Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[John V]

So, we've been getting a few evolution-denying theists around recently, and their threads attempting to poke holes in the theory have reminded me of an old question that I'd like to get an answer for, and maybe you creationists can help with that:

Is it possible to deny evolution and understand what it is at the same time?

So far, every one of you who has stated a disbelief in evolution has gone on to prove that you don't know what it is. Given that, what I'd like is for all the evolution denying theists here to let me know two things:

1. What is evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intr...ology.html
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
...
Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.

The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

2. Why do you not accept evolution?

You're displaying your own lack of understanding by asking this simplistic question. As noted above, the word has a variety of meanings. I accept some of those meanings. I reject others, reason being that I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence supporting them.

[Chas]

---

So, we've been getting a few evolution-denying theists around recently, and their threads attempting to poke holes in the theory have reminded me of an old question that I'd like to get an answer for, and maybe you creationists can help with that:

Is it possible to deny evolution and understand what it is at the same time?

So far, every one of you who has stated a disbelief in evolution has gone on to prove that you don't know what it is. Given that, what I'd like is for all the evolution denying theists here to let me know two things:

1. What is evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intr...ology.html
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
...
Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.

The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

2. Why do you not accept evolution?

---

You're displaying your own lack of understanding by asking this simplistic question. As noted above, the word has a variety of meanings. I accept some of those meanings. I reject others, reason being that I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence supporting them.

You prove the OP's point. You do not understand the Theory of Evolution.

[Esquilax]

You're displaying your own lack of understanding by asking this simplistic question. As noted above, the word has a variety of meanings. I accept some of those meanings. I reject others, reason being that I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence supporting them.

Even in the definition you posted there was a definition, and then three paragraphs of refining. Your first paragraph contained the definition, two had additional explanation, the third explored the largely arbitrary micro/macro distinction- and if anyone would like to assert that there's any significant difference in the mechanisms of macro-evolution then they can present evidence that this is the case, like any other scientific claim- and the fourth corrected the "evolution= abiogenesis" misconception, and the common ancestry inference.

To characterize any of those as additional definitions is just absurd. I will, however, concede that my question could have been broader, to encompass those weird "micro, not macro" believers. Perhaps a third question: to what extent do you accept evolution, and why?

[John V]

You prove the OP's point. You do not understand the Theory of Evolution.

I disagree. I quoted TalkOrigins, which is a fairly well-respected site on evolution. IMO an article on TO carries more weight than the opinions of you or Exlax.

---

Even in the definition you posted there was a definition, and then three paragraphs of refining. Your first paragraph contained the definition, two had additional explanation, the third explored the largely arbitrary micro/macro distinction- and if anyone would like to assert that there's any significant difference in the mechanisms of macro-evolution then they can present evidence that this is the case, like any other scientific claim- and the fourth corrected the "evolution= abiogenesis" misconception, and the common ancestry inference.

To characterize any of those as additional definitions is just absurd.

The piece said straight out that "The word evolution has a variety of meanings." If you just want to go with their first definition - Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time - then I accept evolution. I fully accept that the gene pool of one generation is not an exact duplication of the generation before it.

I will, however, concede that my question could have been broader, to encompass those weird "micro, not macro" believers.

According to TO, that includes some biologists: "Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change."

Perhaps a third question: to what extent do you accept evolution, and why?

As noted above, I accept the first definition, as it is demonstrable.

[Esquilax]

According to TO, that includes some biologists: "Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change."

And as I said, if those biologists wish to propose a falsifiable hypothesis as to what those macro-mechanisms are, as well as how they're meaningfully different from micro ones, test that hypothesis, and show real evidence that they exist and how they work, then I will listen.

Until then, the distinction is a meaningless one made to prop up intractable creationists.

As noted above, I accept the first definition, as it is demonstrable.

Given that the "micro" definition is demonstrable, and sufficient to cause the "macro" changes, then I suppose you accept evolution in general.

I know what's coming, by the way; I just need to play my part.

[John V]

And as I said, if those biologists wish to propose a falsifiable hypothesis as to what those macro-mechanisms are, as well as how they're meaningfully different from micro ones, test that hypothesis, and show real evidence that they exist and how they work, then I will listen.

Whatever - I didn't think this was about your beliefs. I don't really care if you believe differently from the biologists the TO article had in mind.

Until then, the distinction is a meaningless one made to prop up intractable creationists.

The term was coined by an evolutionist.

Given that the "micro" definition is demonstrable, and sufficient to cause the "macro" changes, then I suppose you accept evolution in general.

It's not a given that the micro definition is sufficient to cause macro changes.

[Esquilax]

It's not a given that the micro definition is sufficient to cause macro changes.

Well then you would need to propose a mechanism by which those smaller changes are prevented from accumulating. Until then, the logical view is that small, demonstrable changes will build up, just as it's logical to consider that if I walk solidly in one direction without interruption, I will eventually have walked a mile.

[Mister Agenda]

You're displaying your own lack of understanding by asking this simplistic question. As noted above, the word has a variety of meanings. I accept some of those meanings. I reject others, reason being that I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence supporting them.

I dare you to make a more vague statement.

[John V]

Well then you would need to propose a mechanism by which those smaller changes are prevented from accumulating. Until then, the logical view is that small, demonstrable changes will build up, just as it's logical to consider that if I walk solidly in one direction without interruption, I will eventually have walked a mile.

First, you haven't proven that the small changes represent anything new.

By the first definition, which I accept, a simple example of evolution would be that one generation has 75% brown eye genes and 25% blue eye genes, but the next generation has 74% brown eye genes and 26% blue eye genes. There is nothing new in this form of evolution, and nothing to accumulate.

Second, you haven't proven that changes go solidly in one direction. Going back to my example, the third generation could have 75% brown eye genes and 25% blue eye genes. This would be evolution from the second generation, but it would have gone nowhere from the first generation.

[Rampant.A.I.]

And as I said, if those biologists wish to propose a falsifiable hypothesis as to what those macro-mechanisms are, as well as how they're meaningfully different from micro ones, test that hypothesis, and show real evidence that they exist and how they work, then I will listen.

Whatever - I didn't think this was about your beliefs. I don't really care if you believe differently from the biologists the TO article had in mind.

Until then, the distinction is a meaningless one made to prop up intractable creationists.

The term was coined by an evolutionist.

Given that the "micro" definition is demonstrable, and sufficient to cause the "macro" changes, then I suppose you accept evolution in general.

It's not a given that the micro definition is sufficient to cause macro changes.