Evolutionary debate

[Wiccan_Child]

It's all due to my dog. My dog was a wanted breed not too long ago. All we had was a picture. Now my dog is an AKC accepted breed. All it took was a little selective breeding by a group of breeders.

There was no millions of years, no radiation, just a group of people working with the natural variation inherent in the DNA.

When breeders selectively breed for "personality" traits, guess what happens. The physical aspects of the dog change. Color and shape and size are influenced by temperament. It's not due to random mutations.

Of course it is. Where do you think those new colours come from?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok so you are specifically speaking of macro and micro evolution. See I was thinking that we were talking about evolution in general that is taught in grade schools which does include origin of life as evolution, which is more important in my mind since the things you admitted here as pure speculation are taught as fact in grade schools.

He didn't admit they were pure speculation, he said they were hypotheses. There is enough evidence to conclude that life did indeed have a biochemical origin some 3.5 billion years ago. Moreover, these things aren't taught as evolution (or, if they are, the teacher is simply wrong).

Once you get past the origin of life you still have to explain the evolution of species from the first self replicating cells to a creature don't you as at that point life has been established.

Not necessarily. If we don't know, we can simply say, "We don't know". The evidence supports the before and after, and, by proxy, supports that it happened.
But that's besides the point, since we can explain the origin of species from the first replicating cells.

I believe in micro evolution 100% but macro I believe is completely false.

Microevolution is variation within a species, macroevolution is variation between species. Since we have seen variation between species, I submit that macroevolution is a proven fact.

I have a simple question for you with our new understanding do you believe schools should teach children the origin of life in the textbooks if no one knows exactly what happend and it can't be proven?

Yes, for the simple reason that we have valid, evidenced hypotheses (theories?) as to what happened. Epistemologically, nothing outside of pure logic can ever be proven beyond all doubt, but we have definitely proven evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.
The fact remains that this is science. The vast majority of scientists accept that it is science, they believe it, they work with it. It's science. Even if it turns out to be false in the future (as any claim might turn out to be), it's still accepted science now. We don't teach our kids Creationism in the science classroom because it is a religious belief, not a scientific one. We teach abiogenesis (albeit abbreviated) in the science classroom because it is a scientific belief.

I found a picture of what appears to be a stegasaurus on the Ta Prohm temple . I can't post links or pictures yet due to my new status and post count. I have seen other pictures of what appears to be dinosaurs on roman shields and eqyptian pottery and cave walls. It's not hard to find pictures of these items online. I had heard that someone was copying the ICA stones for profit, but I had not heard that the originals were determined to be a hoax. Is this the same that you heard or is there more to the ICA stones?

The ICA stones are indeed a hoax, as are the Acambaro figures.

 

[Hespera]

I said basically the same thing you did. My comments were not moldy nonsense. They were questions that apparently you couldn't answer.

As I said before I am not a scientist and will admit my shortfalls. I had to look up ToE as you mentioned that all other areas of science support it and what I found was interesting. This was taken from Wikipedia:

The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine. Their mutual incompatibility argues that they are incomplete, or at least not fully understood taken individually.

Sounds to me like some points argue against each other instead of all supporting each other.

If you admit your shortfalls (shortcomings?) as all should, good; I will be most particularly interested to see if you will openly admit when you are make a statement of fact that is simply not true, or have made such a misstatement as to be essentially deceptive in nature. There will be a lot of the factual errors. So, if you cant accept it when you are corrected there is little to no point in any discussion.

Here is an example. "is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanicsgeneral relativity are hard to combine. Their mutual incompatibility argues that they are incomplete, or at least not fully understood taken individually.

Sounds to me like some points argue against each other instead of all supporting each other."

This is a problem in theoretical physics, that they may or may not work out. Id have to study what it might have to do with evolution. Note tho that it is stated that the theories involved are incomplete or not fully understood.
Wiki of course, is not much of a source, and you failed to say where to find the article. i would like to see what it has to say.

NO theory is fully understood or complete or proven. No scientific "law" is either.

This detail, if it even can be accurately stated that "some points argue against each other" does not argue against what i said... that all of the fields of hard science very broadly support corroborate and contribute to the ToE, and that the ToE could not be falsified without wrecking essentially all of known theory in science. You in no way addressed this fact.

Your statement about about people moving away from the ToE is a misleading statement, as is the above. The movement has been away from special creation, a nearly universal belief at one time, to where it is only a fringe of fundamentalists who believe in it now. And note further that none of those scientists have any other than religious reasons only; none of them has data point one to falsify ToE.

You call my points moldy nonsense, but if you had painted an animal for example and I told you that you had never seen one in your life yet you painting was detailed as far as shape and body markings you would think I was an absolute fool. However you can't deny that there are dinosaurs pictured on ancient pottery, roman shields, etc. Now if they never saw them how did they know what they looked like? To me at least it would only be common sense to accepted that people must have been alive during the time of dinosaurs to be able to know what they looked like. I know science will say that it is impossible, but wouldn't accepting science on this note just be stupid as you can clearly see that people in ancient times knew what they looked like. To me that is not moldy nonsense. That is common sense which apparently died years ago.


common sense which apparently died years ago.



Common sense tells me that the means and motive are there for people to do art and archaeology forgeries. Happens all the time. Religious relic forgeries have been common. Common sense tells me that if the art history / archaeology communities dont accept them, the opinion of people who hope they are real / whose world view needs them to be real doesnt count for anything.


As for you mentioning hard science. I thought I would copy the defination of science.
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.[1] As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experiment, measurement, mathematics, and replication — to be considered a science,

Now while there are variations in species. There is no proof for 1 species evolving into another species or even the origin of life for that matter as it has not been observed, experimented, measured, or reproduced. It is simply a belief. Now therefore since you ask me to prove my belief which you know we will never be able to as I said before that God is not science. I have provided you with the defination of science and as such origin of life is also not science so try to prove your belief and you will be the first person in history to do so and you will be famous and prove all creationist wrong at the same time. Now I have heard several times that you can not observe a species evolve into another species because it takes a long time. I guess I am to expect that all species evolved at the same time and none have changed during the recorded history of the earth cause if anyone had ever seen it or could prove it we wouldn't be having this debate.

Since the ToE is considered good science by the worlds scientific community your attempts to define it out of existence wont come to anything.. Maybe you would do well to look at why it is considered good science instead of concocting reasons that it isnt. The things you have said to date show clearly enough that you dont know much of anything about it, even the most basic concepts.. Not trying to be nasty, just making a factual observation. Note you included origin of life as part of TOE for example.

As for "proving it" we hope you wont bother again to use the word 'proof" in connection with science theory.

You are asking me to "prove" a theory, in i trust the full knowledge that it cant be done. No law or theroy in science can be proven. In science we disprove, we dont prove. Ok?

try to prove your belief and you will be the first person in history to do so
and you will be famous and prove all creationist wrong at the same time.


If you would re read your "defination" concerning science, you will find that theory is there to be confirmed, added to or falsified, not proven. So, your job will be to falsify the ToE, a simple job if its as bad as you say. That is how it works, I asked you earlier to produce one data point that would falsify ToE, Trying to flip it onto me isnt it. And you still have no data. Are you going to produce some or not?.

 

[plindboe]

As I said before I am not a scientist and will admit my shortfalls. I had to look up ToE as you mentioned that all other areas of science support it and what I found was interesting. This was taken from Wikipedia:

The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine. Their mutual incompatibility argues that they are incomplete, or at least not fully understood taken individually.

Sounds to me like some points argue against each other instead of all supporting each other.

Erm, the wikipedia quote isn't about the theory of evolution. It's about a physical concept called theory of everything. They are both shortened to TOE, but they are very different things.

This is the biological TOE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution
This is the physical TOE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Peter

 

[Hespera]

Erm, the wikipedia quote isn't about the theory of evolution. It's about a physical concept called theory of everything. They are both shortened to TOE, but they are very different things.

This is the biological TOE: Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the physical TOE: Theory of everything - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peter

We will assume that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead with this misplaced quote mine.

It is suggested tho that the poster acknowledge this failure to do his due diligence, and accept it that he has completely failed to provide a counter example of any sort, to what I said about the ToE being supported by all of the hard sciences.

Also in the future, he should, like the rest of us, provide a link when citing a source.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We will assume that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead with this misplaced quote mine.

It is suggested tho that the poster acknowledge this failure to do his due diligence, and accept it that he has completely failed to provide a counter example of any sort, to what I said about the ToE being supported by all of the hard sciences.

Also in the future, he should, like the rest of us, provide a link when citing a source.

He only has ten posts to his name, he can't post links yet.

 

[Hespera]

He didn't admit they were pure speculation, he said they were hypotheses. There is enough evidence to conclude that life did indeed have a biochemical origin some 3.5 billion years ago. Moreover, these things aren't taught as evolution (or, if they are, the teacher is simply wrong).


So, pchotrodder, will you accept it that you are wrong in your claim about "admitting pure speculation"? And that regardless of what some poorly trained first grade or other teachers do or dont say, they do not speak for the ToE?


Not necessarily. If we don't know, we can simply say, "We don't know". The evidence supports the before and after, and, by proxy, supports that it happened.
But that's besides the point, since we can explain the origin of species from the first replicating cells.


Microevolution is variation within a species, macroevolution is variation between species. Since we have seen variation between species, I submit that macroevolution is a proven fact.


Yes, for the simple reason that we have valid, evidenced hypotheses (theories?) as to what happened. Epistemologically, nothing outside of pure logic can ever be proven beyond all doubt, but we have definitely proven evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.
The fact remains that this is science. The vast majority of scientists accept that it is science, they believe it, they work with it. It's science. Even if it turns out to be false in the future (as any claim might turn out to be), it's still accepted science now. We don't teach our kids Creationism in the science classroom because it is a religious belief, not a scientific one. We teach abiogenesis (albeit abbreviated) in the science classroom because it is a scientific belief.


The ICA stones are indeed a hoax, as are the Acambaro figures.

Will pcho acknowledge that the "ica stones" are a hoax?

 

[Hespera]

He only has ten posts to his name, he can't post links yet.

ok, a pass on that one. tho one could write it out

 

[plindboe]

We will assume that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead with this misplaced quote mine.

Indeed, I'm sure it was an honest misunderstanding.

In creationist circles, evolution is often and bizarrely described as a theory that incorporates anything from the Big Bang to the origin of life to actual evolution, so it's not a surprise that he might have thought the link could be about evolution, even though it was talking about physics.

It is suggested tho that the poster acknowledge this failure to do his due diligence, and accept it that he has completely failed to provide a counter example of any sort, to what I said about the ToE being supported by all of the hard sciences.

He accepted an earlier correction, which is rare to see in these kinds of debates, so I think we're dealing with a nice and honest individual, who've simply been exposed to alot of misinformation.

Peter

 

[Hespera]

Indeed, I'm sure it was an honest misunderstanding.

i guess we will see by what he says about it now.


In creationist circles, evolution is often and bizarrely described as a theory that incorporates anything from the Big Bang to the origin of life to actual evolution, so it's not a surprise that he might have thought the link could be about evolution, even though it was talking about physics.

True that


He accepted an earlier correction, which is rare to see in these kinds of debates, so I think we're dealing with a nice and honest individual, who've simply been exposed to alot of misinformation.


I did see that. agreeing that he said "proof" when "evidence" was the word. And yes its a rare thing to see.

Still, we note several others unacknowledged, and also this...

I have provided you with the defination of science and as such origin of life is also not science so try to prove your belief and you will be the first person in history to do so and you will be famous and prove all creationist wrong at the same time. Now I have heard several times that you can not observe a species evolve into another species because it takes a long time. I guess I am to expect that all species evolved at the same time and none have changed during the recorded history of the earth cause if anyone had ever seen it or could prove it we wouldn't be having this debate.

so there is still a definite problem with misuse and misunderstanding of the word "proof"


Peter

Standing by to see if that will be the only error acknowledged..

 

[SkyWriting]

No the theory of evolution does not include abiogenesis...

Balderdash.

Few people have any interest in learning about evolution except to help explain "where life as we know it came from". Only a handful of people think about "Darwinian Evolution" and assume that the principals they are learning are irrelevant to the formation of life.

Nor do most people think that Chemical Evolution is not part of "The Theory of Evolution."

You may be that 1 who does.

"Just as life has evolved into a plethora of different forms over an extended time period, the chemical elements? which are the building blocks of matter have also, in a sense, evolved since the origin of the universe."

 

[SkyWriting]

Ok so you are specifically speaking of macro and micro evolution. See I was thinking that we were talking about evolution in general that is taught in grade schools which does include origin of life as evolution, which is more important in my mind since the things you admitted here as pure speculation are taught as fact in grade schools. Once you get past the origin of life you still have to explain the evolution of species from the first self replicating cells to a creature don't you as at that point life has been established. I believe in micro evolution 100% but macro I believe is completely false. I have a simple question for you with our new understanding do you believe schools should teach children the origin of life in the textbooks if no one knows exactly what happend and it can't be proven?

Many Evolutionists are not aware that the theory of chemical evolution (formation of life) , Darwinian evolution, and formation of the cosmos are part of early grade school curriculum. Mostly the same people who would object to other religious concepts being taught.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Balderdash.

Few people have any interest in learning about evolution except to help explain "where life as we know it came from". Only a handful of people think about "Darwinian Evolution" and assume that the principals they are learning are irrelevant to the formation of life.

Nor do most people think that Chemical Evolution is not part of "The Theory of Evolution."

You may be that 1 who does.

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. That is the definition of evolution. Evolution proper, as it applies modern animals (say), didn't occur in earnest until lateral gene transfer ceased to be the only way to vary genetics.

Abiogenesis isn't evolution because evolution applies to populations: abiogenesis was a chemical reaction that eventually lead to life. Before abiogenesis, there were no populations.

"Just as life has evolved into a plethora of different forms over an extended time period, the chemical elements? which are the building blocks of matter have also, in a sense, evolved since the origin of the universe."

Hardly an authoritative source. The site defines 'chemical evolution' as[FONT=verdana, arial, sans serif] 'The change and transformation of chemical elements, molecules and compounds'. Scientists just call this chemistry, and it is unrelated to biological evolution. Kent Hovind may like to twist the definition to fit is twee little challenge, but take my advice, stick to the scientific definitions. They're the ones the experts use.

Evolution is a biological theory that applies to living organisms. No more, no less.
[/FONT]

 

[sfs]

Balderdash.

Few people have any interest in learning about evolution except to help explain "where life as we know it came from". Only a handful of people think about "Darwinian Evolution" and assume that the principals they are learning are irrelevant to the formation of life.

Nor do most people think that Chemical Evolution is not part of "The Theory of Evolution."

Perhaps most people do think that -- you haven't presented any evidence either way, so it's a little hard to tell. Regardless, boundaries between scientific fields are decided by the scientists in those fields, not by the ignorance of those outside.

 

[Cassiterides]

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Some more evolutionist dishonesty.

The only source which defines evolution as the ''change in allele frequency in a population'' is found from a 21 year old obscure textbook pasted on the 'TalkOrigins' website. This is it:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

But this is not the real definition of evolution which can be found in real science dictionaries. See below where i give you the correct definition.

That is the definition of evolution. Evolution proper, as it applies modern animals (say), didn't occur in earnest until lateral gene transfer ceased to be the only way to vary genetics.

No, the real definition is as follows:

''The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection''

- The American Heritage Science Dictionary

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Some more evolutionist dishonesty.

The only source which defines evolution as the ''change in allele frequency in a population'' is found from a 21 year old obscure textbook pasted on the 'TalkOrigins' website. This is it:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

That is the only definition you have found.

Wikipedia defines evolution as "the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations". It's source is given as "Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2".

So the very first line of the Wikipedia article, sourced from a modern textbook, is exactly the same definition is the same as the one I gave.

But this is not the real definition of evolution which can be found in real science dictionaries. See below where i give you the correct definition.

No, the real definition is as follows:

''The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection''

- The American Heritage Science Dictionary

Which is the same as the one I gave above, and the one given by Futuyma. The AHSD definition focusses on speciation, and so is somewhat restrictive, but the concept defined is pretty much the same as the one given by myself and by Futuyma.

So not only were you wrong about my definition being outdated, you were also failed to realise that your 'correct' definition was the same as my one!

 

[sfs]

Which is the same as the one I gave above, and the one given by Futuyma. The AHSD definition focusses on speciation, and so is somewhat restrictive, but the concept defined is pretty much the same as the one given by myself and by Futuyma.

The AHSD definition also restricts evolution to changes occurring through natural selection, which is just wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The AHSD definition also restricts evolution to changes occurring through natural selection, which is just wrong.

This is true. It's good for a primer in evolution, since the proper, general definition can be a bit confusing; it took me a while to get my head round what it was saying.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. That is the definition of evolution. Evolution proper, as it applies modern animals (say), didn't occur in earnest until lateral gene transfer ceased to be the only way to vary genetics.

Abiogenesis isn't evolution because evolution applies to populations: abiogenesis was a chemical reaction that eventually lead to life. Before abiogenesis, there were no populations.


Hardly an authoritative source. The site defines 'chemical evolution' as[FONT=verdana, arial, sans serif] 'The change and transformation of chemical elements, molecules and compounds'. Scientists just call this chemistry, and it is unrelated to biological evolution. Kent Hovind may like to twist the definition to fit is twee little challenge, but take my advice, stick to the scientific definitions. They're the ones the experts use.

Evolution is a biological theory that applies to living organisms. No more, no less.
[/FONT]

Balderdash and bluffery.

Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory.

Please don't limit your knowledge by relying on my research. Pick your own sources:

The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to demonstrate that small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and proteins. The members of this Center hold the common belief that achieving a “one pot” self-assembly of life-like polymers is possible and an attainable scientific goal.
Chemical Evolution II: From the Origins of Life to Modern Society


Chemical Evolution describes a variety of theories that posit the view that life originated through purely chemical transformations of nonliving matter...

<h3 class="r">Chemical Evolution of Life on the Early Earth

Chemical evolution may refer to: Nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements in the universe either through the Big Bang, or supernovae; Abiogenesis

Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origin and Evolution of Life

Chemical evolution describes chemical changes on the primitive Earth that gave rise to the first forms of life.

​

</h3>

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Balderdash and bluffery.

Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory.

Please don't limit your knowledge by relying on my research. Pick your own sources:

The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to demonstrate that small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and proteins. The members of this Center hold the common belief that achieving a “one pot” self-assembly of life-like polymers is possible and an attainable scientific goal.
Chemical Evolution II: From the Origins of Life to Modern Society


Chemical Evolution describes a variety of theories that posit the view that life originated through purely chemical transformations of nonliving matter...

<h3 class="r">Chemical Evolution of Life on the Early Earth

Chemical evolution may refer to: Nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements in the universe either through the Big Bang, or supernovae; Abiogenesis

Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origin and Evolution of Life

Chemical evolution describes chemical changes on the primitive Earth that gave rise to the first forms of life.

Your claim was that chemical evolution is part of biological evolution. It is not. Chemical evolution refers variously to the synthesis of heavy elements in stars and novae, to abiogenesis, or to biological evolution on an atomic scale. Only the latter definition is related to biological evolution (i.e., the theory of common descent).
Chemical evolution has as much bearing on evolution as stellar cosmology does on geology: ostensibly there is a link, and a complete picture involves both, but they are ultimately separate fields.