Defining Evolution

[rhutchin]

This article on talk.origins could have been written by a creationist (despite the obligatory slur toward the end).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

It says that "evolution" accounts for change in populations. Thus, evolution explains how the animals that came off the ark of Noah became the diverse number of animals we observe today.

With evolution, you have to have a population in order to change that population.

Evolution does not explain "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state..."

Evolution does not propose a mechanism to take whatever life form originally appeared in the far past and have it evolve into the life we observe today.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This article on talk.origins could have been written by a creationist (despite the obligatory slur toward the end).

Yes. For just the definition of the term 'evolution,' in a scientific context, any creationist who understood what biologists mean when thy use the term could have written that article.

It says that "evolution" accounts for change in populations. Thus, evolution explains how the animals that came off the ark of Noah became the diverse number of animals we observe today.

No, evolution does not account for for the diversity we see today based on a bottleneck within the last 6000 years.
The word means change.
The science does not accept change at the rate that would be necessary for that much diversity.

With evolution, you have to have a population in order to change that population.

Yes.

Evolution does not explain "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state..."

Incorrect. You just don't accept the evolution explanation.

Evolution does not propose a mechanism to take whatever life form originally appeared in the far past and have it evolve into the life we observe today.

That's exactly what evolution proposes. You just have a difficulty with the conclusion, so you reject the science.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, anyway, now that you're back, would you accept that an organism with two types of blood cells is more complex than the same organism with only one type of blood cell?

If so, and since you've already accepted that sickle cell is a mutation, why would this not be evidence that mutations can cause an increase in complexity?

If not, how in the fuck do you define 'complex?'

(Please answer the actual questions, without trying to move the goalpost. Just complexity, plus, minus or unaffected.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Evolution does not explain "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state..."

Evolution does not propose a mechanism to take whatever life form originally appeared in the far past and have it evolve into the life we observe today.

Yes it does. Educate yourself. And the mechanism is called natural selection.

 

[rhutchin]

Evolution does not explain "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state..."

Incorrect. You just don't accept the evolution explanation.

Evolution does not propose a mechanism to take whatever life form originally appeared in the far past and have it evolve into the life we observe today.

That's exactly what evolution proposes. You just have a difficulty with the conclusion, so you reject the science.

The talk.origins article says the opposite of what you are saying. That is why it could have been written by a creationist. I guess you need to edit the article and change what it says to that which you claim here.

 

[rhutchin]

Evolution does not explain "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state..."

Evolution does not propose a mechanism to take whatever life form originally appeared in the far past and have it evolve into the life we observe today.

Yes it does. Educate yourself. And the mechanism is called natural selection.

I guess talk.origins was taken over by the creationists and is now spreading lies about evolution. Maybe you should go over there and set things straight.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The talk.origins article says the opposite of what you are saying.

Incorrect again.
It's saying that that isn't the definition of the word. It rather clearly does NOT say that the whole of biological science that accepts and explains evolution fails to explain that the biosphere has evolved, or how.

That is why it could have been written by a creationist.

No, just misread by a creationist.

I guess you need to edit the article and change what it says to that which you claim here.

No, you just need to pull your head out of your agenda.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I guess talk.origins was taken over by the creationists and is now spreading lies about evolution.

Or, a creationist is quote mining evolution experts to spread lies.
Far more believable than a hostile takeover.

 

[Malintent]

I know that you know better than to claim that evolution can not, does not, nor "wants or needs" to explain biogenisis, since it has been made crystal clear to you countless times, so I am going to go ahead and state the obvious. You are trolling.

As you know, the mechanism of evolution is genetics. Yes, genetics must already be there. Place your god in that gap if you like... but the theory of evolution explains what we observe perfectly well, without "failth" in magic.

 

[Malintent]

The talk.origins article says the opposite of what you are saying. That is why it could have been written by a creationist. I guess you need to edit the article and change what it says to that which you claim here.

No, it states exactly what we are saying... you are just acting like you are incapable of comprehending... I do not beleve in the depth of selective illiteracy that would be required to make the statements you are making about the article... another reason why I know you are just trolling for lols.

Whatever.. I enjoy pointing out your errors, even if they are intentional... I always said the best advertisment for Atheism is basically everyting the creationist / biblical literalist says.

Keep it up!

 

[Underseer]

This article on talk.origins could have been written by a creationist (despite the obligatory slur toward the end).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

It says that "evolution" accounts for change in populations. Thus, evolution explains how the animals that came off the ark of Noah became the diverse number of animals we observe today.

With evolution, you have to have a population in order to change that population.

Evolution does not explain "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state..."

Evolution does not propose a mechanism to take whatever life form originally appeared in the far past and have it evolve into the life we observe today.

So let me get this straight: hundreds of millions of years aren't enough for evolution to have done its thing, but you genuinely believe that after Noah's flood even more evolution happened in only a few hundred or few thousand years? Interesting.

 

[Malintent]

No, I think today he is leaning on the "Evolution doesn't explain where the first life came from" goalpost.
Which is, while factually correct, is not a problem for evolution.

The rules of Chess don't explain how to carve wooden figures... therefore Chess is not a game where you move carved wooden figures around a checkered board... no one can "win" a "game" of Chess, since it is nonsense. You can't have Chess without carved wooden figures... duh!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Chessists would like you to think that the game of Chess arose from the game shatranj, but despite some surface similarities, shatranj had no queen.
And as the 'Queen's Gambit' is a chess strategy that depends on the Queen, any ancestor of chess would have required a queen, else we could not have the Queen's Gambit in the modern game.

 

[rhutchin]

This article on talk.origins could have been written by a creationist (despite the obligatory slur toward the end).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

It says that "evolution" accounts for change in populations. Thus, evolution explains how the animals that came off the ark of Noah became the diverse number of animals we observe today.

With evolution, you have to have a population in order to change that population.

Evolution does not explain "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state..."

Evolutioni does not propose a mechanism to take whatever life form originally appeared in the far past and have it evolve into the life we observe today.

So let me get this straight: hundreds of millions of years aren't enough for evolution to have done its thing, but you genuinely believe that after Noah's flood even more evolution happened in only a few hundred or few thousand years? Interesting.

Evolutionists will claim that all life originated from a unique first life. So far, it seems that it is impossible for such to happen regardless of the time it might take but if it could happen, hundreds of millions of years are not enough to get from that first life form to that which we observe today.

The animals coming off the ark do not pose a challenge for change in populations. A few thousand years is sufficient to get such changes as are needed to take a population of two animals and expand it to what we observe today.

 

[rhutchin]

No, I think today he is leaning on the "Evolution doesn't explain where the first life came from" goalpost.
Which is, while factually correct, is not a problem for evolution.

Evolutionists start with a critical assumption: Assume life exists. The impossibility of life springing from non-life is not an issue for evolution, but it does mean that evolution is built on one's imagination. So, imagine away.

The problem in evolution is finding a mechanism that can take whatever life form is imagined to have first existed and evolve it into what we observe today. If we start with the animals coming off the ark, evolution works fine in describing how those animals evolved into what we observe today.

 

[rhutchin]

The talk.origins article says the opposite of what you are saying. That is why it could have been written by a creationist. I guess you need to edit the article and change what it says to that which you claim here.

No, it states exactly what we are saying... you are just acting like you are incapable of comprehending... I do not beleve in the depth of selective illiteracy that would be required to make the statements you are making about the article... another reason why I know you are just trolling for lols.

Whatever.. I enjoy pointing out your errors, even if they are intentional... I always said the best advertisment for Atheism is basically everyting the creationist / biblical literalist says.

Keep it up!

From the article:

" Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind."

So, point out my error.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Evolutionists will claim that all life originated from a unique first life.

We do? I didn't think we did.
I think you should look that one up.

So far, it seems that it is impossible

Your incredulity is not a valid objection to a scientific theory AND it's a meaningless objection to a strawman you just made up in order to be incredulous of it.

hundreds of millions of years are not enough to get from that first life form to that which we observe today.

You've yet to give anyone a single reason to think this is true.

The animals coming off the ark do not pose a challenge for change in populations.

And, again, you've yet to give anyone a single reason to think this is true.

A few thousand years is sufficient to get such changes as are needed to take a population of two animals and expand it to what we observe today.

"Thus endeth the sermon."

 

[rhutchin]

Evolutionists will claim that all life originated from a unique first life.

We do? I didn't think we did.
I think you should look that one up.

So, even you don't seem to know what these guys believe and you claim to be one of them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We do? I didn't think we did.
I think you should look that one up.

So, even you don't seem to know what these guys believe and you claim to be one of them.

Actually, you're the one with a poor track record on showing that you understand what, exactly, the theory of evolution actually states. I even seem to recall that someone has posted the real idea of what most of the experts think all life evolved from in one of your threads. It didn't seem to make much of an impression.
No big surprise. You've never really been open to learning the actual science.
Just in pretending to knowledge so you can lecture people who know a fuck ton more than you seem to.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, point out my error.

Where you said:

Evolution does not propose a mechanism to take whatever life form originally appeared in the far past and have it evolve into the life we observe today.

The article does not support this statement. The article is not about what evolutionary science does or does not propose. It's about what the word actually means. A conclusion about what it does or doesn't propose is something you're adding to it and trying to look innocent.