Difference between revisions of "Talk:Definition of evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(eh what?: "Asian" not based on DNA.)
(That particular definition: Classification systems don't need to be scientific; the removed "definition".)
Line 54: Line 54:
  
 
Consider that classification systems rely on logic to be affective, so the answer is yes all classification systems have to be scientific.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 
Consider that classification systems rely on logic to be affective, so the answer is yes all classification systems have to be scientific.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
:Before I make my following remarks, I want to make absolutely clear that as a Christian, I reject astrology.
 +
:I would think that a better word than "effective" would be "useful".  Classifications need to be ''useful''.  But that depends on what they are ''used'' for, and they can have different uses.
 +
:An astrologer might decide to classify stars according to their (purported) effect on people's destinies.  That sort of classification system would not be ''useful'' to an astronomer, but it would be ''useful'' to the astrologer.  But it would not be "scientific".
 +
:An alternative examples is railway gauges.  Gauges are classified into ''narrow'', ''standard'', and ''broad''.  I would not consider these to be ''scientific'' classifications (they are somewhat arbitrary), but it is a ''useful'' classification system nevertheless.
 +
:So I reject that ''all'' classification systems ''have to be'' scientific.
 +
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  
 
Where is the "grand consensus" that one of the definitions of evolution does not include a leftist-atheist philosophy? The term "evolution" is not just used for strictly scientific concepts. Debates over evolution frequently discuss philosophical issues. That is true on both sides of the debate. Why is that? It is because people commonly use the term "evolution" to include philosophical beliefs. Maybe it would be better if everyone stuck to science, but that's just not the way it is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 
Where is the "grand consensus" that one of the definitions of evolution does not include a leftist-atheist philosophy? The term "evolution" is not just used for strictly scientific concepts. Debates over evolution frequently discuss philosophical issues. That is true on both sides of the debate. Why is that? It is because people commonly use the term "evolution" to include philosophical beliefs. Maybe it would be better if everyone stuck to science, but that's just not the way it is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  
 
Actually, Roger, unless you decide to go off topic, that ''is'' the way it is.  We are speaking of the scientific theory of evolution, not some vague 3rd dictionary meaning.  To say otherwise is to either change the subject, or to try to [[Satan|deceive]].
 
Actually, Roger, unless you decide to go off topic, that ''is'' the way it is.  We are speaking of the scientific theory of evolution, not some vague 3rd dictionary meaning.  To say otherwise is to either change the subject, or to try to [[Satan|deceive]].
 +
 +
:When I get the chance, I'd like to do a bit of a cleanup on this article myself (if others don't beat me to it).  I'd probably reinstate the deleted bit, but not ''as a definition'', because I don't believe that it is.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  
 
== Gradual appearance of new forms of life ==
 
== Gradual appearance of new forms of life ==

Revision as of 23:04, April 8, 2007

Highly informative expansion of my stub. Never know that about the "nothing makes sense" quote, which I gather gets taken out of context a lot.--Ed Poor 12:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. RSchlafly 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,

Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."

PalMD 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the last definition is really philosophy and not science. I would exclude it, except that it really comes into debates about evolution. I just added a couple of references that say that unplanned, unguided, and random are part of evolution. RSchlafly 15:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for adding the bit about unguided evolution. My attempts to wedge that into Wikipedia is what got JoshuaZ and company to have me put on probation. (Bitter, and proud!) --Ed Poor 15:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

that Earth is insignificant?

Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --Mtur 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The most materialist of scientists would likely argue that while the Earth may or may not be unique, it is certainly significant, being the place where we evolved and live. See the "anthropic principle".PalMD 15:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I am under the impression that it is primarily leftists and atheists who argue that life on Earth is insignificant because of life on other planets, billions of stars, Darwinian processes, etc. I don't have any references handy. I am throwing it out here for discussion. RSchlafly 17:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Alas, such nonsense. The page contains not-so-much a valid definition as a whining screed again evolution written by folks who know nothing of evolution. NousEpirrhytos 07:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

eh what?

A leftist-atheist philosophy. This says that man is no better than an animal; that Earth is insignificant; that progress does not exist; that the history of life is unguided, unplanned, and random;[3] and that materialist explanations have replaced all spiritual ones. Various other ideas may also be included, depending on the evolutionist.

eh? where did this get dragged up from? what's the connection between people on the left and being an atheist? I'm (british) right and an atheist. As for the rest of it, the mind bogggles! --Cgday 08:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Roger, that is a comment beneath you. It is insulting, uncited, and unChristian. As I said most scientists, and atheists, and leftists, consider the Earth pretty darn significant, as we live here. That does not change the cosmologic fact that we are one of billions of solar systems, so cosmologically not particularly significant. But, from a human perspective, Earth could hardly be more significant. --PalMDtalk 08:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That bit about a leftist-atheist philosophy is out of place, I believe. It is how some people see evolution our place in the universe and how they see the lack of purpose in evolution, but it's not a definition of evolution per se. I think it likely belongs in the article (perhaps modified somewhat), but not as a definition. Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


Let me clarify, as one of the scientists here, humans are animals, that is indisputable. Per those of us who are scientists, we are unique animals in many ways, and that is significant. Earth is significant for the above reasons. Science, however, does not comment on the moral significance of humans or Earth. That is religion's job.--PalMDtalk 10:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not indisputable at all. Whether or not humans are animals really depends on the definitions of your classification system. Personally, I'd define plants as living things with a body, animals as living things with a body and mind, and humans as living things with a body, mind, and soul. Ergo, humans are not animals according to that classification system. Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
They have sequenced human and chimp DNA and estimate that there is about a 2% difference between the two. If chimps are animals, then human DNA codes 98% animal. Teresita 10:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
That is only relevant if you are using that as part of your classification system. They've also found that humans have about 50% of their DNA in common with bananas, so does that make us 50% plants? Philip J. Rayment 11:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
No, but it indicates that humans and plants forked from each other a lot earlier than humans and chimps did. Teresita 11:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Whether or not they forked at all is a separate issue. But if sharing 50% of our DNA does not make us 50% plants, why does sharing 98% of our DNA with animals (well, one type only) make us 98% animal? Philip J. Rayment 12:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
The same way sharing 99.9% of my DNA with Asians makes me 99.9% Asian which overrides the 99.3% of my DNA I share with Caucasians, which, in the absence of my predominantly Asian DNA, would make me Caucasian. Quod erat demonstrandum. Teresita 14:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
99.9%? Good try, but you would not normally be classified as "99.9% Asian", but simply "Asian", and this would have been the case well before DNA was heard of let alone measurable. Therefore, humans would not be described as "98% ape" or "98% animal", but (by that logic), simply "ape" (which of course they are not) or "animal" (which they usually are, but not for that reason). Philip J. Rayment 18:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Phil, that question reveals a level of ignorance so profound that I'm not sure where to start. The kingdoms of Animalia an Plantae branched off very far in the past, far enough that, while we share enough DNA to show that we both originated from common ancestors on Earth, evolution as separated us enough that we not only are separate species, but actually in separated kingdoms.PalMDtalk 12:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
You confuse disagreement for ignorance. You are not telling me something that I've never heard, but something that I disagree with; I don't agree that we split at all (i.e. I reject evolution). However, that is not the point. I was not talking about where we came from, but how we are classified, and pointing out that there can be more than way to classify things. Do we classify according to percentage similarities of DNA, according to the existence or otherwise of a soul, or according to any number of other possible ways of classifying? And even that question is a bit pointless because you are not limited to classifying things according to only one classification system. That is, you could classify according to similarity of DNA 'and according to the existence of a soul. So you could then say that we are animals according to classification system A but not according to classification system B. It's a bit like the question of whether or not Pluto is a planet. Whether or not it's a planet depends on which classification system you are using, and astronomers recently decided to change which classification system they used. Philip J. Rayment 12:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That particular definition

As per grand consensus on this discussion page and the discussion page of Theory of Evolution, I am removing the fourth definition. GofG ||| Talk 09:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


Since the soul is immaterial, it is not a part of a scientific classification system. You cant measure it, you can perhaps say humans have one, but then what? Measure a chimps soul?PalMDtalk 12:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Do all possible classification systems have to be scientific ones? Philip J. Rayment 12:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Consider that classification systems rely on logic to be affective, so the answer is yes all classification systems have to be scientific.--TimS 12:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Before I make my following remarks, I want to make absolutely clear that as a Christian, I reject astrology.
I would think that a better word than "effective" would be "useful". Classifications need to be useful. But that depends on what they are used for, and they can have different uses.
An astrologer might decide to classify stars according to their (purported) effect on people's destinies. That sort of classification system would not be useful to an astronomer, but it would be useful to the astrologer. But it would not be "scientific".
An alternative examples is railway gauges. Gauges are classified into narrow, standard, and broad. I would not consider these to be scientific classifications (they are somewhat arbitrary), but it is a useful classification system nevertheless.
So I reject that all classification systems have to be scientific.
Philip J. Rayment 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Where is the "grand consensus" that one of the definitions of evolution does not include a leftist-atheist philosophy? The term "evolution" is not just used for strictly scientific concepts. Debates over evolution frequently discuss philosophical issues. That is true on both sides of the debate. Why is that? It is because people commonly use the term "evolution" to include philosophical beliefs. Maybe it would be better if everyone stuck to science, but that's just not the way it is. RSchlafly 13:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, Roger, unless you decide to go off topic, that is the way it is. We are speaking of the scientific theory of evolution, not some vague 3rd dictionary meaning. To say otherwise is to either change the subject, or to try to deceive.

When I get the chance, I'd like to do a bit of a cleanup on this article myself (if others don't beat me to it). I'd probably reinstate the deleted bit, but not as a definition, because I don't believe that it is. Philip J. Rayment 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Gradual appearance of new forms of life

the gradual appearance of new forms of life. I think not, gradual changes to existing species, so that, for example when populations groups become isolated from each other, after a very, very, very long time the accumulation of gradual changes will be such that the resulting population groups can be considered separate species. Well something like that. This article seems to be written by people who don't really grasp what they are writing about.

WhatIsG0ing0n 11:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Sid 3050 for moving that here. It wasn't my intention to place under the article. An oversight on my part.
WhatIsG0ing0n 12:19, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
The phrase you object to is in quotes as though it was the question asked in a survey. If so, it should stand, but admittedly there is no reference supporting it. Philip J. Rayment 12:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Flawed questions in surveys and flawed sources lead to bad articles. How about getting a scientist who specializes in evolution to write a definition?
WhatIsG0ing0n 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)