Evolution.

Author: Dynasty

Posts

Total: 121
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias

All of those are real observations. Which of those do you dispute are real?
I'm not the one to dispute which of your points is real;
Yes you are. You asked for them, I provided them. Either you accept them or reject them. If you reject them, then let's dive into that.

you are the one to argue the reason each of your points inform a reality that substantiates Evolution because that is what my question asked. Saying that it's real does not suffice.
Well, I did that, and then you denied that those observations were real. So I'm trying to get to the root of that. It would pointless to argue that something substantiates evolution when you deny that said something even exists!

So which of those things do you deny is a real observation?



No, they aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution is the process which explains what we see today.
No. Processes are processes. Processes are explained. They can be incorporated into explanations, but they are not the explanations.
They can be. Anything can be an explanation.

And your statement makes no sense: how can Evolution be the "process" that explains itself?
I didn't say Evolution explains itself. I said "Evolution is the process which explains what we see today."

This is not what Occam's razor is or how it is to be applied. Your simplification is erroneous.
My use is obviously rhetorical given my following statement, and if you're going to claim error, fine. Substantiate your counterclaim.
Exactly! That's how it works. I claim error, you ask for clarification, just like I'm trying to get you to do with my original points: you claim error, so substantiate that.

Going back to your attempted application of Occam's Razor you said:

I suspected as much. Evolution is not a process. Evolution is the attempted explanation; hence it is referred to as the "theory of evolution," theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)
This is not correct. A theory is not merely an "attempted explanation", that would be a hypothesis, and theories are more than simply ideas which "explain phenomena. That is one component of theories, yes, but not the only one. Theories must be testable, falsifiable, be consistent with observations, and be better than existing theories and explanations in terms of scope and/or accuracy.

And Occam's razor isn't a synonym for "simplification" but rather a statement that unnecessary elements from a theory or explanation should be removed.


"Change" can mean a lot of things.
Exactly. That's the reason Evolution is not merely a statement of change over time, as many mistake it to be. It's a hypothesis delineating a--and this is important--regulatory mechanism which governs this change over time. Evolution is not the mechanism. It is the "why?" to the mechanism.
Incorrect. The mechanism results in a gradual change in populations of organisms over time. It is this change that we call Evolution.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
Yes you are. You asked for them, I provided them. Either you accept them or reject them. If you reject them, then let's dive into that.
No I am not. I didn't ask you for anything before you interjected in a query that wasn't directed at you. By then you had already submitted all of your points. I'm not going to verify or falsify your points, as I've already informed you. You submitted them, so substantiate. If not, move along, and have a nice day.

Well, I did that,
You've essentially done nothing other than list your points.

and then you denied that those observations were real.
Where did I do this? Quote me verbatim.

It would pointless to argue that something substantiates evolution when you deny that said something even exists!
Quote me verbatim.

They can be. Anything can be an explanation.
Anything can be used in an explanation; that is not the same as anything can be an explanation.

I didn't say Evolution explains itself. I said "Evolution is the process which explains what we see today."
What is it that we see today?

Exactly! That's how it works. I claim error, you ask for clarification, just like I'm trying to get you to do with my original points: you claim error, so substantiate that.
Where did I claim error with your original points? Quote me verbatim.

A theory is not merely an "attempted explanation"
I never said a theory was an "attempted explanation"--in fact, you quoted my description of a theory:

theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)
I refer only to Evolution as an "attempted" explanation.

Theories must be testable, falsifiable, be consistent with observations,
Naturally.

and be better than existing theories and explanations in terms of scope and/or accuracy.
This makes no sense. How can that which constitutes a theory require it to be "better than existing theories"?

And Occam's razor isn't a synonym for "simplification" but rather a statement that unnecessary elements from a theory or explanation should be removed.
Rhetorically, yes it is. Simplification is exactly as you describe Occam's razor--removal of extraneous information.

Incorrect. The mechanism results in a gradual change in populations of organisms over time. It is this change that we call Evolution.
It's not the change we call evolution. Your statements above inform my point. The standard of accepted theories is based on merit. Thus, each theory is provisional. Processes aren't provisional. Only their explanations and interpretations can be (e.g. Einstein's Stationary Universe.)

Once again, let's discuss and have you explain how each of your points inform a reality that substantiates evolution. If not, enjoy the rest of your day. This is the last time I going to entertain this stalling.







drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
Yes you are. You asked for them, I provided them. Either you accept them or reject them. If you reject them, then let's dive into that.
No I am not.
You did. You did not ask me for them, correct, but you did ask for them. This is an open forum. If you only want specific replies from specific people, then you should do it in a debate format or take it to PMs.

I didn't ask you for anything before you interjected in a query that wasn't directed at you. By then you had already submitted all of your points. I'm not going to verify or falsify your points, as I've already informed you. You submitted them, so substantiate. If not, move along, and have a nice day.
I am not asking you to verify or falsify anything. I am simply asking you to clarify which of those points you are denying the reality of, all of them?


Well, I did that,
You've essentially done nothing other than list your points.

and then you denied that those observations were real.
Where did I do this? Quote me verbatim.
Okay. Let's go back AGAIN.

Here is my original list:


I submit this as real observations. I am not yet submitting any substantiations of anything yet. I am simply submitting a list of observations to determine your acknowledgement or rejection of them as real observations.

Do you accept these as real observations?


They can be. Anything can be an explanation.
Anything can be used in an explanation; that is not the same as anything can be an explanation.
I disagree, but that is semantics.


I didn't say Evolution explains itself. I said "Evolution is the process which explains what we see today."
What is it that we see today?


A theory is not merely an "attempted explanation"
I never said a theory was an "attempted explanation"--in fact, you quoted my description of a theory:
Yes you did. You said:

"Evolution is the attempted explanation; hence it is referred to as the "theory of evolution,"

It is not referred to as "the theory of evolution" simply because it is the "attempted explanation."


theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)
I refer only to Evolution as an "attempted" explanation.

Theories must be testable, falsifiable, be consistent with observations,
Naturally.

and be better than existing theories and explanations in terms of scope and/or accuracy.
This makes no sense. How can that which constitutes a theory require it to be "better than existing theories"?
Because if it doesn't do anything better than existing theories than there is no reason to accept it as a new theory. It'd be redundant.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
You did. You did not ask me for them, correct, but you did ask for them. This is an open forum. If you only want specific replies from specific people, then you should do it in a debate format or take it to PMs.
Redundant:

You're not in position to take anything as anything. You responded to a question that wasn't directed at you. As is your prerogative, you can participate in any query on a public forum.

I am not asking you to verify or falsify anything. I am simply asking you to clarify which of those points you are denying the reality of, all of them?
Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@drafterman
@TheRealNihilist
The descent and modification of living organisms over time.
The descent and modification can be simple-to-complex, or complex-to-simple. Both are evolution.

The only direct observations we have of evolution is with bacteria.  Do we know if this is complex-to-simple or simple-to-complex or neither ie lateral evolution?



drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ebuc
The only direct observations we have of evolution is with bacteria.
Incorrect.


ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@drafterman
Incorrect.
I think it may have been you who corrected me once before with a long list of direct observations of evolution that were not bacteria.  I dunno cause because I cant recall exactly who or what as presented.  It was many moons ago.

Mosquitoes

1} Emergence of DDT resistance is an example of evolution by natural selection

Drafterman, is  that simple-to-complex, complex-to-simple or lateral evolution?

Lamarckian  evolution is adapting to the environment and the above is just that adapting to the environment.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ebuc
Drafterman, is  that simple-to-complex, complex-to-simple or lateral evolution?
You'd have to define "simple" and "complex"? What makes a genetic change more or less complex?
<br>

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@drafterman
You'd have to define "simple" and "complex"? What makes a genetic change more or less complex?
There are two primary kinds of complexity;

1} Ex numerically speaking 2 is more complex than one.  9 is more complex than 3.  Do you understand? Do you agree?

........Ex a elephant has more atoms than an ant ergo numericall speaking the elephant is more complex than an elephant.

2} Synergetic complexity i.e. the whole is greater than the sum-of-the-parts and specifically when the whole has a greater/wider { more generalized } set { degrees } of abilities. 

........Ex a human  can fly higher and faster than any less complex bird and humans have devised techologies to go to the moon whereas elephants and birds have not.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ebuc
The evolution of resistance to DDT is complex and arises for a number of reasons.

For example, it could be as a result of additional copies of a key gene that allows them to produce enzymes which assist in breaking down DDT. This would be simple to complex (more genes = more complex).

However, resistance can also be had by reducing the number of bioreceptors that react to DDT. This would be complex to simple (less receptors = less complex).
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@drafterman
The evolution of resistance to DDT is complex and arises for a number of reasons.
I agree, evolution is inherently a complex process irrespective of whether simple-to-complex, complex-to-simple or lateral.

For example, it could be as a result of additional copies of a key gene that allows them to produce enzymes which assist in breaking down DDT. This would be simple to complex (more genes = more complex).
I agree that is a numerical complexity.  Some salamanders have many more genes{?} ---more genetic material--- per cell than other animals and that may explain their ability to reproduce legs that are removed.


However, resistance can also be had by reducing the number of bioreceptors that react to DDT. This would be complex to simple (less receptors = less complex).
Ok, so that is numerically complex-to-simple. 

You havent consider lateral or synergetic evolution yet.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ebuc
I don't have examples of those at the moment
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@drafterman
I don't have examples of those at the moment
No problem. At least your a human that makes a sincere attempt in expressing rational, logical common sense, in regards to evolution.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I agree
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
As far as we are able to know, human reality can only be qualified by humanity.

Yep. Progression/evolution as far as we can be aware.

As far as I am able to know, I am my parents son and genetics is an observable process, though a lot of that speculative awareness is reliant upon data from secondary sources.

Certainty is an assumption is uncertainty I suppose.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Stronn
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is possible to walk ten meters, but there is no way anyone could ever walk a thousand kilometers

- The guy that came up with the term 'microevolution'

I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. Also are you sure it was said in context?

That quote shows you have no idea how evolution works. AnyONE can’t just walk thousands of kilometres, but over generations...





Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Stronn
@Reece101
I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. Also are you sure it was said in context?

It is pretty obvious that I was mocking the people that argue that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not. It is not an actual quote since it is obvious to everyone that walking thousands of kilometers is possible.

In reality the term microevolution was first coined by scientists as a legitimate scientific term with actual usefulness but has since been hijacked by creationists in order to verbalize the above absurdity, so even as a parody my post is technically inaccurate. Even so I think I made my point.

Tagging stronn in this post only because he was tagged in the post that this is a reply to.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is pretty obvious that I was mocking the people that argue that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not. It is not an actual quote since it is obvious to everyone that walking thousands of kilometers is possible.
You would be surprised then how many people think that way. Also I should warn when I use someones logic.

In reality the term microevolution was first coined by scientists as a legitimate scientific term with actual usefulness but has since been hijacked by creationists in order to verbalize the above absurdity, so even as a parody my post is technically inaccurate. Even so I think I made my point.
Now you have.

49 days later

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Some of the points listed by Drafterman in support of evolution are simply wrong, and some of them actually contradict each other.

This is a typical defense of Darwinists. Post a wall-O-jargon so it seems like there is a mountain of scientific fact in their favor. But when Athias took his bluff, we saw he could not say how his points supported his contention.
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ethang5
Are you discussing The Theory of Evolution or are you discussing Darwin's On Origin of Species ?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Seth
Are they different?
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ethang5
Yes
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Seth
So there is a theory of evolution that is different from Darwin's theory of evolution?

Which one is right? Which one do you believe?
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ethang5
No there is The Theory of Evolution. Perhaps you might be good enough to supply me with "Darwin's theory of evolution", I'm unaware of it.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Seth
So Darwin's On The Origin of Species is not about evolution? What is it about?

Darwin is credited as the father of the theory of evolution, when did he come up with it?

Who do you think came up with the theory of evolution if not Darwin?
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ethang5
On The Origin of Species is not "Darwin's theory of evolution" it is On The Origin of Species
Many people have contributed to the ToE. Maybe a little reading might help you.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Seth
A little less dodging might help you too.

So Darwin's On The Origin of Species is not about evolution? What is it about? Do you know?

Many people have contributed to the ToE.
Sure, but who is credited with being the father of the theory? Do you know Cletus?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Seth
Read the concluding paragraph of On the Origin of Species along with all before it. The volume discusses the four points of Darwinism: variation, inheritance, selection, and time.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
The distinction being made is that the theory of evolution in "On the origin of species" has long since been iterated and improved upon into the current modern theory of evolution (by other contributors apart from Darwin). While they refer to the same subject matter, they are not equivalent or "the same".


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
The distinction being made is that the theory of evolution in "On the origin of species"...
Nice try dusty, but that was Seth, who was Disgusted, and he knows nothing about science. He said, 

The Origin of Species is not "Darwin's theory of evolution". Perhaps you might be good enough to supply me with "Darwin's theory of evolution", I'm unaware of it.
So, the distinction being made by Seth (the only one so far making the distinction) was that the theory of evolution is NOT in "On the origin of species".

...has long since been iterated and improved upon into the current modern theory of evolution (by other contributors apart from Darwin). While they refer to the same subject matter, they are not equivalent or "the same".
I did not say they were the same. I asked if they were different, because Seth asked,

Are you discussing The Theory of Evolution or are you discussing Darwin's On Origin of Species ?

I said atheists often post a wall-O-jargon so it seems like there is a mountain of scientific fact in their favor. There isn't.