Raving Atheists Forum

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)
-   Sciences (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   100 Refutations To Misconceptions About Evolution (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11009)

Tenspace 08-24-2006 08:02 AM

(Here's how it works... take a message, and provide a one-sentence refutation to the creationist claim. Duplicates may be noted as such.)

1) ) Evolution gives you what you need
Evolution is a scientific model to explain the diversity and variety of life.

2) We popped out of monkeys one day
Monkeys and Humans share the same ancestors and are not descended from each other.

3) The theory of evolution is tied to the big bang theory
Big Bang theory deals with creation of the universe; evolutionary theory deals with life on Earth.

4) The theory of evolution says random chemicals mysteriously made the first cell
Evolutionary theory does not speak to the origins of life, just to the origins of species.

5) Darwin took back his theory of evolution on his death bed.
Lady Hope, an evangelical who was not present at Darwin's death, made this statement in a 1915 speech, but it had long been refuted by Darwin's children and other witnesses at his side when he died.

myst7426 08-24-2006 11:38 AM

21) Physical changes that occur during the lifetime of an organism will be passed on the offspring.

Only genetic changes are passed on to offspring.



24) Kent Hovind is an expert in the fields of evolution, biology, and other sciences.

Kent Hovind is a snake-oil salesman. The success of his lectures are contingent upon the lack of knowledge of his audience. His doctorate is from a degree mill which is not accredited by repectable institutions. Everytime he referes to himself as "doctor" is an insult to everyone who has successfully completed a doctoral program from an accredited university. His dissertation does not even qualify as a dissertation. He doesn't even stick to his thesis and does not provide evidence for his claim. It is a joke. He can't even correctly spell the religions he trashes in his work. Kent Hovind has never published one article in a peer reviewed journal and has no evidence to back his claims. No research by Hovind has been contributed to our knowledge of the natural world.

I wish I had the link of the man who utterly demolished Hovind's dissertation. It is somehwere on these forums.

myst7426 08-24-2006 11:40 AM

25) Organisms evolve/mutate during their lifetime if a new selection pressure exerts itself.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

myst7426 08-24-2006 11:44 AM

Straight from Kent Hovind's dissertation:

52) Satan created the theory of evolution which caused everything from Eve eating the forbidden fruit, Cain killing Abel, the construction of the Tower of Babel, Islam, and everything else that is bad in the eyes of the creationists!

Charles Darwin is the first to present the theory of evolution to the public in great detail in The Origin Of Species.

myst7426 08-24-2006 11:48 AM

23) Only the fittest survive. (In actuality, if an organism can barely get by then it classified into the "fit" category).

The term fit is hard to define when considering whole organism. To be more precise, we must look at the genes. The neutral and advantageous genes make up the popluation while negative genes are filtered out over time through natural selection. Any given organism can contain a variety of the three categories of genes.

It is not the most fit species that survive, but the species most adaptive to change - Charles Darwin

myst7426 08-24-2006 11:50 AM

30) Evolution is JUST a theory.

Technically evolution is a theory. However, the word "just" implies that the speaker is using the non-scientific definition of theory which is usually defined as a guess or speculation.

myst7426 08-24-2006 11:52 AM

34) Evolution is effectively refuted by 'the Cambrian Explosion'

Earlier organisms were not composed of a complex bone structure; therefore, little or nothing could even fossilize.

Tenspace 08-24-2006 12:06 PM

Quote:

myst7426 wrote
21) Physical changes that occur during the lifetime of an organism will be passed on the offspring.

Only genetic changes are passed on to offspring.



24) Kent Hovind is an expert in the fields of evolution, biology, and other sciences.

Kent Hovind is a snake-oil salesman. The success of his lectures are contingent upon the lack of knowledge of his audience. His doctorate is from a degree mill which is not accredited by repectable institutions. Everytime he referes to himself as "doctor" is an insult to everyone who has successfully completed a doctoral program from an accredited university. His dissertation does not even qualify as a dissertation. He doesn't even stick to his thesis and does not provide evidence for his claim. It is a joke. He can't even correctly spell the religions he trashes in his work. Kent Hovind has never published one article in a peer reviewed journal and has no evidence to back his claims. No research by Hovind has been contributed to our knowledge of the natural world.

I wish I had the link of the man who utterly demolished Hovind's dissertation. It is somehwere on these forums.

One-sentence refutations, please. And no cherry picking... take them in order and give everyone a chance. :)

skribb 08-24-2006 12:50 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
(Here's how it works... take a message, and provide a one-sentence refutation to the creationist claim. Duplicates may be noted as such.)

3) The theory of evolution is tied to the big bang theory
Big Bang theory deals with creation of the universe; evolutionary theory deals with life on Earth.

Just a small note: exchange the word creation for something else. If a creationist sees the word creation, he'll enter godcrazy mode which makes them blind to words and logic, moreso than usual that is.

Tenspace 08-24-2006 01:55 PM

Quote:

skribb wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
(Here's how it works... take a message, and provide a one-sentence refutation to the creationist claim. Duplicates may be noted as such.)

3) The theory of evolution is tied to the big bang theory
Big Bang theory deals with creation of the universe; evolutionary theory deals with life on Earth.

Just a small note: exchange the word creation for something else. If a creationist sees the word creation, he'll enter godcrazy mode which makes them blind to words and logic, moreso than usual that is.

That was my intent. Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.

Sternwallow 08-24-2006 02:02 PM

Quote:

myst7426 wrote
34) Evolution is effectively refuted by 'the Cambrian Explosion'

Earlier organisms were not composed of a complex bone structure; therefore, little or nothing could even fossilize.

Indeed, this failure to fossilize pushes the beginning of life back much farther into the Precambrian.

AndyHolland 08-24-2006 02:04 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
(Here's how it works... take a message, and provide a one-sentence refutation to the creationist claim. Duplicates may be noted as such.)

14) The theory of evolution says random chemicals mysteriously made the first cell
Evolutionary theory does not speak to the origins of life, just to the origins of species.

While the other parts are true, unfortunately reading Science and Nature articles, scientists have spoken of evolution going to the "Origin of Life." Recently read an article about protein structure that contained that phrase for example in Science I believe. I thought it an idiotic thing to write.

While not dissing evolution, the truth is that design analysis, pattern analysis, probability theory and other aspects of Intelligent Design ought to be looked at intelligently and rationally, and not dismissed because they do not easily fall into a "natural selection" or "natural law" reference frame. Nor should they be dismissed because evolutionary biologists don't use them. There were plenty of electrical engineers in the world when grammer school dropout Edison invented the light bulb, step up/down transformers, breakers, switches, fuses, dynamos, insulators.... And there were great PhDs around when Orville and Wilber Wright (Bicycle shop owners) invented the airplane, wing warping control system, lightened the enginers and developed wind tunnel testing.

The fact that courts have pronounced you can't even mention it in school gives ID tremendous credibility - when have courts and the Vatican gotton science right?

The truth is that for 3.5 billion years bacteria and plant life did a heck of allot of work to convert an atmosphere of CO2 and hydrogen sulfides into the 78% N, 21% O 0.4% CO2 wonderful atmosphere we have today. It does not readily follow that it would have been advantageous at all for plants not to utilize O2 for their own benefit as C + O2 -> CO2 + energy is exothermic, and the endothermic reverse seems to be a difficult and counter-intuitive process from an energy efficiency standpoint. Nitrogen is the perfect cover gas to prevent the atmosphere from burning up vegetation in wildfires.

After all, survival is mostly about energy. Simplistic "natural selection" has allot of holes, and intellectually, many believe it is dead for very scientific reasons. That does not require religion, but it does demand a bit of humility and dispassioned analysis. Mass instinctions followed by rapid speciation is another problem with evolution. Also, Evolution even with genetics, is inadequate for describing collaboration of species. The collaborative aspects of life should be studied more carefully, and applied widely.


andy holland
theist sinner

myst7426 08-24-2006 02:12 PM

We can organize the refutations into the numerical order after we get them all. I was concentrating on my own myths mostly.

myst7426 08-24-2006 02:15 PM

Quote:

Mass instinctions followed by rapid speciation is another problem with evolution.
Sources?

Rapid speciation after mass extinction?

myst7426 08-24-2006 02:19 PM

Quote:

The fact that courts have pronounced you can't even mention it in school gives ID tremendous credibility
...because it has no evidence... Schools are in the business of teaching anything unless it is part of science and ID isn't. Under Behe's definition of science, astrology and alchemy should be taught in schools too!
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...miller_342.pdf

Baphomet 08-24-2006 03:35 PM

26) Evolution caused slavery.
People's own social ideas, sometimes backed up by religious texts, was the cause of slavery

PanAtheist 08-24-2006 03:37 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.

As if speciation is the only creative event in evolution! :lol:

And why so sensitive about the "creation" word! :D
Does not life create life! :D :D

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless! Absolutely priceless! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!" :D :D :D

Down21 08-24-2006 03:52 PM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.

As if speciation is the only creative event in evolution! :lol:

And why so sensitive about the "creation" word! :D
Does not life create life! :D :D

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless! Absolutely priceless! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!" :D :D :D

Can you explain what is wrong with the term "natural selection", as described by Darwin?

Down21 08-24-2006 04:06 PM

27) Many scientists are now casting doubt on Darwins theory.


Evolution is the central unifying theory in biology and is widely accepted by the scientific community

PanAtheist 08-24-2006 04:15 PM

Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!

And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.

It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!

To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.

It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D

Tenspace 08-24-2006 04:49 PM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!

And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.

It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!

To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.

It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D

Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould? Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.

Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution. Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?

Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?

AndyHolland 08-24-2006 04:50 PM

Quote:

myst7426 wrote
Quote:

The fact that courts have pronounced you can't even mention it in school gives ID tremendous credibility
...because it has no evidence... Schools are in the business of teaching anything unless it is part of science and ID isn't. Under Behe's definition of science, astrology and alchemy should be taught in schools too!
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...miller_342.pdf

-Actually it does have evidence - mathematical proof. Probabilities are easy to compute and prove.

-In automated design pattern analysis and such, hard limits on processing information are reached all the time. We don't even understand gene mechanisms and DNA/RNA well enough to understand what the machinery and feedbacks actually are, or how it works in detail.

-The value of ID isn't in presenting an origin theory but rather in pointing out the weakness of origin theories in general. Math sets hard limits and has hard proofs.

- The Uncertainty Principle occurs everywhere frequency/time domain problems, or statistical fitting, or convolution of Orthonormal functions occur. As such, there ought to be an uncertainty principle for evolution, and Darwin actually apprehended it.

-Historical "science" such as evolution, fits theory after the fact which is exceedingly dangerous.

-Most scientists accepted the caloric theory at one time with one notable exception. Benjamin Thompson was 60 years ahead of his time - but nearly everyone hated his guts so it didn't matter.

The fact that many cannot dispassionately discuss the evidence pro and con in the "scientific" community is really disturbing. It is as if we have an inquisition on our hands - that unless the theory is politically correct and "secular", it cannot be discussed or taught.

andy holland
sinner

Oz 08-24-2006 05:12 PM

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
While not dissing evolution, the truth is that design analysis, pattern analysis, probability theory and other aspects of Intelligent Design ought to be looked at intelligently and rationally...

Here's one:
http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

Excerpt (conclusion):

Quote:

Steven Den Beste wrote
What we have makes perfect sense as the end product of a long sequence of incremental changes. However, it makes no sense at all as a unique design from scratch for this particular application.

If God designed the human eye from scratch for this application, then God is an incompetent engineer.


Baphomet 08-24-2006 05:12 PM

Quote:

Actually it does have evidence - mathematical proof. Probabilities are easy to compute and prove.
Probability! hahahah Like I haven't heard that before. You're kidding, right?

Quote:

-In automated design pattern analysis and such, hard limits on processing information are reached all the time. We don't even understand gene mechanisms and DNA/RNA well enough to understand what the machinery and feedbacks actually are, or how it works in detail.
Wow, we don't actually know exactly how gravity works, either. Maybe we should create a supernatural explanation like ID does, how about "gravity spirits" or "gravi-demons"?

Quote:

-The value of ID isn't in presenting an origin theory but rather in pointing out the weakness of origin theories in general. Math sets hard limits and has hard proofs.
ID should be taught in mythology class, plain and simple.

Quote:

- The Uncertainty Principle occurs everywhere frequency/time domain problems, or statistical fitting, or convolution of Orthonormal functions occur. As such, there ought to be an uncertainty principle for evolution, and Darwin actually apprehended it.
That's right, we can't account for every factor. That doesn't mean we should assume a supernatural one. Ever.
Quote:

-Historical "science" such as evolution, fits theory after the fact which is exceedingly dangerous.
Theories like intelligent design are creation myths revamped. Maybe we should teach about how Ahura Mazda created everything, or explain how Osiris fits into chemistry.
Quote:

-Most scientists accepted the caloric theory at one time with one notable exception. Benjamin Thompson was 60 years ahead of his time - but nearly everyone hated his guts so it didn't matter.
Except most people who want intelligent design to be taught aren't scientists. And also, I should mention how the church hated Galileo because his theories went against what was in the bible.
Quote:

The fact that many cannot dispassionately discuss the evidence pro and con in the "scientific" community is really disturbing. It is as if we have an inquisition on our hands - that unless the theory is politically correct and "secular", it cannot be discussed or taught.
No one debates it because intelligent design is not on level with the theory of evolution any more than the theory "evil spirits cause headaches" is on level with things like neuroscience.

Quote:

andy holland
sinner
Hey, you know what they say: "You want to win, you have to sin"

Baphomet 08-24-2006 05:16 PM

And Now to go BACK ON TOPIC!

41) If you believe in evolution, then that means you think it's okay to kill, rape, and steal

Belief in evolution is independent of one's moral stances

Down21 08-24-2006 05:41 PM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!

And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.

It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!

To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.

It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D

You havent explained why it's recklessly wrong to say that there is NOT a selector, ie natural selection. Here is an abstract from a review article in june 2006 issue of Science. Seems that the folks at MIT and Harvard think its ok to use natural selection.

"Positive natural selection is the force that drives the increase in prevalence of advantageous traits, and it has played a central role in our development as a species. Until recently, the study of natural selection in humans has largely been restricted to comparing individual candidate genes to theoretical expectations. The advent of genome-wide sequence and polymorphism data brings fundamental new tools to the study of natural selection. It is now possible to identify new candidates for selection and to reevaluate previous claims by comparison with empirical distributions of DNA sequence variation across the human genome and among populations. The flood of data and analytical methods, however, raises many new challenges. Here, we review approaches to detect positive natural selection, describe results from recent analyses of genome-wide data, and discuss the prospects and challenges ahead as we expand our understanding of the role of natural selection in shaping the human genome."

AndyHolland 08-24-2006 06:10 PM

There is an old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Objections to evolutionary theory going to ORIGIN of life is
the objection - and it is sad scientists and lay people mix up species with "life"

As for citations you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Learn to use google - sheesh! There is plenty of information about this stuff on the web, at your library - if you want me to educate you fork over $450/hr and I'll be happy to provide all the citations you want.

andy holland
sinner

Baphomet 08-24-2006 06:26 PM

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
There is an old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Objections to evolutionary theory going to ORIGIN of life is
the objection - and it is sad scientists and lay people mix up species with "life"

As for citations you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Learn to use google - sheesh! There is plenty of information about this stuff on the web, at your library - if you want me to educate you fork over $450/hr and I'll be happy to provide all the citations you want.

andy holland
sinner

:offtopic:


This thread is supposed to be about refutations To Misconceptions about Evolution, and deal with that other thread.

Andy Holland, if you want to talk about this other stuff, please start another thread. Thank you.

Tenspace 08-24-2006 10:56 PM

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
There is an old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Objections to evolutionary theory going to ORIGIN of life is
the objection - and it is sad scientists and lay people mix up species with "life"

As for citations you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Learn to use google - sheesh! There is plenty of information about this stuff on the web, at your library - if you want me to educate you fork over $450/hr and I'll be happy to provide all the citations you want.

andy holland
sinner

$450/hr for quoting citations? WTF?

Victus 08-24-2006 11:16 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
$450/hr for quoting citations? WTF?

Weird how the creationists always charge money, but the real scientists cite their sources for free. Anyways :offtopic:

PanAtheist 08-25-2006 01:16 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless! Absolutely priceless! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!" :D :D :D

Quote:

PanAtheist (in further explanation) wrote
Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!

And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.


It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!

To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.

It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D

Quote:

Tenspace then wrote
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory?

Irrelevant! (And here you are using Cal's "ignorant retard" and "do research" excuses for arguments)

Quote:

Tenspace then wrote
Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould?

Irrelevant! (And here you are using Cal's "ignorant retard" and "do research" excuses for arguments again!)

Quote:

Tenspace then wrote
Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.

This fart contributes nothing to the discussion, which is about the applicability of the WORDS "natural" and "selection", both of which I have already shown to be inappropriate and false (see above!) (that's right, the argument above, which you totally ignore, as you place your post which spouts drivel at me!)

Quote:

Brainspace then wrote
Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution.

Yes! There is a CONCEPT which is vital - and hence the need to get rid of a wanky idiotic TERM like "natural selection" to label it !
I have already explained in detail to you exactly why this label is wanky and idiotic - and instead of appreciating my explanation, and thanking me, you totally ignore it, and simply spout silly irrelevance!

Quote:

Brainspace then wrote
Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?

I just did! In the previous post!
Here Brainspace, you put "authority" above logic!
Wow! Way to go Ten!
Are you just being really stupid today, or is this how you are all the time? :D

Quote:

Brainspace then wrote
Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?

Is that what passes for a free-thinkers argument around here?!!
This is the 2 million people can't be wrong "argument"! :D

If you, Brainspace, are at the cutting-edge of "freethought" in the USA, it is no wonder your country is in the mess it is in!

It seems that is a waste of time to direct intelligent and helpful posts at you!
I place this post in the hope that another reader appreciates it! :thumbsup:

PanAtheist 08-25-2006 02:43 AM

It is shocking to see the witlessness displayed by Tenspace above.

The reckless misuse of language by evolutionary scientists is a critical part of the reason why they are failing to suceed in teaching the "how" of biological evolution to the people of the USA!

And it is shocking that "authority" and "follow-my-leader" is preferred by professed atheists such as Tenspace, over freethought.
That is a calamity!

Down21 08-25-2006 02:50 AM

Pan,

You still have not explained why we should stop using the term natural selection. Calling it wanky and idiotic is one thing but you have to explain fully why. If your ideas are valid perhaps you should send a manuscript to Nature. The reason everybody uses the term is because it makes perfect sense.

PanAtheist 08-25-2006 03:15 AM

Quote:

Down21 wrote
Pan,

You still have not explained why we should stop using the term natural selection. Calling it wanky and idiotic is one thing but you have to explain fully why. If your ideas are valid perhaps you should send a manuscript to Nature. The reason everybody uses the term is because it makes perfect sense.

But I HAVE : in this post! (Which has been ignored twice already!)

Selection is a conscious action that humans and animals do!
And it is extremely misleading to use it as a label for a concept which includes the "blind forces" which partake in the differential salvation and destruction of different genes! It needs to be retained only in terms like "mate selection" and "prey selection", in which it is used correctly!
And, as I have already indicated, there is much more to differential survival and reproduction than selection. We are talking about a concept which includes "blind forces", and it is incompatible with true communication and clear-thinking, to use "selection" as its name!

And Nature now effectively means "Everything"!
And therefore Natural is not a useful qualifier!

(it had best be restricted in future to its original use of pertaining to birth, or simply abandoned.)

Quote:

Down21 wrote
Pan,

You still have not explained why we should stop using the term natural selection.

Actually it is you and Ten who have not even attempted to rationally address the explanation that I have already given!
(Or perhaps you don't know what it means to select something) :lol:

Natural Selection : can it survive ? :D

Quote:

Down21 wrote
The reason everybody uses the term is because it makes perfect sense.

What a scary sentiment!
It makes total anti-sense! :D

Writing to Nature is a good idea - thanks! :D
And sorry that this thread has been waylaid - but it happens around here ! :D
And it is all for the greater good! :thumbsup:

Down21 08-25-2006 03:48 AM

Do you honestly expect all biologists to adopt new terminology based on that "explanation" ? Tenspace addressed it already , the environment and genetic variation set up differential survival. Nobody has EVER suggested that this selection is conscious or just because when a human selects that that is how natural selection works.

PanAtheist 08-25-2006 04:05 AM

Quote:

Down21 wrote
Do you honestly expect all biologists to adopt new terminology based on that "explanation" ?

Yes I expect they will!
Freethinking Scientists will get ever-more dynamically and sanely radical as The Enlightenment accelerates! :D

And as I have been taught biology at degree-level I am fully aware of the great extent to which poor terminology has tremendously held up the advancement of scientific ideas and teaching.
And I am aware that the arrival of new and better terms accelerates the advancement of scientific ideas and teaching.
And so are the vast majority of biologists!

Quote:

Down21 wrote
Tenspace addressed it already , the environment and genetic variation set up differential survival.

That's a lie!
It was me that introduced the phrase differential survival in this thread!
And Brainspace hasn't rationally addressed anything that I have brought up here!
Yet I am glad you are picking up on that term!

Quote:

Down21 wrote
Nobody has EVER suggested that this selection is conscious or just because when a human selects that that is how natural selection works.

The very word suggests it, which is why it is a very poor choice of a word.
Hello?! :lol:
We also need to keep this word "clean" for clear and honest use in the terms "mate selection" and "prey selection".

4thgeneration 08-25-2006 06:10 AM

Quote:

Victus wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
$450/hr for quoting citations? WTF?

Weird how the creationists always charge money, but the real scientists cite their sources for free. Anyways :offtopic:

Indeed. And it is also weird to see how creationists/ID proponents use Google and Wikipedia as sources (expensive ones at that, whew $450!) while the real scientists use www.pubmed.com for peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Tenspace 08-25-2006 08:16 AM

Pan, I am not ignoring your posts. I want to address them in detail, but I don't have alot of time right now.

I will say that your condescending tone isn't appropriate for a real discussion. You know I don't denigrate people, and I ask that you stop it until I've had a serious chance to respond.

And respond I will.

PanAtheist 08-25-2006 09:03 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Pan, I am not ignoring your posts. I want to address them in detail, but I don't have alot of time right now.

Thank you for your interest.
I think my stance on this issue is a vital one!

Biology *has* really struggled with ideas and terms in the course of the history of evolutionary theory.
We both know this I think!

We now urgently need terms that help pedagoguery, not ones that hinder it!

We must aid the formation of realisations in people's minds.
"Natural selection" was a very useful ANALOGY for Darwin.
But like all analogies, it is easily taken too far, and this one has outlived its helpfulness.
(Except for use as a temporary analogy in the process of teaching "evolution")

Today, with our knowledge of DNA and all that (which Darwin didn't have) we can come up with better terms I think, with a wider scope. At the very least it will be heuristic to try! :D

Perhaps you are planning to defend biologists use of the term "Natural Selection" when you reply.
Here is an alternative challenge to you!
How about seeing if you can come up with a whole range of better terms which better describe the events of evolution?

PanAtheist 08-25-2006 09:52 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould?

I haven't read Dawkins or Gould or Mayr for a very long time!

Evolutionary scientists seem to talk about the processes of "natural selection" all the time!
I'm like, yeh, "natural selection! What a stupid term! But I get it! Now move on already!" :D

It is the generation of aliveness and novelty which excites me, and this is why I turned to the study of biochemistry. That way excitement lies!

And Ten, with you being a moderator, why don't you lift this whole discussion to another thread, and salvage your 100 refutations from the wreckage?

Tenspace 08-25-2006 02:19 PM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould?

I haven't read Dawkins or Gould or Mayr for a very long time!

Evolutionary scientists seem to talk about the processes of "natural selection" all the time!
I'm like, yeh, "natural selection! What a stupid term! But I get it! Now move on already!" :D

It is the generation of aliveness and novelty which excites me, and this is why I turned to the study of biochemistry. That way excitement lies!

And Ten, with you being a moderator, why don't you lift this whole discussion to another thread, and salvage your 100 refutations from the wreckage?

Well, seeing as you drove this thread right off the side of the cliff, I agree.

Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

15.) That there are no transition fossils
All fossils, all lifeforms are transitionary because there is no goal to evolution.

16.) That humans evolved from the Apes that are around today.
Humans and apes share a common ancestor, and neither is directly descended from either.

AndyHolland 08-25-2006 03:57 PM

Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

And one should add - Evolution is meaningless with regard to religion so long as it does not arrogate itself to be a theory on the Origin (first cause) of Life (#4 above I believe).

andy holland
sinner

myst7426 08-25-2006 04:00 PM

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

And one should add - Evolution is meaningless with regard to religion so long as it does not arrogate itself to be a theory on the Origin (first cause) of Life (#4 above I believe).

andy holland
sinner

What are you babbling about. Take all you evo questions to the Understanding Evolution is Hard? thread.

DinaNoun 08-25-2006 04:52 PM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Selection is a conscious action that humans and animals do!
And it is extremely misleading to use it as a label for a concept which includes the "blind forces" which partake in the differential salvation and destruction of different genes! It needs to be retained only in terms like "mate selection" and "prey selection", in which it is used correctly!

Darwin addressed this kind of objection himself, almost 150 years ago.

Quote:

Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection. Some have even
imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such
variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life. No one objects to
agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of manís selection; and in this case the individual differences
given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others have objected
that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even
been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense
of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the
elective affinities of the various elements? Ė and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with
which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active
power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the
movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying
the word Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,
and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial
objection will be forgotten.

(bold emphasis added, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, The Modern Library, 1998, p109)

Tenspace 08-25-2006 07:36 PM

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

You brought it up. No one here believes evolutionary theory encompasses origins of life - origins of Man, yes, but not the starting point of life. Yes, there are scientists and others who don't make this clear; we were even discussing this in another thread recently. But their opinions would be critically examined if posted here, I'm sure.

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

If survival is the goal, then why is death so important in evolution? Survival is a byproduct of emergent self-replication.

Quote:

And one should add - Evolution is meaningless with regard to religion so long as it does not arrogate itself to be a theory on the Origin (first cause) of Life (#4 above I believe).

andy holland
sinner
Is there a biological Theory Of Everything? Could new discoveries mesh evolutionary theory with abiogenesis to give us a complete picture of life, from creation through diversity? Maybe we're both wrong, and evolution will one incorporate "aliveness" (props to Pan), just as we might one day see the incorporation of gravity and quantum physics.

Down21 08-26-2006 02:06 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould?

I haven't read Dawkins or Gould or Mayr for a very long time!

Evolutionary scientists seem to talk about the processes of "natural selection" all the time!
I'm like, yeh, "natural selection! What a stupid term! But I get it! Now move on already!" :D

It is the generation of aliveness and novelty which excites me, and this is why I turned to the study of biochemistry. That way excitement lies!

And Ten, with you being a moderator, why don't you lift this whole discussion to another thread, and salvage your 100 refutations from the wreckage?

Sorry to bring this up again off topic but.....

First of all, Darwin spoke of differential survival well before you did (you seemed to take the credit for that in an earlier post). Darwins central tenet was differential reproductive success ie differential survival since those who reproduce more efficiently must live to do so.

You cant come around laughing and insulting people who dont use your terminology when you have not even given a decent explanation as to why we should adopt it. Imagine I start using your terminology and go to a biology conference and start talking about Enovations. Nobody in the room would have a clue what I was talking about. "Oh, let me explain, I frequent an internet forum where some guy has given a vague explanation as to why I should stop using the term natural selection". Id be laughed out of the room. Scientists are slow to change their minds on both terminology and theory but it does happen. Until you can get something published in a peer reviewed journal nobody in science will listen to you. Some of the proteins I work with have changed names a few times. This is annoying but usually the changes avoid further confusion when more family members are discovered etc. So change can happen and can be positive but not without a published rational discussion as to why the terminology should change. Until then I suggest you stop laughing at people for not adopting your terminology. Since it's natural selection you want to change I wont expect to see that anytime soon.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 05:21 AM

Quote:

DinaNoun wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Selection is a conscious action that humans and animals do!
And it is extremely misleading to use it as a label for a concept which includes the "blind forces" which partake in the differential salvation and destruction of different genes! It needs to be retained only in terms like "mate selection" and "prey selection", in which it is used correctly!

Darwin addressed this kind of objection himself, almost 150 years ago.

Quote:

Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection. Some have even
imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such
variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life. No one objects to
agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of manís selection; and in this case the individual differences
given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others have objected
that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even
been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense
of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the
elective affinities of the various elements? Ė and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with
which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active
power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the
movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying
the word Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,
and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial
objection will be forgotten.

(bold emphasis added, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, The Modern Library, 1998, p109)

Thanks DinaNoun, that's a great quote, and really adds to the discussion! (At last, someone adds to this discussion! :D )
Thanks very much for looking it up for us (?and typing it out?).
Darwin can certainly write can't he!

It is clear from the quote that his term had already in his life-time produced a mass of confusion.
And his defence, and clarification, of the term is enlightening and astute.

But the mass of confusion he reported was real and was caused by the words of the term itself.
It was real and involved real people!
And it did not help the advance of the BIG IDEA.

Today, there is a mass of confusion and mistaken ideas about all things "evolution".
And this too is real, and has had very real and dire consequences (yes USA, I am thinking of you!)
People (biologists very much included) talk and write about "evolution" in sloppy, and downright false ways, and again this has had very real, and bad, effects.
Without leadership from biologists in-how-to-communicate-well , the media and the public have struggled to talk about and think about the ideas in "evolution" successfully. This has hindered the dissemination of understanding, and held back the progress of The Enlightenment. The disastrous results can be witnessed on this forum day in and day out. (This is serious stuff! The Origin was published almost 150 years ago!)

People at this forum are ever deriding creationists for their idiocy!

We could equally say that scientists have been idiotic in their retention of downright misleading terms and reckless use of language - and say that in doing so they have created a niche for creationists to thrive. Again, with very real effects!

So I appeal to all - please pick your words with care - and really think about what the words you pick are actually saying when you talk about "evolution" - and make sure that what they say is sane and true. All I am trying to do here is to help you realize the necessity of speaking truly if you wish to be successful at communicating these ideas - the spread of which is vital for the health of humankind.

AndyHolland 08-26-2006 05:43 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

You brought it up. No one here believes evolutionary theory encompasses origins of life - origins of Man, yes, but not the starting point of life. Yes, there are scientists and others who don't make this clear; we were even discussing this in another thread recently. But their opinions would be critically examined if posted here, I'm sure.

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

If survival is the goal, then why is death so important in evolution? Survival is a byproduct of emergent self-replication.

This issue is preference. CO2 + Energy -> C + O2.

Life that evolves to process O2 is preferred from a survival standpoint. Think about it.

Our once soda oceans, and once methane CO2 atmosphere were terraformed - that requires tremendous energy and time. The machinery to do that evolved into organisms when the time came to do so. But early on, if survival and death were mechanisms, then they would have simply used all available O2 for their own benefit.


andy holland
sinner

myst7426 08-26-2006 05:46 AM

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

You brought it up. No one here believes evolutionary theory encompasses origins of life - origins of Man, yes, but not the starting point of life. Yes, there are scientists and others who don't make this clear; we were even discussing this in another thread recently. But their opinions would be critically examined if posted here, I'm sure.

Quote:

AndyHolland wrote
Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

If survival is the goal, then why is death so important in evolution? Survival is a byproduct of emergent self-replication.

This issue is preference. CO2 + Energy -> C + O2.

Life that evolves to process O2 is preferred from a survival standpoint. Think about it.

Our once soda oceans, and once methane CO2 atmosphere were terraformed - that requires tremendous energy and time. The machinery to do that evolved into organisms when the time came to do so. But early on, if survival and death were mechanisms, then they would have simply used all available O2 for their own benefit.


andy holland
sinner

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewt...151028#p151028

You are arguing the same point here so finish it over here.

FishFace 08-26-2006 06:08 AM

I'm not sure what Andy "The Sinner" Holland is trying to get at, here, but it seems to boil down to a basic misunderstanding of biology and the history of our atmosphere.

When considering abiogenesis, you just have to realise a simple fact. What replicates better: a self replicating molecule, or a non-replicating molecule? Duh. The former. Once you have a self-replicating molecule, evolution has to take place, in whatever direction chaos takes it.

Tenspace 08-26-2006 06:35 AM

Myst, I'm with ya buddy... this thread is so off track... if some *other* members could care to post additional refutations, we could get things going again.

Andy, please re-post your responses in another, more appropriate thread if you want to continue carrying on the conversation.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 06:37 AM

Quote:

Down21 wrote
Darwin spoke of differential survival well before Pan did (Pan seemed to take the credit for that in an earlier post).

:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

I introduced the term differential survival into this thread
... and pointed out that I had done so! (You are refering to this!)

How easily it is to misread something!
Down, you make my case for me! :D :D :D

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 06:46 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

A Random Process is an antisensical oxymoronical nothing.
pro indicates that there is a direction involved.
And a direction makes it nonrandom.

Down21 08-26-2006 06:48 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Down21 wrote
Darwin spoke of differential survival well before Pan did (Pan seemed to take the credit for that in an earlier post).

:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

I introduced the term differential survival into this thread
... and pointed out that I had done so! (You are refering to this!)

How easily it is to misread something!
Down, you make my case for me! :D :D :D

Are you seriously trying to claim you coined the term "differential survival"? Just because you were the first to use it in a thread doesnt mean you invented that term.

Please address what I said about the pointlessness of adopting your terminology since nobody in the scientific community will no what Im talking about. Basically stop laughing at people for not adopting unpublished opinion in place of logical scientific discussion. When I see your paper published in a reputable journal Ill get back to you......not holding my breath.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 06:52 AM

Quote:

Down21 wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Down21 wrote
Darwin spoke of differential survival well before Pan did (Pan seemed to take the credit for that in an earlier post).

:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

I introduced the term differential survival into this thread
... and pointed out that I had done so! (You are refering to this!)

How easily it is to misread something!
Down, you make my case for me! :D :D :D

Are you seriously trying to claim you coined the term "differential survival"? Just because you were the first to use it in a thread doesnt mean you invented that term.

:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

You are unbelievable Down!
I brought the term into this thread, and you claim that I claim that I invented it!
YOU OUT OF THIS WORLD UNBELIEVABLE !!!


:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

Tenspace 08-26-2006 06:58 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
You are unbelievable Down!
I brought the term into this thread, and you claim that I claim that I invented it!
YOU OUT OF THIS WORLD UNBELIEVABLE !!!

Maybe if you provided an actual link instead of just underlining "into this thread' we'd know what the hell you were talking about.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 07:06 AM

Quote:

Down21 wrote
Please address what I said about the pointlessness of adopting your terminology since nobody in the scientific community will no what Im talking about. Basically stop laughing at people for not adopting unpublished opinion in place of logical scientific discussion. When I see your paper published in a reputable journal Ill get back to you......not holding my breath.

This is a forum!
It is the RAVING atheist forum!
It is not a scientific community!
We discuss!
We don't need to submit papers!
It is a DISCUSSION FORUM!

I haven't introduced any new terminology of my own into this discussion thread.
All I have done is point out that the severe failings of the term "natural selection".
I did this in response to sensitivities over the use of the word "creation", pointing out that this sensitivity was a double standard, as folks use "selection" without a care.

It was a fair comment, but Ten's out-of-hand "rebuff" of it led to the inflamation of this thread.
I will defend myself!

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 07:07 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
You are unbelievable Down!
I brought the term into this thread, and you claim that I claim that I invented it!
YOU OUT OF THIS WORLD UNBELIEVABLE !!!

Maybe if you provided an actual link instead of just underlining "into this thread' we'd know what the hell you were talking about.

No, Ten, I mean this thread ! :D

Tenspace 08-26-2006 07:08 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

A Random Process is an antisensical oxymoronical nothing.
pro indicates that there is a direction involved.
And a direction makes it nonrandom.

Geez, Pan, it's Probability Theory 101!

Definition of Random Process: A Random Process is the mapping from sample space into time functions, which can further be broken into Continuous Random Processes and Discrete Random Processes. They are called Stochastic Processes. - Reference: Any Entry-Level Probability Course.

:rolleyes:

In the Process of Beta Decay, does the electron (or positron) take a random or non-random path from the event?

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 07:11 AM

I can't believe that Down wants to talk about my attitude!

Down hasn't once addressed any points that I have made - just dismissed them as nothings!

Tenspace 08-26-2006 07:13 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Down21 wrote
Please address what I said about the pointlessness of adopting your terminology since nobody in the scientific community will no what Im talking about. Basically stop laughing at people for not adopting unpublished opinion in place of logical scientific discussion. When I see your paper published in a reputable journal Ill get back to you......not holding my breath.

This is a forum!
It is the RAVING atheist forum!
It is not a scientific community!
We discuss!
We don't need to submit papers!
It is a DISCUSSION FORUM!

I haven't introduced any new terminology of my own into this discussion thread.
All I have done is point out that the severe failings of the term "natural selection".
I did this in response to sensitivities over the use of the word "creation", pointing out that this sensitivity was a double standard, as folks use "selection" without a care.

It was a fair comment, but Ten's out-of-hand "rebuff" of it led to the inflamation of this thread.
I will defend myself!

My out-of-hand rebuff? Pan, here is what I "rebuffed":

===========
Tenspace wrote:
Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.

As if speciation is the only creative event in evolution!

And why so sensitive about the "creation" word!
Does not life create life!

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!!

Priceless! Absolutely priceless!

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!"
===============

My Reply:

=======
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould? Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.

Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution. Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?

Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?
========

I was out-of-hand? :rolleyes:

Tenspace 08-26-2006 07:14 AM

This thread is officially a train wreck. So much for refuting the misconceptions of evolution. I thought it was a cool idea, but didn't expect so much off-hand discussion unrelated to refuting the creationist's claims.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 07:14 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Geez, Pan, it's Probability Theory 101!

Definition of Random Process: A Random Process is the mapping from sample space into time functions, which can further be broken into Continuous Random Processes and Discrete Random Processes. They are called Stochastic Processes. - Reference: Any Entry-Level Probability Course.

:rolleyes:

If you want to talk in Klingon, feel free!
And feel free to dream that it is helpful! :D

Tenspace 08-26-2006 07:16 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Geez, Pan, it's Probability Theory 101!

Definition of Random Process: A Random Process is the mapping from sample space into time functions, which can further be broken into Continuous Random Processes and Discrete Random Processes. They are called Stochastic Processes. - Reference: Any Entry-Level Probability Course.

:rolleyes:

If you want to talk in Klingon, feel free!
And feel free to dream that it is helpful! :D

Klingon? Klingons invented Probability Theory? WTF are you smoking, dude? Sounds like you want that pooprince title.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 07:22 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Down21 wrote
Please address what I said about the pointlessness of adopting your terminology since nobody in the scientific community will no what Im talking about. Basically stop laughing at people for not adopting unpublished opinion in place of logical scientific discussion. When I see your paper published in a reputable journal Ill get back to you......not holding my breath.

This is a forum!
It is the RAVING atheist forum!
It is not a scientific community!
We discuss!
We don't need to submit papers!
It is a DISCUSSION FORUM!

I haven't introduced any new terminology of my own into this discussion thread.
All I have done is point out that the severe failings of the term "natural selection".
I did this in response to sensitivities over the use of the word "creation", pointing out that this sensitivity was a double standard, as folks use "selection" without a care.

It was a fair comment, but Ten's out-of-hand "rebuff" of it led to the inflamation of this thread.
I will defend myself!

My out-of-hand rebuff? Pan, here is what I "rebuffed":

===========
Tenspace wrote:
Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.

As if speciation is the only creative event in evolution!

And why so sensitive about the "creation" word!
Does not life create life!

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!!

Priceless! Absolutely priceless!

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!"
===============

My Reply:

=======
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould? Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.

Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution. Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?

Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?
========

I was out-of-hand? :rolleyes:

But your "rebuff" says nothing about the words of the term!

This is what I see :
"Selection" - GOOD
"Creation" - BAD

Double standards!

It is no wonder theidiots call evolution a religion!

The phrase "Natural Selection" is as non-sensical (and as embarassing as) "God".

Tenspace 08-26-2006 07:41 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
The phrase "Natural Selection" is as non-sensical (and as embarassing as) "God".

:wall:

The Five Cornerstones of Evolution:

Variation (non-constancy of species)
Descent from Common Ancestry
Gradualness (no discontinuities)
Diversity (multiplication of species)
Natural Selection (see below)

The Five Facts of Natural Selection
1. Every population has such high fertility that its size would increase exponentially if not constrained. (Paley & Malthus)
2. The size of populations remains stable over time (steady-state stability) (Mayr, through observation)
3. The resources available to every species are limited (Malthus)
4. No two individuals of a population are exactly the same; population thinking (Darwin)
5. Many of the differences among the individuals of a population are heritable. (Mayr, through observation)

Therefore, Natural Selection, when viewed at a populational level and over considerable periods of time, results in Evolution.

Natural Selection Is A Two-Step Process:

Step 1: Production of Variation - through imperfect recombination (primary), and random occurrences (random mating selection, modification through external sources (cosmic rays, random environmental influence).

Step 2: Nonrandom Survival and Reproduction - Success of phenotypes at adaptation, combined with nonrandom sexual selection.

Pan, Natural Selection is a very appropriate term to describe evolution. It is not nonsensical. It is not whimsical.

(References: Mayr, "What Evolution Is"; Darwin, "On the Origin of the Species"; Dawkins, "The Extended Phenotype")

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 07:54 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Natural Selection Is A Two-Step Process:

Step 1: Production of Variation - through imperfect recombination (primary), and random occurrences (random mating selection, modification through external sources (cosmic rays, random environmental influence).

Step 2: Nonrandom Survival and Reproduction - Success of phenotypes at adaptation, combined with nonrandom sexual selection.

Darwin says that has production of variation is not part of "natural selection".
He says so above in the quote above, that DinoNoun posted.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 07:56 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
The phrase "Natural Selection" is as non-sensical (and as embarassing as) "God".

:wall:

The Five Cornerstones of Evolution:

Variation (non-constancy of species)
Descent from Common Ancestry
Gradualness (no discontinuities)
Diversity (multiplication of species)
Natural Selection (see below)

The Five Facts of Natural Selection
1. Every population has such high fertility that its size would increase exponentially if not constrained. (Paley & Malthus)
2. The size of populations remains stable over time (steady-state stability) (Mayr, through observation)
3. The resources available to every species are limited (Malthus)
4. No two individuals of a population are exactly the same; population thinking (Darwin)
5. Many of the differences among the individuals of a population are heritable. (Mayr, through observation)

Therefore, Natural Selection, when viewed at a populational level and over considerable periods of time, results in Evolution.

Natural Selection Is A Two-Step Process:

Step 1: Production of Variation - through imperfect recombination (primary), and random occurrences (random mating selection, modification through external sources (cosmic rays, random environmental influence).

Step 2: Nonrandom Survival and Reproduction - Success of phenotypes at adaptation, combined with nonrandom sexual selection.

Pan, Natural Selection is a very appropriate term to describe evolution. It is not nonsensical. It is not whimsical.

(References: Mayr, "What Evolution Is"; Darwin, "On the Origin of the Species"; Dawkins, "The Extended Phenotype")

Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:05 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Natural Selection Is A Two-Step Process:

Step 1: Production of Variation - through imperfect recombination (primary), and random occurrences (random mating selection, modification through external sources (cosmic rays, random environmental influence).

Step 2: Nonrandom Survival and Reproduction - Success of phenotypes at adaptation, combined with nonrandom sexual selection.

Darwin says that has production of variation is not part of "natural selection".
He says so above in the quote above, that DinoNoun posted.

So why don't you discuss it instead of simply refuting what I wrote?

Would you ask Edison his opinion on lithium-ion storage?

Maybe we have progressed and added to Darwin's original theory since its inception. My text was referenced. I did not make it up. It is from Mayr and Dawkins.

So, now that I've had my fun with recursive refutations, let's talk about what you said:

Production of Variation is not a part of Natural Selection? According to Darwin? Here's the salient part of DinaNoun's post:

Some have even
imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.


Note the word "induces". Darwin is saying that natural selection does not initiate variability. He is not saying that variability is not a part of selection. He goes on to say that No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of manís selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.

That is variation. Variation is a necessity that must first occur for selection to be effective. Therefore, the first step in selection is a population with inherent variation. Per Darwin.

FishFace 08-26-2006 08:06 AM

What, exactly, is nonsensical about the term, "natural selection?" Are you saying that selection implies artificial? So, if you have a sieve with small holes, allowing only fine particles through, that sieve doesn't select fine particles? Bull.
Selection just means a system favours a certain feature. The sieve favours small particles. Evolution favours reproducers.

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:07 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

Oh, and how was I wrong about the concept of evolution?

Down21 08-26-2006 08:10 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
I can't believe that Down wants to talk about my attitude!

Down hasn't once addressed any points that I have made - just dismissed them as nothings!

Your attitude is condescending. You laugh and mock people for using terms that are still used in publications from 2006 from MIT and Harvard. If they are willing to use the perfectly sensible term "natural selection" forgive me for disagreeing with you. ..ie dismissing them as nothings. People can discuss all they want but dont laugh and mock people for not adopting your groundless unsupported terminology.


The reason I claimed you seemed to be taking credit for the term "differential survival" is that you said something like "thanks for picking up on the term" as if I was using it just because you said it.


On a related matter. What do you think the creationist camp would make of the scientific community changing something about darwins theory? Would they interpret that as evolution not being real and that scientists are doubting it...of course they would since they are willing to misquote and distort everything darwin had said. If people are too confused by natural selection then changing it to some other name wont help them it will just confude them further.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 08:16 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

Oh, and how was I wrong about the concept of evolution?

... the concept of natural selection ... ( this is what you and I have been discussing, no? :D )
... wrong according to Darwin ...

... and we have discussed this both already ...
... okay? are we clear at least on that ?! :D

Victus 08-26-2006 08:17 AM

PanAtheist is starting to remind me of a less amusing version of Cal.

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:22 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

Oh, and how was I wrong about the concept of evolution?

... the concept of natural selection ... ( this is what you and I have been discussing, no? :D )
... wrong according to Darwin ...

... and we have discussed this both already ...
... okay? are we clear at least on that ?! :D

We will be once you respond to my post showing how you misunderstood Darwin's words, making you the one who is wrong, not me.

Edit: It's this post, just in case you missed it.

Sternwallow 08-26-2006 08:26 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

A Random Process is an antisensical oxymoronical nothing.
pro indicates that there is a direction involved.
And a direction makes it nonrandom.

Is a process (simple machine) that takes in a random mix of minerals and filters them to produce only onyx an oxymoronical nothing? Does it have intentions? Do you claim that the input is not random for some reason?

There are two processes activities in evolution, genetic variation caused by mutation and probabilistic winnowing by the environment of those less able to reproduce through the simple fact of their low reproduction. There is abundant randomness and a powerful organizing effect to produce slightly modified populations.
If the environment changes too much or too fast for the possible variation in the population, they all die. It does not take many generations, under environment pressure for a population to change well beyond the original limits of its variablilty.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 08:35 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

It is a fight over semantics!

And it's a fight worth fighting!

Sane terms make for easy teaching and fruitful thinking. (Insane terms hamper both. And are doing so !)

It is an endeavour to aid teaching and fruitful thinking.

It's about challenging people's unthinking adoption of unhelpful names for scientific concepts.
And there is great value in challenging that!
Freethinking rules okay!

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:41 AM

Now that you've made a couple of posts since I called you out on the Darwin variation/natural selection deal, I want to point out that you haven't responded to a very important point: you absolutely misunderstood what Darwin said.

Pan, I ask, before we continue with anything else, that you address this post.

(edit: in other words, I won't let you take the "Christian Way Out" by being selective as to what posts to answer)

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 08:42 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

Oh, and how was I wrong about the concept of evolution?

... the concept of natural selection ... ( this is what you and I have been discussing, no? :D )
... wrong according to Darwin ...

... and we have discussed this both already ...
... okay? are we clear at least on that ?! :D

We will be once you respond to my post showing how you misunderstood Darwin's words, making you the one who is wrong, not me.

Edit: It's this post, just in case you missed it.

I'll agree that we differ on that! And let it pass!

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:43 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
... the concept of natural selection ... ( this is what you and I have been discussing, no? :D )
... wrong according to Darwin ...

... and we have discussed this both already ...
... okay? are we clear at least on that ?! :D

We will be once you respond to my post showing how you misunderstood Darwin's words, making you the one who is wrong, not me.

Edit: It's this post, just in case you missed it.

I'll agree that we differ on that! And let it pass!

Not good enough. It's not that we differ, it is that you are misunderstanding one of the cornerstones of evolution. How can we continue if we aren't even on the same page about the underyling mechanism of natural selection?

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 08:43 AM

Huh!
A Very Funny Moment of "Cross-Posting" just occurred! :D

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:44 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Huh!
A Very Funny Moment of "Cross-Posting" just occurred! :D

:lol:

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that! :D

myst7426 08-26-2006 09:09 AM

Stop ignoring us Andy! http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewt...151143#p151143

FishFace 08-26-2006 09:45 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

A Random Process is an antisensical oxymoronical nothing.
pro indicates that there is a direction involved.
And a direction makes it nonrandom.

Process does not necessarily imply direction; it depends on context.

process Ėnoun
1. a systematic series of actions directed to some end: to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2. a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner: the process of decay.

Number one has intention, number two does not. The process of decay is not intentional, but it is still a process.
Thank you.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:48 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2013, Raving Atheists [dot] com. All rights reserved.