- Gaspode
- MEBuckner
To back up MEBuckner, here is a good site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Gaspode, just as you do not understand the definition of creationist, I can see you also do not comprehend the definition of evolution. It matters not if the mutations which conferred the anti-pesticide benefits happened last year or last century, changing its frequency in the population is exactly what evolution is all about.
I hope you don’t want to go on another definition tangent, because any decent biology book will define it just like MEBuckner. Of course deaths and births are precisely what drive evolution. Immigration and emigration matter only if they cross the boundary of the population.
You can’t make evolution go away by playing with definitions.
Doc Moss the locusts immune system may have gotten stonger by the pesticide, but a locust is still a locust. The same with fruit flies, varations may occur on a small scale, but it’s still a fruit fly, it hasnt gone thru some great complex change into something else. The fact is evolution on a large complex scale has never been seen in action (i.e. into a whole new species).
Obvious Guy, speciation has been observed also.
If something like the change in the locusts can occur in a relatively short time, imagine what could happen in millions of years. And how, exactly does one observe something that takes as long as “evolution on a large complex scale”?
Airbeck I would expect to see fossils with many variations if so many slow changes have occured. Where are all the intermediate skeletons from one species evolving into something else?
Everything you ever wanted to know about Transitional Vertebrate Fossils, but were afraid to ask.
Wait! Before anyone provides the cites showing exactly what Obvious Guy is looking for, let’s extract a promise that when this objection is shot down, he will concede that evolution is for real. Otherwise, we’re just arguing with Jack Chick.
Damn you for being quicker to post than me, MEBuckner! 
In my spare time I also enjoy tilting at windmills, fighting City Hall, and bashing my head against brick walls.
And again Hardcore prevaricates concerning a definition. I’ve already posted a definition from Henderson’s, which, according to the blurb is ‘the most comprehensive dictionary of biological terms now in print’, so I guess it qualifies as a ‘decent biology book’ huh?. I will add to this the following from “Biology”, Raven and Johnson, Mcgraw-HIll. “The theory of evolution - the notion that living things can change gradually from one form into another over the course of time.” I can’t see any evidence here that the current locusts are of a different form from those that existed prior to the commencement of chemical spraying. Or are you suggesting that Raven and Johnson’s text, which has sold half a million copies and is used in universities and colleges around the world, is not a ‘decent biology book’? Since I’ve posted cites from two, can you actually post a definition from one decent biology book that gives a definition of evolution along the lines of ‘a change in gene frequency’ Hardcore? Not that it matters a lot, since you’re clearly interested only in semantics. By the definition of Henderson’s, Raven and Johnson and the good people at Oxford what is being described in the OP is not evolution by any stretch. That justifies what I’ve said. Hardcore’s comment that “any decent biology book will define it just like MEBuckner” is at best in error and at worst an outright lie.
If you wish to use a looser definition fine. I don’t doubt they exist, but I really don’t think that when Doc Moss referred to ‘creationists who don’t believe in evolution’ that he meant those people who either believe that all individuals possess exactly the same genes, or who believe that for every individual that dies or emigrates another individual is immediately born or immigrates who has exactly the same genes. Any creationist who believes other than this believes in evolution by default. In fact I’ll lay down a challenge Hardcore. Can you find me evidence of one creationist who doesn’t believe in evolution defined as “a change in gene frequency within a population”?
:rolleyes: I just love strawmen.
How many times do I have to say it Hardcore? I have no problem with evolution, I accept evolution. I am an anti-Darwinist.
We can’t however make evolution easier to defend by using a definition so broad that no-one in the world could actually disagree that the process is occurring. This is not the definition used in most texts, in most journals nor in my experience by most people, and while I don’t doubt it could be accurate enough it’s a bit like defining a unicorn as ‘a four footed beast’ and then defending the existence of unicorns by pointing at a rat. It just won’t cut it with rational people because that’s not what they assumed you meant when you said ‘unicorn’.
Obvious guy
You appear to be a creationist/anti-evolutionist of the old school. Do you believe that in a population of, say, 10 dogs the removal of one individual with a rare gene will alter the frequency of that gene within the population? ie if I capture and remove one of the only two dogs with a gene for bright green eyes then there will be less genes for bright green eyes within the 9 dogs remaining?
Of course you can’t, because you will never open your eyes and see the evidence, instead prefering to covering them in some sort of monkey-like “see no evil” approach. The population has changed, ergo evolution has occurred. Except in Gaspode’s fantasy land between his ears.
That’s exactly what I am suggesting, if indeed that is the only definition in the book you mention. A nebulous definition like that is acceptable only in a simple, weeny introduction to biology book. Certainly not in a serious science book. To wit:
Further, to give reference with accurate definitions of evolution:
All of these came from the previous cite, which of course you haven’t bothered to read. Have to keep up the ol’ “see no evil” approach rather than debate honestly, if you want to be consistent.
Good work, Gaspode. Instead of researching the topic, simply call your opponent a liar. Makes your argument much easier to construct, but unfortunately for you, it also demonstrates the emptiness of it. See the above references and retract your ridiculous statement, or keep looking foolish. I know where I would bet my money.
Since I haven’t made the claim that creationists don’t believe in evolution once they understand it, I don’t feel the need to search for any creationists who feel otherwise. In fact, I’ll bet that almost any reasonably intelligent person who honestly studies evolution will accept it. Only those who unnecessarily feel that it challenges their religious beliefs still reject it, and I suspect you fit this criteria.
Yes, you most certainly do have a problem with evolution. You have a problem understanding the scientific definition of it.
The scientific definition of evolution is not broad – your simplistic definition is. Changes in the allele frequency of a population is a discrete, measurable quantity, something your definition is sorely lacking. Evolution is easy to defend because it is A FACT. No one in the world should actually disagree the process is occurring because IT IS HAPPENING.
Gaspode, you seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow, but for some silly reason you feel the need to attack something you obviously have not studied in depth. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before you jump into the deep end again. If you still disagree this is the current scientific definition of evolution afterwards, at least you might be able to present a cogent argument and initiate an interesting, productive debate. I hope you take my advice, for I could foresee you contributing something positive if you would do so.
Gaspode, as a sign of good faith (and obsession), I am willing to jump-start your educational process. I came up with these references on the internet with minimal effort, so obviously this information is readily available.
From Robert George Sprackland, Ph.D.
From Botany 1210, Univ of Georgia
From General Biology 102, Rutgers University
From Scientific American
From Biology 111, Lander University
There are plenty more like this if you wish to pursue it further. I trust you will actually look at this information, thus realizing that we have been providing you with the current, scientific definition of evolution, and retract your erroneous claims. If not, at least try to formulate an intelligent response detailing why you disagree with this definition, instead of blindly making statements that are easily disproven.
Hatrdcore you made the silly and sweeping statement “ any decent biology book will define it (evolution)just like MEBuckner.” I give you cites from two books widely used by tertiary institutions worldwide, and you say that they are not ‘decent’ because they don’t agree with your statement. You make a statement that respectable authorities believe such and such, it is proved to be false by the use of independent cites, and you say the sources are not worthy of consideration because they disagree with what you want to believe. Sound like a familiar tactic Hardcore? It should, it’s the same sort of blinkered, circular argument that is used so widely by literal creationists around here. I would have expected better from you. To suggest that those responsible for selecting texts at tertiary institutions worldwide, not to mention professors of Botany and Biology at Washington U and have no idea what constitutes a ‘decent’ biology book while you do seems to me to be the highest arrogance. You are entitled to your opinions, however the fact remains that you said that ‘any decent biology book’ would agree with you. I have given you two examples that don’t. I have suggested that you are a liar Hardcore, not in preference to researching the argument, but rather as a result of it. You made a very specific comment. It has been proved wrong by two cites. The statement was either in error or a deliberate lie. A conclusion reached because of research. I can’t quite see how you can suggest a lack of research after two cites have been provided, but it’s an interesting tactic to attempt to detrect from the substance of the argument nonetheless.
I love the way you continue to play semantics to try to weasel away from a blatantly incorrect statement Hardcore, it’s highly amusing and very reminiscent of DITWD. “to give reference with accurate definitions of evolution”. How pray tell are your definitions more accurate than mine? You made a stupid statement that my comment was based on an erroneous definition that couldn’t be supported. You have been proved wrong so now you suggest that your definitions are more accurate. You’re free to believe that Hardcore, but to assert it as fact relies on an argument from authority at best.
The quote you gave from talk.origins and the other references, while they may agree with you, in no way covers for the fact that you were out and out wrong. Two books considered ‘decent’ by many people who I would suggest have far more experience in the fields of biology and teaching than yourself prove your statement to be in error. Admit that you made a generalisation that was in error and let it go Hardcore. It’s no biggie and certainly not worth humiliating yourself over. I’ve already said that your definition is in existence and valid.
Your statement that I have a problem understanding the scientific definition of evolution is laughable. This is just more semantics from you Hardcore, not an argument. Frankly I’d rather stand beside Drs Raven and Johnson than beside you when it comes to a showdown on who’s definition is right.
You suggest, Hardcore, that the current locusts are of a different form to those that existed when spraying commenced, and that I am somehow burying my head in the sand by not acknowledging this. Can you give me one cite that demonstrates that even one of the existing locusts is of a different form to locusts that already existed when spraying commenced? Saying ‘the population has changed ergo evolution has taken place is yet another straw man. No one has suggested the population has not changed. What I said is that both Raven & Johnson’s and Henderson’s definitions required a change in form for evolution to take place or a change from pre-existing organisms. You have stated that I am refusing to see the evidence when I don’t accept this has taken place, well the time has come hardcore. Show the evidence. Or are you simply arguing semantics again?
My challenge remains Hardcore. You have been involved in many evolution debates on these boards with creationists whom you have accused of not understanding or accepting evolution. I would like you to find me evidence of one creationist who doesn’t believe in evolution defined as “a change in gene frequency within a population”? I suspect that by this definition everyone in the world is either an evolutionist or completely ignorant of genetics. This has nothing to do with what claims you have made concerning the understanding of evolution, it is simply intended to demonstrate to you how unworkable your definition of evolution is in most contexts.
Your last paragraph appears to be a baseless, patronising ad-hominem, and I’m not even going to bother responding. Do you actually have any facts that I can’t blow out of the water with two cites as I did with your “any decent biology book will define it just like MEBuckner” comment.
Just read your last post Hardcore. Not much to add. Just more patronisation and semantics really. I give three cites, you give half a dozen. I’m sure given time I could find a dozen more. It’s sad, Hardcore, that you always seem to come down to semantics. The only query I have to add Hardcore is the one that I routinely throw at you, and the one you invariably weasel away from. Which one of my claims has been erroneous? I made the statement “Technically the situation described in the OP isn’t evolution.” It was queried. I supported it with cites. You made a statement “any decent biology book will define it just like MEBuckner” that has been refuted by facts. All the definitions in the world, Hardcore, won’t change the fact that what is going on in the OP is not technically evolution according to the definitions used by some scientists and by the general population (according to dictionaries and encyclopaedia). Nor will they change that the fact that your statement “any decent biology book will define it just like MEBuckner” is demonstrably wrong. Wrong.
If you want to continue playing ‘who’s got the better definition’ then you’ll have to get another playmate, I’m not interested. The assertions have been made and cites provided that either support or disprove them.
Talk.origins itself says “One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups)”. I can’t be bothered myself.
**
And you have an unfortunate habit of being unnecessarily insulting.
**
I never claimed you did say it. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
-Ben
The funny this is, though, that if you look at C/E debates which get bogged down in hairsplitting semantics, the common factor isn’t hardcore… it’s Gaspode. Remember “inorganic carbon”? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a C/E debate with Gaspode which centered on the evidence; in all the cases I’ve seen, it seems like Gaspode very quickly derails things into debating the definitions of words, and uses the fine hairsplitting as an opportunity to launch personal attacks in which he invariably questions the credentials or honesty of his opponents.
-Ben
OK this is getting a bit tiresome, God built it vs. it was a random event. I still say there is a third alternative. Many of the things that the evolutionists claim in their theory just don’t add up, and on the other hand absolute acceptance of the magic wand theory is a bit much as well. I propose that the third alternative is genetic manipulation by an unknown source after all the bible does say “man was created in God’s image” hmmmmm what does that imply??
May I offer Sverker Johansson’s definitions of micro and macro evolution:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that even the ICR can’t deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
(He’s a phyicist).
You’re making a classic logical fallacy here, “If A then B, not A therefore not B”. Evolution does lead to different forms, but that does mean a lack of new forms means a lack of evolution.
Which things, exactly?
Gaspode:
Perhaps the statement that any “decent” biology textbook would define evolution as “a change in gene frequency within a population” (or words to that effect) is too sweeping. But it’s clearly been shown that a number of such books do define evolution that way, and that the definition is used by evolutionary biologists themselves. Therefore, your initial statement that “the situation described in the OP isn’t evolution” is also incorrect. And to say that “technically the situation described in the OP isn’t evolution” is especially wrong–in fact technically is precisely how it is evolution, but in popular terms it won’t be seen as evolution.
You’re correct that all creationists therefore accept evolution. This is where their “micro/macro” distinction comes in to play; see JonF’s very apt quotation from Sverker Johansson.