Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Time to define terms and clarify the thinking here.

When people talk about "evolution" in the context of "evolution vs. creation" what they mean is common descent by means of natural selection acting on variations. That is what I mean when I say "evolution."

But when pressed for evidence of common descent, the evolutionist starts talking about natural selection. In other words, the evolutionist is talking about the mechanism, not what actually happened.

No creationist I know disagrees with natural selection. The disagreement is on whether all life biologically descended from a common ancestor.

So next, the evolutionist starts talking about the fossil record, claiming it provides evidence for evolution. The creationist points out that it doesn't, and usually the debate either ends or starts over at the beginning.

Nevertheless evolution and common ancestry are not the same thing, even if it is true for everything alive today.
The fossil record is nevertheless evidence even if you don't agree with the conclusions perhaps because you think that science is based around a conspiracy to deceive the general public?
What should happen is that evidence would normally settle disputes, not bald assertions, yet creationists are dogmatically compelled to reject scientific conclusions while good evidence and rational conclusions are simply waved away as lies.

The fact is that dating fossils is a science not an "evolutionist's" assertion, as is the age of the Earth. It isn't that creationists have an honest alternative explanation, because they don't, it's only rejected by them because Genesis must always trump any inconvenient science.

 

[iouae]

"Evolution" is defined as a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Your definition of "evolution" is Nature's definition of "Genetic drift".

"Genetic drift describes random fluctuations in the numbers of gene variants in a population. Genetic drift takes place when the occurrence of variant forms of a gene, called alleles, increases and decreases by chance over time. These variations in the presence of alleles are measured as changes in allele frequencies.

Typically, genetic drift occurs in small populations, where infrequently occurring alleles face a greater chance of being lost. Once it begins, genetic drift will continue until the involved allele is either lost by a population or until it is the only allele present in a population at a particular locus. Both possibilities decrease the genetic diversity of a population. Genetic drift is common after population bottlenecks, which are events that drastically decrease the size of a population. In these cases, genetic drift can result in the loss of rare alleles and decrease the gene pool. Genetic drift can cause a new population to be genetically distinct from its original population, which has led to the hypothesis that genetic drift plays a role in the evolution of new species."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/random-genetic-drift-genetic-drift-201

Here is another definition of "genetic drift".
genetic drift
Word Origin
noun
1.
random changes in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool, usually of small populations.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic-drift

"Genetic drift — along with natural selection, mutation, and migration — is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_24

So genetic drift is NOT evolution.
It is one of the processes supposedly causing evolution.

Concede defeat?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your definition of "evolution" is Nature's definition of "Genetic drift".

No. Genetic drift is one of the mechanisms behind evolution.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Genetic drift is one of the ways in which it occurs. It's basically statistical sampling error.

So genetic drift is NOT evolution.
It is one of the processes supposedly causing evolution.

Concede defeat?

You're not making sense.

 

[iouae]

No. Genetic drift is one of the mechanisms behind evolution.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Genetic drift is one of the ways in which it occurs. It's basically statistical sampling error.



You're not making sense.

You need a better definition of "evolution".

What you defined as "evolution" is what science calls "genetic drift", one of the supposed mechanisms producing evolution.

There is a difference between the process and the result, just as there is a difference between baking and a cake.

I knew your definition of evolution was wrong the moment I read it because I agree with genetic drift - that occurs - but evolution does not.

And I think the sources I quoted are on my side saying that what you call evolution is not evolution.

Or, population dynamics is NOT equal to evolution.

 

[Jonahdog]

I knew your definition of evolution was wrong the moment I read it because I agree with genetic drift - that occurs - but evolution does not.

Priceless, just priceless.
Or can you provide us with your published paper on the topic.

 

[alwight]

I knew your definition of evolution was wrong the moment I read it because I agree with genetic drift - that occurs - but evolution does not.

Why on earth would you think that genetic drift would define evolution?
Surely you are simply making it up as you go along?
Do you really think you can fool anyone here?
Maybe you have previously fooled people elsewhere?

Apparently evolution is wrong because you don't agree with it, but genetic drift is correct because you do? Solipsism anyone?

"Genetic drift — along with natural selection, mutation, and migration — is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_24

 

[DavisBJ]

Time to define terms and clarify the thinking here.

When people talk about "evolution" in the context of "evolution vs. creation" what they mean is common descent by means of natural selection acting on variations. That is what I mean when I say "evolution."

But when pressed for evidence of common descent, the evolutionist starts talking about natural selection. In other words, the evolutionist is talking about the mechanism, not what actually happened.

No creationist I know disagrees with natural selection. The disagreement is on whether all life biologically descended from a common ancestor.

So next, the evolutionist starts talking about the fossil record, claiming it provides evidence for evolution. The creationist points out that it doesn't, and usually the debate either ends or starts over at the beginning.

I make no pretense to being a biologist, yet I sense that the discussion the last few days has generated far more heat than light. I agree with your wanting to clarify terms, and would like to put in my 2-cents. There is a widely accepted theory called the Theory of Evolution which endeavors to explain the diversity of life seen on earth – iow, common descent. Too often we shorten the name of this theory to just “evolution”, which happens to also be the name of an observed process by which life diversifies. To indiscriminately use the same word – evolution in both contexts just muddies the water. If someone is speaking of the Theory, let that be made specific. If they are just speaking of the process, then they should say so.

 

[DavisBJ]

Hi Michael

We are getting up to page 1000.
I feel you should have the honour of being the first to post on that page.
Its sort of like the odometer of one's car clocking back to zero.

I hope all is going OK with you.

Warmest regards

Approaching page 150 on my computer. You are aware that you can set your preferences to display 100 posts per page? For me that makes long threads like this much easier to peruse, having a significant number of posts visible on the page I am viewing.

 

[iouae]

"Evolution" is defined as a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Let me try again to show you why this definition of [Darwinian] evolution is utterly inadequate.

Suppose your wife gives birth to a baby boy with blue eyes.

You have just increased the frequency of the recessive gene for blue eyes in the population.
You have also increased the Y chromosome genes.
But no evolution occurred, except by your definition.

Or let us say folks feel the world is dangerous and start breeding pit-bulls. While celebrities want toy dogs so other breeders start breeding miniature dogs. This is not evolution, except by your def.

Or suppose a plant with green leaves suddenly has a mutation for variegated leaves. That would be evolution by your def, and nobody else's. Certainly no scientist would claim they have observed/proven [Darwin's Theory of] evolution, since we have had mutations forever.

Creationists claim that from the Ark, 2 of each land animal gave rise to all other land animals today, through mutation, genetic drift, etc. Even Darwin's finches arose from isolation in the 4400 years since the flood.

The Theory of Evolution is supposed to include something like the following ...
... a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state ... a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

By your current definition, nobody would be disagreeing on the topic of evolution, since you have left out all the controversial bits concerning origins.

Darwin observed micro-evolution and postulated macro-evolution, from one ancestor.

 

[iouae]

Approaching page 150 on my computer. You are aware that you can set your preferences to display 100 posts per page? For me that makes long threads like this much easier to peruse, having a significant number of posts visible on the page I am viewing.

Thanks

 

[iouae]

I make no pretense to being biologist, yet I sense that the discussion the last few days has generated far more heat than light. I agree with your wanting to clarify terms, and would like to put in my 2-cents. There is a widely accepted theory called the Theory of Evolution which endeavors to explain the diversity of life seen on earth – iow, common descent. Too often we shorten the name of this theory to just “evolution”, which happens to also be the name of an observed process by which life diversifies. To indiscriminately use the same word – evolution in both contexts just muddies the water. If someone is speaking of the Theory, let that be made specific. If they are just speaking of the process, then they should say so.

:thumb:

 

[iouae]

I am not addressing anyone except those with a stake in this game.

If you want to give your definition of [macro/Darwinian] evolution, and want to give your tree of life which you feel explains animal evolution, then by all means do, and I will address that, for as long as all involved keep a civil tongue.

BTW Jose, the Tree of Life you pointed to, has no animals shown, so how do you know if you agree with that tree or not? Please find one showing animal evolution as you believe it occurred.

 

[Greg Jennings]

want to give your tree of life which you feel explains animal evolution, then by all means do

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're asking for in this particular statement. Are you asking for a tree of the transitions between the phyla? Or are you asking to be provided with a complete tree of life? Because the latter is far bigger and has way more branches than could possibly be put into any post.


In terms of the definitions, the ones provided by JoseFly on the previous page are textbook, so those will be the definitions I'm adhering to

 

[iouae]

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're asking for in this particular statement. Are you asking for a tree of the transitions between the phyla? Or are you asking to be provided with a complete tree of life? Because the latter is far bigger and has way more branches than could possibly be put into any post.


In terms of the definitions, the ones provided by JoseFly on the previous page are textbook, so those will be the definitions I'm adhering to

I want you to tell me via a tree with the major Phyla and Classes how you believe animals evolved. I see plenty out there if you Google "animal evolution tree of life image".

Like I say, Darwin saw micro-evolution and postulated macro-evolution from a common ancestor.

We creationists have always embraced micro-evolution or variation.
This is not the issue. JoseFly's definition makes no distinction between the two.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I want you to tell me via a tree with the major Phyla and Classes how you believe animals evolved. I see plenty out there if you Google "animal evolution tree of life image".

Like I say, Darwin saw micro-evolution and postulated macro-evolution from a common ancestor.

We creationists have always embraced micro-evolution or variation.
This is not the issue. JoseFly's definition makes no distinction between the two.

My personal belief would be that I don't know where exactly life began, but that at some point simple, multicellular ocean-dwelling creatures arrived. Something like a cnidarian likely. From that point lots of aquatic invertebrates came to be and some spread to land to become what we call insects and arachnids, as well as centipedes and millipedes.

The part I think you're more interested in is my opinion on vertebrate evolution, so here is a rough chart. It's not perfect, but it'll hit on all the important notes:
Tunicates --> fish --> amphibians --> reptiles --> mammals, birds

This chart also seems to pretty closely mirror my thoughts:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/819qsVUaDHL._SL1200_.jpg

 

[alwight]

I want you to tell me via a tree with the major Phyla and Classes how you believe animals evolved. I see plenty out there if you Google "animal evolution tree of life image".

Like I say, Darwin saw micro-evolution and postulated macro-evolution from a common ancestor.

We creationists have always embraced micro-evolution or variation.
This is not the issue. JoseFly's definition makes no distinction between the two.

It was only creationists who actually need any difference, macro evolution is simply joined up micro evolution.
Darwin's theory is an explanation of the evidence that has not been falsified. It's either convincing or it isn't to the individual but it being true or not has nothing to say about a possible creation, which is apparently only evidenced by a lack of evidence and perhaps a religious belief.

 

[iouae]

This chart also seems to pretty closely mirror my thoughts:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/819qsVUaDHL._SL1200_.jpg

The chart is very pretty, but can you read any of the writing so we can discuss the animals?

 

[alwight]

The chart is very pretty, but can you read any of the writing so we can discuss the animals?

I knew this would happen, you're simply going to beat about the bush obfuscating, picking holes, tedious minor nit picking etc. :doh:

You surely must grasp enough about Darwinian theory to understand why it is at least found to be a convincing explanation of the evidence or you'd be talking about that rather than the suitability of a particular chart.

Why don't you explain your main difficulty with Darwinian evolution (including common descent!) so that we can talk about that rather than the clarity of a particular chart?

On this one btw you can zoom in as much as you could possibly wish for:
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/natural-history/tree-life

 

[Interplanner]

My main problem is his own: that there were too many 'systems too wondrous' to have developed by mutation.

Either you believe in tons of time, as in Hinduism, or you reverse your rate x time numbers and believe in an instant rate of intelligent development (creation). So enjoy your Hinduism; it is fraught with despair. Which of course is a horrible thing to say to another person, but what choice do you give?

 

[gcthomas]

My main problem is his own: that there were too many 'systems too wondrous' to have developed by mutation.

Arguments from personal incredulity are never very convincing, no matter how appealing they are. How many is to many, how wondrous is to wondrous?

Either you believe in tons of time, as in Hinduism, or you reverse your rate x time numbers and believe in an instant rate of intelligent development (creation). So enjoy your Hinduism; it is fraught with despair. Which of course is a horrible thing to say to another person, but what choice do you give?

What is it about deep time that would lead to despair?