Evolution?

plindboe · Sep 21, 2008

Bombila said:
We're human, so it isn't completely avoidable, Peter. But I can also just understand how a theist with a simple anthropomorphic belief can be confused by the way we talk about, for example, evolution. This, I think, is part of why some feel justified in accusing us of having 'evolution' as a religion. We don't , of course, but there are examples a-plenty out there of scientific colloquialisms or nicknames for things confusing the common sense out of people who don't grasp the science - how much confusion and misunderstanding could have been avoided if no one had ever used the term 'God particle', for instance?

I agree with your points.

But on the other hand, as Sagan, in someone's sig, says: "We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster."

Perhaps when communicating with laymen the formal and correct way, scientists normally use to communicate with each other, might cause distancing rather than understanding. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Either you'll distance yourself or people will misunderstand you.

Personally I think the increasing distance between science and the rest of society is a greater danger than the odd confusion due to informal language.

Peter

Maximum · Sep 21, 2008

juvenissun said:
(please do not repeat the point that bacteria DO change, I know they change, but they do not evolve. And, don't say evolution is change (only) again!. That is not the definition used in this thread). Obviously, bacteria defied this principle.

Ah! If everything fails, make up your own definition of evolution!

juvenissun · Sep 21, 2008

plindboe said:
It's obvious he has several misunderstandings, but asking why there are such differences between the three domains is a valid question. Sure, it's important to explain to him that evolution doesn't have any long term goal, that increased complexity isn't a requirement of evolution, that there are multicellular bacteria, that bacteria have evolved into countless, shapes and sizes etc. But trying to see his underlying point, through all his misunderstandings, zeal and arrogance, there's still the interesting question as to why eukaryotes manage to achieve such extreme multicellular complexity as we see today, while bacteria haven't to an equal degree.

I tend to be the diplomat; always trying to understand what people are saying instead of worrying about the differences.

Using this kind of informal language is often a good way to communicate ideas though. It's true it might lead to misunderstandings as well. Whether to avoid it completely I'm not sure is the best strategy.

Peter

Evolution is not just an idea. It is an idea based on apparent facts. Now, some facts do not fit. So the idea needs to be re-evaluated.

To people who do not understand evolution, use the wide range of definition of this term as a defense strategy may work (such as change, niches, etc). But not to me. So, stop playing with the definition of this word. Get down to the facts. Bacteria do not evolve over the 4 billion years. Admit this fact. You may then propose all kinds of reasons to explain why did they not.

Vene · Sep 21, 2008

juvenissun · Sep 21, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
Then by your terminology, bacteria have not evolved for the 4 billion years ago.

But please don't conflate this with anything scientific.

My statement IS scientific in every sense.

Wiccan_Child · Sep 21, 2008

juvenissun said:
My statement IS scientific in every sense.

What? No, it isn't: you explicitly reject the definitions of 'evolution' that are used by the scientific community, and conjure up one of your own. How is this in any way scientific?

Vene · Sep 21, 2008

WC, have you debated Juv in the past? This is the same guy who got the definition of a mountain wrong (link), and he claims to be a geologist.

thaumaturgy · Sep 21, 2008

If you can get Juvenissun to support his own "unique definitions" of terms you will win a prize. Very few have been successful. Note Juvenissun's earlier attempts at altering standard definitions. In one thread he attempted to define the word "mountain" such that volcanoes were NOT mountains. And Juvenissun claims to be a geologist. So watch out what he does here in Biology!

thaumaturgy · Sep 21, 2008

Vene said:
WC, have you debated Juv in the past? This is the same guy who got the definition of a mountain wrong (link), and he claims to be a geologist.

Vene,
Beat me to it! Thanks for providing a link!

Indeed Juvenissun's claims to being a scientist are woefully beaten by his actual posts which indicate such a profound lack of knowledge of how scientists interact and support their claims it makes one wonder why people continue to feed this particular troll.

thaumaturgy · Sep 21, 2008

juvenissun said:
Evolution is not just an idea. It is an idea based on apparent facts. Now, some facts do not fit. So the idea needs to be re-evaluated.

The second Juvenissun brings up a "Fact" that obviates the utility of evolution in explaining biological and paleontological data, then maybe people will be able to discuss it.

To people who do not understand evolution, use the wide range of definition of this term as a defense strategy may work

Yes, yes that's the stuff. Just make up your own "narrowing" of the definition and then claim it as some sort of victory.

How about someone redefine Christianity as being only Catholics, ergo anyone who is not a Catholic is not a christian. And then proceed to debate with Lutherans about how wrong they are on Christianity.

(such as change, niches, etc). But not to me. So, stop playing with the definition of this word.

TROLL-O-RAMA!

Irony-meter so badly busted it begs for this man to be declared a Troll.

Get down to the facts. Bacteria do not evolve over the 4 billion years.

For one second let's say we do find some thing in biology that has not "evolved" over a long period of time. It hasn't changed one iota (granted I know of no such thing, but some things show very primitive forms that persist for millenia), so let's assume we find one thing that has not changed in any way over the course of its existence in biological history. Does that mean evolution is wrong?

NO! It means that creature is perfectly adapted to a completely unchanging environment and any mutations that have ever occured have, by pure random chance, been weeded out by natural selection.

So the only way Juvie can "win" this one is if he supports his narrow definition that "evolution" has to include as a bare minimum: "Speciation".

If he can support that claim then he will still be left with how so many other life forms have speciated and clearly evolved. Just not that one life form that we discuss here "hypothetically".

Admit this fact. You may then propose all kinds of reasons to explain why did they not.

Make him support his contention that evolution is as narrowly defined as he claims it. He won't, of course, and if he does it'll be as entertaining as his attempt to redefine "mountain". But it is the only thing that can even start to save his argument.

(It is also a strategy that makes use of Juvenissun's main weakness: scientific discipline. He has none, he is uniquely incapable of supporting his points in detail and he is unable to back his claims up on average. That would require a "fullly developed hypothesis complete with details" and that is simply not his thing.)

juvenissun · Sep 21, 2008

Naraoia said:
Juvenissun, I think you might have missed this post of mine. So I'm shamelessly quoting myself:

(You are asking why all bacteria didn't evolve into something as complex as us, right?)

Any comments on that?

Sorry if I missed the reply to your point. And thank you for reminded me again.

The problem is on the scale. If 100 things evolved for 10 million years. Some evolved a little and some evolved more. Then I have no problem on that. If the same 100 things evolved 1 billion years. Some evolved a lot, some evolved some, but some evolved very little. Then there should be questions. Now, given 4 billion years, and bacteria is still extremely "under-evolved" (my convenient terminology !). Then either they are nearly perfect at the beginning, or they do not evolve, which works under the same principle (don't ever say that evolution has no working principle) to every living things.

Cockroach did not evolve over a few hundred million years. No problem. Some species evolved from the cockroach (possible error here, the common ancestor thing. Don't pick on this, it is not the point) and the process continued. However, the key feature is that NOTHING evolved out of bacteria.

And, the main argument is: this exception should be taken more seriously on the concept of evolution.

juvenissun · Sep 21, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
What? No, it isn't: you explicitly reject the definitions of 'evolution' that are used by the scientific community, and conjure up one of your own. How is this in any way scientific?

Because my version of definition is a scientific one. Good or bad.

juvenissun · Sep 21, 2008

Vene said:
WC, have you debated Juv in the past? This is the same guy who got the definition of a mountain wrong (link), and he claims to be a geologist.

My definition on "mountain" is correct, and is better. If you dare to get into that topic in another thread, I will certainly and definitely beat you. Remind you that unlike this bacteria issue, things about mountain is in MY territory of knowledge. You probably has not started the lesson 1 about it yet. To you, there is probably a "mountain" on your backyard where goats sleep on it.

Draconic · Sep 21, 2008

juvenissun said:
Now, given 4 billion years, and bacteria is still extremely "under-evolved" Then either they are nearly perfect at the beginning, or they do not evolve, which works under the same principle to every living things.

Bacteria are not "under-evolved" and they are not simple. Bacteria are the reproductive powerhouses of life and have covered every nook and cranny of earth for billions of years.

However, the key feature is that NOTHING evolved out of bacteria.

I do not know much about the phyolgenic tree of early life, bit I do know that your statement is false.

And, the main argument is: this exception should be taken more seriously on the concept of evolution.

No- bacteria are no problem. Every creature finds a different way to survive. For bacteria it is by being reproduction nuts and increasing their numbers exponentially.

And wherever did you get the notion that bacteria don't evolve?

Evolution of multicellularity (deemed by many creationists as "impossible")
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16288782

Bacteria evolve ability to eat and process Citrate
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/06/04/tracking-adaptation-as-bacteria-evolve

Bacteria evolve abiliy to eat nylon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

And of course the countless instances of bacteria and vruses evolving immunity to medical treatments.

Want more?

Maximum · Sep 21, 2008

juvenissun, do give us your definition of evolution.

Tomk80 · Sep 22, 2008

juvenissun said:
Because my version of definition is a scientific one. Good or bad.

It isn't. Stop lying.

Wiccan_Child · Sep 22, 2008

Vene said:
WC, have you debated Juv in the past? This is the same guy who got the definition of a mountain wrong (link), and he claims to be a geologist.

Haha, I remember that. Gotta feel sorry for his students...

Wiccan_Child · Sep 22, 2008

juvenissun said:
Because my version of definition is a scientific one. Good or bad.

My question was, "How is your definition scientific?". Are you really answering with "It's scientific because it's scientific"?

thaumaturgy · Sep 22, 2008

juvenissun said:
My definition on "mountain" is correct, and is better. If you dare to get into that topic in another thread, I will certainly and definitely beat you.

LURKERS: Note this man was begged a huge number of times to support his unique definition of "Mountain". Many of us are degreed geologists and he was shown how he was in error by no less than the U.S. Geological Survey (HERE).

Finally he supported his defintion using a "Junior School" website--(HERE)-- which didn't even, technically, support his own contention!

So anyone who might believe this man is all he claims to be, beware.

His words and actions bear out the truth.

He will not "beat" anyone. He can't even support his own points.

(Juvenissun, in case you are reading: your posts will not be allowed to stand when in error. We who are actual researchers by training and profession will hold your comments up for scrutiny at all points. It is what we do in science; we track details.)

Remind you that unlike this bacteria issue, things about mountain is in MY territory of knowledge.

By his "fruit" we know him.

You probably has not started the lesson 1 about it yet. To you, there is probably a "mountain" on your backyard where goats sleep on it.

Now everyone has plenty of evidence about how much Juvenissun actually knows about this topic.

YOUR WORDS STAND, JUVENISSUN.

juvenissun · Sep 22, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
My question was, "How is your definition scientific?". Are you really answering with "It's scientific because it's scientific"?

because my statement is logical.

Evolution?

Senior Member

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Chess Enthusiast

Newbie

Titleless

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency