Lies

[VioletAngel]

Sorry, I don't understand the poll... if someone informs that something is a lie, how do we know if they even know what they are talking about?

 

[Dannager]

In psychology they call it projecting, when you accuse others of the very thing you are guilty of. That is why we need to be very careful what we accuse others of.

Which is why whn I call someone a liar, I make sure that they really are a liar.

Actually here on this forum it is against the rules to accuse others because it is seldom that any good comes out of that. How can good come out of it, when people need to be judgeing themselves and not trying to judge others.

There is no rule against calling others on lies. Please stop using the "judge not, lest you yourself be judged" rule when it comes to debate. You're on a debate and discussion forum. Time to be a man and defend your position like a rational individual. For all intents and purposes, the rule of the day in any debate is "Judge, and prepare to be judged." Get to it.

 

[tocis]

And we see creationists claim that Natural Selection is not evolution. Then, 15 posters and 10 websites worth of evidence to th contrary later, the same claim is made. Is that a lie?

Yup. Definitely.
Unless, of course, take two of the same arguments is better supported this time. Which I haven't seen so far. The "best" I've seen coming from creationists so far is the same claims with different wording, called something entirely different by them.

 

[Rae]

The way you have worded the poll option, it allows for (e.g.) an atheist stating s/he's an atheist, a Christian "correcting" the statement, and then the atheist "lying" because s/he still says s/he's an atheist after being "corrected." So I had to vote no. You aren't lying after someone tells you that what you said was wrong.

 

[Henaynei]

The Scientific Theory of Evolution includes natural Selection and Mutations as mechanisms. All the distraction about vertical and horizontal is irrelevant stuff not dealing with the actual science. Does the Scientific Theory of Evolution include Natural Selection as part of it? The answer is yes. Claiming otherwise, despite evidence, that is a lie. Claiming that "Natural Selection is not Evolution" is a false claim. Repeating that claim after loads of evidence from multiple sources would make that repetition an outright lie.

No, I don't agree - YES, there IS plenty of scientific evidence to clearly support that natural selection and mutations are mechanisms of horizontal [change within kinds/species: wolf > great dane > chihuahua] evolution BUT there is no irrefutable scientific evidence that such mechanisms produce vertical evolution.

But repeating that claim about Natural Selection after solid evidence to the contrary from multiple sources and posters, makes the repeating it an outright lie.

A statement that "natural selection is not vertical [change from one kind/species to another: amoeba > fish] evolution" is not a lie. The point is that the evidence of science concerning natural selection only supports a verdict of horizontal evolution - the documented existence of horizontal evolution does not qualify the existence of vertical evolution.

Ah, but we are not talking about PoV. We are talking about the actual fact, about WHAT the Science is and says. Science is not opinions, it is evidence and facts.

Yes, we are talking about POV. FACTS are not opinion TRUE!! BUT how those facts are interpreted has ALWAYS been a matter of opinion as the history of science clearly shows! Learned and esteemed earnest scientists have vehemently disagreed on what this or that fact or set of facts meant, all through the history of science! You leap from science (natural selection produces documentable horizontal evolution) to *your* POV that "if there is proof of horizontal evolution, then the existence of vertical is proven" - that is not science, it is POV

It seems that you are saying that a board like this is not able to handle a Scientific Discussion? Guess we should shut down the C&E forum?

I'm saying that just because you have one POV (see above) that the presence of another POV that disagrees with your assumptions whose foundation is a certain view of various facts does NOT mean that the other interpretation of those facts *does not* equal lying

b'Shalom
Henaynei

 

[steen]

No, I don't agree - YES, there IS plenty of scientific evidence to clearly support that natural selection and mutations are mechanisms of horizontal [change within kinds/species: wolf > great dane > chihuahua] evolution BUT there is no irrefutable scientific evidence that such mechanisms produce vertical evolution.

Natural Selection and Mutations are part of Evolution They are mechanisms by which evolution works. To deny this would be false.

As for all your made-up definitions, they seem self-serving and certainly have no root in science.

You have not provided any definition of "kind" which certainly is not a biological term and as such is not defined within science. And every creationist I talk to have a different definition of that word. So what is a "kind"?

And what do you mean with "vertical" evolution? This also is not a term from within the Scientific FIELD that deals with Evolution, so you need to define it as well for any meaningful conversation.

A statement that "natural selection is not vertical [change from one kind/species to another: amoeba > fish] evolution" is not a lie.

But a statement that "Natural Selection is not Evolution" (no weird attachments or undefined words like you intersperse etc), would that be true? Of course not.

The point is that the evidence of science concerning natural selection only supports a verdict of horizontal evolution - the documented existence of horizontal evolution does not qualify the existence of vertical evolution.

Undefined terms and therefore an irrelevant statement.

"Evolution" is defined, and the "Scientific Theory of Evolution" is defined. And Natural Selection fits within both of these.

So when somebody simply says that "Natural Selection is not part of Evolution," then what is the veracity of their claim?

Yes, we are talking about POV. FACTS are not opinion TRUE!! BUT how those facts are interpreted has ALWAYS been a matter of opinion as the history of science clearly shows!

But the DEFINITION of the Scientific Theory of Evolution is not a matter of opinion. It is factual, just as that 2+2=4.

Learned and esteemed earnest scientists have vehemently disagreed on what this or that fact or set of facts meant, all through the history of science!

But they are NOT disagreeing that Natural Selection is part of Evolution.

You leap from science (natural selection produces documentable horizontal evolution)

I never stated any such thing. And the terminology you use is not Scientific, so assuredly, Science says nothing like what you claim it does.

to *your* POV that "if there is proof of horizontal evolution, then the existence of vertical is proven" - that is not science, it is POV

I said no such thing. Cease misrepresenting my posts.

I'm saying that just because you have one POV (see above) that the presence of another POV that disagrees with your assumptions whose foundation is a certain view of various facts does NOT mean that the other interpretation of those facts *does not* equal lying

Are you saying that the SCIENTIFIC definition of Evolution and the processes of Evolution does not include Natural Selection?

 

[PastorMikeJ]

that is one of the problems with Christians today...compromising with sin...in this case it doesn't become sin until we know that what we said was wrong but don't correct it...Today we just choose ignore sin when it suits us...

 

[Henaynei]

aka "macroevolution" or vertical evolution and "microevolution" or horizontal evolution
------------------------------------------------------
From the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health...

[SIZE=+1]Genetic explanation for vertical evolution[/SIZE]
2001 Feb;37(2):165-74.
[Article in Russian]

Sukhodolets VV.

State Research Institute of Genetics and Selection of Industrial Microorganisms, Moscow, 113545 Russia. sukhodol@genetika.ru

The genetic theory of natural selection proposed by Fisher takes into account differential reproduction success of organisms, which may be estimated by using the Malthusian parameter as fitness. However, the minimum possible value of this parameter depends on ecological stability of an organism, which determines the probability of the survival and participation in reproduction for each viable offspring. In the course of vertical evolution, leading to an increase in the level of biological organization, ecological stability of organisms increases, and this might be accompanied by a decrease in their fitness. In the macroevolutionary process, alterations in ecological stability of organisms, including those responsible for an increase in the level of biological organization, are basic and primary changes whereas alterations in fitness are additional and secondary.

------------------------------------------------------
From the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health...
[SIZE=+1]Evolution of alkaline phosphatase in marine species of Vibrio.[/SIZE]
1981 Jul;147(1):36-45.
Woolkalis MJ, PhD (Thomas Jefferson University
Jefferson Medical College
Department of Physiology
Associate Professor)
Baumann P, PhD. (Asst. investigator Stowers Institute of Medical Research)

The evolution of alkaline phosphatase was studied in marine species of Vibrio. Two antisera prepared against purified alkaline phosphatases from Vibrio splendidus and Vibrio harveyi were used to estimate the amino acid sequence divergence of this enzyme in 51 strains belonging to nine species. The methods used were the quantitative microcomplement fixation technique and the Ouchterlony double-diffusion procedure. There was a high degree of congruence between the measurement of the amino acid sequence divergence of alkaline phosphatase and the percentage of deoxyribonucleic acid homology of the different organisms relative to both reference strains (correlation coefficient of -0.89) as well as between the amino acid sequence divergence of alkaline phosphatase and superoxide dismutase (correlation coefficient of 0.92) relative to V. splendidus. These findings supported the view that the evolution of marine species of Vibrio is primarily vertical and that horizontal evolution (involving genetic exchange between species), if significant, is restricted to a minor fraction of the bacterial genome.

------------------------------------------------------
National Academies Press
Nature and Human Society: The Quest for a Sustainable World (1997)
National Research Council (NRC)
Peter H. Raven. PhD
Missouri Botanical Garden,
P.O. Box 299, Saint Louis, MO 63166-0299

Page 24
Biodiversity is the product of two complementary processes of evolution. The first is vertical evolution of individual populations by changes in chromosome composition and gene frequency. During the process, biodiversity at the level of this hereditary unit grows or declines. But the number of species, the next level up, does not necessarily change as a result. The second evolutionary process, then, is the multiplication of species, often called speciation. In the course of vertical evolution, some species split into two or more daughter species; others do not.
---------------------------------------------------
Columbia University
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE
course # W3201Y
"HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY"
LECTURE SYLLABUS ‑ FALL 2005

Week 5 ‑‑ 3 October: PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS (CONT.):

Principles of comparisons in biology ‑‑ horizontal versus vertical comparisons; Extrapolation of conclusions in diverse types of comparisons. Treatment of comparison in diverse fields of biology and other sciences.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution.

----------------------------------------------------
Macro verus Micro evolution

 

[steen]

Your header's claim is false.

aka "macroevolution" or vertical evolution and "microevolution" or horizontal evolution

AH, and then you quote for your unique terminology a journal article that is 25 years old, a school SYLLABUS, a book and a Russian article? hardly what constitutes "well-known."

But then you now claim that it is the equivalent to micro/macro-evolution and uses the talk.origin definitions for this. So what you are saying is that Vertical Evolution is the formation of new species and then claim that this is not observed or evidenced?

Well, that's just plain wrong. The "Creationism & Evolution" section of the discussion forums have several treads dealing with the formation of new species and there are several links to that extend as well.

Since you have used talk-origin as a reliable source, I will take the easy shortcut and use their sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Right there. Examples of speciation, examples of "vertical evolution." Your claim is proved false. Case closed.

 

[Henaynei]

I used the term species instead of genus. I was mislead into thinking this was an ethics thread when it is a creation/evolution thread in disguise The term I meant to use was genus and because I was typing on the fly I slipped - my apologies

now commenceth my reply to your post

Your header's claim is false.

AH, and then you quote for your unique terminology a journal article that is 25 years old, a school SYLLABUS, a book and a Russian article? hardly what constitutes "well-known."

25 years old? - yes, you said these terms were made up by me; school syllabus? - yes, from Columbia University 2005 - not on *your* list of respected or well known schools, yea?; a book? - yes by a biology professor showing that these terms are NOT hidden or unknown but out in the literature of the field; Russian article? - yes, one quoted by the National Institute of Health (USA) - showing that these terms are even out in the international scientific community

But then you now claim that it is the equivalent to micro/macro-evolution and uses the talk.origin definitions for this. So what you are saying is that Vertical Evolution is the formation of new species and then claim that this is not observed or evidenced?

that is one of many sources that explains that macro/micro = vertical/horizontal. YES, natural selection is certainly one of the mechanisms of micro/horizontal evolution (wolf > great dane > chihuahua = same genus]. NO, it is not lying for someone to state that natural selection is not a mechanism of macro/vertical evolution [amoeba > fish = different genus].

For someone to insist that the facts of the observed changes brought about by natural selection

Well, that's just plain wrong. The "Creationism & Evolution" section of the discussion forums have several treads dealing with the formation of new species and there are several links to that extend as well.

You are right, I was wrong - I erred in using the incorrect term. The term I should have used (and I knew better, sorry) was genus.

Since you have used talk-origin as a reliable source, I will take the easy shortcut and use their sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Right there. Examples of speciation, examples of "vertical evolution." Your claim is proved false. Case closed.

you are right in that I used the wrong term - I used species when I meant genus.

Of course, a wolf can become a great dane [different species; lupus vs domesticus - but same species; canis] with enough manipulation, proper circumstances and time. But there is no evidence that a wolf [canis] will become a bear ursus], no matter how much manipulation, natural selection or time.



dear gentle steen,

The issue in question in your previous post was that YOU said that horizontal and vertical evolution were terms not used by scientists of any kind. I pulled from a variety of easily found sites that contained quotes, both recent and older, that used either/or horizontal/vertical or macroevolution/microevolution. I showed several scientists with doctorates, including biologists, who DO and HAVE used these terms for (as you so helpfully pointed out) *many* years, and these terms are STILL being used today in contemporary literature in the field and taught prestigious universities.

I was not putting forth these sites as proof quotes of either side of the evolution vs creation argument. I did not come here to debate evolution/creation. That is not allowed on this forum.

You have shown, by your response, that you are not interested in any but you own interpretation of the scientific facts. When you couldn't argue with the point I tried to make in earlier posts [that varying POV of what the FACT of natural selection "proves" is not lying but honest variance in interpretation of the facts, a time honored scientific reality] you attacked terms I used stating they were non-existent in the scientific arena. When I show you a broad spectrum of learned folk, including biologists at well known universities and research centers, who have used these terms for quite some time you then intimate that using these sources shows some intellectual lack on my part.

enough the FACT is that varying opinions on the interpretation of scientific facts is not lying, it is intellectual disagreement - nothing more.

I think the FACT is that you truly believe that Scientific Creationists are intellectually dishonest and that you proceed from that POV. If there are sources that disagree with the interpretation of the facts that you have come to accept, no matter who it is or how learned, respected or experienced in the field, these sources are suspect, unreliable and biased.

ah well

b'Shalom
Henaynei

 

[tocis]

that is one of the problems with Christians today...compromising with sin...in this case it doesn't become sin until we know that what we said was wrong but don't correct it...Today we just choose ignore sin when it suits us...

How can it be sin if you didn't even know (at the time of committing the act) what you did?!

Aren't you christians commonly talking about free choice for hours if "we unbelievers" let you? Where's the free choice in there? The moment you have a choice and choose to do the wrong thing the situation is clear, but before that there cannot be any "sin" in what you do, period.

Unless, of course, your deity has a very very twisted sense of "justice".