Evolution - True Or False
- Thread starter darksidZz
- Start date
- Status
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
By spending many years studying the world around them; in particular the large;y un-effected wilds of South America. Finding geographically isolated versions of common animals with unique traits not seen elsewhere. In the case of Wallace, by studying the fossil record of the time, and seeing a very clear pattern of change overtime within animal and plant groups.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Althoug your remarks and questions are directed to spidergoat you may find a slightly different perspective useful.
I think Spidergoat was well aware of that. His definition was wholly ad hoc, and not written, revised, edited and reviewed for a biology textbook.
A Designer who consistently and continuously directs evolution towards a specific goal.
"Laboratory experiments" prove Darwinian evolution, is that a "careful use of logic?"
Definitions of determine:
establish after a calculation, investigation, experiment, survey, or study; "find the product of two numbers"; "The physicist who found the elusive particle won the Nobel Prize"
shape or influence; give direction to; "experience often determines ability"; "mold public opinion"
fix conclusively or authoritatively; "set the rules"
specify: decide upon or fix definitely; "fix the variables"; "specify the parameters
Your response does not match the definition of determine I'm looking for. These definitions above outline a concise conclusion.
Elaborate: How did enviromental study reveal an observered process that lead to this "determination?"
I must contend your comment on the fossil reocrd.
How did he (Wallace) determine a pattern in the fossil record?
establish after a calculation, investigation, experiment, survey, or study; "find the product of two numbers"; "The physicist who found the elusive particle won the Nobel Prize"
shape or influence; give direction to; "experience often determines ability"; "mold public opinion"
fix conclusively or authoritatively; "set the rules"
specify: decide upon or fix definitely; "fix the variables"; "specify the parameters
Your response does not match the definition of determine I'm looking for. These definitions above outline a concise conclusion.
Elaborate: How did enviromental study reveal an observered process that lead to this "determination?"
I must contend your comment on the fossil reocrd.
How did he (Wallace) determine a pattern in the fossil record?
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
We have seen it in the wild in fish:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7077/abs/nature04325.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Statistical_syllogism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
I hesitated to link to Inductive Reasoning, because it is so often abused by people who have not read anything about how it works. In particular those who are looking for a "Truth" to be handed to them, as opposed to an actual understanding of reality. Induction leads to possible ideas, some of which are more likely than others, based on all the available evidence; in this case, one idea nicely matches fossil and living evidence, so I follow it as the best theory we have yet. Note that I'm not a "Darwinist", as there are many aspects of Darwin's theory which are not supported by evidence discovered after this works were published. The main idea of natural selection still holds in most cases, though even Darwin himself noted that sexual selection clearly acted as a selective pressure, even though he had not considered it in his initial work.
Last edited:
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
spidergoat defined evolution in his own words, and you harped on him for not giving you a thoroughly edited, reviewed, discussed, and revised meaning.
I agree with those articles; they are what I would write if I was capable and they had not already been written.
Aristotle and others have formed a set of rules pertaining to the use of logic in thought and communication; those rules do not cover all cases, but when they do apply, they offer a useful framework for standardizing the methods different people can effectively use to come to a consensus.
Certain methods of communication and logical progress work better than others, and some can be easily identified as faulty.
I agree with those articles; they are what I would write if I was capable and they had not already been written.
Aristotle and others have formed a set of rules pertaining to the use of logic in thought and communication; those rules do not cover all cases, but when they do apply, they offer a useful framework for standardizing the methods different people can effectively use to come to a consensus.
Certain methods of communication and logical progress work better than others, and some can be easily identified as faulty.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The process I have outlined produced a conclusion that was not only concise, but also precise, assured and comprehensive. Please use any of the available standard definitions of these words that you feel comfortable with.
Are you seriously looking for the product of thousands of man years of work by palaeontologists, bilogists, ehtologists, anatomists, micobiologists, geneticists and the like to be summarised in a paragraph or two? I have offered you a source of considerable value in answering all the questions you might ask about evolution. If you are serious about acquiring answers and understanding you may already have ordered this book from a suitable on line source.
Here are some pointers:
We observe individuals and groups within many species adopting dissimilar behaviour in response to differences in their environments.
We further observe that genetically determined features that are more favourable in a given environment increase within that environment over a few generations.
We know that mutations occur.
We know that some mutations will be favourable.
It was a mark of Darwin's genius that he saw that an isolated sub group of a species could an would change over time if the character of its enviornment also changed. The mechanism, natural selection, follows inevitably from th eabove observations.
Which part of this sequence do you have trouble with.
So, you are claiming that although the people who wrote the bible weren't actually present during the alleged events they wrote about, they were still able to observe them. IN fact, they probable weren't even born yet. Please explain how that's possible.
And what "facts" do you refer? There are no verifiable facts to the bible other than a few geographical places and historical figures that can be verified.
Except the six days of creation, how do you know the Genesis accounts are not human eyewitness accounts?
And at what point in the Bible do you believe that "real history" began to be recorded?
And at what point in the Bible do you believe that "real history" began to be recorded?
I've searched...
several articles refer to a motivator of evolution.
sexual drive...food supply...you would appear to be incorrect.
If you do not understand the question a statement to that effect is all that is necessary.
Micro and Macro evoultion...I believe that is what you are refering too and yes according to what I've read those semantics as you put it
are a major contention as I've also seen refrences state that micro (natual selection) is no evoultion observed...or Macro.
litteral...and how many of those transfered have an effect on the 'individual' it'self. Further what is the totally amount of restructed DNA in one individual?
This is a preface...I appreciate your litteralness...but this does not outline a determination.
Determination outlines a formula approach. as the definition that leads to a hard and concrete conclusion? If evolution is still a Theory this leads me to believe that there is no concrete conclusion. Further your failure to outline molecularly A+ B=C leads me to the conclusion that this is still unknown...as I suspected.
Further while certain changes have been observed...the process remains unobserved...I'm still reviewing certain examples and links for further study. But I felt it necessary to give a response your post.
It was insufficient in Process and observation of the process aswell resulting in a lack of determination. In other words this has not left the observational status that brought the theory about...Through Darwin....
I will tell you I already have seen that Darwin was wrong without a shadow of doubt. How do you think he was correct?
How did I supposedly answer my own question?
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
motivator is a horrible word in this context. It implies intention and more than just selective pressure.
There are driving pressures, the very root of the term "natural selection", but I would certainly not call them "motivators"
What if the question is understood perfectly well, but is aimless?
could you reword this question? I do not understand it.
According to what methodology of logic? I'm not familiar with this method your discussing, nor do I quite understand what "determination outlines a formula approach" means. Are you following any accepted set of logical arguements? Or is this your own novel approach?
Becuase the idea of natural selection has allowed us to develop medical treatments and methods that would have not worked at all if the germs in question were not evolving due to the environmental pressures we create for them. Same with GM foods, gene therapy, and more everyday aspects of modern life.
And observation is the foundation for fingerpainting. The fingerpainter makes observations about the environment, just as the Bible and the scientist do.saquist said:
So?
And I am not sure what you meant by science not asking scientific questions, but providing scientific answers - we have questions, observations, deductions, inductions, conclusions - none of them are "scientific" as an inherent property. The science is in their relationship, and that is where the Bible differs.
And yet you cannot say how, and you bring up instead references to "macro" and "micro" evolution - proof, if any were needed, that you do not understand Darwinian theory.saquist said:
Science, unlike the Bible, does not accept revelation as fact, or even argument. Seeing without doubt means exactly nothing in science- except maybe a warning: without doubt, how ward off error?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I undoubtedly appear to be incorrect to you. This is related to your extensive ignorance on the topic under discussion. As River Wind has remarked 'motivator' is an appalling word to use in this context, with its strong teleological implications. Sexual drive, food suppy, in short all the environmental factors do not motivate evolution they enable it. While I appreciate the difficulties you are experiencing working in a foreign language please do not try to be cute by playing with semantics: that is arguably the most intellectually dishonourable of pursuits.
If I do not understand a question it is typically because it has been badly phrased, or, as in this instance, because its semantic content approaches zero..
You really do need to get an education in the sciences. In post after post you betray an ignorance of the fundamentals that is extensive in depth and awe inspiring in breadth.
Point 1: Please read this very carefully. You can double your understanding of science if you take in this point. Theory is as good as it gets in science. There is nothing better than theory. Theory is the end product of scientific investigation, the goal to which scientists struggle. You begin with an observation; this leads to speculation and perhaps more observation; you formulate a hypothesis; you test the hypothesis thourgh experiment and further observation; you refine the hypothesis and subject it to further testing. If, after a multiplicity of such tests in a variety of contexts, with a wide range of variables, the hypothesis still stands, it may be considered a theory: the ultimate in science.
Point 2: Of course there is no concrete conclusion. Science is always provisional.Science always has an open mind. Any theory can be ovberturned at any time in the face of new observations. This has not been the case in the theory of evolution, which has withstood tests after test after test.
Saquist, there is nothing wrong with ignorance. We are all ignorant in our way. What is unattractive is when such depths of ignorance are accompanied by heights of arrogance. You would do well to contemplate that.
- Status