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

[Not_By_Chance]

If you read the entire paragraph it's a refutation of your use of the word evolution to mean EVERYTHING in sight. You guys use it to mean the evolution of stars, the universe, galaxies... everything. It only relates to SPECIES.

Better tell that then to the people who write books on the [so-called] evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

Better tell that then to the people who write books on the [so-called] evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.

The theory of evolution refers to biology.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Why would we need faith when we have evidence?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=29+evidences+for+evolution

It just depends how you interpret such evidence.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.php

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The theory of evolution refers to biology.

Even I know that, but some insist on getting the word "evolution" into everything. It's almost become a sort of obsession to have to get that word in somewhere, almost like having to get the millions of years idea into any story remotely to do with science.

 

[Loudmouth]

It just depends how you interpret such evidence.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.php

That's correct. Scientists interpret it correctly.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Even I know that, but some insist on getting the word "evolution" into everything.

Creationists are quite famous for it. Kent Hovind loves to talk about the "multiple kinds of evolution".

 

[Astrophile]

Better tell that then to the people who write books on the [so-called] evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.

I have never written a book on the evolution of stars or of galaxies, but I have read many books on stellar evolution and can claim to understand something about the subject. I agree that 'evolution' is a bad word to describe the 'life-history' of stars and galaxies. Only living things evolve in the biological sense, and stars and galaxies aren't alive.

Look at some of the differences. It is individual stars that change their internal structure, radius, temperature and luminosity, and even their mass, during their 'lives', whereas it is populations of living things that evolve, not individual organisms. Stars don't reproduce themselves, and they don't have anything corresponding to a genetic code that would enable them to pass on their characteristics to the next generation; these facts alone make it impossible for stars to 'evolve' in the biological sense.

What do you mean by the [so-called] evolution of stars? We know that stars generate energy by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, but the supply of hydrogen is not inexhaustible. Stars are not like living things; they do not take in nourishment from outside themselves. By understanding the physics of stellar energy generation and knowing the mass of hydrogen available for fusion into helium we can even calculate the time required to exhaust the supply of hydrogen; for the Sun it is about 10-12 billion years. It is obvious that when a star begins to run short of hydrogen, it must experience changes in its structure and luminosity, and it is the business of astronomers to elucidate these changes. Where do you think that Cepheid variables, red giant stars, supergiants, carbon stars, planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes come from if not from the changes in the structure of stars as they exhaust their nuclear fuels?

This brings me back to the original point. The changes that a star undergoes as it exhausts its supply of hydrogen (and other nuclear fuels) have nothing to do with biological evolution, which is a consequence of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable word for the former process. As a result we are stuck with the word 'evolution', which at least gives the idea of change occurring over long periods of time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why would we need faith when we have evidence?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=29+evidences+for+evolution

98% of which is based upon incorrect classifications.


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

But you still insist on using those same incorrect classifications, because without them - you have nothing.

 

[Zosimus]

Please show I'm misrepresenting the issue.

I said that science believes in things that are invisible. You responded by trying to equate invisible with undetectable. Since that was not my argument, you are mischaracterizing my argument. Mischaracterization of an argument is the same as making a strawman argument.

QED

 

[Zosimus]

Why would we need faith when we have evidence?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=29+evidences+for+evolution

Because of the problem of contrastive underdetermination.

 

[Zosimus]

I have never written a book on the evolution of stars or of galaxies, but I have read many books on stellar evolution and can claim to understand something about the subject. I agree that 'evolution' is a bad word to describe the 'life-history' of stars and galaxies. Only living things evolve in the biological sense, and stars and galaxies aren't alive.

Look at some of the differences. It is individual stars that change their internal structure, radius, temperature and luminosity, and even their mass, during their 'lives', whereas it is populations of living things that evolve, not individual organisms. Stars don't reproduce themselves, and they don't have anything corresponding to a genetic code that would enable them to pass on their characteristics to the next generation; these facts alone make it impossible for stars to 'evolve' in the biological sense.

What do you mean by the [so-called] evolution of stars? We know that stars generate energy by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, but the supply of hydrogen is not inexhaustible. Stars are not like living things; they do not take in nourishment from outside themselves. By understanding the physics of stellar energy generation and knowing the mass of hydrogen available for fusion into helium we can even calculate the time required to exhaust the supply of hydrogen; for the Sun it is about 10-12 billion years. It is obvious that when a star begins to run short of hydrogen, it must experience changes in its structure and luminosity, and it is the business of astronomers to elucidate these changes. Where do you think that Cepheid variables, red giant stars, supergiants, carbon stars, planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes come from if not from the changes in the structure of stars as they exhaust their nuclear fuels?

This brings me back to the original point. The changes that a star undergoes as it exhausts its supply of hydrogen (and other nuclear fuels) have nothing to do with biological evolution, which is a consequence of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable word for the former process. As a result we are stuck with the word 'evolution', which at least gives the idea of change occurring over long periods of time.

This merely shows that you misunderstand the meaning of the word evolution. Evolution is just change. It is not inappropriate to talk about the evolution of stars, the evolution of the automobile, or the evolution of words in the human language.

 

[Larniavc]

Do you claim that gravity can be seen? You seem to think that since it can be detected that that makes it visible. Plenty of invisible things can be detected. For your argument to succeed, you would need to prove that detection and seeing are the same thing.

This is what you said. You were the one getting all fired up about visible and detected.

 

[Astrophile]

This merely shows that you misunderstand the meaning of the word evolution. Evolution is just change. It is not inappropriate to talk about the evolution of stars, the evolution of the automobile, or the evolution of words in the human language.

Perhaps you are right, at least in your first and last sentences. However, Sky Writing, Phred and Not by Chance were arguing about the correct application of the word 'evolution'. For most of the contributors to forums like this one, and, I suppose, for most non-scientists, 'evolution' means biological evolution, i.e. a process of descent with modification, and perhaps of progress from simple organisms to more complex ones. I was trying to show that stellar evolution does not have these essential elements in common with biological evolution, and was arguing that to use the same word for both processes is likely to lead to confusion and to misunderstanding of both biological and stellar evolution.

 

[Aggie]

The birds of today are related to the dinosaurs of yesterday. It has taken millions of years and hundreds of millions of generations but today's chicken has, as his great, great... great grandfather, a T-rex. This does not mean that one day a T-rex gave birth to a chicken. It means that over time, there were many, many interstitial species. Many of you ask, "then why don't we see all the fossils?" T-rex was around as a species for over 50 million years. We have seven complete fossils. 7. In 50 million years there must have been billions of individuals. Yet only seven fossilized. Why don't we have the fossils? Because they didn't fossilize. Fossils are rare. But we can be assured that since T-rex is no longer around and birds are that what once was T-rex is now a chicken. (Or something like it. I'm taking license here.)

There are a few things you've said here that I ought to correct you about. The individual species Tyrannosaurus rex only existed for about two million years, from 68 to 66 million years ago. The earliest known fossil birds are from 150-160 million years ago, so Tyrannosaurus couldn't have been a direct ancestor of birds. It was more like a cousin.

A pair of dinosaurs that were more closely related to the first birds are Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus. These animals also lived too late to be direct bird ancestors, but not by as much as in T. rex's case. Their anatomy is also more obviously birdlike.

The dinosaurs that are the best candidates for direct ancestors of birds are a little more obscure. Two such candidates are Eosinopteryx and Xiaotingia. Of course, we can never know for sure whether these dinosaurs were direct ancestors of the first birds, or close cousins of them. But they have the right anatomy to be direct ancestors, and they were alive at the right time.

"Why don't we have the fossils?" isn't a question we need to ask. We do have the fossils, and we've been steadily finding more and more of them for around 20 years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have never written a book on the evolution of stars or of galaxies, but I have read many books on stellar evolution and can claim to understand something about the subject. I agree that 'evolution' is a bad word to describe the 'life-history' of stars and galaxies. Only living things evolve in the biological sense, and stars and galaxies aren't alive.

Look at some of the differences. It is individual stars that change their internal structure, radius, temperature and luminosity, and even their mass, during their 'lives', whereas it is populations of living things that evolve, not individual organisms. Stars don't reproduce themselves, and they don't have anything corresponding to a genetic code that would enable them to pass on their characteristics to the next generation; these facts alone make it impossible for stars to 'evolve' in the biological sense.

What do you mean by the [so-called] evolution of stars? We know that stars generate energy by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, but the supply of hydrogen is not inexhaustible. Stars are not like living things; they do not take in nourishment from outside themselves. By understanding the physics of stellar energy generation and knowing the mass of hydrogen available for fusion into helium we can even calculate the time required to exhaust the supply of hydrogen; for the Sun it is about 10-12 billion years. It is obvious that when a star begins to run short of hydrogen, it must experience changes in its structure and luminosity, and it is the business of astronomers to elucidate these changes. Where do you think that Cepheid variables, red giant stars, supergiants, carbon stars, planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes come from if not from the changes in the structure of stars as they exhaust their nuclear fuels?

This brings me back to the original point. The changes that a star undergoes as it exhausts its supply of hydrogen (and other nuclear fuels) have nothing to do with biological evolution, which is a consequence of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable word for the former process. As a result we are stuck with the word 'evolution', which at least gives the idea of change occurring over long periods of time.

You mean their theoretical models that one and all failed to match reality?

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

"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

So all of your models based upon all of your other models failed to predict anything correctly - yet you want to use those same incorrect models those failed models were based on to believe you actually understand anything about the universe?

If you want to understand astronomy you had best start with plasma physics - since 99% of the universe is plasma - not solids, liquids and gasses. Which is why all those models failed at the end of the boundary for the solar system (solids, liquids and gasses).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The dinosaurs that are the best candidates for direct ancestors of birds are a little more obscure. Two such candidates are Eosinopteryx and Xiaotingia. Of course, we can never know for sure whether these dinosaurs were direct ancestors of the first birds, or close cousins of them. But they have the right anatomy to be direct ancestors, and they were alive at the right time.

"Why don't we have the fossils?" isn't a question we need to ask. We do have the fossils, and we've been steadily finding more and more of them for around 20 years.

You don't even know if they are actually dinosaurs or birds. What you fail to realize is the fossil record is not snapshots over millions of years - but one exact point in time when cataclysmic actions made almost all life extinct. This is why they are fossilized in the first place. Unless you care to accept the challenge and show me any bones from say the last 5,000 years in the process of undergoing fossilization?

The fossil record is not a picture of life evolving over millions of years - but the end of that life that existed at that time the cataclysms struck.

The other 98% is just incorrect classifications of the fossil record. Babies and adults incorrectly classified, and this does not even take into consideration breeds within a species. I'll say it again. These:

Are no different than these:

Just different breeds of their respective species. Not individual separate species. The data is not being disputed - just your interpretation of it contrary to what we observe in the real world about how life propagates and when fossilization occurs.

 

[Aggie]

Unless you care to accept the challenge and show me any bones from say the last 5,000 years in the process of undergoing fossilization?

The Bog Bodies are a pretty good example of that. They span a period of time from 8000 B.C. up to the middle of the 20th century. They're at many different levels of preservation, too. The oldest bog bodies are mostly just skeletons, but some of the more recent ones still have most of their skin and muscle.

I'd assume that when a bog body belongs to a dead World War II soldier, you wouldn't consider it to be from Noah's flood. But bog bodies exist at nearly every age between World War II and prehistory, so there's no easy place to draw a line between those bodies you think were buried by the Flood and those that were buried after it. In any case, some of the more recent bodies are clearly undergoing fossilization, and the older ones have undergone it already.

You don't even know if they are actually dinosaurs or birds.

If this makes a difference to you, Answers in Genesis considers Sinornithosaurus a dinosaur. They consider Microraptor a bird, but I think this actually makes their position weaker, when you consider how similar the two animals' anatomies are to one another in the fossils I linked to. On the other hand, if you disagree with AiG and consider Sinornithosaurus a bird, that doesn't really make the situation any easier, because Sinornithosaurus is only slightly more birdlike than Epidexipteryx and Velociraptor.

The trouble with trying to find any dividing line between dinosaurs and birds is that there are fossils representing an unbroken sequence of anatomy from obvious dinosaurs (such as Compsognathus and Sciurumimus) to obvious birds (such as Jeholornis and Confuciusornis). Phil Senter demonstrated that in this study using BDISTMDS, the baraminology software that's used by creationists. Answers in Genesis initially claimed that Senter had misused this software, but a few months later David Cavanaugh (a creation scientist) performed his own analysis of this data, and got the same result. (Cavanaugh's study is the first one listed in that PDF.)

I've attached an image for a book I'm working on, that illustrates the problem creationists have to deal with in this area.

 

[Astrophile]

You mean their theoretical models that one and all failed to match reality?

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

"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

So all of your models based upon all of your other models failed to predict anything correctly - yet you want to use those same incorrect models those failed models were based on to believe you actually understand anything about the universe?

If you want to understand astronomy you had best start with plasma physics - since 99% of the universe is plasma - not solids, liquids and gasses. Which is why all those models failed at the end of the boundary for the solar system (solids, liquids and gasses).

First, I was trying to explain the difference between biological evolution and stellar 'evolution', and was suggesting that we ought not to use the same word to denote two very different processes. Second, plasma physics or no plasma physics, stars are still going to exhaust their resources and their structures will change when they do so. If you can explain how plasma physics saves stars from exhausting their resources, I shall be interested to learn. Third, I repeat my question.

Where do you think that Cepheid variables, red giant stars, supergiants, Wolf-Rayet stars, carbon stars, planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes come from if not from the changes in the structure of stars as they exhaust their nuclear fuels?

Can you use plasma physics to answer it? If you can, you deserve a Nobel prize, and will probably be regarded as the greatest astronomer who ever lived. I am not being sarcastic; I really mean that.

 

[lasthero]

The other 98% is just incorrect classifications of the fossil record

I'm curious how you arrived at 98%, Justa.

 

[Zosimus]

Perhaps you are right, at least in your first and last sentences. However, Sky Writing, Phred and Not by Chance were arguing about the correct application of the word 'evolution'. For most of the contributors to forums like this one, and, I suppose, for most non-scientists, 'evolution' means biological evolution, i.e. a process of descent with modification, and perhaps of progress from simple organisms to more complex ones. I was trying to show that stellar evolution does not have these essential elements in common with biological evolution, and was arguing that to use the same word for both processes is likely to lead to confusion and to misunderstanding of both biological and stellar evolution.

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!"