Hello CTD, thanks again for demonstraring cognitive dissonance so clearly ...
There's plenty more to Darwinism, and everyone knows this. To carry on so is neither cute nor funny at this point. Darwin wrote more than one or two silly sentences. He wrote silly books full of nonsense, in which he explained all the things one needs to imagine if one is to buy his story.
This is hilarious, thanks:
[color:"red"]
You can't do it.----------------------[/color]
If "everyone knows this" then why can't you provide something to substantiate you position?
The reality is that you
cannot provide an example of "the rest of Darwinism" even after I provided you with a resource you could search with your web-browser. The fact that
thousands of books have been written about evolution doesn't mean that Darwin's theory was not "descent with modification" (as demonstrated in my reference to his actual writing), throught the mechanisms of variation and natural selection, and there is no further theory of his that is now abandoned, one that goes beyond this basic theory. Rather than admit that you are wrong, you resort to what? claiming that the writing is "silly" -- precisely the behavior typical of cognitive dissonance.
Can't I? Why not? You linked to a copy of one of his books yourself. So what makes you think anyone's ignorant enough to take your word that Darwinism consists of nothing more than your diluted version?
Because they don't have to take my word for it, they can read the book, they can search it with their web-browser, they can look for the truth on their own. They can decide for themselves if you are just full of hot air and falsehoods without the integrety to admit whether you are either (a) wrong (b) ignorant (c) lazy (d) deluded (e) pathetic (d) silly ... etc (I wouldn't pretend to make that decision for them). That would be why I gave the link to you after all, so that you could point out what is now missing from his original theory.
"Little different"? A relative term, I suppose. And a red herring. What you've presented in this thread and in the one you started for the purpose of offering version after version is neither Darwinism nor Neodarwinism. It's your own attempt to follow the example of the priests at talkdeceptions like Dr. Theobald. It's just a con game to present hollow jibberish and confuse the unsuspecting.
Now if you can defend any form of Darwinism, why do you need to disguise it?
So little different, in actual fact, that you are totally incapable of demonstrating any difference. Saying there is a difference is easy - actually demonstrating it is what an honest debater would do after making such a claim. I have given you opportunity, I have given you a resource, I have provided you with everything you should need to prove your point, and the fact remains:
[color:"red"]
You can't do it.----------------------[/color]
Oh? Have you evidence of any such prediction? Genetics is quite contrary to what Darwin proposed. Genetics says you get what you inherit - that's it. You may inherit things from your great grandfather, or even further back, but whatever you have is what one of your ancestors had.
Denial does not make reality vanish. Mutations are real, they have been observed. They are fact. You have several hundred mutations that neither your mother nor your father had. Those differences make your DNA trace different from your parents, part of how "DNA fingerprinting" works.
Now you equivocate again. You use "descent with modification" as a substitute title for Darwinian evolution, knowing full well it's not a substitute for the content of the mythology. You think that's clever?
Do you know that Darwin never used the term evolution?
Well in that case, explain his "theory of the preservation of favored races". That'll make 3 "theories" if you want to count things that way.
No, it is still just one theory, CTD, and tacking theory onto a phrase doesn't make it a theory either. Again, one does not need to take my word for it, you can google your "theory of the preservation of favored races" (with the quotes) like I did:
No results found for "theory of the preservation of favored races".
That's on the whole google search database. Strikeout. You will find this though, that the full title of Darwin's book was "
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" but that he talks very little about " the Preservation of Favored Races" or even just "favored races" ....
http://darwin-online.org.uk/... this is another on-line resource with the
complete works of Darwin, including on-line versions of each and every edition of his books.
Google <site:http://darwin-online.org.uk/ preservation favored races> (no quotes) and you get four (4) results all of which refer ONLY to the subtitle of the book as an
alternate for natural selection. So much for that being a major
theory (or part of a theory) of Darwin eh?
He does talk about the "struggle for life" but this is part of natural selection.
He also does call it his "theory of natural selection" but this is still a mechanism for descent with modification and not some grander theory that has been now "diluted" and it has also been validated in the years since: natural selection has been observed, it is a fact that natural selection occurs.
Google <site:http://darwin-online.org.uk/ "theory of descent with modification"> (with quotes) and you get nine different results, do <site:http://darwin-online.org.uk/ "descent with modification"> (with quotes) and you get
[color:"blue"]Results ... about 237,000 from darwin-online.org.uk for "descent with modification". [/color]
The quotes mean that the words appear in
exactly that phrase 237,000 times on that site while your words without the quotes (ie can be dissassciated or in any order) only appear in four (4) places.
Perhaps you need to really read the book ...
How about for instance that's chapter 15. That means there were 14 chapters leading up to it. And that's not his only book on evolutionism either.
Yes it is chapter 15, it is the last chapter in the book, and it is the
SUMMARY of the whole book. My quote was from the beginning of that summary, a fairly prominent position..
You were so thrilled to find the select phrase you sought, ...
No, I went to the part labelled "
RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION" because it was a
recapitulation of his book where he would present ALL the theories in the book in summary form and then provide his final conclusions. I already knew the phrase was there, it's part of knowing what you are talking about eh?
... you seemed to have overlooked something rather important. Perhaps I can help with a little bold text
....struggle for existence leading to the preservation of profitable deviations ...
Which is the basis for natural selection: there are more offspring produced than needed to replace existing populations so there must be some losers, organisms that don't survive, don't reproduce, don't pass on their hereditary traits, while the "profitable deviations" are passed from one generation to the next.
Pay close attention. He says "this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions"... Without constant struggle (and by this he means death of all but the "most fit") Darwin himself contends evolution won't happen.
And he then goes on to show how it does happen.
Are you going to argue that no organisms, no people even, die of starvation every year, many without reproducing, and that those that do reproduce do so in a limited way, often with the offspring harmed by fetal malnutrition so they are less functional than the offspring of the well-fed and "fit" organisms? This simple observation by Darwin was his insight that this - with variation - was enough to cause "descent with modification" ... evolution to us.
For all your adoration, you continually overlook what he actually said. He also claimed "parent groups" would be driven to extinction by more "highly evolved" replacements, as I pointed out not so long ago. But no evolutionist cares. You're too busy assuming evolution has happened to look at it even half as critically as Darwin did. ...And you dare to speak of cognitive dissonance? Ha!
Actually I like Wallace better, he worked harder to come to the same conclusion from entirely different evidence. Funny how two different people, working in two different parts of the world, come to the same conclusion eh? Science is like that, it is part of dealing with objective reality.
Speciation occurs: parent populations have been observed dividing into daughter populations that no longer share genes between the groups. When those daughter populations are also different from the parent population (rather than one staying the same while the other changes) then yes, you do have the parent population become
de facto extinct. The daughter populations are better adapted to their ecologies and replace the previous populations. THIS IS EVOLUTION.
Yes, it has been called that. It has been called other things too, as I mentioned. But titles aren't contents. If you want to discuss Darwin's idea, that's fine. If you want to define it, you need to define all of it - not just name it. Same for the modern versions.
No, the title is "
the Origin of Species" not descent with modification. THE theory, as clearly stated by Darwin, is descent with modification, the mechanisms are variation and natural selection, the theory explains the diversity of life.
Now let's play the little game again, CTD: can you tell us what the "rest of it" is (or are you just going to continue waving your arms in the air)? Or does it become abundantly clear to any objective observer that
[color:"red"]
You can't do it.----------------------[/color]
Not because you don't want to, but because reality prevents it.
That's a later idea & you know it. But it's what evolutionists teach, so it's fair game. You think you get to choose what we can pay attention to, and what we must miss. This is not how discussions proceed.
Okay so you admit that you cannot show that Darwin claims that rocks must necessarily turn into human beings: that's a start.
We recognize there are different sects among evolutionists. It would have been fair to claim you don't buy the "rocks-to-man" scenario. But to claim it does not exist is false. It exists in more than one form. There's even a group claiming crystals were the basis for bringing about life. Crystals are rocks, are they not?
Yes, but the claim in question is that the crystals operate as a catalyzing matrix for assembling preorganic molecules, not that the crystals themselves become part of the molecule.
Nor do they claim that this necessarily happens, nor do they claim that this
MUST RESULT IN HUMANS. This is just one (1) of many tentative hypothesis (not theory) on how life began on earth, however. The claim by Russ (and you through your adaption of it) is that evolution necessarily includes life forming from rocks and necessarily resulting in humans, and both of these are not in the slightest necessary to evolution in any part, piece or parcel ... all that is
necessary to evolution is (a) the existence of life, (b) a mechanism to cause variation in organisms, (c) a mechanism for traits to be passed from one generation to the next, and (d) pressure on the population that causes some to survive and breed with better success than others. Descent with modification, through the mechanisms of variation and natural selection. The change in hereditary traits in populations from one generation to the next.
I'm not aware of any evidence that says any such thing. If such evidence existed, it should have been presented. All you give is misinterpretations of evidence; the evidence itself can only reflect reality. When properly interpreted, evidence supports the history we read in the bible.
Putting it in bold doesn't make it true. All it really shows is that you are
uncomfortable about just considereing the concept that populations do change, and that the fossil record does in fact demonstrate that this has happened in the past. This is cognitive dissonance.
Note that "properly interpreted" does not mean being constrained by preconceived conclusions, nor does it mean to ignore the rest of the evidence that exists, it means to determine the truth of the evidence
no matter what that truth is.
Oh? So evidence consists of evolutionists' conclusions now?
No, the evidence consists of the fossils that do not show what you claim all fossil evidence shows. This really is humorous that you are unable to grapple with the evidence, or even recognize it for what it is.
Does it not trouble you in the least that none of the evolutionists here are able to present actual evidence & make an honest argument based thereupon?
Like the evidence of the foraminifera fossils, the horse fossils, pelycodus fossils, even hominid fossils that has been presented and ignored? The classic symptom of cognitive dissonance is to look right at the evidence and then claim that it does not exist.
There is no scientific use of the term. That's like saying there's a scientific use of the term leprechaun!
Actually you are wrong. Again.
[/b] –ev·o·lu·tion n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
[color:"white"]...[/color]a. The process of developing.
[color:"white"]...[/color]b. Gradual development.
[color:"white"]...[/color]c. 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.
[color:"white"]...[/color]d. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3.
Biology[color:"white"]...[/color]a. 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.
[color:"white"]...[/color]b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5.
Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
[color:"white"]...[/color]
(American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2008) There you have an example that gives a definition specific to biology (oh look, it's descent with modification, it's the change in hereditary traits in populations from one generation to the next, it's the biological scientific definition of the term for use in that science ...) as well as one specific to mathematics. And you don't have to take my word for it: look it up.
When I say there's a lot more to Darwinism & evolutionism than your summary, you say "The fact is that you can't produce any such "rest" of the theory proposed by Darwin".
And so far you have been unable to present anything more ... and so far all that you have posted amounts to a lot of hot air with little content and no support for your argument.
But it looks like your opinion varies considerably.
(responding to "Mechanisms should not be classified within evolution.")Again: why? Different mechanisms and processes exist and cause different results. They are part of the reality of evolution. What purpose is served by ignoring them?
Care to answer your own question? What purpose do you think is served?
One mechanism is variation (caused by mutations). One mechanism is natural selection (the "struggle for existence"). One mechanism is genetic drift. They are all part of evolution, part of what makes the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation occur. They are part of descent with modification.
And you give no indication that you'll ever find a formulation that suits you. Here's yet another RAZD evolution "theory".
Anyone care for more?
Whether Ray is mistaken or not is irrelevant in the end: it doesn't mean we need to stop talking about what the real definition of the theory of evolution involves.
Enjoy.
There's no indication that you ever intend to stop talking about your "real definition", or your quest to find it.
Oh! Did I say "it"?
"The theory of Evolution" is not so much a single theory as it is a synthesis of current theories involving evolution (see Thread The Definition for the Theory of Evolution for discussion), where evolution is the change in hereditary traits in species over time. Theories of speciation involving the splitting of breeding populations of a species into two or more daughter populations leads to the theory of common descent, whereby all known evidence of life can be arranged in a tree of descent over time from common ancestors that make the various branches in this tree (or bush).
Will you ever find your answer? It's like Goldielocks: one's too short, one's too long, one's too... whatever
That is one of the problems with evolution -- the word is used to mean different things. What evolution is does need to be part of the theory for how evolution occurs, and how it occurs needs more than just what it is.
It's not so much that speciation needs to be included, but that the theory can explain speciation - especially where it involves separation of parent populations into different daughter populations.
In this one, you actually seem to appreciate your Goldilockshood
This is similar to the "Standard Model" in physics, which is not a single theory so much as a compendium of all current working theories. In this vein (and in keeping with some similar comments by Modulus in Message 11, Message 12 and Message 33) I propose the following:
The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time, how change is enabled by the available variations (diversity) within populations due to the accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and how changes made within each generation are selected by the differential response of organisms to passing on their hereditary traits under prevailing ecological pressures and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
Trying for a balance between specific and general ... without getting cumbersome?
Enjoy.
By now I'm hoping you can understand a few things. If you can't figure out what the core beliefs of your religion consist of, that's your problem - not ours.
Curious that this is still
all descent with modification, that in all those quotes evolution is still the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and the
theory of evolution is that this is enough to explain the diversity of life as we know it. In spite of all your hand waving, your frantic denigratory attempts to disparage (goldilocks?) you still:
- have not shown that there is more to Darwin's theory than descent with modification through the mechanism of variation and natural selection,
- have not shown that my definition of evolution as the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation is substantially different from Darwin's descent with modification in any way,
- have not presented ANY evidence to support your position in spite of repeated opportunities (repeating assertions don't make them true),
- have not shown that the evidence I've presented does not support evolution (claiming it doesn't is not sufficient, you need to demonstrate that it doesn't, and that means dealing with the evidence, not dismissing it),
- have not shown that there is anything missing from my (or any other modern) definition of evolution that was included in Darwin's theory, specifically the parts you claim have been omitted, neglected, or diluted out.
In short you have not in any way supported your position, you've just repeated it, waved your hands, engaged in substantial effort at distraction, and totally failed to address the issue: defining what is missing from the 'change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation' that was originally part of Darwin's theory.
[color:"red"][b]You can't do it.
----------------------[/color]
And the reason you can't do it is because you are wrong. It's really quite humorous to see you 'shuck and jive' ... dancing around pretending reality doesn't exist, pretending that quoting me is addressing the issue, pretending that you know something. Unfortunately for you, nature is completely uninfluenced by your opinion and knowldege of reality.
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
Circle-of-Life Forums - Welcome
