The article is playing the equivocation game. They are saying that “evolution”, a change in phenotypic expressions within a population due to selective pressures, is the same as “evolution”, common descent. Not many creation guys deny the first definition of evolution happens, but all of them deny the second. They are not synonymous terms.

(May 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The article is playing the equivocation game. They are saying that “evolution”, a change in phenotypic expressions within a population due to selective pressures, is the same as “evolution”, common descent. Not many creation guys deny the first definition of evolution happens, but all of them deny the second. They are not synonymous terms.

Yes they are synonomous, changes due to selection pressures lead eventually to "common descent"

Again you proudly parade your ignorance like a leper displays his deformaties.

"Those who know least about evolution, attack it the most".

Sorry if this isn't the thread for it, but I just watched this vid and I found the analogy that Martin Wagner used towards the end was fairly brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljt7uqWAd...grec_index

Good post, evolution and natural selection are always happening.

(May 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The article is playing the equivocation game. They are saying that “evolution”, a change in phenotypic expressions within a population due to selective pressures, is the same as “evolution”, common descent. Not many creation guys deny the first definition of evolution happens, but all of them deny the second. They are not synonymous terms.

It's just the next step in the process! If something keeps changing on a small scale over a short period of time, over a longer period of time the changes will appear greater!

(May 20, 2011 at 4:18 pm)theVOID Wrote: I doubt the dog thing has anything at all to do with Evolution specifically... What we have are smart dogs... not surprised they can figure it out.

Yeah, they kinda pushed the envelope with that one, but made up for it by stating that only the smartest of them are living to breeding age.

---

(May 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The article is playing the equivocation game. They are saying that “evolution”, a change in phenotypic expressions within a population due to selective pressures, is the same as “evolution”, common descent. Not many creation guys deny the first definition of evolution happens, but all of them deny the second. They are not synonymous terms.

Wrong as usual, but we'll give you an E for effort.

(May 20, 2011 at 4:18 pm)theVOID Wrote: I doubt the dog thing has anything at all to do with Evolution specifically... What we have are smart dogs... not surprised they can figure it out.

There is a form of selection going on, albeit in a rather unnatural environment.

Enough selection, time and some isolation and voila! New species... unless we hybridize them back into one fold again.

Talk about “parading ignorance”, you logically can’t use small changes to prove common descent. It’s affirming the consequent and is a form of invalid logic. You are just like the guy who says,
1. When I eat pizza I feel full.
2. I feel full.
3. Therefore I ate pizza.
So no matter how hard you try and prove you feel full, this in no logical way proves you ate pizza. No matter how many small changes you point to in animals, it in no way proves that common descent happened. I am sorry to rain on your illogical parade.

Again, equivocation. Point to a Creationist who does not agree with the fact that natural selection happens all the time.

That may or may not be the case (see above for the logical problems with this mindset). There are some huge information theory hurdles you’d have to jump before you could make an assertion like that. It’s going to take a lot more than a few elephants losing their tusks, that’s for sure.

(May 20, 2011 at 4:18 pm)theVOID Wrote: I doubt the dog thing has anything at all to do with Evolution specifically... What we have are smart dogs... not surprised they can figure it out.

That's a testable hypothesis. Isolate a group of dogs representative of the ancestral population of what became strays in Moscow subway, expose their immediate offspring to the Moscow subway system and find what percentage learn to navigate by subway. Isolate a similar group of current Moscow strays and do the same to their immediate offspring. If the current population's offspring learns the moscow subway, then that would be powerful evidence that evolution has occurred to make dogs smarter and more capable of figuring out the subway. If not, then no evolutionary change, at least in the trait, can be said to have been detected.