Evolution has never been observed

[Acim]

Yes, it has been observed. Those rocks exist. Any evidence to the contrary?

None that I feel any need to explain right now. And thus far you haven't presented any. You have made a claim. I observe the claim. I'm ready to move on.

In every rock scientifically described?

Not what was said previously. What was said before was, "In every rock ever investigated." I would say that is significant change from previous statement, and still begs question of evidence. Since goal posts have changed, and we are not talking "observation" but description instead, I assume we just move on. (Though will come back if that needs to occur, I guess.)

How many rocks have you ever described scientifically?

Is their doctrine that I must align with to 'describe something scientifically?' If yes, you explain that first, and we can continue to go further down this tangent of 'what is not observed, but is instead described.'

Ever published your findings? I have.

You want a metaphysical cookie?

The 'fact' that you've published findings is thus far not taking anything away from 'fact' that evolution is not directly observed.

No, I don’t expect non-geologists to do it, as they wouldn’t really have a clue what they’re talking about. I was talking about persons with a vague understanding of geology.

Or persons with an obvious bias. Thus, not really objective, now is it?

I’ve got quite a few rocks in my office. No god to be seen.

Could be inferred, if one cares to infer things, rather than go with direct observation.

No gods in my office, just rocks.

Your office is, for purposes of this thread, hypothetical. You may as well claim you have God in your office, and my belief right now will be equal to belief you have rocks in your head, er, I mean your office.

No, I certainly won’t. I work on evidence, not if’s. Are you confusing fundamentalist religious arguments with science?

Making note that some arguments for science rest on as much faith as fundamental religious belief. So, far you have not presented any evidence in this thread, and for me to believe what you are attempting to convey, would take faith. You may say it is 'reason,' and I would say that is irrational, given the data presented so far.

Your word salads won't change the arrangement of fossils in those rocks from lowest to highest. No matter how hard you try to word salad those rocks away .

And your hypothetical mumbo jumbo is so far doing somewhere between zero and zilch to persuade me to believe otherwise.

 

[Krok]

…2 - At this point, I may or may not come back to title of this thread which claims, "evolution cannot be observed."……

You see, this is where you lose all rational people. In real life, there's no scientific discussion about this, because the Theory of Evolution is one of the most established scientific theories. It's like gravity. The moment you start debating this point, we know that it is not worth even trying to have a meaningful conversation with you.
We’d rather have meaningful conversations and also arguments with people who actually accept reality. We do it in scientific journals and conferences. Normal people can’t even try to have a rational conversation with people who refuse to accept reality. We waste our breaths on such behaviour. All we would get from you would be word salads, preaching and untruths, camouflaged as The Absolute One and Only Truth.
I lost my religion due to people similar to you.

 

[painted wolf]

The literature now is from Evolution 101, cited in previous post.

It consists of 7 sections, which anyone can see when following the link, and which I'll make note of as I go along.

On home page, there is "Navigation Notes" stating that Evolution 101 is (actually) complex, and so has 2 levels of going through the material. I am intentionally going with "The Basic" level for purposes of this thread.

And with that in mind, Definition, is the first of 7 sections presented in this material.



Let the scrutiny begin. LOL.

I'm pausing here for 2 reasons. Mainly because on page before this (what I think is home page), there isn't assumption that we are talking about 'biological' evolution. Perhaps a minor point, but when definition put forth is, "descent with modification," I do have desire to scrutinize that in ways that threads on forums wanna have all things defined before we can 'reasonably' move forward.

So descent, as defined by my computer dictionary means:
1 - an action of moving downward, dropping, or falling
2 - the origin or background of a person in terms of family or nationality
3 - (descent on) a sudden, violent attack

I'll assume, though assumptions can be that which leads to inaccuracy, that definition 1 and 3 do not apply in this context. Though I do kinda think "moving downward" is somewhat applicable.

I think "origin or background" is, for now, workable definition to go with.

And "Modification" I'm not compelled to go with dictionary definition, since I understand that to mean (simply) change. In fact, I'll go as far as saying, opening definition, given what has been presented so far, and with understanding I have going in, can be phrased as: Evolution is changes in original makeup or background characteristics of a species. Species hasn't yet been defined in this material, but something tells me we'll get there soon enough.



Unless otherwise noticed, all underlined portions in quotes are emphasis done by me.

I understand and agree that the definition encompasses small and large scale versions of modifications to a species. Given context of this thread (so far), I just wish to note that small scale changes are observable with non-ordinary means, while large scale evolution is not directly observable in vast majority of cases, but is instead inferred. This is my current understanding. If this material presents something that is different and this is known in advance by another participant in this thread, then just trust that I'll get there when I get there, and realize we don't need to be side tracked by this point (of understanding fact) that I am making now.

I'm also going to say "history of life" is not something I can go along with at this point, without explanation of life being provided for. To me, it is history of forms in the nature of physical reality that TOE helps us to understand. Again, if this point doesn't jive with you, then perhaps we need to agree on something more basic (thus go backwards) before we can go forward in 'meaningful' way. For me, my understanding likely won't take away anything from what TOE proponents deem is factual.

While the first section does continue with another point, I'll pick that up in next post.

Science only addresses physical reality. That is one of the things that keeps it from being a religion.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

Continuing from thread #100, on "Intro to Evolution" (section 1 of 7 in linked material).

The Explanation:
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

Why wasn't "descent through genetic inheritance" given as definition earlier? This explanation seems like alternate definition, no? Because as I was reading the simple definition put forth previously, I was thinking that a sculptor working with original piece of say marble, who then modifies that form into something that has descended from original piece of marble, would be enacting evolution. But, I understood, this is not what 'biological evolutionists' likely mean, nor would allow for, even while the original simple definition would seem to allow for that. Seems like the "genetic inheritance" conception has (ahem) evolved from the original definition put forth.

Only once on this page does the word "genetic" appear and only once does "inheritance" appear, and both of them being used as explanation of original definition. Challenging for me to agree that is "fair" for basic understanding, but I'll go along with my views on this noted.

Genetic according to my computer dictionary means:
1 - of or relating to genes or
2 - of or relating to origin; arising from a common origin

inheritance means:
1 - receive (money, property, or a title) as an heir at the death of the previous holder
a - derive (a quality, characteristic, or predisposition) genetically from one's parents or ancestors

> Note: there is a "b, c and d" that I believe all reading will say do not apply, so I'll stick here with this point.

And I'll also note that the terms seem to rely on each other for meaning. Genetic relates to genes. Genes is an unit of heredity. Inheritance is deriving a characteristic genetically. I'm sorry, but it seems a bit circular to me at this point. I'm sure I could bring up a spiritual analogy to make this point further, but in interest of hopefully not alienating readers who may wish to discuss this stuff, then I think perhaps someone could explain it in way that is less circular. Or perhaps agree with me that this feels a lot like 'student' is asked to assume an understanding that may (or may not) make more sense later on, but is under explained / defined at this point.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

I'm going to go with "central assumptions" of biological evolution...

I realize for some it is not assumption, but realize here in "Intro" this is a pretty substantial leap in logic, that I don't feel is explained in the material so far. Perhaps one day I too can conclude that it is "central idea" which is something more than assumption.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

Again, life not being defined (yet) and for me understanding this as "forms" makes as much sense, allows me to move forward. Common ancestor is, so far, assumption that I'll accept as that, but not as fact. "We're all distant cousins" is idea I like. I'm wondering how much the material will attempt to substantiate this very idea, but even if it doesn't, it is a bit comforting to realize physical me shares something basic with all that is physical. Admittedly, I pretty much knew that going in, but it is a woo type concept that is kinda nice to read in all this.

Next section is Patterns, which I'll get to in another post.

 

[Acim]

You see, this is where you lose all rational people. In real life, there's no scientific discussion about this, because the Theory of Evolution is one of the most established scientific theories. It's like gravity. The moment you start debating this point, we know that it is not worth even trying to have a meaningful conversation with you.

Your arrogant bias is duly noted.

We’d rather have meaningful conversations and also arguments with people who actually accept reality.

You mean who are indoctrinated?

We do it in scientific journals and conferences.

Hence not accessible to all, akin to club or organization that may exclude people simply because of intangible, man-made (or imaginary) statuses.

Normal people can’t even try to have a rational conversation with people who refuse to accept reality.

Biased people can't even try to have 'meaningful' discussions with people who insist on questioning or critiquing the accepted biases.

We waste our breaths on such behaviour.

Poor baby.

I lost my religion due to people similar to you.

I imagine that theory works for you.

 

[Acim]

Science only addresses physical reality. That is one of the things that keeps it from being a religion.

But puts it squarely in the domain of faith.

Where is the objective evidence for this reality?

 

[PolyHedral]

But puts it squarely in the domain of faith.

Where is the objective evidence for this reality?

You're using it.

 

[Krok]

None that I feel any need to explain right now. And thus far you haven't presented any. You have made a claim. I observe the claim. I'm ready to move on.

Science of Geology. Literally millions of libraries all over the world full of references. The fact that you missed all those references, reflects very badly on you.

Not what was said previously. What was said before was, "In every rock ever investigated." I would say that is significant change from previous statement, and still begs question of evidence. Since goal posts have changed, and we are not talking "observation" but description instead, I assume we just move on. (Though will come back if that needs to occur, I guess.)

Science of Geology. Literally millions of libraries all over the world full of references. The fact that you missed those references, reflects very badly on you.

Is their doctrine that I must align with to 'describe something scientifically?' If yes, you explain that first, and we can continue to go further down this tangent of 'what is not observed, but is instead described.'

It’s called the natural sciences. It’s obvious that you missed it. You should familiarize yourself with it as it gave humanity a lot of advantages. The computers we both work on are two of these advantages.

The 'fact' that you've published findings is thus far not taking anything away from 'fact' that evolution is not directly observed.

IThe fact that you want to ignore the evidence, reflects very badly on you.

Or persons with an obvious bias. Thus, not really objective, now is it?

Yeah sure. The overwhelming majority of earth and life scientists (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Zorochastrians, Agnostics, and Atheists, etc) in every country in the world all are very biased when they all come to the same conclusion! All 99.9% plus of them. They all must be very biased.

Could be inferred, if one cares to infer things, rather than go with direct observation.

Creation has never been either directly or indirectly observed. Evolution has been observed both directly and indirectly. Your refusal to accept evidence reflects badly on you.

Your office is, for purposes of this thread, hypothetical.

Well, at least I can be in and work from my office.

You may as well claim you have God in your office,,,,

Where is he, behind my door maybe? Oh,I looked. No, he isn’t.

.. and my belief right now will be equal to belief you have rocks in your head, er, I mean your office.

Not everyone operates like you creationists through lies and deception. Some people don’t do it your way, you know. We don’t need to as we’ve got evidence. Please don’t project your ways of doing things on me. My moral values are a lot higher than yours.

 

[Acim]

You're using it.

Faith?

 

[PolyHedral]

Faith?

No, technology of all kinds is objective proof that science works.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thus it is not objective, but influenced by capacity and education (indoctrination).

If you equate education with indoctrination, then you are deluded. There is a distinct and clear difference between someone who reaches a conclusion because of close, critical examination of the evidence from an educated perspective and a person who is indoctrinated to reach a certain conclusion and deny all observation to the contrary.

Which clearly demonstrates bias.

Then you obviously don't know what bias is. If being better qualified to talk about a specific subject makes you biased, then the whole concept of bias is meaningless.

Notice you are not saying objective conclusion, which the word "conclusion" does allow for, but instead are saying informed or educated one, which begs the question of how one becomes informed or educated?

Education, qualification, peer review.

As student of philosophy, I am I would say very familiar with answer to that question, but will let it be answered by all those who may wish to say "my teachers and informers do not have a bias, and are instead objective practitioners of scientific method."

Sorry to say but, as a student of philosophy, I would frankly not regard you as familiar with regards to the answer of any question that does not specifically pertain to philosophy. There is no objectivity in philosophy, there is objectivity in science.

Would hold equally true for all things unseen. You don't see God? Okay, well that indicates nothing more than either bias or ignorance on your part. My sister Suzy doesn't see leprechauns. Well that indicates nothing more than either bias or ignorance on her part.

The difference is that we can clearly demonstrate to you that our observations are true, and you have to perform all manner of mental gymnastics in order to deny it. Any supposedly empirical evidence you can provide of God is easily refutable with basic logic, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Clearly, this is not something that can be seen by one and all, unless they are indoctrinated with understanding of "how seeing is done."

That's a biased statement. Are you seriously going to tell me that 99% of active biologists around the globe - regardless of personal beliefs, etc. - all reached the conclusion that the scientific evidence is viable by means of indoctrination?

I think that indoctrination is fine. I actually do.

Then I think you don't grasp the concept of it very well.

But ought to be presented with what it is (bias, reaching for consensus) and not attempted to be conveyed as "objectivity." For if it is attempted to be conveyed in that way, I will gladly continue this debate for as long as the (ahem) non-bias and non ignorant persons wish to entertain a wretch like me.

Well, science is based on objective facts, not bias. So that's a completely irrelevant point.

I've been through this recently on this site. This is matter of perspective.

No, logic is not a matter of perspective. Logic is logic and logical fallacies are logical fallacies.

The world is still (apparently) flat, but is also (apparently) spherical. The flat-earthers may not be able to explain a whole bunch of things that spherical-earthers would, with consensus, and via reason. But spherical earthers don't make wrong that the earth appears flat. It does.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Just like quantum realists don't make wrong that the earth appears to me made up of large, tangible objects that are mostly solid.

That's an entirely different subject. That's completely different to claiming "the world is both X and not X". The fact remains that what is true is demonstrable, and anyone who denies that is deluded.

Are you admitting that your logic serves to justify flat-earthism as well? Because if you do, then you are truly not capable of debating this subject.

 

[painted wolf]

Continuing from thread #100, on "Intro to Evolution" (section 1 of 7 in linked material).



Why wasn't "descent through genetic inheritance" given as definition earlier? This explanation seems like alternate definition, no? Because as I was reading the simple definition put forth previously, I was thinking that a sculptor working with original piece of say marble, who then modifies that form into something that has descended from original piece of marble, would be enacting evolution. But, I understood, this is not what 'biological evolutionists' likely mean, nor would allow for, even while the original simple definition would seem to allow for that. Seems like the "genetic inheritance" conception has (ahem) evolved from the original definition put forth.

the key word is decent... none of those things are examples of decent.
A sculpture isn't a descendant of a block of stone.... it's the same block of stone that has changed.

They are adding more information to the definition, not changing it.

Only once on this page does the word "genetic" appear and only once does "inheritance" appear, and both of them being used as explanation of original definition. Challenging for me to agree that is "fair" for basic understanding, but I'll go along with my views on this noted.

Genetic according to my computer dictionary means:
1 - of or relating to genes or
2 - of or relating to origin; arising from a common origin

inheritance means:
1 - receive (money, property, or a title) as an heir at the death of the previous holder
a - derive (a quality, characteristic, or predisposition) genetically from one's parents or ancestors

> Note: there is a "b, c and d" that I believe all reading will say do not apply, so I'll stick here with this point.

And I'll also note that the terms seem to rely on each other for meaning. Genetic relates to genes. Genes is an unit of heredity. Inheritance is deriving a characteristic genetically. I'm sorry, but it seems a bit circular to me at this point. I'm sure I could bring up a spiritual analogy to make this point further, but in interest of hopefully not alienating readers who may wish to discuss this stuff, then I think perhaps someone could explain it in way that is less circular. Or perhaps agree with me that this feels a lot like 'student' is asked to assume an understanding that may (or may not) make more sense later on, but is under explained / defined at this point.

Genetic relates to genes, inheritance is something passed down from one generation to another (in this case what is being passed down are genes). It's not that circular.

I'm going to go with "central assumptions" of biological evolution...

I realize for some it is not assumption, but realize here in "Intro" this is a pretty substantial leap in logic, that I don't feel is explained in the material so far. Perhaps one day I too can conclude that it is "central idea" which is something more than assumption.

Again, life not being defined (yet) and for me understanding this as "forms" makes as much sense, allows me to move forward. Common ancestor is, so far, assumption that I'll accept as that, but not as fact. "We're all distant cousins" is idea I like. I'm wondering how much the material will attempt to substantiate this very idea, but even if it doesn't, it is a bit comforting to realize physical me shares something basic with all that is physical. Admittedly, I pretty much knew that going in, but it is a woo type concept that is kinda nice to read in all this.

Next section is Patterns, which I'll get to in another post.

Yes, well this is just the introduction to the concept... so the details aren't being fully fleshed out yet.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

Science of Geology. Literally millions of libraries all over the world full of references.

Still not presenting evidence. All these libraries probably have the Qu'ran in them, therefore we have evidence of God, since we have references to God. Logic you are employing that shows up, how you say, ridiculous.

Science of Geology. Literally millions of libraries all over the world full of references.

Still not presenting evidence. All these libraries probably have the Qu'ran in them, therefore we have evidence of God, since we have references to God. Logic you are employing that shows up, how you say, ridiculous.

I repeated twice because you felt need to repeat twice, and sometimes ridiculous claims do bear repeating.

It’s called the natural sciences.... The computers we both work on are two of these advantages.

I like how you avoided the point being made about "how do we describe something scientifically." Expected from those who barely understand how communication actually works.

The fact that you want to ignore the evidence, reflects very badly on you.

Still not presenting evidence. Logic you are employing shows up, how you say, ridiculous.

The overwhelming majority of earth and life scientists (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Zorochastrians, Agnostics, and Atheists, etc) in every country in the world all are very biased when they all come to the same conclusion! All 99.9% plus of them. They all must be very biased.

I agree, we are all very biased about physical reality's existence. Convicted in our faith about it. Would be actually interesting, rather than ridiculous, if you had anything resembling (objective) evidence to back this claim of 'conclusion' that all agree on. Is clearly something met with consensus, not with objective evidence.

Creation has never been either directly or indirectly observed.

Creation has been inferred, and with spiritual sight is entirely observable. It is empirically understood as being self evident.

Evolution has been observed both directly and indirectly. Your refusal to accept evidence reflects badly on you.

This thread has concluded otherwise with material supporting TOE being refuted. You are still not presenting evidence. Logic you are employing shows up, how you say, ridiculous.

Not everyone operates like you creationists through lies and deception.

Proponents of physical reality who have NO evidence that is objective operate precisely through deception and unexamined faith. Logic used to establish physical reality shows up, how you say, ridiculous.

 

[Acim]

If you equate education with indoctrination, then you are deluded.

Do you think people who are educated about Creationism are indoctrinated?

I so far in this thread have shown up taking on material of TOE, thinking critically, and what do I get for that? Do I get proponents of evolution coming in to discuss and clarify, to share understandings of the material? Perhaps even empathy for my criticisms?

Other than (maybe) painted wolf, I'm going to say no. Instead, this thread is quickly devolving into the stuff logical fallacies are ripe with. I'm the one on the thread discussing (critically) TOE. Some of you all are the ones in the thread making claims along lines of, "reflects badly on you" and "you are deluded."

There is a distinct and clear difference between someone who reaches a conclusion because of close, critical examination of the evidence from an educated perspective and a person who is indoctrinated to reach a certain conclusion and deny all observation to the contrary.

Correct. We agree. I think very critically about the existence of physical reality. I think it exists. I think it exists precisely because of faith / trust. This might not be precise how it is made manifest. That I understand to be something else, which has everything to do with Consciousness, and is not physical. Is akin to imagination. But that is something I just assume leave out of this thread, since I do believe physical exists. I just do not have, nor have I found anyone to provide, objective evidence for the physical.

So, something like TOE, in the material I've seen so far, does make vast assumptions for things to be accepted, I would say without critical thought. Perhaps you feel differently, and I'd appreciate if you spoke with regards to those posts, and the material being presented, rather than on this side diatribe.

Then you obviously don't know what bias is. If being better qualified to talk about a specific subject makes you biased, then the whole concept of bias is meaningless.

Well "better qualified" is part of the bias. Like saying someone who has Ph.D. in Judaism and is devout practitioner of Jewish faith is "better qualified" to talk on all things Judaic, including all claims that may impact 'rest of us' and therefore you, me, all of us, must realize this person is speaking without bias, but only informed ideas. While you, who may downplay anything religion oriented, are uneducated, biased, and of no match for the educated one. You don't even belong in same dialogue. All your claims will be deemed irrational. Even lacking belief is irrational when realizing there is doctor in the room.

Education, qualification, peer review.

In response to "how does one become educated." And I would say these are results of how, not how. Telling me that education is how one becomes educated as if that explains something, you think I may've been overlooking, is like me saying the way someone becomes enlightened, is through enlightenment.

Qualification is not how persons become informed. Peer review is not how people become informed.

There is no objectivity in philosophy, there is objectivity in science.

Considering science is philosophy, historically and accurately speaking, I will ask that you a) do all you can to back this up philosophically, and b) if you can't bring yourself to do it that way, then by all means, you scientific method to attempt explanation whereby we can all see that science is objective. B would actually be the way I'd most like to see you do it, since I feel highly aware that scientific method can't even back up objectivity of science. Which I find fascinating. But reality is, you'll like go with some version of A to persuade me to think like you do, and I wish you best of luck on that end.

The difference is that we can clearly demonstrate to you that our observations are true, and you have to perform all manner of mental gymnastics in order to deny it.

Saying that physical reality is not objectively established is 'mental gymnastics' for you? Interesting.

Personally, I don't think you can even demonstrate that the observations are true, and if I held you to that, I believe if we went through the exercise, it would be YOU doing the mental gymnastics down the road. Changing the goal posts, suggesting that when you said "observations would be demonstrated to be true," what you really meant was.....(what you will say when we go down this road, should you have the gumption to actually attempt to back up what you are saying).

Any supposedly empirical evidence you can provide of God is easily refutable with basic logic, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Any supposedly empirical evidence you can provide of physical reality is easily refutable with basic logic, unless, and until you demonstrate otherwise.

Are you seriously going to tell me that 99% of active biologists around the globe - regardless of personal beliefs, etc. - all reached the conclusion that the scientific evidence is viable by means of indoctrination?

Apparently you don't understand how indoctrination works. Do you think any percentage of people who are claimed to indoctrinate other individuals reach the conclusion that their version of 'evidence' (i.e. doctrine) is viable means to indoctrinate persons? Many private schools will teach students using the bible. But they will also use other resources, and will teach, to a certain degree, for students to think for themselves. Up to a point of course.

With science (of a particular brand), that point is do not be overly critical / philosophical about nature of physical reality. If you do, you are seriously jeopardizing what is trying to be taught to you as 'fact.'

Well, science is based on objective facts, not bias.

It is based on consensual bias. Resting on faith in existence of physical reality. Many, including myself, believe that this reality exists.

 

[Acim]

the key word is decent... none of those things are examples of decent.
A sculpture isn't a descendant of a block of stone.... it's the same block of stone that has changed.

I think you mean descent, not decent. Descent again was defined as: the origin or background of a person in terms of family or nationality. You would agree this is folk definition, yes? That descent can apply to more than people.

Evolution simply put is descent with modification. So, anything of origin (which is perhaps side debate to have) that is modified, would be that which is evolving. A block of stone (original state of the stone) which is modified into sculpture would be evolution under the simple definition put forth.

You added word "descendant" which on that page is nowhere to be found. Is this something you think I absolutely must understand / grasp before going ahead? If yes, I'll take it into consideration and will just note that it was not a term that appeared on the "definition" page of the material you presented.

They are adding more information to the definition, not changing it.

I observe "adding more" is changing. And as noted previously, the adding more was not using same terms / concepts, but introducing new ones. That strikes me as significant change.

Genetic relates to genes, inheritance is something passed down from one generation to another (in this case what is being passed down are genes). It's not that circular.

But a little circular? Or you do not see, given what I wrote, how I came to understanding that it seemed circular?

For if I ask you what you mean by genes, and then ask you what is the 'something' being passed down in this context, I believe it will become quite circular yet again.

 

[Acim]

No, technology of all kinds is objective proof that science works.

How is it objective proof?

How is is demonstration that science is working?

And all kinds? If I have technology that allegedly allows you do connect with your dead great grandparent, that would be objective proof that science works? Cause, you aren't stipulating much when you say "all kinds."

 

[painted wolf]

I think you mean descent, not decent. Descent again was defined as: the origin or background of a person in terms of family or nationality. You would agree this is folk definition, yes? That descent can apply to more than people.

my bad with the typo.
I think you are putting too much stock in your chosen dictionary.

Descent is a parent/offspring relationship. Which is why a sculpture is not a descendant of the same rock it came from.

Evolution simply put is descent with modification. So, anything of origin (which is perhaps side debate to have) that is modified, would be that which is evolving. A block of stone (original state of the stone) which is modified into sculpture would be evolution under the simple definition put forth.

No, a block of stone is still the same block of stone. Descent requires reproduction.

When a child is born it isn't simply the parent being modified.... you have a new independent organism. When you make a sculpture you don't get a new object in addition to the original block of stone.

You added word "descendant" which on that page is nowhere to be found. Is this something you think I absolutely must understand / grasp before going ahead? If yes, I'll take it into consideration and will just note that it was not a term that appeared on the "definition" page of the material you presented.

it's implied in the use of the word descent. You can't have descent without a resulting descendant.
Again, the reason why the sculpture analogy fails.

I observe "adding more" is changing. And as noted previously, the adding more was not using same terms / concepts, but introducing new ones. That strikes me as significant change.

No it was adding nuance to the concept. It's still descent but now you know what is being modified... genes that are inherited from the parent(s).

If I say the sky is blue... then say the sky is bright blue am I really changing things significantly. The sky remains blue, but now you have a more nuanced view of it.

But a little circular? Or you do not see, given what I wrote, how I came to understanding that it seemed circular?

Given what you wrote... but I don't think what you wrote may have been subconsciously chosen to be circular.

For if I ask you what you mean by genes, and then ask you what is the 'something' being passed down in this context, I believe it will become quite circular yet again.

A gene is a basic unit of measuring DNA.
Genes are passed down from parent(s) to offspring. You inherit your genes from your parents.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

OK, I”ll change it to: “In the lowest strata, we’ve never observed any evidence of life at all.”

Hi

It is certainly better but it speaks of only the evidence that you think you know. It still does not say "In the lowest strata (oldest strata) there are no fossils", which is fact.

Try a less misleading OP then.:sleep:

kindly read the OP better.

 

[Acim]

my bad with the typo.
I think you are putting too much stock in your chosen dictionary.

Hmm, so now it's issue with the dictionary? Unless you want to link me to one, I'll likely go with that one since a lot of these key words get tossed into the mix and don't get defined. IMO, that is bad writing.

Descent is a parent/offspring relationship. Which is why a sculpture is not a descendant of the same rock it came from.

Alright, I can (reluctantly) go with definition that Descent = parent/offspring relationship. Reluctant because not finding that definition with online dictionaries either, and reluctant cause material didn't bring it up. But since I think your intent is to help clarify, I'm willing to say with original definition of Evolution that it means: parent to offspring relationship with modification. Even that doesn't ring in way I (and perhaps others) would like, but is best we have so far, yes?

No, a block of stone is still the same block of stone. Descent requires reproduction.

Yeah, I thought so. Was pretty sure this would come back to folk definition from other material. Really we're just talking about modifications through reproduction. That seems like most simple version that I can come up with.

When a child is born it isn't simply the parent being modified.... you have a new independent organism. When you make a sculpture you don't get a new object in addition to the original block of stone.

Seriously, let's not even debate the block of stone thing because the way you are stating it, is arguable. If we add in reproduction as key word to defining (biological) evolution, I think we can move on.

it's implied in the use of the word descent. You can't have descent without a resulting descendant.
Again, the reason why the sculpture analogy fails.

Again, I disagree with this logic, unless reproduction is brought into the fold. So, again, just assume I've accepted reproduction and we can move on.

It is weird that this wouldn't be brought up on that page since it is quite obvious a key concept, but I'll really do my best to give that literature benefit of huge doubts I have so far.

No it was adding nuance to the concept. It's still descent but now you know what is being modified... genes that are inherited from the parent(s).

The what is absolutely huge, and for you to minimize this in way you have thus far is not boding well for early part of this discussion. The definition without the what, and without the reproduction concept leave a heckuvalot open to other interpretations. At least from those of us thinking critically. Here are the original statements that speak to definition:

1. Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution and large-scale evolution.
2. Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Biological involves descent through genetic inheritance.

This is me adjusting what is being said, and I would say be somewhat generous to how it was conveyed in the material. If left the other way, it leaves lot in domain of assumption. I mean idea of "encompassing small and large scale evolution" is a vast assumption at this stage of the game. I include because if left out, I can see someone reading this thinking I left out a critical part (given how TOE actually 'works').

Descent with modification we are now saying equals reproduction with modification (in descendants). The second part is not saying modification of genes. It is saying genes are inherited, and I would assume (you might say imply) that gene modification is occurring. Without genes in the picture, I would say biological evolution (as theory) completely, or near completely, falls apart. So, genes is huge. I still think inheritance is not needed and/or is circular logic.

Since I'm apparently the only one thinking critically on these matters, I'll walk through why (again) I see it as circular:

genetic = relating to genes
genes = a unit of heredity that is transferred from a parent to offspring
heredity = the passing on of physical or mental characteristics genetically

Perhaps the way to get around the circular logic I'm observing is to not have part of genes definition that says "transferred from parent to offspring." And that's only a maybe (for me). The way I see the original statement making equal, possibly better, sense is by asserting: Biological evolution involves descent through genetics.

If I say the sky is blue... then say the sky is bright blue am I really changing things significantly. The sky remains blue, but now you have a more nuanced view of it.

THAT would be nuance. Using your analogy, and with what is conveyed in this definition / explanation would be saying, "the sky is simply blue and vast." Coupled with "Blue sky occurs through atmospheric conditions."

Now, I went with something that I assume is at least a little acceptable by the reader. But if I said, "Blue sky occurs through physical agents who paint that region of space," something like that, a vast assumption, is clearly adding more. Well, so is "atmospheric conditions." And so is "genetics" adding something most significant to concept of "modification." So significant, that I'm around 99% certain that without this add-on, TOE is DOA.

A gene is a basic unit of measuring DNA.
Genes are passed down from parent(s) to offspring. You inherit your genes from your parents.

wa:do

Really? You want to go with Gene = basic unit of measuring DNA. I consulted 3 sources and none say that. That connotation also is opening up whole other aspect that I'm sure gets addressed, but is not so much conveying meaning, as much as (possibly) distinguishing specialization of terminology. Aka, is jargon.

Your definition of genes gets away from circular logic, but I am somewhat challenging that understanding of the term. If you want to go with that, instead of hereditary unit, then let us be clear from this point on. Hopefully goal posts don't change down the road.

 

[atanu]

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

Hopefully we can move forward together on a more steady footing.

wa:do

ps. I'll see what I can find for you.

I suggest that you and Acim may have a one to one discussion. I think it gets complicated when many people talk from many perspectives and without a clear idea about what the OP is.

I think such a post can be potentially an asset for any thinker who is willing to look at the basic assumptions -- both theistic and atheistic.