Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

My example was perfect according to the definition I used and the context I deemed correct. You will need to show me the accepted scientific dictionary of different definitions (the ASDDD) before you can possibly expect us to use your terminology, otherwise you are going to have confusion. Sorry you cannot accept that, and it you wan to continue wasting our time harping on it, that's completely up to you, but a point will come when I'm just going to ignore you.

So, if you can get over the problem, recognize the confusion/understand what happened and what will continue to happen until you provide and official ASDDD, and until then just drop your accusations, "I'm right and you are wrong" when you aren't necessarily for reasons I've mentioned several times, we can move on. If for no other reason, neither of us will ever completely give in here, so it's a waste of time.

So, with any luck, moving on from the present stagnant disagreement...What is your detailed definition of "theory"...scientific theory?

Somehow, I’m guessing a detailed definition of "theory"...scientific theory, will be as problematic as the encyclopedias say the definition of species is.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Lol. I already posted TWO dictionary definitions (that you say didn't exist) from the very dictionary (Webster's) that you said didn't contain it. One of them had it as the very first definition. The other one was from 190 years ago, and specifically described how, in science, a theory differs from a hypothesis.

Why are you pretending I didn't already do this?

Settle down.

Not pretending anything, why would I do that? I simply want a single detailed definition for the record before I move on so there is no confusion. Is that going to be a problem?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Did the rest of my post clarify things as to why I don't consider generic dictionaries the best source of technical definitions?

I don't know. Sorry, didn't read it once I realized what you were doing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Using an elastic interpretation of an elastic definition to define the definition... that should be confusing enough.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to not face the facts.

 

[pitabread]

I don't know. Sorry, didn't read it once I realized what you were doing.

And what do you think I was doing?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Show me your fossil, and the official short story of what you are claiming..

It's been posted and ignored on this forum more then enough times, including in this very thread.

I both don't have the time and energy to dig it up again.
If you really want to know, do a search for "Tiktaalik".

And no, didn't backfire at all, but lets just stick to the discussion, and see what huge stretches supported your prediction before you get too elated...k?

The find was predicted in both locality and age (devonian rock) and feature set (fish / tetrapod hybrid). It's pretty straight forward.

By all means, continue sticking your head in the sand.

 

[46AND2]

Settle down.

Not pretending anything, why would I do that? I simply want a single detailed definition for the record before I move on so there is no confusion. Is that going to be a problem?

Oh and please settle down
I go on...is that a problem?

I'm completely settled. Trust me, I'm quite used to these evasive, non-apologetic tactics when people are shown to be wrong here. How about I give you the definition that I already posted a few pages back?

A theory is an EXPLANATION for a set of related hypotheses and observations. Again, it is an explanation, not a proposition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Somehow, I’m guessing a detailed definition of "theory"...scientific theory, will be as problematic as the encyclopedias say the definition of species is.

Sidenote: ironically, one of the reasons that it is dificult to define what a species is, is because populations constantly evolve gradually, and because of that, it is kind of hard, almost arbitrary at times, to draw a line to note where one species ends and the other begins.

Ring species illustrate that beautifully. You know what ring species are, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

According to a "simplistic" definition of 'species', where things that can interbreed are the same species, we end up with problems when identifying the species of the various populations in ring species:

The original populaiton on the left "splits" into 2, each going down a different side of the geographic barrier.

Each colored dot here, represents a population that settled there, while others moved on and settled elsewhere.
Each of the dots close together, can interbreed.

So according to a simplisitc "can interbreed" definition of species, all the greens are the same species - they can interbreed.
Light green and yellow = can interbreed, thus same species.
yellow and orange = can interbreed, thus same species.
orange and red = can interbreed, thus same species.

Then, above, green and blue can interbreed = same species.
Blue and purple can interbreed = same species.

So. Logic follows: red and purple are the same species.
But o-ow: they can't interbreed.

You see?

 

[pitabread]

Sidenote: ironically, one of the reasons that it is dificult to define what a species is, is because populations constantly evolve gradually, and because of that, it is kind of hard, almost arbitrary at times, to draw a line to note where one species ends and the other begins.

Indeed. In fact, if creationism were true the biological boundaries in nature should be much more apparent. The fact they aren't is a testament to the validity of biological evolution for species origins.

 

[inquiring mind]

Sidenote: ironically, one of the reasons that it is dificult to define what a species is, is because populations constantly evolve gradually, and because of that, it is kind of hard, almost arbitrary at times, to draw a line to note where one species ends and the other begins.

Ring species illustrate that beautifully. You know what ring species are, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

According to a "simplistic" definition of 'species', where things that can interbreed are the same species, we end up with problems when identifying the species of the various populations in ring species:

View attachment 241163

The original populaiton on the left "splits" into 2, each going down a different side of the geographic barrier.

Each colored dot here, represents a population that settled there, while others moved on and settled elsewhere.
Each of the dots close together, can interbreed.

So according to a simplisitc "can interbreed" definition of species, all the greens are the same species - they can interbreed.
Light green and yellow = can interbreed, thus same species.
yellow and orange = can interbreed, thus same species.
orange and red = can interbreed, thus same species.

Then, above, green and blue can interbreed = same species.
Blue and purple can interbreed = same species.

So. Logic follows: red and purple are the same species.
But o-ow: they can't interbreed.

You see?

I'm always leery when a comment ends with 'so logic follows.'

As I was discussing earlier in the thread, ‘species’ was always considered a Biblical/Created Kind (by the great Jerome, other Biblical interpreters, and society in general) until the biological classification system redefined the term so as to represent a broken-up version (helping to promote evolution, or change over time), even though the different versions were still the same kind. This helped them convince a lot of people that kinds changed, although they were really just variations, and it succeeded in helping make the churches’ fixity of Biblical/Created Kind look wrong and unenlightened. Like when pitabread said to look up the definitions in a science book, yeah right. Again, when it comes to evolution, they’re as elastic as a rubber band... the devil’s workshop against God’s Word.

I read a great article with info about ‘changing the meaning of species’ a few days ago. Here’s you some free education, not that you’ll read it:

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/

 

[inquiring mind]

Indeed. In fact, if creationism were true the biological boundaries in nature should be much more apparent. The fact they aren't is a testament to the validity of biological evolution for species origins.

See how they use the boundaries here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Somehow, I’m guessing a detailed definition of "theory"...scientific theory, will be as problematic as the encyclopedias say the definition of species is.

Yep,

Now if we can just get that definition and hopefully one they all agree on.

 

[pitabread]

This helped them convince a lot of people that kinds changed, although they were really just variations, and it succeeded in helping make the churches’ fixity of Biblical/Created Kind look wrong and unenlightened.

I'm not clear on what the distinction between "variation" and "change" is supposed to be in this sentence.

When creationists refer to evolution as being variation, that's exactly what it is: variations of gene pools over time. And if something undergoes variation, is that not a change?

Like when pitabread said to look up the definitions in a science book, yeah right. Again, when it comes to evolution, they’re as elastic as a rubber band... the devil’s workshop against God’s Word.

Do you really view science textbooks as being the work of the devil? That seems quite extreme.

 

[pitabread]

See how they use the boundaries here.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not clear on what the distinction between "variation" and "change" is supposed to be in this sentence.

Read the linked article.

Do you really view science textbooks as being the work of the devil? That seems quite extreme.

No, only the use of elastic definitions.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Again, read the linked article.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And what do you think I was doing?

I told you in my original reply.

 

[pitabread]

I told you in my original reply.

Which was a misinterpretation of my position, which I clarified in my subsequent reply which you claimed you didn't read.

Is this how you normally have conversations?

 

[Kenny'sID]

46AND2 said: ↑

A theory is an EXPLANATION for a set of related hypotheses and observations. Again, it is an explanation, not a proposition.

Do you all agree that is the scientific definition of "theory"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Is this how you normally have conversations?

Sure, whatever you say.