The same day I responded to his comments and a mini debate began. Instead of dealing with the limited space allowed there I have moved the "debate" here.
Below is my original post followed by our "debate" in the comment section.
ScientiaPerceptum
If you dont understand these terms (or understand the terms of a debate) then how can you even start to address any of the above topics.
In essence, you have failed before you even start.
Before you start a debate, you need to understand the terms you will be debating in their context. Next you need to stick to the rules of the debate (which means you need to stick to the topic), and last you need to supply real information instead of relying on your ignorance as an excuse.
a01011399
evolution has many different meanings, that is why you have to define evolution
ScientiaPerceptum
Wrong Daniel!!!
In science evolution has ONLY ONE MEANING and that is the point you "don't get".
In science evolution is: "The process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations (change in allele frequencies over time). Biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generations."
If you, Daniel, say again that "evolution has different meanings" then you should be labled a LIAR.
a01011399
Nope stellar evolution and biological evolution are 2 different things
Besides your definition for evolution sounds more like Mendel laws. Darwinian evolution is much more that just ´´change in the allele frequencies´´
a01011399
´´The process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations´´
Creationists also accept that, so are you suggesting once again, that creationists and evolutionists agree?
You definition is not accurate and it is misleading, a better definition for evolution is: ´´the idea of complex organisms coming from simpler forms
AND
a01011399
yes I do undestand that, what I don´t understand is why are evolutionist making such a big deal with this
ScientiaPerceptum
The reason that Scientists, among them Evolutionary Biologists, make "...such a big deal..." about "...this..." is that if one does not start out using the correct terminology with the correct definitions then it is USELESS to start a conversation.
It has been shown, and continues to be seen repeatedly (you, Daniel, are a perfect example), that CREATIONISTS (Anti-science advocates) build strawmen of real scientific concepts and deliberately derail discussions by misusing vocabulary.
a01011399
Ok kent hovind describes the 6 different kinds of evolution, (cosmical, chemical, stellar, organic, macro and micro) and he claims that if you are going to debate you have to specify what the debate is going to be about. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with that, but you might have a different opinion, so tell me why is hovind being dishonest?
After this back and forth I wrote the following and intended to place it in the comments section, but found my comment became too long. I am hoping Daniel will reply here, but we will see where this goes now.
Again, Daniel, you are WRONG!
You do not seem to have the capability comprehend how words are used when one is talking about the SCIENTIFIC definition. Being that you have proved this as FACT based on your previous statements, I will start over and take this a little slower for you so you can work through your ignorance.
1. Words sometimes have different meanings depending on the CONTEXT in which they are used.
2. I will ONLY (AGAIN ONLY) be discussing and defining words based on their SCIENTIFIC meanings (which I’ve already done above).
3. In SCIENCE the word EVOLUTION only pertains to the field of BIOLOGY.
4. If you use the word EVOLUTION outside of the field of BIOLOGY in a SCIENTIFIC discussion then you are using it incorrectly.
5. In SCIENCE there is NO SUCH THING as cosmic, stellar, planetary, or organic evolution. Again there is NO SUCH THING in science as cosmic, stellar, planetary, or organic evolution, these DO NOT EXIST when you are using the word evolution in science.
6. IN SCIENCE when one is talking about the history of the Universe then we call that PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY which is under the SCIENTIFIC field of ASTROPHYSICS. See the word PHYSICS? Do you know the difference between PHYSICS and BIOLOGY in SCIENCE Daniel?
7. IN SCIENCE when one is talking about how Stars form and their “life cycles” we would also ask a scientist who studies ASTROPHYSICS, but one that specializes in Stars. Stars form when a giant molecular cloud undergoes gravitational collapse. To understand how stars change over time we then refer to the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.
8. IN SCIENCE stars and planets form from the same materials, but the model used to explain how planets occur is called the Solar Nebular Model under the field of ASTROPHYSICS again. Around a young star, a protoplanetary disk will occur and lead to the formation of planets by accretion of the surrounding nebula.
9. IN SCIENCE how the Earth has changed over time is described by fields of science called GEOLOGY and GEOPHYSICS, can you say GEOPHYSICS Daniel? See how the words GEOLOGY and PHYSICS are combined?
10. IN SCIENCE the study of how life came from non-life is called ABIOGENESIS and is contained under the field of CHEMISTRY. There are many different scientific models, theories, and hypothesis under the study of ABIOGENESIS and thousands of scientists worldwide that contribute to the scientific understanding of how inanimate matter could have formed the first living organisms.
11. IN SCIENCE, under the field of BIOLOGY we have the study of how living organisms change over time from the FIRST life until today and that is called EVOLUTION and is studied by those in the field of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.
12. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY in science is, again under the field of BIOLOGY, defined various ways, but they all have the same meaning. Here is definition different from my previous one above, BUT having the same meaning: “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.”
In essence, BIOLGICAL EVOLUTION says that the changes, again CHANGES, in a populations genes determined by the interaction of that population with its environment (natural selection) can lead to the formation of unique morphology and/or behavior over time allowing for the divergence of a new isolated interbreeding population, which is different from, but related to the parent population. These genetic changes continue to add up leading to new species, genera, families, orders, and classes of organisms within a genetically nested hierarchy.
Your, Daniel, ignorance of how BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is defined is evident in your feeble attempt to equate it with Mendelian inheritance which SAYS NOTHING about genetic changes. Mendel’s Laws only refer to the segregation of EXISTING genes and their independent assortment.
Your strawman of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION as simple organisms giving rise to more complex ones also proves your ignorance since EVOLUTION is NOT directional since EVOLUTION only deals with POPULATIONS and not individual organisms and those populations can LOSE acquired traits and genes allowing the daughter population to be simpler then the parent population.
The main problem you, Daniel, have is that you, as a anti-science creationist, do not accept the FACT that acquired heritable changes in a population’s gene pool can lead over GREAT PERIODS of time, millions/billions of years, to changes such as an limbless and jawless aquatic vertebrate giving rise to a tetrapod land mammal and must bury your head in the sand to ignore the convergent evidence from fossils and genetic analysis.
Until you, Daniel, learn the REAL SCIENTIFIC evidence on which the FACT of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is based you will continue to be mislead by deceptive snake-oil charlatans who are selling lies under the guise of religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment