't matter to the
survival of the organism. But if the environment changes, this could make
the organism suddenly more or less adapted. The organisms with the favorable
mutations survive and the ones with the unfavorable mutations don't survive
as well. It is important to a species' survival (as a species, not as
individuals) that there is diversity so that at least some members can
survive in the event that the environment changes.

Van Hoeck
Link: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99893.htm

Scientists use this "term" if you can call it a term so how can I be wrong in my understanding if they use it too?
The "results" of the poll have not changed since BEFORE we started the arguments so it hardly matters now does it? Since it is a blind vote it could be all your friends voting for you without any real reason. That is why I said that the vote should be visible and reasons given for their votes as well. If those who have voted can come forward and tell me where I have posted something untruthful or scientifically wrong I will be glad to concede. But as I have shown with your accusations of wrong understanding I have shown that scientists themselves use the terms that you deny me.

That would bring this discussion to an end. I really have no time to waste on "did not"..."did too".

That is not happening here Lily. The problem I think is not that you have no time to waste....but that you have no argument substancial against what I have posted.

Are opinions important or not? Otherwise, why bring up that scientists have differing opinions.

Whether they have differing opinions or not, no credible life scientist has an opinion other than universal common ancestry of every living thing.

Again, I never implied that they had differing opinions on universal common ancestry. This is a strawman.

I said that scientists have differing opinions I didn't make any reference to what differing opinions they might have. This is showing your biases.

You do.

I do what?

Based on what understanding of evolution I wonder?

All you have shown, and falsily I might add, is that my terms do not meet with your satisfaction although I have shown that they are used by those in the scientific arena. So my understanding of evolution is correct unless you can show where I have presented a untruthful or unscientific permise in this thread.

Even were your understanding of scientific definitions of evolution perfect, you have a different understanding if you do not accept universal common ancestry.

That is totally untrue. I think I have shown that I understand the definitions and my opinion is not presented in this thread.

No, actually I have pointed out errors in your understanding rather than avoiding them.

You have not proven them to be errors.

I posted in the last post the point you were asking about. I forgot what you were referring to and went back to look at your post. You replied before I edited it.

I don't see it...where?

 

[Tomk80]

Both microevolution and macrevolution are terms that are used by Creationists to differentiate between speciation and evolution over several speciation events. All changes happen at the species level.

Consideringlily, I do not think you are actually correct here. Now, I don't know how macro-evolution is currently used in scientific discourse, seeing that the term tends to change quite a lot in it, but I do agree with oncedeceived and her sources that it is a term that very much has a scientific origin. When searching the term on pubmed.org, it comes up in recent papers published in 2006, for example . The authors in this paper seem to refer to it as evolutionary change above species-level. As oncedeceived stated, it is referring to differences in scale.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=17097332&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum[/url

However, oncedeceived stated the following:

There are two scales of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a change within a population of organisms. There are mechanisms that account for microevolution such as natural selection, genetic drift, mutations and migration. The same mechanisms are at work with macroevolution but on a larger scale throughout the entire history of life.

[/FONT]
It is the 'but' (the bolded part) I do have a problem with. It implies to me that there is a difference in scale-level between macro and micro evolution. What I mean is that to me the sentence implies that macro-evolutionary changes proceed on a bigger scale then micro-evolutionary changes. This is not the case. Both changes happen on the level of the species. Macro-evolutionary 'changes' are just accumulations of micro-evolutionary changes.

Using an analogy, macro-evolution and micro-evolution refer to scale, like kilometer and centimeter refer to the same thing, only on different scales. When referring to changes, we could refer to it as a car moving forward. For both macro- and micro-evolutionary change, the mechanism of the car moving forward, as well as the scale in which it proceeds, is exactly the same. The only difference is the amount of time we look at when looking at the change in position of the car.

 

[Lilandra]

I looked at the lecture on the link and I see that the professor used the term Differential Reproduction. So, I am not quibbling with your understanding of this term. You simply cut and pasted from the lecture.

Differential Reproductive Success more accurately describes the tendency for more successfully adapted organisms to reproduce and pass the traits to future generations.

It isn't the reproduction that is differential, rather it is reproductive success. That is why I was confused by the use of the term.

In regard to Differential reproduction: I'll get the rest tomorrow.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...on&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=55&client=firefox-a



Principles of Evolution - 6
• Species produce more offspring than can survive.
• Survival depends on ability to compete for food and resources.
• The individuals genetically better adapted to the surroundings survive and
reproduce more offspring (therefore passing on the better suited
adaptations).
• Those individuals having less favorable traits produce fewer offspring, so
that less successful adaptations are not passed on as frequently.
• This phenomenon is called differential reproduction and successive
generations have more individuals with more favorable traits (genetically
better adapted to their surroundings).
• In natural selection, inherited traits that are adaptive (favorable) will
become more frequent in the population at the expense of less adapted
traits, which will appear less frequently in passing generations. Populations
will change through time in response to environmental factors.

 

[Lilandra]

A mutation is any change in the DNA code or in the process of transcription
and/or translation into protein. People assume that mutations are a bad
thing. But they can make an organism better adapted to their environment.
Mutations are sometimes survival neutral; in other words, at the time of the
mutation, they don't hurt or harm the organism. It doesn't matter to the
survival of the organism. But if the environment changes, this could make
the organism suddenly more or less adapted. The organisms with the favorable
mutations survive and the ones with the unfavorable mutations don't survive
as well. It is important to a species' survival (as a species, not as
individuals) that there is diversity so that at least some members can
survive in the event that the environment changes.

Van Hoeck
Link: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99893.htm

Scientists use this "term" if you can call it a term so how can I be wrong in my understanding if they use it too?

It is a nitpick on my part. My point was that how can an animal like a dinosaur be "less adapted" than a mammal. They were successful for millions of years on this planet.

The environment just dealt them an unlucky card, that they didn't adapt to well enough to.

The "results" of the poll have not changed since BEFORE we started the arguments so it hardly matters now does it? Since it is a blind vote it could be all your friends voting for you without any real reason. That is why I said that the vote should be visible and reasons given for their votes as well.

The only real "friend" I have on this is Aron. He said that he is waiting pending the posting of the discussion to comment.

I haven't asked anyone for help nor have I asked anyone to vote for me.

If those who have voted can come forward and tell me where I have posted something untruthful or scientifically wrong I will be glad to concede. But as I have shown with your accusations of wrong understanding I have shown that scientists themselves use the terms that you deny me.

I have posted them, you have not understood my counterarguments. For example, you said gene flow is stopped between species in a ring species. I showed that is not the case and you continued to post it as if you didn't understand.

That is not happening here Lily. The problem I think is not that you have no time to waste....but that you have no argument substancial against what I have posted.

Actually, what I do with my time is up to me. If it is something that is not productive like going back and forth with "did not" and"did too", then I am right to decide I am wasting my time.

Reserve your judgement about what or who is wasting time for yourself.

Again, I never implied that they had differing opinions on universal common ancestry. This is a strawman.

No, no, no. You said that scientists have differing opinions, so why should you be any different. I said yes they do, but no credible scientist quibbles about universal common ancestry you do.

Your opinion is not within the range of scientific opinions on universal common ancestry.

I said that scientists have differing opinions I didn't make any reference to what differing opinions they might have. This is showing your biases.

I didn't say that you did. I just said that if opinions don't matter why bring them up. Moreover, your opinion isn't within the normal range of dissent on the matter.

That is totally untrue. I think I have shown that I understand the definitions and my opinion is not presented in this thread.
You have not proven them to be errors.

You have gone to great lengths not to present what you really think.

I don't see it...where?

I never implied anything else.
Please provide where I have implied this. I never claimed any such thing. I have simply supplied my knowledge on the subject and you are creating arguments that I have not presented.
I never said otherwise.

My point is macroevolution implies there is a large scale evolutiunary mechanism like with "microevolution" or speciation.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Consideringlily; While I contend that the mechanisms of evolution generally operate below the species level, culimating in speciation, and that all aspects of evolutionary theory above and beyond that are still dependant on accumulating microevolutionary processes, there are a few scientists, like Larry Moran, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, who argue that macroevolution cannot be entirely explained by cumulative microevolutionary events, and they talk about factors which they perceive to exist only at the macroevolutionary level. However, much of their distinction places microevolution as a process and macroevolution as a field of study.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Lilandra]

Consideringlily, I do not think you are actually correct here. Now, I don't know how macro-evolution is currently used in scientific discourse, seeing that the term tends to change quite a lot in it, but I do agree with oncedeceived and her sources that it is a term that very much has a scientific origin.

Perhaps the fault is mine for not communicating this well enough, like I am being too verbose and people are tuning out. I never said scientists do not use the term. I posted this when the terms were used...

Both microevolution and macrevolution are terms that are used by Creationists to differentiate between speciation and evolution over several speciation events. All changes happen at the species level.

This assertion is true Creationists do use the term macroevolution, microevolution being the level they accept.

So you don't think I am speaking as an authority on the matter...

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

• It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is thought to be the only mode of evolution.
• A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

I know this from personal experience as a former Creationist. I posted a thread about macroevolution and was corrected by a number of evolutionists on this board. Perhaps the term has found more acceptance since then.

However, my issue with the term is that there are more accurate ways to discuss common ancestry than terming it macroevolution. I have posted this repeatedly in this thread.

The terms speciation and common ancestry are far more descriptive.

When searching the term on pubmed.org, it comes up in recent papers published in 2006, for example . The authors in this paper seem to refer to it as evolutionary change above species-level. As oncedeceived stated, it is referring to differences in scale.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=17097332&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum[/url
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=17097332&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum[/urlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=17097332&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum[/url

[/color][/font]
It is the 'but' (the bolded part) I do have a problem with. It implies to me that there is a difference in scale-level between macro and micro evolution. What I mean is that to me the sentence implies that macro-evolutionary changes proceed on a bigger scale then micro-evolutionary changes. This is not the case. Both changes happen on the level of the species. Macro-evolutionary 'changes' are just accumulations of micro-evolutionary changes.

I have posted this repeatedly.

In other words, macroevolution is simply several series of microevolution over several speciation events.

The mechanisms of evolution operate at the species level.

A reptile doesn't become a mammal in one speciation event. There is no Voila!

A species of reptile experiences minute changes that blend over several species into the next. Sometimes the changes are relatively rapid if new niches are vacant.

Macroevolution as simply compiled microevolution is accepted to this day.

Using an analogy, macro-evolution and micro-evolution refer to scale, like kilometer and centimeter refer to the same thing, only on different scales. When referring to changes, we could refer to it as a car moving forward. For both macro- and micro-evolutionary change, the mechanism of the car moving forward, as well as the scale in which it proceeds, is exactly the same. The only difference is the amount of time we look at when looking at the change in position of the car.

I look at it this way.

A species is the result of compiled characteristics from its ancestors along with its own derived characteristics.

each of those changes happened at or below the species level.

Common ancestry is the big picture of the minute changes to species over time. It has taxonomical value to class animals above species, but the actual changes occur at or below the species level.

 

[Lilandra]

Consideringlily; While I contend that the mechanisms of evolution generally operate below the species level, culimating in speciation, and that all aspects of evolutionary theory above and beyond that are still dependant on accumulating microevolutionary processes, there are a few scientists, like Larry Moran, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, who argue that macroevolution cannot be entirely explained by cumulative microevolutionary events, and they talk about factors which they perceive to exist only at the macroevolutionary level. However, much of their distinction places microevolution as a process and macroevolution as a field of study.

I understand your point, but all of the evolutionary mechanisms for change require reproduction in order for genetic change to occur.

Aside from hybridization, how can that occur in two different species? How can anything but species level change occur? Over time each species transitions into the next the compiled changes are simply small scale changes together over time.

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.

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".

But she posted elsewhere that life may have arisen in the manner described by Genesis during the Cambrian Explosion.

I for one (a Creationist) feel that the Cambrian theory fits perfectly with Genesis.

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=22133875#poststop
Pardon me if she has retracted this somewhere or conceded that is not the point in time where life started.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I understand your point, but all of the evolutionary mechanisms for change require reproduction in order for genetic change to occur.

That, as I think you saw, was my argument too.

Aside from hybridization, how can that occur in two different species? How can anything but species level change occur? Over time each species transitions into the next the compiled changes are simply small scale changes together over time.

We can explore that after your challenge here is satisfied.

But she posted elsewhere that life may have arisen in the manner described by Genesis during the Cambrian Explosion.

Of course she said that; she's an evangelical creationist. She's required to say things like that, and being able to briefly describe evolution doesn't mean having to accept it. We still don't even know how well she understands it either.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=22133875#poststop
Pardon me if she has retracted this somewhere or conceded that is not the point in time where life started.

Wow.

Had we been basing our judgements on that thread, rather than this one, she would have destroyed her own credibility with that post. But that was nine months ago, and we have to assume she's learned something since then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

However, oncedeceived stated the following:
[/color][/font]
It is the 'but' (the bolded part) I do have a problem with. It implies to me that there is a difference in scale-level between macro and micro evolution. What I mean is that to me the sentence implies that macro-evolutionary changes proceed on a bigger scale then micro-evolutionary changes. This is not the case. Both changes happen on the level of the species. Macro-evolutionary 'changes' are just accumulations of micro-evolutionary changes.

I understand but I specified prior to this statement that the mechanisms were the same in both microevolution and macroevolution. Bigger scale to me is a longer period of time and changes that include one species branching and becoming two. It is the cumulative or increasing or enlarging by successive addition.

Using an analogy, macro-evolution and micro-evolution refer to scale, like kilometer and centimeter refer to the same thing, only on different scales. When referring to changes, we could refer to it as a car moving forward. For both macro- and micro-evolutionary change, the mechanism of the car moving forward, as well as the scale in which it proceeds, is exactly the same. The only difference is the amount of time we look at when looking at the change in position of the car.

Good analogy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I looked at the lecture on the link and I see that the professor used the term Differential Reproduction. So, I am not quibbling with your understanding of this term. You simply cut and pasted from the lecture.

Of course I just cut and pasted from the lecture. I was using it to support my statement. If I hadn't have presented support for my use of the term you would have continued to claim I didn't understand.

Differential Reproductive Success more accurately describes the tendency for more successfully adapted organisms to reproduce and pass the traits to future generations.

Perhaps, but that really isn't the issue. You claimed because I used the term Differential Reproduction that I didn't understand and was incorrect.

 

[Tomk80]

Perhaps the fault is mine for not communicating this well enough, like I am being too verbose and people are tuning out. I never said scientists do not use the term. I posted this when the terms were used...

This assertion is true Creationists do use the term macroevolution, microevolution being the level they accept.

Of course creationists use that distinction. But why single them out in this way. That was the reason for my post. Scientists and creationists do not differ very much in how they use the term macro-evolution in my experience. They differ mainly in their perspective on the necessary mechanisms involved.

So you don't think I am speaking as an authority on the matter...

No, I don't think you're an authority, just as I don't think I am an authority on the matter. I gladly accept that you are knowledgable on the subject and perhaps more knowledgable in certain areas than me. In this case, I have the feeling that you are not making an accurate distinction between the scientific use of the word macro-evolution and the creationist use. As the wiki points out, and I do agree with this because that is exactly what I pointed out in my post, the distinction between creationists and scientists on macro-evolution is not whether they use the word and not even so much in what it means (within or beyond species). It is in the mechanisms they perceive necessary.

I know this from personal experience as a former Creationist. I posted a thread about macroevolution and was corrected by a number of evolutionists on this board. Perhaps the term has found more acceptance since then.

However, my issue with the term is that there are more accurate ways to discuss common ancestry than terming it macroevolution. I have posted this repeatedly in this thread.

I see no reason to think that the use of the term amongst scientists has changed. I would agree that it is not the most accurate term available and would rather see a more accurate terms used. But as often in scientific literature, the way a term is used often should be taken from the context in which it is used. Unfortunately, scientists are not all that consistent in how they use terminology. This is something creationists have often taken advantage of.

I have posted this repeatedly.

I know. That is why that part of the post was not aimed at you, but at oncedeceived. Look at my post again, I take issue with both your implied statements, in both cases with different parts of it.

I look at it this way.

A species is the result of compiled characteristics from its ancestors along with its own derived characteristics.

each of those changes happened at or below the species level.

Common ancestry is the big picture of the minute changes to species over time. It has taxonomical value to class animals above species, but the actual changes occur at or below the species level.

And that is very accurate. But I also think my analogy captures that.

 

[Tomk80]

I understand but I specified prior to this statement that the mechanisms were the same in both microevolution and macroevolution. Bigger scale to me is a longer period of time and changes that include one species branching and becoming two. It is the cumulative or increasing or enlarging by successive addition.

Okay, than that is clear. My issue was not with the prior statements, only with the implication that seemed to come from the part I focused on. If this is what you meant, I agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is a nitpick on my part. My point was that how can an animal like a dinosaur be "less adapted" than a mammal. They were successful for millions of years on this planet.

You are misunderstanding what I said. The dinosaur was more adapted and dominated the environment. Mammals being less adapted or at least less successful were relegated to a small organism niche until the extinction event which killed the dinosaurs allowing for the mammals to expand into the newly available niches.

The environment just dealt them an unlucky card, that they didn't adapt to well enough to.

I don't think this is a valid concept. They probably had no chance to adapt at all. The event was not something that they could survive due to its sudden impact and the destructive consequences brought about by the event.

The only real "friend" I have on this is Aron. He said that he is waiting pending the posting of the discussion to comment.

I haven't asked anyone for help nor have I asked anyone to vote for me.

Ok.

I have posted them, you have not understood my counterarguments. For example, you said gene flow is stopped between species in a ring species. I showed that is not the case and you continued to post it as if you didn't understand.

It is you that doesn't understand. With ring species it takes a barrier for some extended time where there is no genetic interaction to have the species differenciate to the point where they are separate species. There are points in the ring where some genetic interaction continues but in the one or two areas of complete separation there is no interaction or at least not enough to stop the isolation of the gene pool.

Actually, what I do with my time is up to me. If it is something that is not productive like going back and forth with "did not" and"did too", then I am right to decide I am wasting my time.

Fine, it is up to you.

Reserve your judgement about what or who is wasting time for yourself.

LOL, I will then.

No, no, no. You said that scientists have differing opinions, so why should you be any different. I said yes they do, but no credible scientist quibbles about universal common ancestry you do.

It doesn't matter.

Your opinion is not within the range of scientific opinions on universal common ancestry.

Lily, it doesn't matter what my personal opinions are in this thread which I continue to repeat and you continue to inject.

I didn't say that you did. I just said that if opinions don't matter why bring them up. Moreover, your opinion isn't within the normal range of dissent on the matter.

I am not discussing opinions of anyone, I am trying to stay on focus of the thread which is knowledge on evolution.

You have gone to great lengths not to present what you really think.

No actually Lily, you have gone to great lengths to try to change the direction of the thread. You have had an agenda in this challenge from the start. That agenda was just as I suspected and you have proven my expectations by bringing in a thread that presents Creationism. You didn't want to prove your knowledge of evolution against mine, you wanted to prove your knowledge of evolution against Creationism which holds many premises that you felt you could argue against. Now with us sticking to evolution you feel uncomfortable and want to get it back to your original intention which is arguing against Creationism. You showed your intention at the beginning:
Posted by you: Differences may come out over time that are inconsistent with evolution as it is understood by science.
And:
Most creationists consider speciation microevolution. Once you go beyond that they become squeamish.

Since I would not change direction you decided to do so yourself by posting a thread that you felt discredited me. That to me is just a little dishonest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aron I need to get to bed it is very late. I'll respond to your post tomorrow.

 

[Lilandra]

Lily, it doesn't matter what my personal opinions are in this thread which I continue to repeat and you continue to inject.


I am not discussing opinions of anyone, I am trying to stay on focus of the thread which is knowledge on evolution.


No actually Lily, you have gone to great lengths to try to change the direction of the thread. You have had an agenda in this challenge from the start. That agenda was just as I suspected and you have proven my expectations by bringing in a thread that presents Creationism. You didn't want to prove your knowledge of evolution against mine, you wanted to prove your knowledge of evolution against Creationism which holds many premises that you felt you could argue against. Now with us sticking to evolution you feel uncomfortable and want to get it back to your original intention which is arguing against Creationism. You showed your intention at the beginning:
Posted by you: Differences may come out over time that are inconsistent with evolution as it is understood by science.
And:
Most creationists consider speciation microevolution. Once you go beyond that they become squeamish.

Since I would not change direction you decided to do so yourself by posting a thread that you felt discredited me. That to me is just a little dishonest.

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

That is a cold hard fact I learned myself.

 

[Tomk80]

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

That is a cold hard fact I learned myself.

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.

 

[Lilandra]

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.

The position she posted earlier is that life was created during the Cambrian explosion in the manner outlined in Genesis. Is this view consistent with an understanding of evolution...

I for one (a Creationist) feel that the Cambrian theory fits perfectly with Genesis.

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.



http://www.christianforums.com/showt...33875#poststop
Pardon me if she has retracted this somewhere or conceded that is not the point in time where life started.

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.

You of all people must know that whether someone has religious convictions about something doesn't change reality nor does it give them a loophole to ignore reality.

Otherwise. why not give those with religious convictions an exemption from learning about evolution in school? Why not teach "both sides" in school?

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.

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

I said based on past threads, I don't think that is the case. I produced a thread where she said life was created during the Cambrian Explosion.

Is that consistent with a scientific understanding of evolution? No.

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

I have not made a generalization. I have supported from her own words that she specifically misunderstands evolution.

Evolution is not just about definitions. I stated earlier that terms are only as good as our understanding of the phenomena they describe.

I am talking about an understanding of an organic process. She would love to stay here and dicker about sematics than support her position. Why aid her in that?

She is equally accountable for her position as I am for mine.

 

[Tomk80]

The position she posted earlier is that life was created during the Cambrian explosion in the manner outlined in Genesis. Is this view consistent with an understanding of evolution...

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.

You of all people must know that whether someone has religious convictions about something doesn't change reality nor does it give them a loophole to ignore reality.

Otherwise. why not give those with religious convictions an exemption from learning about evolution in school? Why not teach "both sides" in school.

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.

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

I said based on past threads, I don't think that is the case. I produced a thread where she said life was created during the Cambrian Explosion.

Is that consistent with a scientific understanding of evolution? No.

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.

I have not made a generalization. I have supported from her own words that she specifically misunderstands evolution.

Evolution is not just about definitions. I stated earlier that terms are only as good as our understanding of the phenomena they describe.

I am talking about an understanding of an organic process. She would love to stay here and dicker about sematics than support her position. Why aid her in that?

I

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. At this point, I see her post a line of arguments, and you responding with a general 'it is only possible to hold a Creationist viewpoint if you misunderstand evolution.' This is a generalization you are making and you have not demonstrated that this generalization is valid in all cases, more specifically in the case of oncedeceived.

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.