ericmurphy's bunnies

[ericmurphy]

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?

The wave function evolves over time. It also changes over time. That is the sense in which I am using the term.

You are still confusing the distinction between evolution and evolutionary theory.

Do you refer to such a change as evolution?

Do I refer to what change? You seem to have left out a referent. Or are you asking whether I'm saying that organisms' change is "evolution"? If so, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When I say living organisms "evolve" over time, I'm saying they change over time.

What do you think is the difference between "change over time" and "evolution"? Do you deny that a particle's wave function evolves over time?

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

I absolutely agree that the change of living things over time is not the theory of evolution. I absolutely agree that mere change over time is not evidence supporting evolutionary theory. I do not agree that such change is not evolution.

And I still think you think "evolution" and "evolutionary theory" are the same thing. And I can't fail to point you that you have not answered my question as to the difference between the observation of an object falling and gravitational theory as an explanation for that falling.

What is the difference between the two?

 

[ericmurphy]

Did you miss the OP?

Did you miss my correction of your clearly incorrect understanding of what I've been saying? The first five or six times I corrected that misunderstanding?

 

[painted wolf]

but there is no demonstrated change....

just because something used to live and something else didn't live until later doesn't prove any 'change' has happened. ie. evolution.

God could just have *piffed* and *zapped*

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

but there is no demonstrated change....

just because something used to live and something else didn't live until later doesn't prove any 'change' has happened. ie. evolution.

God could just have *piffed* and *zapped*

wa:do

Why can't you understand that I'm not arguing that god could not have "piffed" or "zapped"? That is not what I am saying.

I am not saying the observation that different life forms have existed at different times is evidence that evolutionary theory is correct, and that god didn't "piff" or "zap" anything. Please, I beg of you, stop making assumptions about what I'm saying that I simply am not saying.

I am saying that since we know there were organisms living millions of years ago that no longer exist, and since we know that there are organisms living now that did not live millions of years ago, we know for a fact that life has evolved.

From that, and that alone, we cannot exclude the possibility that God "piffed" and "zapped" that evolution into happening. I'm not claiming that we can. From that fact alone, we can draw no further conclusions.

Okay, I give up. This concept is clearly beyond my ability to explain. I simply cannot get anyone here to understand the distinction between theory and observation. That distinction is critical to understanding what is, and what is not, evidence supporting evolutionary theory, and if you can't grasp that distinction, you're going to get tripped up again and again by creationist arguments that seem superficially persuasive.

 

[Fluffy]

Ericmurphy,
I know that evolution and evolutionary theory are distinct. Evolutionary theory describes the cause of evolution whereas evolution is a change conforming to specific conditions.

The wave function evolves over time. It also changes over time. That is the sense in which I am using the term.

Can you see how confusing that would be?

When debating evolution, it is the evolution described by evolutionary theory that is being debated. Not just a synonym for change. You want to assert the existence of evolution and to do so label a different concept "evolution". This brings nothing useful to the debate because it is sophistry.

Do I refer to what change? You seem to have left out a referent. Or are you asking whether I'm saying that organisms' change is "evolution"? If so, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When I say living organisms "evolve" over time, I'm saying they change over time.

What do you think is the difference between "change over time" and "evolution"? Do you deny that a particle's wave function evolves over time?

No the referent is in the quotation directly preceding my question.

Change in organisms is not evolution. It might be evolution if you define evolution to be that way but it is not the evolution posited by science. Change in organisms which occurs according to certain conditions is evolution.

This is not confusing evolutionary theory and evolution. If I were then the definition would look like this: "The theory which describes how certain conditions result in evolution is evolution".

What do you think is the difference between "change over time" and "evolution"? Do you deny that a particle's wave function evolves over time?

Not all change is evolution whilst evolution is change. Evolution is not any change that occurs on organisms. If it were then creationism would describe a kind of evolution since there is a point in creationism where there are no rabbits and a point where there are.

And I still think you think "evolution" and "evolutionary theory" are the same thing. And I can't fail to point you that you have not answered my question as to the difference between the observation of an object falling and gravitational theory as an explanation for that falling.

My apologies. The difference between gravity and gravitational theory is that gravitational theory describes the cause of gravity whereas gravity is an interaction.

I don't see how this analogy helps you for the reasons which I indicated in my last post. Reasons which, I should point out, you have not countered.

I do not agree that such change is not evolution.

I realise that we know now that it is evolution. I mean that you cannot infer that it is evolution from the fact that once there were no rabbits and now there are. I'll point you to my creationist example above.

 

[Willamena]

...and if you can't grasp that distinction, you're going to get tripped up again and again by creationist arguments that seem superficially persuasive.

No worries.

 

[painted wolf]

then you are not talking about evolution then.

your observation is not evolution... your observation is a corralation nothing more.
You have simply observed extinction... if extinction was all that you needed to get to evolution than we would have come up with it by 1796 when extinction was solidified as a fact not 1861.

Evolution did not have to occur at all from your example. Unless you use the loosest and most meaningless definition of evolve.

you are making a logical leap that while obvious to yourself is neither obvious nor easily defendable.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

I'm pretty much done arguing this point. My original intent, which apparently was futile, was to make a distinction between those things which are simple observations, and those things which are inferences from those observations. These two things are observations: that trilobites once existed but no longer do; and rabbits exist but did not always exist. Those two observations, taken together, amount to a single observation that life has changed over time; i.e., it has "evolved."

Now, the distinction I am making is between the above, which is an observation, and inferences which can be drawn from that observation. One inference that can be drawn, based on a lot of other information, is that all life is descended from one or a small number of universal common ancestors. However, and I would have thought this obvious, one cannot infer common descent solely from the above observation. I have never claimed that one can, despite numerous assertions that I have.

Another inference that can be drawn is that God created a bunch of different kinds of organisms, some at different times than other. One inference that cannot be drawn from the above observations is that God created all living things at the same time. The observation that different organisms have existed at different times excludes the possibility that God created all life at the same time. The only way to salvage that inference is to assume that life has not changed over time, which amounts to a denial of the first two observations I made above.

Therefore, by a simple observation, which does not require any inferences to be drawn, and no appeals to any theoretical framework, we can exclude one inference: that God created all life in approximately its current form at some time (at any time) in the past.

Does any of this make any sense?

 

[painted wolf]

yes, but old earth creationists of the ID stripe find your example to be just as much an observation of their point.

If you have seen the diagram for linages from Panda's and People you will see god *poofing* things into existance at different times.
It is basically a phylogenetic tree with the linking branches removed.

Your observation works for YEC's but not for OEC's /IDers

wa:do

 

[Fluffy]

Your observation works for YEC's but not for OEC's /IDers

Yes but more than that: it still has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, it works against YEC by targeting the bits that have nothing to do with evolution there by unnecessarily furthering the YEC agenda to overstate evolution as a strawman.

 

[ericmurphy]

yes, but old earth creationists of the ID stripe find your example to be just as much an observation of their point.

Yep. They sure do. I will point out again, and hopefully for the last time, that my point was not to prove creationism wrong. However, much of evolutionary theory would be disproven if my observation could not be made. And that's a critical distinction, which hopefully one day we'll get to.

If you have seen the diagram for linages from Panda's and People you will see god *poofing* things into existance at different times.
It is basically a phylogenetic tree with the linking branches removed.

Your observation works for YEC's but not for OEC's /IDers

wa:do

Absolutely. I have no illusions about being able to dispose of all creationist claims with a single argument. But I've managed to dispose of one, although unfortunately a great number of creationists will claim trilobites and rabbits coexisted. I'm pretty confident such people are unreachable anyway.

 

[ericmurphy]

Yes but more than that: it still has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, it works against YEC by targeting the bits that have nothing to do with evolution there by unnecessarily furthering the YEC agenda to overstate evolution as a strawman.

I'm not overstating anything. If anything, you are overstating things by imputing to me conclusions I have not drawn.

All I have done so far is kick the legs out from under the argument that evolution cannot happen. I've demonstrated, by reference to nothing but observation, that evolution provably does happen. Once we've established that, we can then get to various hypotheses as to how evolution happens, and how those hypotheses weather testing by further observation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm pretty much done arguing this point.

That is very good news since your assertion was preposterous to the point of being embarrassing, particularly since you apparently fancy yourself a competent apologist for evolution. In fact, 'evolution' deserves better, and has fared much better at the hands of many on this site.

But, just in case you're still confused ...

Implication is a one-way street. While all evolution implies change, not all change implies evolution, and "ericmurphy's bunnies" are no more sufficient to assert evolution than is Aasimar's now infamous Dr. Pepper.

The problem, of course, is that referring to trilobite/bunny scenario as "a change" is sloppy at best. What we have, instead, are two changes: 1) trilobite extinction, and b) the appearance of "ericmurphy's bunnies". You apparently acknowledge that neither change is, alone, sufficient to establish the fact of evolution. Yet you've offered absolutely nothing to show that these two changes are in any way related. All you're left with is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is indeed a harebrained argument.

 

[ericmurphy]

That is very good news since your assertion was preposterous to the point of being embarrassing, particularly since you apparently fancy yourself a competent apologist for evolution. In fact, 'evolution' deserves better, and has fared much better at the hands of many on this site.

Jay, you still haven't explained what about my assertion you think is preposterous. You earlier implied you assumed I was claiming rabbits are descendants of trilobites, which is a radical misreading of what I actually said. I've straightened you out on that little problem, but it doesn't seem to have helped. You still haven't said what it is you think is preposterous about my argument.

But, just in case you're still confused ...

Implication is a one-way street. While all evolution implies change, not all change implies evolution, and "ericmurphy's bunnies" are no more sufficient to assert evolution than is Aasimar's now infamous Dr. Pepper.

That's because the analogy is completely wrong. I said nothing to imply that rabbits are descended from, evolved from, etc. trilobites. That you thought I had is your mistake, not mine.

The problem, of course, is that referring to trilobite/bunny scenario as "a change" is sloppy at best. What we have, instead, are two changes: 1) trilobite extinction, and b) the appearance of "ericmurphy's bunnies". You apparently acknowledge that neither change is, alone, sufficient to establish the fact of evolution.

I didn't have to "acknowledge" that, because it's what I stated in the first place. I have always, always, always included both the previous existence and now non-existence of trilobites, and the current existence and former non-existence of rabbits, as conclusive evidence that evolution happens. You still have not shown how that is not true. I have not in any way implied that there is a connection between the two, let alone that one is a result of the other. You were clearly under that misapprehension, and even after I disabused you of that notion, you apparently still cling to it.

And you are still confusing the idea that life has evolved with the idea that evolutionary theory is a factual explanation for how that evolution has happened. I've tried too many times to count to explain the difference to you. I can only conclude that you cannot, or refuse to, understand the difference.

Yet you've offered absolutely nothing to show that these two changes are in any way related. All you're left with is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is indeed a harebrained argument.

I don't need to show that the two are related, because I'm not making any claims that they are related. How many times am I going to have to tell you that I am not stating, or even implying, that rabbits are in any way evolved from, or descended from, trilobites? That's not my argument, it's never been my argument, I've told you in no uncertain terms that it's not my argument, but for some reason you still insist that I defend it. It is emphatically not the case that rabbits are descended from trilobites, I don't believe they're descended from trilobites, and no one who knows anything about taxonomy believes they're descended from trilobites.

Is that clear enough?

The sum and substance of my argument, which is the same now as it always has been, is that because we observe that organisms existed in the past which no longer exist, and we observe that organisms exist now which did not exist in the past, evolution must necessarily have happened.

I am NOT saying "common descent with modification must have happened." I am not saying "entirely naturalistic processes caused that evolution to happen." I am saying that evolution, for whatever reason and through whatever mechanisms, absolutely has happened.

You continue to misconstrue what I'm saying, and beyond a certain point it's hard not to think it's deliberate.

Also, I have never claimed to be a "competent apologist for evolution." There is no such thing as an "apologist for evolution."

 

[ericmurphy]

I completely disagree.
Look above at the four different definitions given.
You are going to claim that they all mean the same thing?


How can anyone answer the question when it is unclear what you mean by 'evolution'?
How about you pick one definition and stick to it?

If you honestly believe that the definitions I directly quoted from you above are the exact same, then I will stop wasting my time with someone who does not know their backside from a hole in the ground.

Your call.

The second and third are functionally identical. The first one was vaguely worded, because it didn't occur to me that anyone would suppose I meant evolution was synonymous with a change in the numbers of organisms over time.

The fourth definition is taken from the Wikipedia definition for evolution. I chose not to use the term "inherited traits of a population" because that is an inference, and I wanted to exclude inferences from my definition. I did that for a specific reason: to make a clear and unambiguous distinction between observation and inference. I apparently was wasting my time in trying to make that distinction, because no one has gotten it.

Look, if you want to argue definitions, fine. I would prefer that we argue substance. My claim, which I would have thought was very simple and straightforward, is that since different organisms existed in the past than exist now, and different organisms exist now than existed in the past, evolution is a necessary consequence of those two observations.

I can't tell if you agree with that statement or not, because you're arguing over what I mean by "evolution." I do NOT mean "evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection, I do NOT mean "evolution by god 'poofing organisms into existence," and I do NOT mean "evolution by means of superintelligent aliens twiddling genes." I mean, "observable change in the types of organisms in existence over time."

Is that definition clear enough for you, or do you want me to break it down further for you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have always, always, always included both the previous existence and now non-existence of trilobites, and the current existence and former non-existence of rabbits, as conclusive evidence that evolution happens.

Which is, of course, unpardonable nonsense.

 

[McBell]

what I mean by the term "evolution": change in populations over time.

Here's my NEW, IMPROVED DEFINTION: evolution is a change in types of organisms over time.

I have one: "Evolution is the observed change in the types of organisms over time."

it's the generally accepted definition: "In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next."

They're not different definitions. The wording is different; not the meaning.

I completely disagree.
Look above at the four different definitions given.
You are going to claim that they all mean the same thing?

Now, I have a question for you which you have so far not even acknowledged, let alone answered: do you agree that the evidence for evolutionary change is conclusive, or not? I'm guessing not. In that case, how do you account for the fact that living organisms today are very different from organisms living in the distant past? How can they be different, if they have never changed?

How can anyone answer the question when it is unclear what you mean by 'evolution'?
How about you pick one definition and stick to it?

If you honestly believe that the definitions I directly quoted from you above are the exact same, then I will stop wasting my time with someone who does not know their backside from a hole in the ground.

Your call.

The second and third are functionally identical. The first one was vaguely worded, because it didn't occur to me that anyone would suppose I meant evolution was synonymous with a change in the numbers of organisms over time.

The fourth definition is taken from the Wikipedia definition for evolution. I chose not to use the term "inherited traits of a population" because that is an inference, and I wanted to exclude inferences from my definition. I did that for a specific reason: to make a clear and unambiguous distinction between observation and inference. I apparently was wasting my time in trying to make that distinction, because no one has gotten it.

Look, if you want to argue definitions, fine. I would prefer that we argue substance. My claim, which I would have thought was very simple and straightforward, is that since different organisms existed in the past than exist now, and different organisms exist now than existed in the past, evolution is a necessary consequence of those two observations.

I can't tell if you agree with that statement or not, because you're arguing over what I mean by "evolution." I do NOT mean "evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection, I do NOT mean "evolution by god 'poofing organisms into existence," and I do NOT mean "evolution by means of superintelligent aliens twiddling genes." I mean, "observable change in the types of organisms in existence over time."

Is that definition clear enough for you, or do you want me to break it down further for you?

And you present yet another definition.
No wonder no one understands what you are talking about.
you keep changing the definitions of the words you are using.

 

[ericmurphy]

Which is, of course, unpardonable nonsense.

Yes, you keep saying this, but you don't explain why. Sorry; if you want me to take your criticism seriously, you're going to have to explain why it's nonsense.

I don't think you can do that. You've had two days to do it, and haven't managed it yet.

 

[ericmurphy]

And you present yet another definition.
No wonder no one understands what you are talking about.
you keep changing the definitions of the words you are using.

Stop it.

How is "the observed change in the types of organisms over time" different from "the observed change in the types of organisms in existence over time"? As far as I can tell, they're exactly the same.

Now knock off this stupidity about definitions, and answer the question: do you believe there has been an observable change in the types of organisms over time, or not?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, you keep saying this, but you don't explain why.

Don't confuse your inability to understand with a lack of explanation. And please don't project gross intellectual irresponsibility onto others.


One last time ...

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.

​

Either derive the fact of evolution from the premises given or consign your harebrained mantra to the fate it deserves.