ericmurphy's bunnies

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay has been singularly unsuccessful in pointing out any logical fallacy in what I've said.

Nonsense. You have proven singularly incapable of understanding the people arrayed against you. Now, yet again, derive the fact of evolution (solely) from the appearance of trilobites and subsequent appearance of bunnies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

What a joke ...

 

[ericmurphy]

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



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.

I'm not inferring that the change is in inherited traits, which is why I left that part out of the definition I am using. I'm not inferring anything from anything, other than since we can observe that different organisms have existed at different times, that life has evolved.

All of these inferences you're imputing to me are not inferences I am making. I am not making any inferences at all about what caused that evolution.

No one else has answered this question yet, but I'll give it another try: do you understand the difference between the observation that life has evolved over time, and any conceivable theory that attempts to explain that observation?

I've used this analogy before, to precious little effect, but I'll try it again anyway: do you understand the distinction between the observation that objects fall towards the earth, and the theory of gravitational attraction that attempts to explain that observation?

 

[ericmurphy]

Nonsense. You have proven singularly incapable of understanding the people arrayed against you. Now, yet again, derive the fact of evolution (solely) from the appearance of trilobites and subsequent appearance of bunnies.

You're still not getting it. No matter how hard I try, you're still not getting it.

One more time, because hope springs eternal: do you, or do you not, understand the distinction between the observed evolution of organisms over time, and the theory—evolutionary theory—that attempts to explain that evolution?

If you don't get that distinction, then you have not understood anything I've said over the past two days.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Sure, but if that was your point, why didn't you just come out and say it?

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."

I would consider going from "non-existant" to "existant" to be a fairly substantial change, myself.

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.

No... as I and others have repeated to you, you're confusing the definitions of your terms. When you say "evolution" (and please note that I just said "evolution" and not "theory of evolution"), you are implying the mechanism for the change you're discussing, i.e. evolution... descent with modification, or as

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.

I'm starting to think it's rather fruitless myself. If you won't believe the people here, do you have a biology teacher or some other trusted person with knowledge of the subject with whom you can confirm what we're telling you?

Frankly, when it seems you're willing to even disregard the definition that you yourself provided, I start to get to the point where I don't see a lot of benefit in continuing here.

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

Okay... that was the one I referred to before. You mentioned others. What are they?

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?

Sure, that's obvious. What I disagree with is the idea that your logic leads us to that conclusion.

 

[ericmurphy]

What a joke ...

So you deny that organisms have changed over time? That's what you're saying, isn't it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not inferring that the change is in inherited traits, which is why I left that part out of the definition I am using. I'm not inferring anything from anything, other than since we can observe that different organisms have existed at different times, that life has evolved.

You can't leave out the "inherited traits" part out, otherwise you're not talking about evolution.

You can't leave the "from generation to generation" part out, otherwise you're not talking about evolution.

 

[Fluffy]

No one else has answered this question yet, but I'll give it another try: do you understand the difference between the observation that life has evolved over time, and any conceivable theory that attempts to explain that observation?

Yes. Do you understand the difference between change and evolution?

Water does not evolve into ice at low temperatures. A seed does not evolve into a tree. Tomato, cheese and bread does not evolve into a sandwich.

do you understand the distinction between the observation that objects fall towards the earth, and the theory of gravitational attraction that attempts to explain that observation?

Yes. Do you understand the difference between gravity and an interaction?

If I gave you evidence that an interaction was causing me to accelerate towards a planet this is not sufficient to infer gravity. It could be any interaction.

Going back to the issue, you have provided evidence of a change and inferred evolution.

 

[ericmurphy]

Sure, but if that was your point, why didn't you just come out and say it?

That is exactly what I did say. I said the fact that there were organisms in the past which do not exist today, and there are organisms today which did not exist in the past, is conclusive evidence that life has changed over time. That is ALL I have been saying.

I would consider going from "non-existant" to "existant" to be a fairly substantial change, myself.

It's also irrelevant.

No... as I and others have repeated to you, you're confusing the definitions of your terms. When you say "evolution" (and please note that I just said "evolution" and not "theory of evolution"), you are implying the mechanism for the change you're discussing, i.e. evolution

I absolutely am not. I am not implying any mechanism for the observed change. That is entirely the point of this entire conversation: to disentangle observation from an explanation for that observation.

I'm starting to think it's rather fruitless myself. If you won't believe the people here, do you have a biology teacher or some other trusted person with knowledge of the subject with whom you can confirm what we're telling you?

It's not a matter of belief, and it's not a matter of appeals to authority. It's a matter of logic: that there is a distinction between observation and theory. No one here, as far as I can tell, is making that distinction.

Frankly, when it seems you're willing to even disregard the definition that you yourself provided, I start to get to the point where I don't see a lot of benefit in continuing here.

I have to admit, I'm beginning to agree. It appears that the distinction between observation and theory is simply too difficult to make. Given that everyone else seems to deny there's a difference, I'm beginning to doubt myself, but I find it hard to believe that no one can see the difference.

Okay... that was the one I referred to before. You mentioned others. What are they?

What others? That's the one, and the only one, I am talking about.

Sure, that's obvious. What I disagree with is the idea that your logic leads us to that conclusion.

Wait a minute: I say:

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.

You say you agree. You say it's obvious. But you say you disagree that my logic—which is contained in the statement you say you agree with—leads us to the conclusion which you also agree with.

You agree with my premise; you agree with the conclusion; you agree that the premise leads to the conclusion, but you disagree that the premise leads to the conclusion.

I don't get it.

 

[ericmurphy]

You can't leave out the "inherited traits" part out, otherwise you're not talking about evolution.

You are still not getting it. I am trying, and failing, to get you to understand the distinction between an observation and a theory intended to explain that observation. The "inherited traits" part is theory. It's well-supported theory, but it's still theory.

It's the change that is the observation. I cannot seem to get you to understand that.

You can't leave the "from generation to generation" part out, otherwise you're not talking about evolution.

I'm not talking about evolutionary theory. Which is correct. I'm not talking about evolutionary theory.

You seem to have the idea of change from one generation to the next tied up so thoroughly with the causes for that change that you can no longer distinguish between the two.

Once again, if you could please answer: do you understand the distinction between the observation that apples fall when dropped, and the theory of gravitation that explains why they drop?

If you don't get that distinction, then you don't get what I'm talking about.

 

[ericmurphy]

Yes. Do you understand the difference between change and evolution?

I understand the distinction between change and evolutionary theory. I'm beginning to think I'm the only one here who does.

If I gave you evidence that an interaction was causing me to accelerate towards a planet this is not sufficient to infer gravity. It could be any interaction.

That is exactly the point I cannot seem to make. I'm not inferring any mechanism that accounts for the change in organisms over time. I'm not there yet. You seem to have already arrived, and accuse me of making an inference that you're making, not one I'm making.

Going back to the issue, you have provided evidence of a change and inferred evolution.

No. I've provided evidence of a change and inferred a change.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you deny that organisms have changed over time? That's what you're saying, isn't it?

What I am saying is very clear, but since you seem to have some issue with reading comprehension let me say it again:

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.

Those two observations, all by themselves, without reference to any additional observations, are more than sufficient to establish the factual nature of evolution.

[reformatted for emphasis]

Very well ...

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.

​

Proceed ...

I'm waiting.

 

[Mister Emu]

No. I've provided evidence of a change and inferred a change.

And yet you said evolution... just because there is a change does not mean it is evolution... if I genetically engineer a new animal, that is not evolution even though there is a change...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But, perhaps I'm being unfair. Permit me a question:

Are you defining evolution as

• the change from trilobite to no trilobite and from no bunny to bunny, or
• the 'change' [sic!] from trilobite to bunny?

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(Who knows: "ericmurphy's bunny" may well morph into a metaphor for inane pseudo-scientific assertion.)

 

[ericmurphy]

What I am saying is very clear, but since you seem to have some issue with reading comprehension let me say it again:I'm waiting.

You're not waiting for anything. I've answered this question half a dozen times already today. I have no difficulty understanding my own words, but you apparently do. This is what I am saying:

1) There were organisms alive in the past that no longer exist.
2) There are different organisms alive now that did not exist in the past.

Therefore life has changed. It has evolved.

I'm not saying how it evolved; I'm not saying why it involved. I'm not making any claims as to mechanisms by which this evolution happened. I'm saying that it has happened.

Now show me how it hasn't happened. I've been asking you this question for some time now, and I really am waiting for an answer.

 

[ericmurphy]

But, perhaps I'm being unfair. Permit me a question:

Are you defining evolution as

• the change from trilobite to no trilobite and from no bunny to bunny, or
• the 'change' [sic!] from trilobite to bunny?

​

Yes, you're being unfair, as I have answered this question ad nauseum over and over and over again in the past 24 hours.

One more time: I AM NOT ARGUING THE CHANGE (OR EVOLUTION, OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO CALL IT) FROM TRILOBITE TO BUNNY.

In fact, based on evolutionary theory (which, again, for only the millionth time, is entirely distinct from the observation of evolution itself), I can state with a high degree of confidence that bunnies absolutely DID NOT evolve, or change, or any other word you want to use, from trilobites.

Are we clear, at long last, on this point that should have been cleared up yesterday?

I'm trying to watch my language, because this is a religious site, but I am sore tempted...

 

[Fluffy]

I understand the distinction between change and evolutionary theory. I'm beginning to think I'm the only one here who does.

I didn't ask that. I asked if you understood the difference between change and evolution. Do you recognise that the meaning of the word "change" and the meaning of the word "evolve" is distinct?

That is exactly the point I cannot seem to make. I'm not inferring any mechanism that accounts for the change in organisms over time. I'm not there yet. You seem to have already arrived, and accuse me of making an inference that you're making, not one I'm making.

Do you refer to such a change as evolution?

No. I've provided evidence of a change and inferred a change.

Then you agree that this change is not evolution, evolving, the theory of evolution nor indicative of any of those things?

 

[ericmurphy]

(Who knows: "ericmurphy's bunny" may well morph into a metaphor for inane pseudo-scientific assertion.)

And which assertion, Jay, would that be? That life has changed over time? Is that the idiotic assertion you think I'm making that is utterly without observational support?

Or perhaps was there some other assertion you mistakenly thought I was making? Could that be it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And which assertion, Jay, would that be?

Did you miss the OP?