Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

[Jimmy D]

Yes, it's true that many Darwinists here use evolution to mean descent with modification. However, a simple look at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html shows that they are misapplying the definition of evolution.

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

Now I am certainly aware that most Darwinists on here use a definition of evolution similar to the one who have stated above. However, the article continues:

"These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately, it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution [he or she] cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that [he or she doesn't] believe in gravity!"

Such a dishonest post, did you think no one would bother reading the page you linked to. Very poor.

 

[whois]

what bothers me the most about evolution is the various discrepancies involved with it.
we have alleged fossil evidence, but yet scientists such as eldrege says we don't.
we have frauds like the piltdown man.
we have scientists such as koonin saying darwinism belongs in a museum.
we have scientists such as noble saying darwinism needs replaced.
we have scientists such as smith saying there is no theory to explain the increasing complexity of the fossil record, nor is there any empirical evidence of it.
we have scientists such as ross and oakely saying gene trees and species trees rarely align.
we have mutation accumulation experiments that prove a decreasing fitness with mutation accumulation.

you people cannot possibly say "we don't have a problem here".

 

[bhsmte]

what bothers me the most about evolution is the various discrepancies involved with it.
we have alleged fossil evidence, but yet scientists such as eldrege says we don't.
we have frauds like the piltdown man.
we have scientists such as koonin saying darwinism belongs in a museum.
we have scientists such as noble saying darwinism needs replaced.
we have scientists such as smith saying there is no theory to explain the increasing complexity of the fossil record, nor is there any empirical evidence of it.
we have scientists such as ross and oakely saying gene trees and species trees rarely align.
we have mutation accumulation experiments that prove a decreasing fitness with mutation accumulation.

you people cannot possibly say "we don't have a problem here".

The clear level of ignorance you have of the evidence, appears to cause the problem for you. Because you have a problem understanding it, doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[Loudmouth]

98% of which is based upon incorrect classifications.

So chimps and humans are the same species?

 

[joshua 1 9]

you people cannot possibly say "we don't have a problem here".

The problem is complexity and how rapid change takes place.
They just want to ignore the problems and pretend like they do not exist.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, it's true that many Darwinists here use evolution to mean descent with modification. However, a simple look at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html shows that they are misapplying the definition of evolution.

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

Now I am certainly aware that most Darwinists on here use a definition of evolution similar to the one who have stated above. However, the article continues:

"These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately, it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution [he or she] cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that [he or she doesn't] believe in gravity!"

How did I get into this discussion? Let's see, immediately after your first quotation, from Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th edition, 1989 Worth Publishers, p. 974, the article continues 'One can quibble about the accuracy of this definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is.'

Your second quotation, 'These definitions are simply wrong' immediately follows 'common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community', namely "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years" (The Oxford Concise Science Dictionary); "evolution ... the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower" (Chambers' Dictionary); "evolution ... the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" (Webster's Dictionary).

It is these three definitions that the author describes as 'simply wrong', not the definition based on a change in the frequency of alleles given by Curtis and Barnes.

Of course, none of these definitions apply to stellar evolution, and that is my reason for wanting to use a different word for the changes in stars as they grow older and use up the different nuclear fuels that are available to them.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is complexity and how rapid change takes place.
They just want to ignore the problems and pretend like they do not exist.

This took place over 5 million years. Where is the problem?

 

[Loudmouth]

what bothers me the most about evolution is the various discrepancies involved with it.
we have alleged fossil evidence, but yet scientists such as eldrege says we don't.
we have frauds like the piltdown man.
we have scientists such as koonin saying darwinism belongs in a museum.
we have scientists such as noble saying darwinism needs replaced.
we have scientists such as smith saying there is no theory to explain the increasing complexity of the fossil record, nor is there any empirical evidence of it.
we have scientists such as ross and oakely saying gene trees and species trees rarely align.
we have mutation accumulation experiments that prove a decreasing fitness with mutation accumulation.

you people cannot possibly say "we don't have a problem here".

Which of these is Piltdown man? Which of these is Nebraska man?

 

[crjmurray]

Which of these is Piltdown man? Which of these is Nebraska man?

Uuuum.....F and J respectively.

Survey says!!!!!!!.......

 

[Loudmouth]

Uuuum.....F and J respectively.

Survey says!!!!!!!.......

 

[crjmurray]

Ah crap....

 

[joshua 1 9]

This took place over 5 million years. Where is the problem?

The problem is that this represents every skull that has ever been found. Is this all we have to work with?

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that this represents every skull that has ever been found. Is this all we have to work with?

There are more skulls than those. Are you just going to ignore them?

 

[joshua 1 9]

There are more skulls than those. Are you just going to ignore them?

Ignore what? What is the point your trying to make?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ignore what? What is the point your trying to make?

That humans gradually evolved from ape-like ancestors over 5 million years.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That humans gradually evolved from ape-like ancestors over 5 million years.

Do you have the skull of the common ancestor for ape and man?

Looks more like an chimp than a man.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have the skull of the common ancestor for ape and man?

I have the transitional fossils. Why doesn't that count as evidence?

Also, without DNA you can't say that any fossil is an ancestor or descendant of another. The transitional features of fossils are based on morphology.

Looks more like an chimp than a man.

And yet the hips look more like a human than a chimp.

http://www.centenary.edu/attachments/philosophy/aizawa/courses/philscif2010/lovejoyetal.2009d.pdf

Hmm, half ape half human . . .

 

[whois]

They just want to ignore the problems and pretend like they do not exist.

i really don't know what the problem is.
they don't want to believe it, or accept it, i just don't know.
i seriously doubt if koonin or noble or smith was "just passing gas".

for example:
Even systematics has had to abandon many strictures that were part of the Modern Synthesis. If species are the durable unit of biology, and if natural selection quickly molds genes to current utility, then most genes should diverge at the time of speciation events, given views like Mayr's. Here again, analyses of newly abundant sequence data in the late 20th Century showed that rather than a highly congruent coalescence of genes at the times of speciation events, the coalescence times of alleles among species are highly variable. As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm

the above can mean only one thing, and that is a lot of these so called transitional fossil aren't that at all.
as a matter of fact the entire fossil tree could very well be misinterpreted.

edit:
i misquoted loudmouth and edited my post accordingly

 

[Loudmouth]

i really don't know what the problem is.
they don't want to believe it, or accept it, i just don't know.
i seriously doubt if koonin or noble or smith was "just passing gas".

for example:
Even systematics has had to abandon many strictures that were part of the Modern Synthesis. If species are the durable unit of biology, and if natural selection quickly molds genes to current utility, then most genes should diverge at the time of speciation events, given views like Mayr's. Here again, analyses of newly abundant sequence data in the late 20th Century showed that rather than a highly congruent coalescence of genes at the times of speciation events, the coalescence times of alleles among species are highly variable. As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm

The modern synthesis allows for incomplete lineage sorting. In fact, it is a predicted outcome of the mechanisms of evolution as described by the modern synthesis.

the above can mean only one thing, and that is a lot of these so called transitional fossil aren't that at all.

I really don't see how one is related to the other. Care to explain?

as a matter of fact the entire fossil tree could very well be misinterpreted.

That's not what your paper says.

 

[whois]

what is the true scope of the primate fossil tree?
check the upload taken from nature , Vol. 363, 20 May 1993
Note that not only are the bottom parts of the tree, including the very base, (or common ancestry) missing, but there are no vertical or horizontal ‘links’ between any of the actually found (or observed) fossils! Only the 10 solid lines represent found fossils out of the approximately 333 assumed ancestral species.
The Nature author, in concluding his discussion on primate evolution, notes:
“In the face of major gaps in the fossil record, far-reaching interpretation of fragmentary fossil remains can easily lead to misinterpretation of phylogenetic relationships.

a chinese author had this to say:
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin 's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.
-Johnson, Phillip, Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and Company, Inc, Aug 16, 1999 . [Mr. Johnson is professor of law at the University of California , Berkeley , and the author of Darwin on Trial (Intervarsity Press, 1993)].