Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[ericmurphy]

Incorrect. The theory of evolution says that the mechanism of inheritability, random mutation and natural selection working together is responsible for the change we see in the history of life. For someone to say that some other mechanism is responsible for this change is definitely not the same thing as saying that no change occurred.

For the last time, I am not talking about the theory of evolution. I'm not talking about any explanation for the observed fact of evolution at all.

I am stating it is a fact that evolution has happened. I am not talking about any theory or explanation that accounts for that fact.

Stop imputing statements to me that I am not making.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am stating it is a fact that evolution has happened. I am not talking about any theory or explanation that accounts for that fact.

I'd agree that evolution is factual (though for reasons other than what you've stated). However, your bunnies and trilobites example only works if you equate "evolution" with "change", and apparently you're the only person here willing to do that.

 

[ericmurphy]

I'd agree that evolution is factual (though for reasons other than what you've stated). However, your bunnies and trilobites example only works if you equate "evolution" with "change", and apparently you're the only person here willing to do that.

Apparently I am. So let's get our nomenclature straight: what is the distinction, in your view, between "evolution" (which is an observation), and "evolutionary theory (which is an explanation for that observation)? What term do you use for the former? I've already explained what I mean by the term "evolution": change in populations over time. You (and everyone else) apparently have a different meaning for the term.

If you say that "evolution" is "random mutation plus natural selection and other processes," etc., or anything like that, I'm going to respond that you are, in fact, confusing the observation of evolutionary change with the theory of evolution.

I'd also be curious to know what you believe the reasons are why evolution is factual, other than the reasons I've stated.

 

[McBell]

Apparently I am. So let's get our nomenclature straight: what is the distinction, in your view, between "evolution" (which is an observation), and "evolutionary theory (which is an explanation for that observation)? What term do you use for the former? I've already explained what I mean by the term "evolution": change in populations over time. You (and everyone else) apparently have a different meaning for the term.

If you say that "evolution" is "random mutation plus natural selection and other processes," etc., or anything like that, I'm going to respond that you are, in fact, confusing the observation of evolutionary change with the theory of evolution.

I'd also be curious to know what you believe the reasons are why evolution is factual, other than the reasons I've stated.

So the black plague <--LINK was evolution.
Cool.

 

[McBell]

Does this mean that since the population of Japan dropped considerably after the dropping of the atomic bombs that that is also evolution?
It was a considerable population change.

Was Hitler also evolving the Jews?

What about the endangered species list?
Are they merely evolving as well?

 

[ericmurphy]

Does this mean that since the population of Japan dropped considerably after the dropping of the atomic bombs that that is also evolution?
It was a considerable population change.

Was Hitler also evolving the Jews?

What about the endangered species list?
Are they merely evolving as well?

I'm not talking about numbers of organisms. I'm talking about changes in the types of organisms.

 

[McBell]

I'm not talking about numbers of organisms. I'm talking about changes in the types of organisms.

Then perhaps you needs specify that in your extremely generic definition of 'evolution.'
Though Humpty Dumpty would be proud, your current definition is inadequate.

 

[Willamena]

Apparently I am. So let's get our nomenclature straight: what is the distinction, in your view, between "evolution" (which is an observation), and "evolutionary theory (which is an explanation for that observation)?

"Evolution" is a process, a series of observed changes. If I observe my mother's face change from youth to maturity to hardness to wrinkles, that is an evolution. Species here and then suddenly not here, and another species suddenly here, is not a series of changes. If we assume that a series took place, that's fine --but that is much more information relied upon to draw the conclusion of "evolution" than presented in the example with the bugs and the bunnies.

Do you see that?

 

[ericmurphy]

Then perhaps you needs specify that in your extremely generic definition of 'evolution.'
Though Humpty Dumpty would be proud, your current definition is inadequate.

It is extremely generic. It's generic for a reason. I am trying to make the point that it is simply impossible to deny that evolutionary change has happened. The reason it is impossible is because different organisms existed in the past than exist today. Organisms existed in the past which no longer exist. Organisms exist today which did not exist in the past. These two observations are undeniable. Given these two observations, it is undeniable that evolutionary change has happened.

Once we have established that evolutionary change has happened, then we can proceed to various explanations for that evolutionary change.

One possible explanation is special creation: God "poofed" things magically into being. That explanation is entirely consistent with the observation of evolutionary change (in fact, it's consistent with pretty much every possible observation, and I'll later get into why that's a problem).

Another possible explanation is that random mutation coupled with natural selection are responsible for that evolutionary change. This explanation leads to certain predictions, predictions which can in principle be falsified.

There are undoubtedly other possible explanations for evolutionary change, but before we can get there, we need to get agreement on the assertion that evolutionary change has actually happened. If we cannot get agreement on the observation, then we will never get agreement on explanations for that observation.

 

[McBell]

It is extremely generic. It's generic for a reason. I am trying to make the point that it is simply impossible to deny that evolutionary change has happened. The reason it is impossible is because different organisms existed in the past than exist today. Organisms existed in the past which no longer exist. Organisms exist today which did not exist in the past. These two observations are undeniable. Given these two observations, it is undeniable that evolutionary change has happened.

Once we have established that evolutionary change has happened, then we can proceed to various explanations for that evolutionary change.

One possible explanation is special creation: God "poofed" things magically into being. That explanation is entirely consistent with the observation of evolutionary change (in fact, it's consistent with pretty much every possible observation, and I'll later get into why that's a problem).

Another possible explanation is that random mutation coupled with natural selection are responsible for that evolutionary change. This explanation leads to certain predictions, predictions which can in principle be falsified.

There are undoubtedly other possible explanations for evolutionary change, but before we can get there, we need to get agreement on the assertion that evolutionary change has actually happened. If we cannot get agreement on the observation, then we will never get agreement on explanations for that observation.

If you are going to stick to that extremely useless definition would you please be so kind as to answer my questions:

Does this mean that since the population of Japan dropped considerably after the dropping of the atomic bombs that that is also evolution?
It was a considerable population change.

Was Hitler also evolving the Jews?

What about the endangered species list?
Are they merely evolving as well?
​

 

[ericmurphy]

If you are going to stick to that extremely useless definition would you please be so kind as to answer my questions:

Does this mean that since the population of Japan dropped considerably after the dropping of the atomic bombs that that is also evolution?
It was a considerable population change.

Was Hitler also evolving the Jews?

What about the endangered species list?
Are they merely evolving as well?
​

I already answered this question. I said I was talking about changes in types of organisms, not changes in the number of organisms. Did you miss this earlier statement from me?

I'm not talking about numbers of organisms. I'm talking about changes in the types of organisms.

 

[ericmurphy]

"Evolution" is a process, a series of observed changes. If I observe my mother's face change from youth to maturity to hardness to wrinkles, that is an evolution. Species here and then suddenly not here, and another species suddenly here, is not a series of changes. If we assume that a series took place, that's fine --but that is much more information relied upon to draw the conclusion of "evolution" than presented in the example with the bugs and the bunnies.

Do you see that?

I see that you still are confusing the observation of evolution and the theory of evolution. There is no practical difference between the changes in your mother's face over time and the changes in the types of organisms over time.

I'm about ready to give up on trying to explain the distinction between the observation of evolution and theories intended to explain that observation. I recognize I might not be the best explainer in the world, but this getting beyond ridiculous.

 

[McBell]

I already answered this question. I said I was talking about changes in types of organisms, not changes in the number of organisms. Did you miss this earlier statement from me?

I disagree.
YOU stated, and I quote:

I've already explained what I mean by the term "evolution": change in populations over time.

NOW you are trying to change the definition that you yourself gave.
Quit changing the goal posts and answer my questions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see that you still are confusing the observation of evolution and the theory of evolution. ... I recognize I might not be the best explainer in the world, but this getting beyond ridiculous.

Drop the childish mantra and take responsibility for the mess you've created.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you say that "evolution" is "random mutation plus natural selection and other processes," etc., or anything like that, I'm going to respond that you are, in fact, confusing the observation of evolutionary change with the theory of evolution.

Well... no point in you responding then, is there?

Evolution is the mechanism. The theory of evolution is our best interpretation of the mechanism. It's like the difference between a blueprint (or more accurately, an as-built drawing) and a building: one describes the other. The fact that a theory contains information about its subject does not mean that the theory and the subject are the same thing any more than building plans are a building themselves.

I'd also be curious to know what you believe the reasons are why evolution is factual, other than the reasons I've stated.

A wealth of scientific data, evidence and well-supported logical conjecture based on established facts. If you want to get more specific about the basis for our understanding of evolution, you might be better off finding a good textbook on the subject.

 

[fantome profane]

I disagree.

YOU stated, and I quote:NOW you are trying to change the definition that you yourself gave.
Quit changing the goal posts and answer my questions.

I don’t know why ericmurphy is having such a hard time answering the question, it seems pretty simple to me. The answer is yes.

It may be unpleasant and disturbing, but neither evolution nor the theory of evolution say anything about being pleasant. When those bombs were dropped on Japan they represented an extreme shift in the genetic frequency of that population (and I am not even talking about the mutations which were likely not passed on to future generations). I am simply talking about those hundreds of thousands of deaths. Any event that causes death can be viewed as an evolutionary event, and certainly any event that causes death on that kind of scale. It doesn’t matter whether it is a bomb, or an earthquake, or a plaque, or famine, they can all cause evolution.

 

[ericmurphy]

I disagree.
YOU stated, and I quote:
NOW you are trying to change the definition that you yourself gave.
Quit changing the goal posts and answer my questions.

Okay, I'm clarifying the defintion. Here's my NEW, IMPROVED DEFINTION: evolution is a change in types of organisms over time.

I did answer your question. I've answered it twice. I'll answer it again: changes in the numbers of organisms over time is not evolution. Changes in the types of organisms over time is evolution.

Is there some other question you think I haven't answered?

 

[ericmurphy]

Drop the childish mantra and take responsibility for the mess you've created.

Which is what? What "mess" have I created? I am trying, desperately, to make clear the distinction between the observation of evolutionary change, and theories or hypotheses that account for that change. I'm getting the very strong impression that no one else here is capable of making that distinction.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Changes in the types of organisms over time is evolution.

Sooner or later you'll stop digging. :slap:

 

[McBell]

Okay, I'm clarifying the defintion. Here's my NEW, IMPROVED DEFINTION: evolution is a change in types of organisms over time.

I did answer your question. I've answered it twice. I'll answer it again: changes in the numbers of organisms over time is not evolution. Changes in the types of organisms over time is evolution.

Is there some other question you think I haven't answered?

wow.
You have now given a completely different definition.