Start communicating

[USincognito]

All I'm going to say is that George Orwell would be proud that a certain phrase he coined is still applicable, and saddened that it still is.

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh boy, this just gets better and better!!!!!

Wait a minute. You defined "origins" as being explanations for how life STARTED.
You also agreed that evolution/ToE are defined as follows:

Evolution: Change in gene frequency and alleles over time

Theory of Evolution: The how and implications of evolution. For example, evolution occurs through natural selection and mutation. The ToE states that all life share a common ancestor.

I can show you the post where you said you agreed with the above definitons.

Now, how does any of that apply to how life BEGAN? Don't you agree that evolution/theory of evolution only deals with what happens once life DID get here? And that it makes no explanation of HOW life started?

Importance is relative. I dont' think much time is spent on exploring how life began, because no one knows how life began and every science teacher will admit no one knows. There is no theory of how life began. Do you want to change your definition of origins beyond "explanations of how life began"?

Creationism includes--and in fact very much emphasizes--how life began (it was created by God) so I would call it origins if origins means how life began. However, evolution really isn't about how life began and classes on evoution or ToE barely touch on it, and even then acknowledges it is speculation.Whch is why many people are comfortable saying God created the life, and evolution changed it.

of explanations of how life began?

Because others didn't really understand how you used the word "origins" or why you insisted on separating it out from what was a discussion of ToE and creationism.

And yet you acknowledge that evolution isn't how "life came to be" meaning how it started. Do you mean how life came to be in its present form including all changes? When I asked for clairfication of the word origins you never specified it was in 2 parts (1) what caused life to appear on this planet and (2) what caused life to change to its present form once it was here

It has become apparent that origins should have been one of the words defined in the OP, sorry that I missed that one, the OP intended to only be a beginning not an end. Origins- how life began and came to be in it's current form. The toe does not deal with how life began but does deal with it's current form and since the evolutionists like the term and even Darwin used the term, I assumed that it was a common understanding. Ooops, theres that assumptions again. I wonder with it being demonstrated so many times that assumptions can and are often wrong that people rely on assumptions about our origins to identify fact? Hummm? Anyway, I missed a definition, sorry, (admitted mistake)I gave the defintion (corrected) so now it's your term to ream me for making a mistake and not taking responsibility for it and showing how hard headed I am for not admitting when I am wrong. If you get it overwith in one post, we can move on without the usual pages and pages and pages that you like so much.

[/i][/size][/font]


Gosh, I don't see the word science in that quote. Do you see the word science? Yet you claimed he said the foundation of moern SCIENCE is the theory of evolution.



This is actully getting to be comical. Did you even read what I wrote in my last post? Here, I'll post it again:



Was I talking about whether he said Toe of just evolution? NO!
I even capitalized the words in question---

Did he say science?

Or did he say biology?

Do me a favor, answer the question with one word. Dont' put any other word in your reply. Either type in

"biology"

OR type in

"science"

That has been, is, and will be MY simple question which YOU cannot seem to grasp.

You know what, I read the quote once again, and still see the term theory of evolution in place of evolution, let's look at it again shall we, I'll highlight the words for you since these are the words I began questioning and not the issue of bioloby and science. Then you can give me many more pages ignoring the original question to show that I don't understand that biology is part of science and that I totally missed the point because in my hast I used the word science in place of biology. Okay, maybe I'll just let you have what do you think it will take, 5 pages to go on about it, all the while ignoring the actual problem I asked clarity for, so I'll give you 5 pages before I address you again, sound fair? Please note the post in question and the highlighted words

Quote:

pg. 30 post 295 includes a quote I haven't taken time to find yet. Let me cut and paste the quote for you then you can explain ed's words for him since he seems to be afraid to.

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

Yes, yes I understand that I did a horrible injustice to ed, you, the thread, science, education, the president, the world, the universe, etc. who did I miss? When I accidentilly used the word science in place of biology, now, please answer the question asked since you know what ed thinks and believes, did he mean the theory of evolution as stated here, or evolution as stated in the first quoted passage?
</I>

 

[razzelflabben]

razzel, I'm going to try to help you understand with a parable. Surely as a teacher you use them as a possible teaching tool.

There is a family called the Smiths. In the Smith family are 5 member: John, Mary, Sonny, Sally and Victor.

John, Mary, Sonny Sally and Victor are all Smiths.

All Smiths are not Sonny.

All Smiths are not Mary, and so on.

Roger said Victor's favorite sport is baseball. He also said Victor's favorite sport is professional baseball.

Now, if the Smiths represents science, and Victor represents biology, then you are claiming that Roger said the favorite sport of the Smiths is baseball.

But that changes the meaning. ALL the Smiths don't like baseball, just Victor.

What I keep hammering is that it doesn't matter whether Roger said baseball or professional baseball. No one is arguing that they are identical. Not the point.

It matters that he said it was VICTOR's (biology) favorite sport (foundation), not the Smiths (science as a whole) favorite sport (foundation).

Biology is always a science.

All science is not biology.

Learn not to make category errors. Or, if you just mistyped, admit it. We all do it.

And to refresh your memory here are your actual words in Post 350:



Please note that in your above quote nowhere to be found is the word BIOLOGY, but I do spy the word SCIENCE.

Care to admit you were wrong?

see the above post and the multiple times I used the word biology, that should cover it.

 

[Edx]

When I accidentilly used the word science in place of biology,

Now was that really so hard?

The problem is your mistake changes the entire meaning. I am not going to argue against your misunderstandings of my position, so I had to clarify that you know you made a mistake, and that you realize why its so wrong. "Sorry, I meant biology" is all you really had to say. But nevertheless you still cant just admit you are wrong, you still have to coat it in some kind of hostility.

Why dont you take a little longer over posts, than just trying to cram them all into the presumably limited time you have on the internet every day? If you did, perhaps this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

now, please answer the question asked since you know what ed thinks and believes, did he mean the theory of evolution as stated here, or evolution as stated in the first quoted passage?

As I say in my reply, and what should be abundantly clear by now since my last reply was pretty damn clear, the meaning has always been the same. I meant the biological theory of evolution. Creationists want to separate common ancestry from the theory for purely religious motives, but real science does not make any distinction.

The commen definition of Evolution which only means change over time has no relevancy in this discussion.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

I really dont understand why I have to keep explaining this, maybe its because you dont really seem to want to use scientific terms in the way they are supposed to be used. I can understand how you might have misunderstood at first, as it can be confusing. I have already shown you Arons definitons which explained it, and previously had given you a link to the article on "What is Evolution" on TO. I have incorporated Aron Nelsons (AN) definitions into the following.

There are really 3 different ways of using the word Evolution. Only 2 are relevant, only 2 are scientific and only 2 are biological.

Evolution 1) A word to describe change, any change, over a period of time. Eg. Technological evolution, the evolution of the role of woman in society. An example of the word in use using that definition. Note that it is not scientific, its not a theory, its just a word to describe 'change over a period of time'.

Evolution 2) A term to describe Biological Evolution. "A process of varying allele frequencies among populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of reproductive organisms, compiled over successive generations, which can increase biodiversity when continuing variation among genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from the parent population" [AN]

Evolution 3) A term to describe the Theory of Evolution:
"The study of the facts and processes within biological evolution, and the collective body of hypotheses and theories which best explain those facts. Chief among them are Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the concept of common ancestry."[AN]

Please note that I have covered this in a previous post today, but here it goes again. Note definition 3 and please also note that the definition is specific about the toe and not evolution alone. Now also note that the definition includes natural selection and common ancestry. Now most people who have a problem with the toe seem to have a problem with the idea of common ancestry. That being the case, any communication of the issue needs to identify and deal with this which includes being specific when talking about what is included or meant. So when you use the word evolution, it has a meaning and doesn't just change to say what you want it to when you want it to change, you know, the things you have accused me of doing. Now this whole thing came up because in one place you said, evolution is the foundation, in another, and I will quote so as to not miss words, (this quote was referenced to you in previous posts and is a quote from my quote as I continueally run short of time.

Quote:

pg. 30 post 295 includes a quote I haven't taken time to find yet. Let me cut and paste the quote for you then you can explain ed's words for him since he seems to be afraid to.

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

</I>you say the theory of evolution. Now I also remember asking you directly if you then were saying that you see no difference between evolution and the theory of evolution and we went into pages of discource about everything from the use of biology and science to what evolution is and the question is still unanswered, the question, to be specific is two parts and answering it will end the entire arguement on my part. Do you mean the theory of evolution or evolution? and do you see any difference between the two? Now your answer might cause me to disagree with you, but this thread is not intended to be a teaching tool, so any disagreement can on my part anyway be left for another thread, however, the thread is intended to learn what is being said and understood by others and all the definitions and sidestepping of the question asked does not answer the question nor help to clarify what you understand and what you don't. So you want an apology, what do you want me to apologize for? I asked you a question and am still waiting for an answer. I understand that there are different uses for the word evolution and I understand that some people see no difference between evolution and the theory of evolution, but giving definitions like you have has not answered the question of whether or not you see any difference between evolution and the theory of evolution as many and indeed most of the people I know see a difference and the primary difference is in common ancestry. And indeed, most of the arguements between the two camps boils down to this question, when you talk about evolution are you talking about common descent or not?

Funny, I said exactly the same thing about Creationists a while ago. Difference is your claim is baseless. If Creationists really were accountable, you would be able to find one to show me but then I dont want to go back to that topic until we have sorted this out.

Not baseless if you can't even answer the question, or refuse to admit that you didn't answer it. Changing the topic isn't answering the question. If you don't understand the question, or you understood it differently, then ask for clarity, and try again rather than blame the person questioning for your own failure or heck, why blame anyone for faulty communication, why not just try again. There is such a thing you know as a no fault accident, I think the same applies for communication, there is such a thing as a no fault communication barrier. why must we always look for someone to blame and never accept blame for our own mistakes. It's not an evolutionist/creationist problem it is a human problem. And yes, when I have been wrong I have admitted it, but when I am not wrong, I won't admit to being such.

Evolution theory is everything to do with biology. View THIS page. Here are a few examples it gives: 1). Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. 2). Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001). 3) Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002). 4) Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. 5) Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

But note none of this is directly related to common ancestry which is the root of the debate and communication being the theame of this thread, relies on the root to clarify and express clearly. Therefore, evolution and not the theory or evolution is the foundation according to this page.

You also need to view THIS page. It answers the question very similar to yours: Evolution does not need to be taught in science classes. The important parts of biology, such as how organisms function, how they are classified, and how they interact with one another, do not depend on evolution.

Note again please that the word evolution is being used not the term theory of evolution. Is there a reason for this do you think?

Just why would I be talking about the commen word to describe absolutely everything and anything, when you want to say it 'changed or changes over time'?

Which is exactly why many people distinguish between evolution and the theory of evolution, so that the words have meaning and can't just be changed to mean whatever fits the point at the time. Now there are many people who are content to allow the shifting movement but with all you comments to me about my supposed shifting definitions, I would think you would understand that you can't accept a shifting defintion then accuse others of doing the same thing.

I dont consider this conduct of yours to be "slow", because that supposes you are too stupid to understand the basics of reading comprehension. I dont think thats you. I think you know exactly what you're doing

Ed

I believe that is the nicest thing that has ever been said to be by an evolutionists, I am honored. Especially since I have been told so many times here that I don't understand, it's refreshing to know that someone gives me credit for knowing something. Thanks, I will wear your compliment (sides though it may have been) proudly. You made my day!

 

[razzelflabben]

Now was that really so hard?

The problem is your mistake changes the entire meaning. I am not going to argue against your misunderstandings of my position, so I had to clarify that you know you made a mistake, and that you realize why its so wrong. "Sorry, I meant biology" is all you really had to say. But nevertheless you still cant just admit you are wrong, you still have to coat it in some kind of hostility.

Why dont you take a little longer over posts, than just trying to cram them all into the presumably limited time you have on the internet every day? If you did, perhaps this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

This from the one who still refuses to accept responsibility for calling me a creationist, for not clarifying the age of the person cited, for not being fair in asking me to name a credible creationist source, and that is only the tip of the iceburg. We can add to that, not answering the questions asked, and a bunch of other stuff, but you know what, I am willing to accept your flaws, and still enjoy our discussion, so we'll ignore all your babble okay? Okay!

As I say in my reply, and what should be abundantly clear by now since my last reply was pretty damn clear, the meaning has always been the same. I meant the biological theory of evolution. Creationists want to separate common ancestry from the theory for purely religious motives, but real science does not make any distinction.

The commen definition of Evolution which only means change over time has no relevancy in this discussion.

Ed

So then you are saying that you see no difference between evolution and the theory of evolution even though your own defintiion does see a difference? Okay, now we have something to work with in other discussions. How hard was that? Communication, ain't it grand.

 

[gluadys]

Where the biggest controversies are is 1. common ancestry and 2. (though it is lessening from my experiences) age of the earth. Both of which are part of the theory of evolution and not evolution.

I agree that the age of the earth is not part of the theory of evolution. Common ancestry is not so much part of the theory of evolution as a logical consequence of the theory, so it is necessary to keep them together. Part of teaching a theory is to teach its implications.

Now, I have yet to find actual evidence of common ancestry

This probably means you haven’t looked or that you need a better understanding of the theory of evolution to fully understand the weight of the evidence. I expect it is the latter.

cool, as I said above, I think you would increasingly find fewer and fewer people who have a problem with this, it is observation and not assumptions.

Ok.

as it relates to modern biology sure why not, but only as it relates, to make bold assumptions and call them facts is lying to our students and is also indoctrinating them to beleive what we do not know. I have an issue with either of these things happening in the classroom.

What part of evolution as described here does not relate to biology? What “bold assumptions” (other than origins or common descent which are not mentioned here) are being promulgated in the classroom? What is being called a fact that is not a fact? You must understand that it is hard to respond to such sweeping accusations when you don’t name the specifics that you object to.

This is the core of the debate, common ancestry, therefore, it is the issue that must be settled before we can move on in the debate over origins. And, yes, I see no reason why origins must be taught in our schools.

I think it is also time to be more specific on what you mean by origins. That is a pretty vague term. Are you opposed to teaching children about the origin of the telephone? Or about the origin of the American constitution?

Now, let's back up a moment, our children have all loved the movies Land Before Time, I think their up to the 2 millionth movie now (just joking I think there are 8) anyway, every one assumes common ancestry, and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

How be you back up a moment. The paragraph you are responding to here is about origins, specifically the origin of life. It is not about common descent ( a subject I dealt with later), yet in responding to a paragraph on the origin of life, you focus entirely on common descent—a different matter altogether. Let’s deal with one issue at a time.

See here, you have left out common ancestry.

Of course I have. I am still speaking of origins here, not common ancestry. I get to common ancestry later.

Yeah, yeah, change the problem to make a point that has nothing to do with the problem and thus we can claim how little someone else knows. This is a way to common technique of the evolutionist.

Come on. I am using an appropriate analogy. There are plenty of places in this thread where you have proposed analogies too, though not always appropriate ones. In a discussion of ancestry, it is not out of line to use the sort of ancestry most familiar to us as micro-image of the big picture. Ancestry works in much the same way within species as among species.

evolution is not foreign to the story of creation. Common ancestry however, is.

It is? That’s news to me. Creationism depends on common ancestry. It teaches that many modern species all evolved from a single ancestral kind. That is common ancestry.

Perhaps we need to draw an important distinction here. Evolution (and I mean evolution, not the theory of evolution) includes speciation. Whenever you have speciation, you have common ancestry.

This is not necessarily deep time common ancestry. We have observed speciation in real time. We can point to situations in which we know that one bacterial species was derived from another, one salmon species split off from another, six mice species are all derived from one ancestral mouse species, a new mosquito species developed in London’s subway tubes from an above-ground species, several fruit fly species have a common ancestor in Drosophila melanogaster, etc. In all these cases we have actually observed speciation and can relate now separate species to a common ancestor. This is not speculation or assumption. It is fact. And creationists generally agree with this. They even teach it when they say that many species are descended from a common ancestral kind e.g all 3000+ species of frogs are descended from a common ancestor frog species.

So there is really no objection to common ancestry in general terms. But two objections to common ancestry are often raised:

1.) Some say common ancestry can only go back so far. Many species may be related to an ancestral species, but these ancestral species are not related to each other. So there is no universal common ancestor that relates all species, past and present to each other.

2) Some say common ancestry is well and good for other species, but not for the human species. They say humanity does not share a common ancestor with any other species at all.

So, when you object to common ancestry are you really objecting to all levels of common ancestry, or only to 1) and/or 2) above? Would you deny that a horse and a zebra have a common ancestor? Or only that a human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor?

And that is not the only prediction that can be made yet I have heard an abundance of evolutionists claim that prediction as fact. Common ancestry as fact. I wonder why that is?

As noted above, common ancestry at the species level is a fact. We have observed the origin of such common ancestry. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that your problem with common ancestry is limited to one or both of 1 & 2 above?

Then teach all the possiblities and/or teach assumption, not fact, and if you dont't think it is being taught as fact, borrow a movie or read a book with your favorite child this weekend and find out what is being taught to them from the earliest education up.

Common ancestry is being taught as a fact, because it is a fact. All the evidence points to it being a fact. In short, it is not only a conclusion of the theory, it is also a conclusion which is supported by evidence. That warrants teaching it as fact.

If we taught common ancestry as part of the possible conclusions to evolution, would you have the same degree of problem?

Good question. I look forward to seeing some answers. I agree that wherever common ancestry is taught, it should be taught as a conclusion that comes from evolution, not as a pre-supposition or assumption. But we also need to examine the evidence for common ancestry as well.

 

[gluadys]

Be careful in your assumptions here since I also at least once, if not several times included the idea of spontanious combustion, thus through sarcasm relaying the idea that any form of our coming into existance was included in that answer.

Fine. I have no problem with that.

And the answer to your question was that I know of no test that identifies how we can to being, be that creation, evolution, spontanious combustion, alien cloning, frog leaping onto lily pads. No test I know of can identify how life came to being. That being the answer I gave to your question, then becomes the claim I am making.

Ok, now leaving aside the sarcastic and improbable parts, we are left with creation and evolution. Evolution does not claim to answer the question of how life came to being. So then we are left with only creation. But there is no way to test whether life was created either. So we are left with no scientific way to determine how life came into being.

Now, how can a theory of creation be built if there is no way to determine that anything was created?

Evolution is a different story. It does not claim to be a theory about the origin of life. Evolution claims to be a theory about how species change and beget new species. Now it is clear that life exists. We just don’t have any clear idea about how it came into existence. We cannot say with scientific certainty that life was created. Nor can we say with scientific certainty that it arose through natural abiogenesis. We can’t say it did or did not originate in some other way. But we can say that life is. We can observe many forms which we call “living”: trees, mushrooms, moss, bacteria, molds and many kinds of animals.

Since life exists, no matter how, we can then ask, does it really evolve? And if it does we can have a theory of evolution.

Origins of life, how life came to being. Evolution the "study" of change. The theory of evolution, the mechanisms of how evolution occures which includes but is not exclusive of the idea of common descent which is in part our origins. How's that for an answer,

(emphasis added)

It confirms my suspicion that you confuse evolution with the origin of life. This is a mistaken view of evolution. Evolution does not include anything about the origin of life.

 

[Humanista]

Thanks for finally admitting you made a mistake. I appreciate it, really I do. I would just like to point out that several people asked you about it and you had an opportunity to say "Oh gosh, I MEANT to say biology but I said science by mistake" about 35 posts ago. For someone who likes to make snide comments about the inability of everyone else to "listen" or "communicate" or admit when they were wrong, well, all I can say is pot, meet kettle!

But this is an example of how exhausting anad frustrating it is for anyone to try to "communicate" with you. It took probably a dozen times of pointing out that you said "science" instead of "biology"--including quoting what Ed actually said and quoting what you actually said, before you got what was a very very simple thing. Now, multiple that by a complex subject like evolution or evolutionary theory and you see what we're up against.

Oh boy, this just gets better and better!!!!!

Well it has now that I spelled it out for you as simply and as repeatedly as I could and (hooray!) you FINALLY FINALLY got it. Good job.

It has become apparent that origins should have been one of the words defined in the OP, sorry that I missed that one, the OP intended to only be a beginning not an end. Origins- how life began and came to be in it's current form.

Ah, now we get to the new and improved definition of origins. You are the one who is so very persnickity about being ultra-precise so as not to miscommunicate, yet for pages and pages you said "origins" was either how life began, how it started or how it "came to be" which is not very precise, if you also mean what made it change after it came into existence.Up to now, you have never added the extra bit of definition--how it came to be the way it is now.

The toe does not deal with how life began but does deal with it's current form and since the evolutionists like the term and even Darwin used the term, I assumed that it was a common understanding. Ooops, theres that assumptions again. I wonder with it being demonstrated so many times that assumptions can and are often wrong that people rely on assumptions about our origins to identify fact? Hummm?

I would plead guilty to making a wrong assumption about what YOU meant by the word "origins" if I hadn't asked you directly and repeatedly for confirmation and clarification, to the point that you complained about how many times you had to repeat that "origins was how life came to being" (See your Post #356) How life came to being is an extremely vague way of saying it covers abiogenesis as well as change over time into the current life forms.

And in Post 365, I said this:

Well if we stick to the defintion of origins as being any explanation--religious, mythical, science fiction, scientific--of how life started on earth,

And you had a perfect opportunity to correct me or clarify that origins meant MORE than JUST how life started on earth, that it additionally included why it changed over time to the way we see it now. For someone who preaches good communication, I would have thought you would be delighted to seize this opportunity to clarify, especially after I was apparently not understanding what "origins" meant to you. But instead, you ignored it.

Anyway, I missed a definition, sorry, (admitted mistake)I gave the defintion (corrected) so now it's your term to ream me for making a mistake and not taking responsibility for it and showing how hard headed I am for not admitting when I am wrong. If you get it overwith in one post, we can move on without the usual pages and pages and pages that you like so much.

You're the one that forced the pages by not just reading what was being said to you and looking at your own posts and seeing the mistake. So, yeah, you were a bit hard headed, thanks for being big enough to admit it. And on a concilliatory note, I apologize for getting snippy with you. I am not as patient as some of the others. Sorry.

You know what, I read the quote once again, and still see the term theory of evolution in place of evolution, let's look at it again shall we, I'll highlight the words for you since these are the words I began questioning and not the issue of bioloby and science.

I haven't made any comment about this portion of your argument, so I will leave that discussion for you and someone else.

Then you can give me many more pages ignoring the original question to show that I don't understand that biology is part of science and that I totally missed the point because in my hast I used the word science in place of biology.

Sorry, which original question is it? If you mean something about evoution v. theory of evolution I will let Edx and gluadys handle it.

Okay, maybe I'll just let you have what do you think it will take, 5 pages to go on about it, all the while ignoring the actual problem I asked clarity for, so I'll give you 5 pages before I address you again, sound fair? Please note the post in question and the highlighted words

Quote:

pg. 30 post 295 includes a quote I haven't taken time to find yet. Let me cut and paste the quote for you then you can explain ed's words for him since he seems to be afraid to.

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

Yes, yes I understand that I did a horrible injustice to ed, you, the thread, science, education, the president, the world, the universe, etc. who did I miss? When I accidentilly used the word science in place of biology, now, please answer the question asked since you know what ed thinks and believes, did he mean the theory of evolution as stated here, or evolution as stated in the first quoted passage?
</I>

You didn't do anyone an "injustice". No one is accusing you of injustice. You were simply careless and then didn't take the time or focus on what we were saying to understand the point being made. You were perhaps hypocritical in doing so, since you lambast others for not paying attention or responding correctly.

Edx has explained himself quite well, he doesn't need any help from me.

 

[Edx]

This from the one who still refuses to accept responsibility for calling me a creationist,

I didnt call you a Creationist, I said you sounded like one. We can only go by what you write here.

for not clarifying the age of the person cited, for not being fair in asking me to name a credible creationist source,

It is fair, but I dont want to change the subject here. If you say I "refuse" and dont answer a question you ask when I actually answered politely several times, and even when that is pointed out you still cant admit it - then i dont want to waste my time on any of those other topics. Every single time I tell you this you ignore it.

We can add to that, not answering the questions asked, and a bunch of other stuff, but you know what,

See above.

am willing to accept your flaws, and still enjoy our discussion, so we'll ignore all your babble okay? Okay!

Why is it so hard for you to just admit you made a mistake? From this responce It seems you still cant. It is important you recognise you made a mistake because it changes my whole position. You say communication is important, but it took you so long to admit your mischaracterization of my position was a mistake. If you were really wanting to help communication and not confuse people, why didnt you just say "sorry, I meant biology" when I first brought it up? Instead you go off on long irrelevant rants with a slew of rude and arrogant claims of people being somehow intellectually incapable of understanding you.

So the fact is correcting your mistake was important, and you needed to recognise your error. This is such a simple thing but is so hard for you to do, therefore how do you expect me to communicate with you on anything else?

So then you are saying that you see no difference between evolution and the theory of evolution even though your own defintiion does see a difference?

No. Im saying there is a general dictionary term "Evolution" to mean change over time. But this is not relevent to anything here, but you keep claiming to be confused because people might be using the word that way.

When people say evolution in regards to biology they are talking about the biological process and the scientific theory.

If I say, "the evolution of the species", Im talking about the biological process of evolution.

If I say "Evolution theory is the foundation of modern biology" Im talking about the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.

If I say "Evolution is important to teach in schools", Im talking about the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.

Saying "Evolution" in context of biology is a short way of talking about the scientific theory.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Please note that I have covered this in a previous post today, but here it goes again. Note definition 3 and please also note that the definition is specific about the toe and not evolution alone.

When you say "Evolution alone", I hope you are talking about the biological process right? Because you have already been told the definition of the common word 'evolution', that simply means 'to change over time', has no relevancy here.

Now also note that the definition includes natural selection and common ancestry.

Biological Evolution is the process. The Theory of Evolution is what explains those process'. When people talk about Evolution in context of biology they are talking about the Theory of Evolution. When people talk about the Theory of Evolution they are also taking about the biological process of evolution.

Now most people who have a problem with the toe seem to have a problem with the idea of common ancestry.

For religious reasons, becuase it contradicts their faith in magical Creation.

So when you use the word evolution, it has a meaning and doesn't just change to say what you want it to when you want it to change, you know, the things you have accused me of doing

Now this whole thing came up because in one place you said, evolution is the foundation, in another, and I will quote so as to not miss words, (this quote was referenced to you in previous posts and is a quote from my quote as I continueally run short of time.

"Evolution is the foundation of modern biology".... and ..."the foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution" .... is the same thing because when evolution is used in the context of biology it is refering to the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.So Im not changing the meaning at all. I have always been talking about the biological theory and process.

I also remember asking you directly if you then were saying that you see no difference between evolution and the theory of evolution and we went into pages of discource about everything from the use of biology and science to what evolution is and the question is still unanswered,

No, it wasnt "unanswered". I have shown you many instances where I have given you an answer, yet you claimed you got no answer at all and worse still even claimed I "refused" to give you one

Whats really crazy is you are still claiming I have not given you answer even now. Just because you dont understand, or think my description needs more detail to make sence to you, or even if I have misunderstood what your question means, does not mean you "got no answer" and I "refused" to give you one - because I did.

the question, to be specific is two parts and answering it will end the entire arguement on my part. Do you mean the theory of evolution or evolution? and do you see any difference between the two?

See above, and the definitions I gave previously.

I am, and have always been referring to the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything contained therein.

There is no other definition of evolution relevant here, the common standard usage of the word Evolution to mean 'to change over time' which can be used to describe absolutely anything and everything is what I have to keep telling you is not relevant here. No one is talking about that. "Evolution" was just the word used to name the scientific, biological theory of "Evolution".

however, the thread is intended to learn what is being said and understood by others and all the definitions and sidestepping of the question asked does not answer the question nor help to clarify what you understand and what you don't.

Well the answer I give here is what I have been saying for pages, so if thats not what your question meant then I have no idea what your question is supposed to mean.

And Im not sidestepping the question at all, I have been answering it directly. I have explained the scientific definitions and also clarified the common usage of the word "evolution", and that evolution was the word to name the scientific theory. I dont know how else Im supposed to answer the question in any other way, or what else it could possibly be asking for.

So you want an apology, what do you want me to apologize for?

For claiming you asked a question, and you got no answer and claiming I "refused" to answer you.

I asked you a question and am still waiting for an answer. I understand that there are different uses for the word evolution and I understand that some people see no difference between evolution and the theory of evolution,

but giving definitions like you have has not answered the question of whether or not you see any difference between evolution and the theory of evolution as many and indeed most of the people I know see a difference and the primary difference is in common ancestry.

If you are talking about the theory of evolution, common ancestry is included. If you are talking about the biological process of evolution, you are talking about process' involved in evolution. Common ancestry is a conclusion based on all the evidence.

But even most Creationists agree to a certain amount of common ancestry. They believe that all forms of life and all the different species can be traced back to a few created "kinds". They however believe there is a barrier where the "kind" cannot change any further. They leave "kind" undefined, otherwise one could just point out there is no magical barrier at all.

And indeed, most of the arguements between the two camps boils down to this question, when you talk about evolution are you talking about common descent or not?

It of course depends what the context is. If you are talking about the biological process' of evolution such as small scale speciation and adaptation you are probably not talking specifically about common descent. But if you are talking about the Theory of Evolution in general, you are including common descent.

Not baseless if you can't even answer the question, or refuse to admit that you didn't answer it.

I said your claim of "evolutionists"(a made up Creationist term btw) not being accountable, was baseless.

Changing the topic isn't answering the question. If you don't understand the question, or you understood it differently, then ask for clarity, and try again rather than blame the person questioning for your own failure or heck, why blame anyone for faulty communication, why not just try again.

Its not my fault if I cant seem to decode your question. I thought I understood it and I answered it many times you asked it, but you asked it in the same way each time. So I assumed you didnt understand, so I tried and say the same thing in another way. This goes on for pages and pages, then all of a sudden you tell me I never gave you any answer and "refused" to! I have now answered several more times, even more indepth, but you still keep saying I am not answering you. I really truly dont know how else to answer your question, or what else it could possibly mean. But instead of revising your question and explaining what you meant better so perhaps I could understand what you really mean you keep asking in the same way as you did the first time.

In short if none of my answers up to now answer your question, I have no idea what your question means.

But note none of this is directly related to common ancestry which is the root of the debate and communication being the theame of this thread, relies on the root to clarify and express clearly. Therefore, evolution and not the theory or evolution is the foundation according to this page.

They are talking about the same thing; the fact and biological process' and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.

Note again please that the word evolution is being used not the term theory of evolution. Is there a reason for this do you think?[/i]

Because it is just a short way to refer to the fact and biological process' and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.

Which is exactly why many people distinguish between evolution and the theory of evolution, so that the words have meaning and can't just be changed to mean whatever fits the point at the time.

Like I say above there is no change and Im not shifting definitions. The process and the theory are different in that the theory explains the process'. People distinguish between evolution and the theory of Evolution for good reason, because evolution just means change over time. But when used in a biological context "Evolution" is referring to the biological process' and theory of biological evolution and everything therein. Also looking at the context you can tell if they are referring to the biological process', or the overall theory.

I believe that is the nicest thing that has ever been said to be by an evolutionists, I am honored. Especially since I have been told so many times here that I don't understand, it's refreshing to know that someone gives me credit for knowing something. Thanks, I will wear your compliment (sides though it may have been) proudly. You made my day!

So you admit you are being deliberately difficult? Because thats what I was saying.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

I agree that the age of the earth is not part of the theory of evolution. Common ancestry is not so much part of the theory of evolution as a logical consequence of the theory, so it is necessary to keep them together. Part of teaching a theory is to teach its implications.

Logical to whom? I have heard abundant claims that common ancestry, that being usually refered to as man is a descendant from apes, etc. (etc. meaning not limited to man-apes, but is the most common and hot part of debate)is evidenced. Yet, I find it strange that when asked for this evidence, all that is presented is assumptions usually based on speciation. Assumptions are not fact. Should I say that again so that everyone is sure to get it since my definition for origins was overlooked multiply times, maybe if I say it several times in the same post it will not be overlooked so easily. ASSUMPTIONS DO NOT EQUAL FACT OR EVIDENCE, THEY ARE ASSUMPTION/SPECULATION. How about one more time so as not to be ignored Assumptions/speculation is not evidence nor fact/truth. Now to say that we can observe speciation and therefore might assume common ancestry (as is commonly refered to as man descendant from ape etc. (please note etc. above to cut down on the post)), is not a lie and I know of few people who would object, though I know there are some. However, that is not the way it is being taught and is certainly not the way it is being interpreted and just for good measure is not what most of the people on this thread have ever said though I am sure that good old boys evolution club will defend the comments and claims as being misunderstood even though questions for clarity were asked and oppertunity for clarifying ample, the claims that common ancestry (see above usual defintion) is evidenced and therefore fact is rampant in our schools, society and forum claims, but no one can back the claim up. Why is that because we all know by now that assumptions do not equal evidence nor fact/truth, and we have seen that demonstrated many times on this thread alone.

This probably means you haven’t looked or that you need a better understanding of the theory of evolution to fully understand the weight of the evidence. I expect it is the latter.

Well, anything is possible but the only evidence provided to date relies on assumptions and not on observations. Now if you definition for common ancestry is speciation, then there would be little room for debate, because speciation is observation, but if there is debate continueing, then the logical assumption is that 1. either we are talking about commen ancestry in relation to horse is descendant from zebra, man from ape, etc and not speciation. or 2. there is lack of communication (which is an assumption I came here to correct if it existed, or 3. claims are being made that are simply lies and we are not willing to take responsibility for our own claims. Which do you think is the root of the problem? By your own admission later in this post, few question speciation, that would indicate one of the other two possibilities wouldn't it.

What part of evolution as described here does not relate to biology? What “bold assumptions” (other than origins or common descent which are not mentioned here) are being promulgated in the classroom? What is being called a fact that is not a fact? You must understand that it is hard to respond to such sweeping accusations when you don’t name the specifics that you object to.

How about if you read the above and see if it is starting to become clear to you.

I think it is also time to be more specific on what you mean by origins. That is a pretty vague term. Are you opposed to teaching children about the origin of the telephone? Or about the origin of the American constitution?

Do you ignore what I say or just pick and choose. Once again, origins is how life started and came to it's present forms, this I would assume is commonly understood as even Darwin used the term origins in his theory. Let's try to keep the sands from shift in our definitions okay? Oh and please try to read my posts were I give such definitions so as to keep the thread to a minimum. Thanks

How be you back up a moment. The paragraph you are responding to here is about origins, specifically the origin of life. It is not about common descent ( a subject I dealt with later), yet in responding to a paragraph on the origin of life, you focus entirely on common descent—a different matter altogether. Let’s deal with one issue at a time.

Don't know what you are even saying in relation to what I have said, it is as if you are responding to something else all together, you will have to clarify better if you expect a response.

Of course I have. I am still speaking of origins here, not common ancestry. I get to common ancestry later.

Come on. I am using an appropriate analogy. There are plenty of places in this thread where you have proposed analogies too, though not always appropriate ones. In a discussion of ancestry, it is not out of line to use the sort of ancestry most familiar to us as micro-image of the big picture. Ancestry works in much the same way within species as among species.

see above

It is? That’s news to me. Creationism depends on common ancestry. It teaches that many modern species all evolved from a single ancestral kind. That is common ancestry.

Actually the only single parent population specified is man, at least until we get to the flood which is a different story. In fact, the word abundantly is used which would suggest that many of a given creature were created at the same time. This is not specified in the story of creation, it might be one set of parents or it might be multiple. (this is one of the hints as to why the toc is not scientific, but we are discussing that on the other thread, so we'll save it for when we are ready)

Perhaps we need to draw an important distinction here. Evolution (and I mean evolution, not the theory of evolution) includes speciation. Whenever you have speciation, you have common ancestry.

Common ancestry as defined but not as used in debate. Take for example the term evolution as ed pointed out, it can have many meanings and some but not all include the ideas of natural selection and common ancestry. If I use to word to have multiply meanings as has been admitted by ed and I have seen you use it the same way many times now, the word has no meaning. But when I ask for clarity to what is being said what the words are being used, I face pages of debate about how the scientific meaning of the words is stable and does not change. Let's deal with what is commonly meant and/or understood and the definitions thereof. When referring to common ancestry, the usual understanding is man-apes, horse-zebra, etc. when referring to the toe/e, the common understanding is evolution plus natural selection and common ancestry. That is the most common understandings and if no clarity is made after asking for such, then we can assume the meaning as the common understanding. Same for origins. It is not fair nor helpful to discussion to make claims that are left for assumptions of common understandings (no clarity offered when asked for) then change the meaning of the words and thus claim victory in debate. This is what is shifting sand and though I have been accused of it, I have never seen a better example that the ones you are providing us with now. If only I were so talented to shift definitions as easily as is being demonstrated here, then I might really believe that all the accusations were correct, but alas, I have no knowledge (working at least) of how to shift meanings of words so easily, I will try to learn from the masters, the evolutionists.

This is not necessarily deep time common ancestry. We have observed speciation in real time. We can point to situations in which we know that one bacterial species was derived from another, one salmon species split off from another, six mice species are all derived from one ancestral mouse species, a new mosquito species developed in London’s subway tubes from an above-ground species, several fruit fly species have a common ancestor in Drosophila melanogaster, etc. In all these cases we have actually observed speciation and can relate now separate species to a common ancestor. This is not speculation or assumption. It is fact. And creationists generally agree with this. They even teach it when they say that many species are descended from a common ancestral kind e.g all 3000+ species of frogs are descended from a common ancestor frog species.

see above

So there is really no objection to common ancestry in general terms. But two objections to common ancestry are often raised:

1.) Some say common ancestry can only go back so far. Many species may be related to an ancestral species, but these ancestral species are not related to each other. So there is no universal common ancestor that relates all species, past and present to each other.

2) Some say common ancestry is well and good for other species, but not for the human species. They say humanity does not share a common ancestor with any other species at all.

So, when you object to common ancestry are you really objecting to all levels of common ancestry, or only to 1) and/or 2) above? Would you deny that a horse and a zebra have a common ancestor? Or only that a human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor?

see above and by the way, as I have said before (apparently ignored again) I have no problem with common ancestry as long as it is observed and not assumed. That is my personal belief, and not one I push on others, but one I am willing to discuss.

As noted above, common ancestry at the species level is a fact. We have observed the origin of such common ancestry. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that your problem with common ancestry is limited to one or both of 1 & 2 above?

It dependes on how we define common ancestry but I know how that type of answer irritates you so let me see, Do I agree that speciation is observed? Yes Do I agree that how we define common ancestry is the root of the debate? Yes.

Common ancestry is being taught as a fact, because it is a fact. All the evidence points to it being a fact. In short, it is not only a conclusion of the theory, it is also a conclusion which is supported by evidence. That warrants teaching it as fact.

See above When I talk about common ancestry being taught as fact, I am talking about large scale common ancestry, that being man-ape etc. And not the watered down definition that can be used to explain away all claims to the contrary.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Logical to whom? I have heard abundant claims that common ancestry, that being usually refered to as man is a descendant from apes, etc. (etc. meaning not limited to man-apes, but is the most common and hot part of debate)is evidenced. Yet, I find it strange that when asked for this evidence, all that is presented is assumptions usually based on speciation. Assumptions are not fact. Should I say that again so that everyone is sure to get it since my definition for origins was overlooked multiply times, maybe if I say it several times in the same post it will not be overlooked so easily. ASSUMPTIONS DO NOT EQUAL FACT OR EVIDENCE, THEY ARE ASSUMPTION/SPECULATION.

explain the GLO pseudogene with a theory that does not reference common descent.

 

[razzelflabben]

Fine. I have no problem with that.



Ok, now leaving aside the sarcastic and improbable parts, we are left with creation and evolution. Evolution does not claim to answer the question of how life came to being. So then we are left with only creation. But there is no way to test whether life was created either. So we are left with no scientific way to determine how life came into being.

Now, how can a theory of creation be built if there is no way to determine that anything was created?

Evolution is a different story. It does not claim to be a theory about the origin of life. Evolution claims to be a theory about how species change and beget new species. Now it is clear that life exists. We just don’t have any clear idea about how it came into existence. We cannot say with scientific certainty that life was created. Nor can we say with scientific certainty that it arose through natural abiogenesis. We can’t say it did or did not originate in some other way. But we can say that life is. We can observe many forms which we call “living”: trees, mushrooms, moss, bacteria, molds and many kinds of animals.

Since life exists, no matter how, we can then ask, does it really evolve? And if it does we can have a theory of evolution.

(emphasis added)

It confirms my suspicion that you confuse evolution with the origin of life. This is a mistaken view of evolution. Evolution does not include anything about the origin of life.

Now I am aware that I don't sound or talk like a scientist, it is the "family curse" but I wonder why when I later gave a definition for the word origins no one read it, or if they did they ignored it to continue on hounding me over not giving a clear enough definition the first time around? I wonder why instead of asking me to clarify and accepting that clarification, you instead assume that I don't understand that the toe does not address the origins of life but rather the origins of species? and why when I clarified that it was ignored so as to prove your claims that I know nothing about the toe? Why would that be. A more proper defintion for origins and this is at least the third time now I have said it is how life began and became in it's proper form. Now one of the things I like about talking with you is that you can make things sound scientific, so when I asked for others definitions, I expected a scientific sounding definition in return, instead, I got accusations based on a different idea I was trying to present. That can be confusing admittedly, but isn't that what asking for clarity is suppose to be about and isn't that why listening is important? You need to understand that (i have addmitted this many times now) I am not a scientist and as such, sometimes what I understand is not always translated into proper scientific sounding terms. It doesn't mean I don't understand, it means that I don't talk like a scientist. So if you don't understand, ask instead of assuming what is not. It isn't hard, and would save us all a lot of trouble. Thanks.

 

[razzelflabben]

Thanks for finally admitting you made a mistake. I appreciate it, really I do. I would just like to point out that several people asked you about it and you had an opportunity to say "Oh gosh, I MEANT to say biology but I said science by mistake" about 35 posts ago. For someone who likes to make snide comments about the inability of everyone else to "listen" or "communicate" or admit when they were wrong, well, all I can say is pot, meet kettle!

But this is an example of how exhausting anad frustrating it is for anyone to try to "communicate" with you. It took probably a dozen times of pointing out that you said "science" instead of "biology"--including quoting what Ed actually said and quoting what you actually said, before you got what was a very very simple thing. Now, multiple that by a complex subject like evolution or evolutionary theory and you see what we're up against.

Now I am not always good at it, but I do try to keep discussions to a minimum of pages. On this particular issue, I realized that you pointed out my error, understood the error, but still didn't have an answer to the question I asked and the issue of which word was used was quite off the topic. I thought I conveyed this to you and was confused by your insistance on continueing the topic of science vs. biology and why you had such an issue when I understood the difference but NEVER had an issue understanding it, but rather in understanding if ed meant evolution or thoery of evolution. It took a while for me to figure out that you thought I was totally incompatant in understanding anything scientific at which time the revalation of this prompted me to be more specific. I know that you think it was hard headed, and maybe it was, I should have realized long ago that you would never give me actual credit for knowing anything about science and evolution and the toe because I don't parrot the same things you have been taught to say, but it never once occured to me that after admitting I had made a mistake, that you would be insistant on a formal appology because I typed a wrong word. I do appologize for not understanding that your opinion is that someone like me can not have enough knowledge or understanding of this subject area to make any accurate statements and that is why something as simple as one word being typed incorrectly while a host of others were typed correctly, needed a formal appology rather than simply accepting it as a corrected misstake and moving on. Keep talking, I'll get it figured out, I already have figured out that I cannot know anything about science and evolution in your eyes, either just tell me straight, or keep talking and I'll figure it all out.

Ah, now we get to the new and improved definition of origins. You are the one who is so very persnickity about being ultra-precise so as not to miscommunicate, yet for pages and pages you said "origins" was either how life began, how it started or how it "came to be" which is not very precise, if you also mean what made it change after it came into existence.Up to now, you have never added the extra bit of definition--how it came to be the way it is now.

The definition I always assumed was understood based on the way the word is used by everyone from Darwin to the forum use. Sorry, you could have simply asked me to give the definition, oh wait, you did and I gave it to you. Hummmm? where is the definition I asked you for? Oh I know, you don't have to give it because your superior intellect offers you an excuse to talk to the likes of me. Got it! And by the way, I have never asked anyone to be ultrapercise in definition, only to clarify any parts that were not clear. But I'm sure that I'm wrong there too.

And you had a perfect opportunity to correct me or clarify that origins meant MORE than JUST how life started on earth, that it additionally included why it changed over time to the way we see it now. For someone who preaches good communication, I would have thought you would be delighted to seize this opportunity to clarify, especially after I was apparently not understanding what "origins" meant to you. But instead, you ignored it.

Sorry sometimes I am slow in understanding what people want me to assume. In fact, I try not to make assumptions at all. Thats why I ask people to clarify. One of my character flaws, I believe in asking people to clarity their own thoughts instead of assuming what they are having problems with.

You're the one that forced the pages by not just reading what was being said to you and looking at your own posts and seeing the mistake. So, yeah, you were a bit hard headed, thanks for being big enough to admit it. And on a concilliatory note, I apologize for getting snippy with you. I am not as patient as some of the others. Sorry.

yeah sure whatever, see above

I haven't made any comment about this portion of your argument, so I will leave that discussion for you and someone else

Sorry, which original question is it? If you mean something about evoution v. theory of evolution I will let Edx and gluadys handle it..

Why leave it, I asked a question as to whether or not ed meant evolution or the toe. To which you got involved by changing the question to whether or not I knew the difference between science and biology (which my elementary age children know by the way, It's not rocket science nor earth shattering as you tried to make it) so since you tried so hard to change the topic, maybe you can shed some light on the issue. I haven't seen an answer yet. Your side issue made a convient excuse to not answer the question.

You didn't do anyone an "injustice". No one is accusing you of injustice. You were simply careless and then didn't take the time or focus on what we were saying to understand the point being made. You were perhaps hypocritical in doing so, since you lambast others for not paying attention or responding correctly.

Edx has explained himself quite well, he doesn't need any help from me.

ed hasn't answered the question yet, I think he needs help from someone.

 

[razzelflabben]

No. Im saying there is a general dictionary term "Evolution" to mean change over time. But this is not relevent to anything here, but you keep claiming to be confused because people might be using the word that way.

When people say evolution in regards to biology they are talking about the biological process and the scientific theory.

If I say, "the evolution of the species", Im talking about the biological process of evolution.

If I say "Evolution theory is the foundation of modern biology" Im talking about the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.

If I say "Evolution is important to teach in schools", Im talking about the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.

Saying "Evolution" in context of biology is a short way of talking about the scientific theory.

Ed

Now how hard was it for you to say that you believe that there is not difference in evolution being biological and the thoery of evolution. I think there are a lot of people who would disagree with you and the definitions you presented differ from your understanding as well, but that is a different discussion. See all of this could have been avoided if you had just said, I think that the thoery of evolution is the same thing as biological evolution with not differences made between natural selection and common ancestry. Thanks.

 

[razzelflabben]

When you say "Evolution alone", I hope you are talking about the biological process right? Because you have already been told the definition of the common word 'evolution', that simply means 'to change over time', has no relevancy here.

Aboslutely, when I talk to people about evolution/creation/origins, I have yet to meet anyone who does not understand the idea that evolution is referring to the biological evolution. So I don't always specify as such, it is commonly understood. That has never been a problem in this discussion as least from my side, in that I assume you to have intellignet on the topic.
[qipte]
For religious reasons, becuase it contradicts their faith in magical Creation. [/quote] going to cut out parts to make this shorter. It does not matter what the reason for the contradictions, what matters is if we can discuss the points of contridictions effectively. I was told when I started this thread that was nonscence, that scientific words had exact meaning, now here we are looking at scientific definitions that have migrating meanings and you still haven't appologized for assuming that communication was not necessary. It is important in a debate of evolution and creation to specify if one is talking about the process, common ancestry, speciation, etc. If the terms cannot specify, then when asked directly, it is important to clarify rather then allow the terms to have no meaning as you are doing here. The toe is broader by nature than evolution and includes but is not limited to common ancestry, that being the broad understanding of said. For this reason, when we look at the definitions you gave, we can for communicate reasons, assume that evolution includes but is not limited to speciation while the toe includes but is not limited to common ancestry. The same is true of common ancestry. Because the discussion is focused on evolution/creation, and a word exists for speciation, then when talking about small scale ancesters, we may use the word speciation whereas when we are talking about a broader view and understanding of common ancestry, that being man-apes, etc., we can then safely use the word common ancestry without fear of being misunderstood. That is why I asked you to clarify. If I accept all three definitions when you are talking about evolution, then the word has no meaning in discussion because you can change it's meaning anytime you want. I know you understand this concept, don't try to deny it in yourself while forcing others into it because you don't agree or like what they are saying. Be consistant, put some actual meaning to the words you use.

"Evolution is the foundation of modern biology".... and ..."the foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution" .... is the same thing because when evolution is used in the context of biology it is refering to the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.So Im not changing the meaning at all. I have always been talking about the biological theory and process.

Then, I must disagree with you. The biological process of evolution is fundamental to our understanding of modern biology, however, the toe, as defined above is not, it is only a theory and has little to do with modern biology.

If you are talking about the theory of evolution, common ancestry is included. If you are talking about the biological process of evolution, you are talking about process' involved in evolution. Common ancestry is a conclusion based on all the evidence.

Now a moment ago, you were saying there is no difference, now you say there is, which is it? No wonder I don't yet know what your answer to the question is! Are they the same or are they different in meaning and if they are different, which is the foundations of modern biology?

But even most Creationists agree to a certain amount of common ancestry. They believe that all forms of life and all the different species can be traced back to a few created "kinds". They however believe there is a barrier where the "kind" cannot change any further. They leave "kind" undefined, otherwise one could just point out there is no magical barrier at all.

addressed this in another post today.

It of course depends what the context is. If you are talking about the biological process' of evolution such as small scale speciation and adaptation you are probably not talking specifically about common descent. But if you are talking about the Theory of Evolution in general, you are including common descent.

addressed in earlier post today.

They are talking about the same thing; the fact and biological process' and theory of biological evolution and everything therein.

see here we're back to no difference. Which is it, a difference, or no difference?

Like I say above there is no change and Im not shifting definitions. The process and the theory are different in that the theory explains the process'. People distinguish between evolution and the theory of Evolution for good reason, because evolution just means change over time. But when used in a biological context "Evolution" is referring to the biological process' and theory of biological evolution and everything therein. Also looking at the context you can tell if they are referring to the biological process', or the overall theory.

So in the context, are you defining evolution as biological evolution or as the toe?

So you admit you are being deliberately difficult? Because thats what I was saying.

Ed

Say what, I accept your comment as a compliment and that means that I am admitting that I am being deliberately difficult? How do you do that? How do you get that from my accepting your comment as a compliment? Boy, I must really be hard headed. Actually, lets be honest, there have been times on this thread that I thought I knew what someone was saying but asked them to clarify because I try not to make assumptions and because the thread is suppose to be about communication. In that respect, I have at times tried to be "deliberately difficult" however, never have I tried to stir up disagreement, nor asked for clarity on what seemed to be clear, in fact, many times I accepted what was being said as clear, only to find later that people were not being consistant in their words to which I ask for clarity. Good example, the above with you. One place you say no difference, the next you say difference. This is inconsistant and I ask for clarity, we have seen way to many times how bad assumptions can be. Let me tell you a true story. Many years ago, I had a brief battle with anoxia. While I was doing my student teaching, I was so weak that I couldn't go on, (at the time I had just come off of working up to 48 hrs. a week at a physically demanding job and going to school 19-20 semester credit hours) I was exhausted. We were alowed 2 weeks off school during the semester, so I took one of the weeks off. During that week, I had a dr. appointment and after the appointment, a friend took me to lunch (lunch being an important thing at the time) a fellow student ran into us and didn't like that I was off "work" and eating lunch with a friend. So, the fellow student made the assumption that I was screwing around when I claimed to be off for illness, and said such to the principal and cooperating teacher, etc. They decided that I should not graduate because of it. The story goes on and I did graduate, but the point is this, her assumptions caused a great deal of heartacke for me that was not helpful to my recovery. I was determined by the situation to never assume anything about someone else. Sometimes I fail at this, because it seems all to obvious, as did my lunch with a friend, but usually I do pretty good at not assuming anything and ask for clarity instead. Many people don't like this about me because they assume they are being clear, just as I assumed that if she had a problem she would have asked me what was going on, if you don't like being asked for clarity, the alternative is taking a chance that what you are saying will be viewed wrong, and that may or may not lead to a great deal of problems. So, when I ask for clarity, it is not because I am being "deliberately difficult", but rather because I respect you and your opinion enough to ask rather than assume. I expect the same from others though I seldom get it, because, many times we say what makes sense to us only to find out that others didn't see it that way at all. That is communication, and that is part of life.

 

[Edx]

Now how hard was it for you to say that you believe that there is not difference in evolution being biological and the thoery of evolution.

Evolution as a biological process is different to the theory as a whole. Example: You cant say "the birds theory of evolutionized, you say "the birds evolved". That would be talking about the process. Basically its just a matter of how you use the word evolution that determins what you are actually talking about.

I think there are a lot of people who would disagree with you and the definitions you presented differ from your understanding as well, but that is a different discussion.

Well I think if you are willing to assert something (like that), you need to back it up if called on it.

See all of this could have been avoided if you had just said, I think that the thoery of evolution is the same thing as biological evolution with not differences made between natural selection and common ancestry. Thanks.

I DID say it. I just didnt explain it as fully as this. Except you kept telling me you got no answer, and that I refused to answer you. That simply is not true.

And btw, you still have it wrong.

The theory of evolution explains the biological process' of evolution. Natural selection is name given to that process, but it is also a theory. That is why it is said Evolution is a fact and a theory. Common ancestry is not the same as natural selection. Unlike natural selection, it is not a process. Common ancestry is the conclusion based on all the evidence that terrestrial organisms are genealogically related, all of which have a "commen ancestor".

Ed

 

[gluadys]

Logical to whom? I have heard abundant claims that common ancestry, that being usually refered to as man is a descendant from apes, etc. (etc. meaning not limited to man-apes, but is the most common and hot part of debate)is evidenced.

Logically derived from the evidence.

Yet, I find it strange that when asked for this evidence, all that is presented is assumptions usually based on speciation.

I take it you have not heard of ERVs.

Now to say that we can observe speciation

We have observed speciation. We have even produced speciation in the laboratory. This is fact, not assumption.

No, we have not directly observed the chimpanzee/human speciation, because it took place about 5-7 million years ago. But we have ample evidence that it did happen and that it happened in that time frame.

However, that is not the way it is being taught…[snip]
the claims that common ancestry (see above usual defintion) is evidenced and therefore fact is rampant in our schools, society and forum claims, but no one can back the claim up.

The common ancestry of chimpanzees and humans is a logical fact given the evidence and should be taught as such. Obviously the common ancestry of species, where speciation has been directly observed ought to be taught as fact. Other facets of common ancestry should be taught in accordance with the evidence available.

Common ancestry, by and large, is not an assumption. It is a conclusion from the evidence.

Well, anything is possible but the only evidence provided to date relies on assumptions and not on observations.

A further indication that you have:
1. not looked at the evidence and/or
2. don’t understand the evidence because you don’t understand the theory of evolution.

Evidence IS observation. It never relies on anything else.

Now if you definition for common ancestry is speciation, then there would be little room for debate, because speciation is observation, but if there is debate continueing, then the logical assumption is that 1. either we are talking about commen ancestry in relation to horse is descendant from zebra, man from ape, etc and not speciation. or 2. there is lack of communication (which is an assumption I came here to correct if it existed, or 3. claims are being made that are simply lies and we are not willing to take responsibility for our own claims. Which do you think is the root of the problem? By your own admission later in this post, few question speciation, that would indicate one of the other two possibilities wouldn't it.

Yes, common ancestry would not exist without speciation. And speciation has been directly observed in a number of cases. In others it can be inferred from the evidence.
1. the horse is not a descendant of the zebra or vice versa. They are both species derived from a common ancestor.
. humans are not descended from apes. Humans are apes. Modern humans are all one species. Ape is not a species; it is a group to which many species belong. (the official taxonomic term for this group is a “family”.) All apes, including humans, are derived from a common ancestor who lived IIRC about 10-15 million years ago. With the currently existing members of the ape family, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are both related to a common ancestor which lived about 5 million years ago. If we take extinct members of the human family into account, we are most closely related to H. neanderthalensis as both species were derived from H. erectus though at different times. (Neanderthals would be like much older cousins to us.) Our own species appeared around 160,000 years ago.

Note that the closer the relationship, the more recent the common ancestor.

2. I agree, there is lack of communication. So discussions which spread knowledge are a good idea.

3. The biggest lie being told is that there is no evidence for evolution, particularly common ancestry and transitional fossils.

Once again, origins is how life started and came to it's present forms, this I would assume is commonly understood as even Darwin used the term origins in his theory.

Darwin specified that he was speaking of the origin of species. His theory does not cover how life started. That is the problem with your definition of origins. It includes two different things: how life got started (abiogenesis) and how species developed (evolution). These are two different processes and cannot be welded together into a common concept of origins.

Don't know what you are even saying in relation to what I have said, it is as if you are responding to something else all together, you will have to clarify better if you expect a response.

I am saying that your answer doesn’t relate to what I was talking about. I was talking about origin of life and your response a was all about common descent. This is how we get into problems using a vague term like “origins” to cover unrelated ideas.

Actually the only single parent population specified is man, at least until we get to the flood which is a different story.

I didn’t say “single parent”; I said “single ancestral kind”. A “kind” does not necessarily consist of only one specimen (though I have seen creationists who think it does.)

In fact, the word abundantly is used which would suggest that many of a given creature were created at the same time.

Yes, I agree. But all of these were, according to most creationists, all the same species. So the horse kind was not what we now call a horse, but a common ancestor of horses, donkeys, zebras and the now-extinct quagga.

Common ancestry as defined but not as used in debate. Take for example the term evolution as ed pointed out, it can have many meanings and some but not all include the ideas of natural selection and common ancestry.

I don’t know of any biological meaning of evolution which would exclude natural selection or common ancestry.

but alas, I have no knowledge (working at least) of how to shift meanings of words so easily, I will try to learn from the masters, the evolutionists.

ROLFL, you now owe me a new irony meter. You just broke mine to smithereens.

see above and by the way, as I have said before (apparently ignored again) I have no problem with common ancestry as long as it is observed and not assumed. That is my personal belief, and not one I push on others, but one I am willing to discuss.

Well it has been observed in some cases, and evidence of common ancestry has been observed in many more cases.

It dependes on how we define common ancestry but I know how that type of answer irritates you so let me see, Do I agree that speciation is observed? Yes Do I agree that how we define common ancestry is the root of the debate? Yes.

Yes it annoys me when you do not respond to the questions I asked.

So let’s try again.
Would you deny that a horse and a zebra have a common ancestor? Yes or no?

Would you deny that a human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor?...Yes or no?


We can discuss why you said “yes” or “no” later.

We can also wait until you have answered these to consider a universal common ancestor.

When I talk about common ancestry being taught as fact, I am talking about large scale common ancestry, that being man-ape etc.

So you are ok with the common ancestor of two species (like zebra-horse) but not with common ancestry where is involves a series of many speciations (human-chimpanzee). Is that right?

It is also kind of silly. It is like saying you agree people (or species) have parents, but denying that they have great-grandparents.

Now I am aware that I don't sound or talk like a scientist, it is the "family curse" but I wonder why when I later gave a definition for the word origins no one read it, or if they did they ignored it to continue on hounding me over not giving a clear enough definition the first time around?

It has been read. It has been understood. And it has been correctly judged as vague and unclear. Repeating over and over that origins is “how life started and came to it's present forms” doesn’t clarify things, because this definition is vague and unclear in itself. So if you expect people to understand, you need to develop a new definition—or better yet several definitions so people know what aspect of origins you are talking about. Or you could simply add a word to your vocabulary: abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis means “origin of life from non-living matter”.
Evolution means “genetic and phenotypic changes in species leading to speciation”.

Or do you have a problem with learning new vocabulary?

Now one of the things I like about talking with you is that you can make things sound scientific, …I am not a scientist and as such, sometimes what I understand is not always translated into proper scientific sounding terms.

I am not a scientist either, but I take time to learn and understand the vocabulary scientists use. I trust I am not making things sound scientific, but simply using scientific terms correctly. It is not all that hard to translate what you understand into scientific terms as long as your understanding is based on science.

It doesn't mean I don't understand, it means that I don't talk like a scientist. So if you don't understand, ask instead of assuming what is not. It isn't hard, and would save us all a lot of trouble. Thanks.

It would save us all a lot of trouble if you would start using the scientific terminology you have been introduced to. “Origins”, as you use it, is not scientific terminology and cannot be translated into scientific terminology because it is too broad and vague.

 

[Humanista]

On this particular issue, I realized that you pointed out my error, understood the error, but still didn't have an answer to the question I asked and the issue of which word was used was quite off the topic.

Then you are guilty of committing the thing you fault others for: assuming. You assumed I somehow knew you recognized your error without your having said so, even after the error was pointed out to you over and over.

I thought I conveyed this to you

All you had to do was review your previous posts to see you had not, or simply say "Oh it was a typo! Move on!"

and was confused by your insistance on continueing the topic of science vs. biology

All you had to do was say "Oh-- didn't I already say that was a typo?"

and why you had such an issue when I understood the difference but NEVER had an issue understanding it,

Not quite sure what this means, but again, you ASSUMED I understood that you knew the difference, but in fact you never conveyed that.

but rather in understanding if ed meant evolution or thoery of evolution.

I never asked you about that and repeatedly said so. You ASSUMED I was interested in discussing it.

It took a while for me to figure out that you thought I was totally incompatant in understanding anything scientific at which time the revalation of this prompted me to be more specific.

Yes 35 posts it took you. And now you are ASSUMING you know my thoughts. I never said you had no understanding of anything scientific, I have no way of knowing the depth or your knowledge in every field of science because we haven't discussed all areas of science. I do think you are confused about some things related to evolution, but you also know quite a bit about it.

but it never once occured to me that after admitting I had made a mistake, that you would be insistant on a formal appology because I typed a wrong word.

I didn't request a formal apology. I never asked for you to say you were sorry for anything you said. I asked you to admit you made a mistake. Not the same thing. See, there you go ASSUMING again.

The definition I always assumed

I thought we weren't supposed to assume others used words the same way we did, isn't that the purpose of asking for word definitions in the OP?

Sorry, you could have simply asked me to give the definition, oh wait, you did and I gave it to you. Hummmm?

Yes finally you added the part about change to its present form, but when I asked for clarification in Post 354----(emphasis added)

So origins can be scientific explanations,or non-scientific explanation or myths from any culture, is that what you mean? Origins just means some sort of explanation of how life came to be?

You never mentioned that origins included how life changed to its present form. You didn't say that until Post 382

Origins- how life began and came to be in it's current form

but you act insulted that I didn't know that's what you meant. You ASSUMED I could read your mind, even after I asked directly for clarification.

where is the definition I asked you for? Oh I know, you don't have to give it because your superior intellect offers you an excuse to talk to the likes of me. Got it!

There you go again, assuming you know my thoughts and motivations. Your defensiveness is not helpful to communicating, by the way. If I preferred not to talk to "the likes of you" then I wouldn't.It's that simple.

I am not compelled to insert myself into all portions of the discussion if I don't feel qualified to answer in depth. Guadys and Edx are better educated on this portion and explain it better than I could, so I decline to comment on that. Live with it and "move on" HUMMMMMMM?

Sorry sometimes I am slow in understanding what people want me to assume. In fact, I try not to make assumptions at all. Thats why I ask people to clarify. One of my character flaws, I believe in asking people to clarity their own thoughts instead of assuming what they are having problems with.

Dang! Another irony-meter down the drain!

yeah sure whatever, see above

Do you always accept apologies so graciously?