ericmurphy's bunnies

[ericmurphy]

You use of 'then' in the above sentence is misleading. There is neither 'then' nor 'therefore' in your silly wabbit argument and your not likely to pick one out of the hat by virtue of some feeble protest to the effect that evolution occurred because, well shucks, it just had to.

Now, once again ...

given:

• There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today.
• There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

show:

• Evolution is a fact.

​

Good luck. Well, time for another Dr. Pepper.

So you're saying that life has not changed throughout time. Is that what you're saying? Because what I am saying, the only thing I am saying, is that life has changed over time.

I don't think you even get what my "silly wabbit" argument even is. I think you believe I'm claiming rabbits evolved from trilobites. I am arguing no such thing. I am, so far, making no argument that any organism evolved into any other organism.

 

[ericmurphy]

A magician puts a cat into his hat, covers it with a cloth and then pulls a rabbit out of it. Is that sufficient to justify the hypothesis that the rabbit evolved from the cat? No.

You need further reasoning to justify any hypothesis that explains a transition that is specifically related to the transition and not the before and after.

I would, if I were making any hypothesis that needed justification. I am not making any hypothesis about anything. I am making an observation, which I believe to be undeniable, that living organisms have changed over time.

Do you deny that living organisms have changed over time? Because if you don't, then you do not disagree with what I am really saying, as opposed to what you evidently think I am saying.

In the case of evolution we have evidence such as fossil trends, observed mutation, observed natural selection etc. which provide sufficient justification. If we did not know any of these things, we could not infer evolution.

These are all observations in support of evolutionary theory. None of them is necessary to demonstrate that evolution has happened. They are evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you deny that living organisms have changed over time? Because if you don't, then you do not disagree with what I am really saying, as opposed to what you evidently think I am saying.

Hmm. I agree with what I think you're saying, but I disagree with what you're really saying... or at least what you've written. I think.

If you're just trying to say that difference from one point to another is evidence of change, then you might be more easily understood if you just came out and said it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you're just trying to say that difference from one point to another is evidence of change, ...

Talk of difference from one point to another suggests a path, a causal link, from the first point one to the second. His statement was preposterous and embarrassingly so ...

 

[painted wolf]

Do you deny that living organisms have changed over time? Because if you don't, then you do not disagree with what I am really saying, as opposed to what you evidently think I am saying.

But thats just it isn't... we are trying to show why your observation is confusing and thus a bad example.

We are only trying to help you formulate your argument better.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

Hmm. I agree with what I think you're saying, but I disagree with what you're really saying... or at least what you've written. I think.

If you're just trying to say that difference from one point to another is evidence of change, then you might be more easily understood if you just came out and said it.

I did come out and say it. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. People, please try to grasp the difference between observation and a theory intended to explain that observation.

The fact that different organisms have existed at different times is conclusive evidence for evolutionary change. It is not, all by itself, evidence for any particular explanation for that evolutionary change.

This is not a difficult concept. Or, at least, I would not have thought it is.

 

[ericmurphy]

Talk of difference from one point to another suggests a path, a causal link, from the first point one to the second. His statement was preposterous and embarrassingly so ...

It may suggest one, and what that causal link is, is of course subject to debate.

BUT I AM NOT MAKING ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT THAT CAUSAL LINK IS. That is the part you simply cannot be made to understand.

All I am saying, for the thousandth time, is that there is some observation that needs an explanation in the first place. And if you think that's a trivial statement, it is not. 45% of Americans, in poll after poll, agree with the statement that "God created all organisms in more or less their current state within the past 10,000 years." That statement amounts to a denial of a fact: the fact that living organisms have changed over time.

Now, are we in agreement that organisms have changed over time, or not? If we're not, then that's something we have to deal with. But if we can at least agree that organisms have changed over time, then we can start to discuss possible explanations for that change.

ETA: you keep saying, Jay, that my statement was "preposterous, and embarrassingly so." But so far you have utterly failed to say why it's preposterous. I'm getting the strong impression that you can't say why you think it is.

 

[ericmurphy]

But thats just it isn't... we are trying to show why your observation is confusing and thus a bad example.

We are only trying to help you formulate your argument better.

wa:do

How would you change it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Talk of difference from one point to another suggests a path, a causal link, from the first point one to the second. His statement was preposterous and embarrassingly so ...

There's no path?

I'm working under the assumption that ericmurphy has personally defined "evolution" to just be "change". Using that definition, his statement at the start of the thread is true (albeit trivially): if object 'X' (i.e. the Earth) things are not exactly the same between case 'A' (lots of trilobites, no rabbits) and case 'B' (no trilobites, lots of rabbits) separated in time, then change has occurred. Just because that's not particularily meaningful doesn't mean it's not true.

Of course, that 's all based on replacing the word "evolution" with "change". If you leave it as-is, it doesn't work at all... as you've pointed out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not a difficult concept. Or, at least, I would not have thought it is.

It's often difficult to convince people of incorrect concepts... even the most straightforward ones.

 

[painted wolf]

How would you change it?

Well for one I wouldn't use the current nonexistance of Trilobytes and the past nonexistance of Rabbits.

As I said, this can be argued against with special creation. God can *poof* and *zap* as he wishes in creationist thought.

It is also prone to Logical fallacy as Jay has been trying to point out, for just such a reason.

wa:do

 

[Fluffy]

I would, if I were making any hypothesis that needed justification. I am not making any hypothesis about anything. I am making an observation, which I believe to be undeniable, that living organisms have changed over time.

Do you deny that living organisms have changed over time? Because if you don't, then you do not disagree with what I am really saying, as opposed to what you evidently think I am saying.

Fair enough. Evolution is not the observation that animals have changed over time. Evolution is the observation that animals have changed over time due to and in accordance with specific mechanisms.

So yes I agree you can infer from knowing that at one point there were no rabbits and that now there are rabbits that rabbits must have undergone a change at some point. This clearly is not evolution, however, since this change could have been anything. God creating a rabbit out of thin air, for example, is not evolution but it is a change that the rabbit has undergone.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Very well ...<B>

Given:

• There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today.
• There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

Therefore:

• Evolution is a fact.

​

</B>Proceed ...

As much as i whole-heartedly believe in evolution, i do not think this is a good proving ground for evolution.

 

[ericmurphy]

There's no path?

I'm working under the assumption that ericmurphy has personally defined "evolution" to just be "change". Using that definition, his statement at the start of the thread is true (albeit trivially): if object 'X' (i.e. the Earth) things are not exactly the same between case 'A' (lots of trilobites, no rabbits) and case 'B' (no trilobites, lots of rabbits) separated in time, then change has occurred. Just because that's not particularily meaningful doesn't mean it's not true.

Of course, that 's all based on replacing the word "evolution" with "change". If you leave it as-is, it doesn't work at all... as you've pointed out.

A) it's not my "personal defintion" and B) it's not trivial.

Biological evolution is defined as " a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." That's it. There's no discussion (yet) of what caused that change, whether it was gradual, rapid, due to naturalistic causes or supernatural causes, or is due to the will of God.

While it may seem trivial to you, the fact remains that a substantial minority of Americans do not believe that life has ever changed; that it is the same now as when it appeared at some time in the past.

Believe me, I think it's stupid that we have to make such truly trivial statements. But given that a substantial minority (almost half) of the people in an advanced first-world nation do not believe it to be true, we do have to make such statements, and actually defend them.

But you have to start somewhere. If you can't get someone to admit that evolutionary change has occurred through time, you will never, ever get them to admit that such change could be the result of naturalistic forces.

 

[ericmurphy]

It's often difficult to convince people of incorrect concepts... even the most straightforward ones.

If someone could explain to me, possibly using very small words, ones even an uneducated lout like me could understand, why the statement that since organisms are different now from the organisms in the distant past, evolutionary change must have occurred, I would be very grateful.

So far, no one has been able to do that.

 

[yossarian22]

A) it's not my "personal defintion"

Evolution

• S: (n) development, evolution (a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)) "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"

Emphasis mine.

 

[ericmurphy]

Well for one I wouldn't use the current nonexistance of Trilobytes and the past nonexistance of Rabbits.

As I said, this can be argued against with special creation. God can *poof* and *zap* as he wishes in creationist thought.

Why can't anyone here understand that I am not trying to argue against special creation (yet)? I am not trying to say the current nonexistance of Trilobytes and the past nonexistance of Rabbits is evidence for or against any theory of why evolution happens. I am trying to say the current nonexistance of Trilobytes and the past nonexistance of Rabbits is conclusive evidence that evolutionary change has happened, regardless of any explanation for it.

It is also prone to Logical fallacy as Jay has been trying to point out, for just such a reason.

Jay has been singularly unsuccessful in pointing out any logical fallacy in what I've said. If you can point out the logical fallacy in the statement "evidence that change has occurred is evidence that change has occurred,*" be my guest.

* Yes, I'm very aware this is a tautology. A tautology is not a logical fallacy. It's virtually the opposite of a logical fallacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A) it's not my "personal defintion" and B) it's not trivial.

Biological evolution is defined as " a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." That's it. There's no discussion (yet) of what caused that change, whether it was gradual, rapid, due to naturalistic causes or supernatural causes, or is due to the will of God.

Similar to what I noted in the previous thread, please have a look at the parts of your definition that I've bolded. If you don't have these key elements, you don't have evolution.

While it may seem trivial to you, the fact remains that a substantial minority of Americans do not believe that life has ever changed; that it is the same now as when it appeared at some time in the past.

I think even the "substantial minority of Americans" you mention do believe that life on Earth has changed dramatically at a couple of key points in time, such as when God created the first living creatures and when the global flood occurred. However, neither of these events can be considered "evolution".

If someone could explain to me, possibly using very small words, ones even an uneducated lout like me could understand, why the statement that since organisms are different now from the organisms in the distant past, evolutionary change must have occurred, I would be very grateful.

So far, no one has been able to do that.

I've done it several times: your definition for "evolution" is incorrect in this context.

Jay has been singularly unsuccessful in pointing out any logical fallacy in what I've said. If you can point out the logical fallacy in the statement "evidence that change has occurred is evidence that change has occurred,*" be my guest.

A tautology is trivially true, but you're correct: a tautology is not a logical fallacy. Now, please point out which statement of yours was a tautology, because the one in the quote above is the first one I've noticed from you.

 

[Fluffy]

Ericmurphy,
Your definition of evolution is simply incorrect. I see you have taken it from wikipedia which states:

In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Scientists theorize that evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Your definition is just the first sentence of this paragraph.

Regardless even if we assumed that your definition is correct, you still cannot infer it from observing that there exists rabbits now and at one point there didn't. Specifically, you cannot infer that the change is in inherited traits. Only a change in traits.

 

[ericmurphy]

Similar to what I noted in the previous thread, please have a look at the parts of your definition that I've bolded. If you don't have these key elements, you don't have evolution.

You don't have evolutionary theory. For the love of God, people, I haven't even gotten to evolutionary theory. All I am trying to get is agreement that organisms have changed over time. That's it. Can we at least agree to that? Or not?

I think even the "substantial minority of Americans" you mention do believe that life on Earth has changed dramatically at a couple of key points in time, such as when God created the first living creatures and when the global flood occurred. However, neither of these events can be considered "evolution".

I disagree with you on the first point: people agree that God created life, in "more or less their current form," within the past ten thousand years. That contradicts the idea that life has "changed dramatically."

But in any event, the more important point I am trying to make here, is that there is a distinction to be made between the statement that life has changed over time, and any purported explanation for that change. Apparently no one here is making that distinction, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.

I've done it several times: your definition for "evolution" is incorrect in this context.

No it is not. You continue to conflate "evolution" with "evolutionary theory." They are not the same thing, and until I can get you to see the difference, this conversation cannot proceed.

A tautology is trivially true, but you're correct: a tautology is not a logical fallacy. Now, please point out which statement of yours was a tautology, because the one in the quote above is the first one I've noticed from you.

My statement: "evidence that life has changed over time is conclusive evidence that life has changed over time."

As an example of that evidence, I pointed to the whole trilobites and rabbits thing, which seems to be causing so much trouble. That there are organisms today which did not always exist, and there were organisms in the past which no longer exist, is evidence—conclusive evidence, to the point of tautology—that life has changed over time.

Do you disagree?