Defining Evolution

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What exactly are creationists fighting against about evolution if they don't know what it is? I think they're saying, I don't know what it is," and so empower themselves to oppose it. What's the mechanism by which a cosmic magician makes things? Ah, Yes, it's a mystery. Genius!

 

[Keith&Co.]

What exactly are creationists fighting against about evolution if they don't know what it is?

But they're sure that they DO know what it is...

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.

...and are quite willing to lecture pompously to people who disagree with their take on the whole thing or discrete factoids.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's try it one more time.

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

It's not a 'slur.' It says most creationists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the definition of the word 'evolution.' Let's see how you do in your thread named 'Defining evolution.'

It says that "evolution" accounts for change in populations.

No, 'it' says 'evolution means change in populations.' Not 'accounts for.'
Right there, you're shifting the discussion from defining the word to what the theory does.

Thus,

Well, conclusions drawn from inappropriate steps are inappropriate. You've already stopped discussing the definition, so your 'thus' is a complete fabrication, at least with respect to this article you say a creationist could have written.

evolution explains how the animals that came off the ark of Noah became the diverse number of animals we observe today.

No, the theory of evolution doesn't account for this and the definition of 'evolution' doesn't explain this.

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

Well, yes, that's been explained to you a bazillion times. Evolutionary theory is about existing life.

It's why the theory doesn't fail if no one can explain how life came from nonlife. That's finally sunk in.

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

The article says that this is not how the word is defined. You appear to be attacking the theory using the word's definition, which is either illiterate or sinister behavior on your part.

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.

At the beginning of the article, the author says that completely aside from debate over the mechanism of evolution, we need to agree on the definition of evolution. And then he never again discusses the mechanism of evolution. So your conclusion is based on something he said was not what he was going to talk about.

So, is it a slur? You, a creationist, don't display an ability to accurately read an article about the definition of the word 'evolution' for content.
Seems more like an observation than an insult, really.

 

[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.

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.

Are you disputing the observation that "life exists". Is it your position that the assumption that life exists is flawed? Are you even listening to yourself? At some point in Earth's history, life "came to be here". Evolution has nothing to say about that, other than SOMEHOW a god, alien, chemistry, or some other as of yet undiscovered cause made life. the HYPOTHESIS of abiogenisis is nothing you will get a strong argument over... it is not a scientific theory because we do not know enough yet.. no one you should ever trust for scientific knowledge has ever said that.

I do note this one bit you said, and will offer you an opportunity to retract or clarify...

life springing from non-life is not an issue for evolution

This is correct and very important to understand. It also invalidates every one of your complaints... so it a little confusion (if you were being an honest contributer to discussion - which I personally do not think you are).

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.

The mechanism is genetics... the process is imperfect reproduction and selection ("natural" or otherwise).
You once again admit that "evolution works".. so what is your incredulity about again?

 

[Malintent]

So, point out my error.

OK, it is right here at the seventh word you quoted from the article:

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different

bolding added by me.

 

[rhutchin]

Evolutionists start with a critical assumption: Assume life exists.

Are you disputing the observation that "life exists". Is it your position that the assumption that life exists is flawed? Are you even listening to yourself? At some point in Earth's history, life "came to be here". Evolution has nothing to say about that, other than SOMEHOW a god, alien, chemistry, or some other as of yet undiscovered cause made life. the HYPOTHESIS of abiogenisis is nothing you will get a strong argument over... it is not a scientific theory because we do not know enough yet.. no one you should ever trust for scientific knowledge has ever said that.

What we do know is that life comes from life. Life does not spring from non-life (although some people imagine that it could). That leaves God or aliens as the source of life on earth.

 

[rhutchin]

OK, it is right here at the seventh word you quoted from the article:

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different

bolding added by me.

That leaves us with this definition: Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.

This is the definition creationists maintain is correct and applied to the animals that came off the ark, it explains that those animals changed (evolved) over time and can account for the animals we observe today. Evolution does not suggest anything more than that.

Incorrect definitions of evolution would be the following:

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.

Evolution: The doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.

Evolution: The development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny.

 

[rhutchin]

It says that "evolution" accounts for change in populations.

No, 'it' says 'evolution means change in populations.' Not 'accounts for.'
Right there, you're shifting the discussion from defining the word to what the theory does.

Evolution is defined as "change in populations." What that definition accounts for is "change" and broadly "change in populations." By definition, evolution does not tell us how populations change. Through research, we know that populations change through a variety of ways, such as mutation, dominant and recessive genes, environmental factors... These can change individuals in a population leading to change in the overall population over time. Thus, the animals that came off the ark could change over time leading to great diversity among animals; a diversity we can observe today.

As such, I think the cited article could have been written by a creationist.

 

[bilby]

Are you disputing the observation that "life exists". Is it your position that the assumption that life exists is flawed? Are you even listening to yourself? At some point in Earth's history, life "came to be here". Evolution has nothing to say about that, other than SOMEHOW a god, alien, chemistry, or some other as of yet undiscovered cause made life. the HYPOTHESIS of abiogenisis is nothing you will get a strong argument over... it is not a scientific theory because we do not know enough yet.. no one you should ever trust for scientific knowledge has ever said that.

What we do know is that life comes from life. Life does not spring from non-life (although some people imagine that it could). That leaves God or aliens as the source of life on earth.

...neither of which actually answers the question at all.

Either life can come from non-life - whether here, or on another planet is not particularly relevant - or it cannot.

If it cannot, then life must have always existed.

The conditions in the vast majority of the universe, for the vast majority of time, are inimical to life. There is good reason to think that life has not always existed. There is no good reason to think that life has always existed.

'God' doesn't help; if life cannot come from non-life, then any putative 'God' must be alive. The simplest life needs few resources; and we know that few resources existed to support life prior to the formation of the solar system - so the parsimonious hypothesis would be the eternal existence of some kind of simple bacterium; or better still a virus. A massively powerful, and eternal life-form simply isn't a sane hypothesis - in order for such a thing to have existed, most of modern science would have to be completely wrong - but if it were, then simple experiments would have different results from those we observe.

By far the best explanation - and by best, I mean the explanation that would require the fewest changes to established science, in order to fit into the framework of our current knowledge - is that life did indeed come from non-living precursors.

The eternal existence of life (or indeed, of anything) is a seriously poor hypothesis - but it is necessary if we are to accept the premise that "Life does not spring from non-life".

If the premise is true, then the whole of science - not just biology, but physics and chemistry too - is wrong. And wrong in a huge way, but in a way that is simultaneously so subtle as to be undetectable. That is as close to impossible as an idea gets.

If the premise is false, then that implies some interesting things - such as that 'life' is not a special 'non-physical' trait, but is simply an emergent property of some arrangements of atoms. Of course, if that were the case, then it would be hard to define what is and is not 'alive' when looking at objects that fall close to the boundary between the two states. For example, we might see debate about whether viruses are alive or not, with no clear or compelling argument for either outcome - and indeed, that is exactly what does happen.

The idea that life can arise from non-life - albeit rarely - fits neatly into the framework of knowledge we have built over centuries about how things are. The idea that it cannot would require the whole of science to be massively wrong, but in a so far undetected way. Accepting a premise that contradicts a wide swath of known facts is the very definition of stupidity.

I don't imagine that life could spring from non-life; on the contrary, I can see that imagining that it cannot would be monumentally dumb.

 

[rhutchin]

What exactly are creationists fighting against about evolution...

Creationists are fighting against the false notions of evolution that seem to be pervasive among the general public. Creationists agree with the cited article against the false notions about evolution.

 

[rhutchin]

What we do know is that life comes from life. Life does not spring from non-life (although some people imagine that it could). That leaves God or aliens as the source of life on earth.

...neither of which actually answers the question at all.

Either life can come from non-life - whether here, or on another planet is not particularly relevant - or it cannot.

If it cannot, then life must have always existed.

Every experiment known to man supports the conclusion that life comes from life and not from non-life.

That means that the existence of life today requires that some form of life has always existed. That life has been given the name, God.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

So, allele frequencies don't exist? Do you know what an allele is, out of curiosity?

EDIT: This is meant as a reply to rhutchin.

 

[Underseer]

What exactly are creationists fighting against about evolution...

Creationists are fighting against the false notions of evolution that seem to be pervasive among the general public. Creationists agree with the cited article against the false notions about evolution.

Which false notion? That evolution is false because it's "just a theory"?

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Creationists are fighting against the false notions of evolution that seem to be pervasive among the general public. Creationists agree with the cited article against the false notions about evolution.

Which false notion? That evolution is false because it's "just a theory"?

Going by his wording, rhutchin thinks several exist - that he doesn't elaborate on them suggests that he assumes everyone knows what he refers to.

- - - Updated - - -

...neither of which actually answers the question at all.

Either life can come from non-life - whether here, or on another planet is not particularly relevant - or it cannot.

If it cannot, then life must have always existed.

Every experiment known to man supports the conclusion that life comes from life and not from non-life.

That means that the existence of life today requires that some form of life has always existed. That life has been given the name, God.

Actually, wouldn't it be more precise to say that we don't exactly know how the first lifeforms developed? Besides, evolution deals with the diversification of life; the origin of life is a separate issue entirely.

 

[bilby]

...neither of which actually answers the question at all.

Either life can come from non-life - whether here, or on another planet is not particularly relevant - or it cannot.

If it cannot, then life must have always existed.

Every experiment known to man supports the conclusion that life comes from life and not from non-life.

That means that the existence of life today requires that some form of life has always existed. That life has been given the name, God.

Nonsense. You clearly haven't looked at many relevant experiments, much less every one, or you would know that that is false.

Atoms are interchangeable, and constantly move from life to non-life and back again; arrange atoms in the right pattern, and you get a living cell. It is not easy - life requires a LOT of atoms, arranged in a fairly exact way - but it is certainly possible, and several teams are in the process of attempting it. There is no identifiable barrier to their success. http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release.



Your incredulity and ignorance are not evidence. Actual evidence points to the exact opposite of your uninformed opinion.

 

[bilby]

...neither of which actually answers the question at all.

Either life can come from non-life - whether here, or on another planet is not particularly relevant - or it cannot.

If it cannot, then life must have always existed.

Every experiment known to man supports the conclusion that life comes from life and not from non-life.

That means that the existence of life today requires that some form of life has always existed. That life has been given the name, God.

The name 'God' refers also to the concept of an all powerful invisible being that currently controls the universe. Those two definitions of 'God' are not compatible with one another, and neither is compatible with observed reality.

I assume that you don't believe that God is a very simple virus, just sufficiently complex to qualify as 'alive', that has existed for ever?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What we do know is that life comes from life.

Good so far. Much evidence to support that.

Life does not spring from non-life (although some people imagine that it could).

And the reason to think this is true is.....?

That leaves

Nope, can't go to a conclusion yet, you haven't provided the previous step.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, 'it' says 'evolution means change in populations.' Not 'accounts for.'
Right there, you're shifting the discussion from defining the word to what the theory does.

Evolution is defined as "change in populations."

The word evolution is defined as 'change in populations.' You keep trimming that off, leaving it vague as to whether you're talking about the theory or the word or the fact.

What that definition accounts for is "change" and broadly "change in populations." By definition, evolution does not tell us how populations change.

Actually, the article includes: "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next."
So the theordoes tell us how populations change in the case of biological evolution.

Through research, we know that populations change through a variety of ways, such as mutation, dominant and recessive genes, environmental factors... These can change individuals in a population leading to change in the overall population over time.

You forget 'selection' but that's good, so far.

Thus, the animals that came off the ark could change over time leading to great diversity among animals; a diversity we can observe today.

No, they can't. You said 'through research.'
Research does not support the ark story.

As such, I think the cited article could have been written by a creationist.

But your 'as such' is just fucked up, so your conclusion is not supported.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Not even 10 posts in and spamming your own thread. Do you want to talk about it or do you just want to pretend you are being clever?

 

[abaddon]

Every experiment known to man supports the conclusion that life comes from life and not from non-life.

That means that the existence of life today requires that some form of life has always existed. That life has been given the name, God.

I would have thought "life comes from life" could not include a disembodied spirit anywhere in the genealogy. But I guess God has a form though?

If God's a form of life, it's a form of life that has never been anyone's observation (physical organic life that reproduces). Does it seem consistent to you when you want strong empirical evidence but then also talk about an invisible God creating anything?

The thing that gets me about "form" is it suggests something describable, in terms of shape, color, et al.