Thread to collect Evolutionist Lies.

[Aggie]

In Ernst Mayr's book What Evolution Is, on pages 86-87 he describes how Darwin's theory of evolution is really five separate theories. Common descent with modification is one of the five, and natural selection is another. He also describes how several of Darwin's contemporaries accepted some of these five theories, but not all of them. If my explanation in the post above isn't enough, you can just look up what Mayr says about this for yourself.

The fallacy you're committing is claiming that all five of these processes are the same process. If they were, it wouldn't have been possible for biologists like de Vries to accept some of the five but not others. I've also seen the same thing that Metal Minister is complaining about, and it's what I was mentioned in the post I quoted from the thread I linked to. You're using all of the five theories listed by Mayr interchangeably as a definition of evolution, but he makes a point of them being separate theories, all of which can also be considered individual components of a larger theory.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The fallacy you're committing is claiming that all five of these processes are the same process...he makes a point of them being separate theories, all of which can also be considered individual components of a larger theory.

I don't think there is any fallacy here. What's more, I don't even think we disagree. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.

The only difference is that 'mechanism' is the word I would use to describe the components, not 'theory'... five mechanisms (I would list them as natural selection, mutation, non-random mate selection, genetic drift and gene flow) encompassed in a larger theory. That's always how I've seen it laid out in textbooks and online sources, so it's what I defer to.

I don't think Mayr is wrong, I'm just saying this is the first time I've seen it phrased that way.

it wouldn't have been possible for biologists like de Vries to accept some of the five but not others.

Sure it would. It's very possible for someone to accept, say, three out of the five mechanisms.

 

[OllieFranz]

In Ernst Mayr's book What Evolution Is, on pages 86-87 he describes how Darwin's theory of evolution is really five separate theories. Common descent with modification is one of the five, and natural selection is another. He also describes how several of Darwin's contemporaries accepted some of these five theories, but not all of them. If my explanation in the post above isn't enough, you can just look up what Mayr says about this for yourself.

The fallacy you're committing is claiming that all five of these processes are the same process. If they were, it wouldn't have been possible for biologists like de Vries to accept some of the five but not others. I've also seen the same thing that Metal Minister is complaining about, and it's what I was mentioned in the post I quoted from the thread I linked to. You're using all of the five theories listed by Mayr interchangeably as a definition of evolution, but he makes a point of them being separate theories, all of which can also be considered individual components of a larger theory.

Descent with modification (allele change) and natural selection are not separate theories, as you state in your first paragraph. They are separate processes or mechanisms that work in tandem within the framework of the evolutionary model, as you state in the second paragraph. When you refer to them as theories, you give fuel to people like MM who do not understand the difference between a working model and a guess. I mean, if we are ourselves unclear about the difference between a working model and a single process of that model that could (concievably) also be a process in a different model....

You also make it harder to show that macro-evolution as defined by creationists is entirely a strawman. Because they expect that if the evolutionary model were true, it would be simple to prove virus-to-man evolution in one easy step. In truth, though, what can be shown is that at every stage of that specific route, there was nothing (no "macro-evolutionary barrier") to the next step.

MM accepts "wolf-to-chiuhahua" evolution. I assume he would also accept "(proto-)wolf-to-chihuahua, and Great Dane, and setter, and retriever, etc." We might be able to get him to accept "proto-canine-to-wolf, and fox, and jackal, and hyena." It might be harder to get him to accept "beardog-to-proto-caninie and proto-ursine," but we might at least get him to admit that there is no obvious "macro-evolutionary barrier" to this development, and slowly step him down.

 

[AV1611VET]

What a strange thing to say. 'Get out more' so that I'm more likely to encounter fringe beliefs like yours? Isn't that exactly what I'm doing right now?

Now that's interesting ... I'm actually agreeing with you that creationism isn't science, yet you're calling it a 'fringe belief.'

I agree with your pastor, creationism has nothing to do with science.

I suppose he's on the fringe as well?

Science is predicated on a sound methodology, for gleaning facts about reality.

I'll take your word for it.

Creationism is predicated on a fairy tale, and gleans no facts about anything.

I won't take your word for it.

They are plainly unrelated.

Says you.

The point, though, is that every creationist individual and organization I've ever encountered would not agree with his statement.

Well, we just broke the mold, didn't we?

I should not be expected to defer to your definition of 'creationism' (unless I happen to be speaking to you specifically in the future), because it is nowhere near the norm.

Creatio ex nihilo? not near the norm? I disagree.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Now that's interesting ... I'm actually agreeing with you that creationism isn't science, yet you're calling it a 'fringe belief.'

Among creationists, yes.

I won't take your word for it.

You can prove me wrong by citing a single demonstrable fact that creationism has gleaned about reality.

Creatio ex nihilo? not near the norm?

No, your belief that science and creationism are separate is what's not near the norm, among creationists.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Welcome to page seventeen, by the way. Are those telltale 'evolutionist lies' ever going to make an appearance?

 

[CabVet]

Common descent with modification is one of the five, and natural selection is another.

Common descent is one thing. Descent with modification is another. You should stop using "common descent with modification" unless you are purposely trying to confuse people.

He also describes how several of Darwin's contemporaries accepted some of these five theories, but not all of them. If my explanation in the post above isn't enough, you can just look up what Mayr says about this for yourself.

He does no such thing, I have the book.

The fallacy you're committing is claiming that all five of these processes are the same process. If they were, it wouldn't have been possible for biologists like de Vries to accept some of the five but not others. I've also seen the same thing that Metal Minister is complaining about, and it's what I was mentioned in the post I quoted from the thread I linked to. You're using all of the five theories listed by Mayr interchangeably as a definition of evolution, but he makes a point of them being separate theories, all of which can also be considered individual components of a larger theory.

You might have seen what Metal Minister is complaining about, but that is not "changing the definition of evolution". All of what you describe are parts of the theory, not different definitions of it.

 

[driewerf]

Again I will say, there is a major difference between minor changes and the idea that we came from a single cell.

But you come from a single cell

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh boy, you better get with loudmouth then because you guys are using different playbooks...his definition is a change in allele frequency within a population over time...not the same.

A change in allele frequence over several generations results in descent with modification. They are one in the same.

The fundamental mechanism of evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. How that plays out in different selection regimes and in different populations is a matter of historical contigency. Neutral drift, sympatric speciation, epistatic interactions, etc. all work through the mechanism of alleles frequencies that change through time.

Also, macroevolution is microevolution. If we look at divergence between species this is due to an accumulation of different microevolutionary events in each species. If we look at change within a lineage it is due to an accumulation of microevolutionary events. The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the same as putting one foot in front of the other and walking to the store. Same concept.

 

[driewerf]

Just real quick, I didn't change the subject, I was responding to a question.

Oh yes, you were.
The subject was your claim that evolutionists change the definition of ToE as it suits them. But when asked to back up that claim you post this:

All I need say is climategate. Remember that group of scientists who "peer reviewed" each others work to push through their agenda? No, I'm sure you conveniently forgot that....

So,

• you are changing the subject from ToE to climatology, which is an entirely different science. To help you ToE is about animals and plants (you know, rabbits, ants, oaks). Climatology is about the weather (you know: rain, snow, sunshine). If this is not changing the subject, then nothing is.
• you critisize the process of peer review. This has nothing to do with definitions what's so ever. If this is not changing the subject, then nothing is.

So, yes, you did change the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fallacy you're committing is claiming that all five of these processes are the same process.

They are all mechanisms of evolution.

To use an analogy, we could state that erosion is the removal of material from a geologic feature. This can occur through wind, water, ice cleavage, and numerous other processes, but they are all erosion. In the same way, there are many mechanisms that produce evolution including selection, neutral drift, and speciation.

 

[driewerf]

Again, when you conflate minor change evolution (the definition every human on the planet accepts) with the rise of all life forms from a single cell you are using bait and switch. Every time an evolutionist uses say the Wolf to Chihuahua evolution as evidence that everything came from a single cell, they are baiting and switching. It takes no specific effort from me to point this out of one is willing to open their eyes.

Speaking of conflation: to confuse the ToE with climatology is conflation par excellence.

 

[Metal Minister]

Speaking of conflation: to confuse the ToE with climatology is conflation par excellence.

Um not hardly. Why do people always try to put words in others mouths when they get caught? The question was if I could show that peer review was unreliable (paraphrasing) which I did. No confusion here.

 

[CabVet]

Um not hardly. Why do people always try to put words in others mouths when they get caught? The question was if I could show that peer review was unreliable (paraphrasing) which I did. No confusion here.

No, the question was for you to show people changing the definition of evolution.

 

[Metal Minister]

No, the question was for you to show people changing the definition of evolution.

Which more than one person has done but you would rather muddy the waters, and ignore what has been pointed out.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which more than one person has done but you would rather muddy the waters, and ignore what has been pointed out.

Please show how these definitions are incompatible.

 

[Jamin4422]

In the same way, there are many mechanisms that produce evolution including selection, neutral drift, and speciation.

Only problem is all the evidence points to Creationism as the better explanation. Not evolution. OEC covers the last 4.5 billion years, GAP covers the last 12982 years and YEC covers the last 5982 years. YEC does not explain GAP and GAP does not explain OEC. YEC is more of a history book then anything else. But YEC is very much common ancestor and decent from a common ancestor. The very foundation of evolutionary science. It's the modification part that is up for discussion. Esp when you look at something like the Cambrian radiation or explosion, where there is no modification. Between when the fossils first appear and when they go extinct, there is not change, they remain the same. 98% of the fossil record has come and gone with no modification and no change. Only the normal variation that we see in all species as they adapt or fine tune themselves with their biodiversity ecosystem.

Oh, Christians believe in modification as a result of the fallen condition that creation is in. When there is a new heaven and a new earth, there will be no more war and the species will not longer fight or consume each other.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The entire law is summed up in a single command:
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Galatians 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another,
be [/FONT]​

careful

[FONT=arial, sans-serif] that you don't [/FONT]​

consume

[FONT=arial, sans-serif] one another.[/FONT]​

 

[Jamin4422]

In the same way, there are many mechanisms that produce evolution including selection, neutral drift, and speciation.

Only problem is all the evidence points to Creationism as the better explanation. Not evolution. OEC covers the last 4.5 billion years, GAP covers the last 12982 years and YEC covers the last 5982 years. YEC does not explain GAP and GAP does not explain OEC. YEC is more of a history book then anything else. But YEC is very much common ancestor and decent from a common ancestor. The very foundation of evolutionary science. It's the modification part that is up for discussion. Esp when you look at something like the Cambrian radiation or explosion, where there is no modification. Between when the fossils first appear and when they go extinct, there is no change, they remain the same. 98% of the fossil record has come and gone with no modification and no change. Only the normal variation that we see in all species as they adapt or fine tune themselves with their biodiversity ecosystem.

Oh, Christians believe in modification as a result of the fallen condition that creation is in. When there is a new heaven and a new earth, there will be no more war and the species will not longer fight or consume each other.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The entire law is summed up in a single command:
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Galatians 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another,
be[/FONT]careful[FONT=arial, sans-serif] that you don't [/FONT]consume[FONT=arial, sans-serif] one another.[/FONT]​

 

[Loudmouth]

Only problem is all the evidence points to Creationism as the better explanation.

How so?

But YEC is very much common ancestor and decent from a common ancestor. The very foundation of evolutionary science.

So YEC's have humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor?

It's the modification part that is up for discussion. Esp when you look at something like the Cambrian radiation or explosion, where there is no modification.

What? No modification in the Cambrian? Are you serious?

Between when the fossils first appear and when they go extinct, there is no change, they remain the same.

Prove it.

98% of the fossil record has come and gone with no modification and no change.

I guess you missed these:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg

Only the normal variation that we see in all species as they adapt or fine tune themselves with their biodiversity ecosystem.

Show me a single modern human that has features identical H. erectus.

I think you have just added to the list of creationist lies.

 

[driewerf]

Um not hardly. Why do people always try to put words in others mouths when they get caught? The question was if I could show that peer review was unreliable (paraphrasing) which I did. No confusion here.

You, sir, are bearing false witness.