Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland98 · 06-08-2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

Webster's On-Line Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...tion&x=21&y=17
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state :

Now, what we will most certainly hear next, is that Webster has it all wrong. We'll hear how only evolutionists really understand the term, and the rest of us are stupid, including those that write dictionaries.

Actually, no; you will hear that webster's defines evolution as it is used in common language. An idea, for example, can evolve from simple to more complex. However, this definition does not fit for biological evolution, which is what we are discussing in this thread.

And hey, how about that coccyx?

RufusAtticus · 06-08-2004, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

Webster's On-Line Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...tion&x=21&y=17
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state :

Now, what we will most certainly hear next, is that Webster has it all wrong. We'll hear how only evolutionists really understand the term, and the rest of us are stupid, including those that write dictionaries.

Dictionaries primarially address the vulgar (i.e. common) usage of words. However, when discussing science, you must use words in their scientific way, not in their vulgar way. "Evolution" did originally refer to a progressive process. Naturalists adopted the term and applied it to the diversification of life because they thought it was a progressive process. However, Darwin demonstrated that the diversification of life is not a progressive process. Nevertheless, the term that was already in place ("Evolution" = diversification of life) stayed in place; it just lost the connotation of "progress."

Quote:

This claim has some merit, because evolutionists have, for some time, been changing the term to dodge and adapt (pardon the pun) so that they can meet the stringent critisicm that is being thrown at them. I guess we can't blame them for that, but it is sad.

Nope. The change did not occur 150 years ago because of some criticism of evolution by anti-evolutionists, but criticisms of the idea of progression by Darwin himself.

RufusAtticus · 06-08-2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

You need to do your homework.

LOL. Guess what my occupation is.

Quote:

If what you say is true, there would be no angst from Gould, who sought desperately to develop PE to explain away the problem of macro change.

Nope. It is you who need to do your homework. Start by actually reading Gould. His last book has a well developed chapter on punctuated equilibrium and macroevolution.

ZouPrime · 06-08-2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

Webster's On-Line Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...tion&x=21&y=17
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state :

Now, what we will most certainly hear next, is that Webster has it all wrong. We'll hear how only evolutionists really understand the term, and the rest of us are stupid, including those that write dictionaries.

Hum... a better way of saying it would be that the layman use of the word is different from its scientific use. It shouldn't be surprising, since the word "evolution" probably predate the theory of evolution itself.

The word "theory" suffers from the same problem. It has a very precise scientific meaning, and a more "general" layman meaning.

If you want to know the scientific meaning of a word, you should always consult scientific references, the same way that you should consult the law dictionnary if you want to know what a "crime" exactly is on a legal standpoint.

Quote:

This claim has some merit, because evolutionists have, for some time, been changing the term to dodge and adapt (pardon the pun) so that they can meet the stringent critisicm that is being thrown at them. I guess we can't blame them for that, but it is sad.

Sad? That's how science works! How can it be sad? Would you like theories to be static, unable to change in order to explain new discoveries, observations and facts? This is not a problem of science, this is precisely why it works, as opposed to religion for example.

Scientific theories are only there to explain the facts, not the other way around. If our body of observations change (because we accumulate more facts, or because our instrument are getting more precise, or whatever), we need to change the theory. There's nothing groundbreaking in that, in fact, it has happened many times before (for example, the switch from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein relativity).

The reason why evolution is no longer defined as "lower to higher" is simply because we now understand that this is false.

Kingreaper · 06-08-2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

What really needs to happen is we need to stop calling it "evolution". It should be called what it is, the religion of naturalism.

one property of religion found in every single one, is a supernatural element (or at least an unscientific one, depending on whether raelians are a religion or a cult) whereas a religion of nturalism would not, by definition could not

most religions involve worship, or appeasement, of a more powerful entity, what do naturalists worship (or appease)?

almost all religions involve a superhuman entity, what superhuman entity is present in naturalism?

Sven · 06-08-2004, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

This claim has some merit, because evolutionists have, for some time, been changing the term to dodge and adapt (pardon the pun) so that they can meet the stringent critisicm that is being thrown at them.

Can you substantiate this claim in any way?

Quote:

What really needs to happen is we need to stop calling it "evolution". It should be called what it is, the religion of naturalism.

LOL.
Perhaps you missed the fact that almost all Christians (and people of other faiths) accept the theory of evolution. Do you think they are all naturalists?

Mageth · 06-08-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

You need to do your homework. If what you say is true, there would be no angst from Gould, who sought desperately to develop PE to explain away the problem of macro change.

Why don't we hear from Gould himself? In Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, Gould wrote:

Quote:

We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax�? states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.�?

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as “hopeful monsters.�? (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium…) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the “punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory�? and tells his hopeful readers that “it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.�? Duane Gish writes, “According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.�? Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

Since you seem to respect Gould's opinion a bit, perhaps you'd be interested in reading that entire chapter, Evolution as Fact and Theory:

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/bueningn...devolution.pdf

Also see:

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Kingreaper · 06-08-2004, 09:40 AM

Quote:

If what you say is true, there would be no angst from Gould, who sought desperately to develop PE to explain away the problem of macro change.

if the purpose of PE is to explain away the gaps in the fossil record, explain how I independently realised that PE would characterise evolution, at age twelve or thirteen, without knowledge of the gaps in the fossil record (or much else about evolution, my first proper lessons weren't til the end of that yeat) is coming to the obvious (if you think about it it is a "d'oh" idea) and logical conclusion "explaining away"?

and what about the fulfilled predictions of PE, or have you ignored those

ZouPrime · 06-08-2004, 09:45 AM

About PE (and I know it's a bit offtopic), I just read yesterday a paper named Evolution, Ecology and Optimization of Digital Organisms, on the simulation of evolution processes on a digital medium. I was very impressed by the results, and how PE can actually be observed in such simulation. You can't have better evidence than that. Read it, it's very, very interresting.

openeyes · 06-08-2004, 09:59 AM

Thanks to all of you for trying to set Mikie straight (but I don't think much is sinking in.)

FWIW, back to the OP, I picked up a book on Darwin on clearance at Barnes and Noble awhile ago written by his great great grandson with the last name of Keynes (the author is also related to the famous economist) entitled "Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution" (or something close to that) which talks in great detail about his life. I'm only about 1/3 of the way through the book, but I get no sense that Darwin came up with his theory of evolution to spite his parents. As others have said who have done some reading, Darwin appears for the most part to be a thoughtful gentleman.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2004, 09:45 AM	#129
ZouPrime Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 3,832	About PE (and I know it's a bit offtopic), I just read yesterday a paper named Evolution, Ecology and Optimization of Digital Organisms, on the simulation of evolution processes on a digital medium. I was very impressed by the results, and how PE can actually be observed in such simulation. You can't have better evidence than that. Read it, it's very, very interresting.

06-08-2004, 09:59 AM	#130
openeyes Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota Posts: 4,215	Thanks to all of you for trying to set Mikie straight (but I don't think much is sinking in.) FWIW, back to the OP, I picked up a book on Darwin on clearance at Barnes and Noble awhile ago written by his great great grandson with the last name of Keynes (the author is also related to the famous economist) entitled "Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution" (or something close to that) which talks in great detail about his life. I'm only about 1/3 of the way through the book, but I get no sense that Darwin came up with his theory of evolution to spite his parents. As others have said who have done some reading, Darwin appears for the most part to be a thoughtful gentleman.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.