What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: Quadrivium

Quad, you are talking about fossils that are almost 600 million years old, mostly from organisms that did not have hard shells or exoskeletons. Due to this, it is very difficult to find fossilized remains. You seem to think that because they were there, we will automatically find millions of fossilized remains from them. It's not that simple. Sometimes we just find evidence of their trails through mud that ends up fossilized. How on earth do you expect us to find tons of those creatures? The Cambrian explosion was in the ocean, by the way, not all over the globe as you suggested and it certainly wasn't limited to just to the beginning of the Cambrian, it was during a 20 to 60 million year time period.

After all, the hallmark of a good theory is the simplicity of it.

Say what? Where'd you hear that? With science, the more we know, the better. None of what you said poses any problem for evolution.

Actually, you are wrong. "Simple" and "simplicity" are too different things.

Yes, and so are "water" and "wet".

I do not understand how you and Superfrog are even able to debate evolution when you do not know that scientist should strive for simplicity within theories.

What do you mean, they SHOULD strive for simplicity? Genetic mutations sorted by natural selection is actually a pretty simple concept. The entire theory is based off that proven premise. Suggesting that a theory is wrong or problematic because it has too much information is downright silly.

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: ignorant_ape

A bird growing a longer beak is not a bird turning in to another animal.

Thats like saying a european has evolved in to an asian.
They/we are human, different but human.

To see a european develop the ability to breathe underwater, or an asian adapt to radiation, thats evolution.
Not beak size or skin colour, curly hair or straight

So you say it, it must be true right? You are off your rocker, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be mean but you keep spouting nonsense based on nonsense. You vehemently oppose and attack evolution, yet aren't even familiar with the very basics of how it works. That's the sad part. Intellectually dishonest would be an under statement. Yeah, a human is totally just going to magically be born with gills. Deny ignorance.

a reply to: Barcs
Come on Barcs, I expected more from you than that!
Yes the C.E. happened in the oceans, but do we look in the oceans for the fossils now? No, we find them ALL OVER THE GLOBE. I am sure there is no need to explain plate tectonics so I will leave it at that.

If you know anything about science and theories you should know what I am talking about with "simplicity". Think about it, or maybe they don't teach those things anymore. .........that would actually explain a great deal.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Krazyshot,
Actually, you are wrong. "Simple" and "simplicity" are too different things. I did not say a theory should be simple.
I said that "the hallmark of a good theory is the simplicity of it".

No again you are wrong. The simplicity of the theory has NOTHING to do with it being correct or not. By the way those two words are the same:
Simplicity -

1. the state, quality, or an instance of being simple.
2. freedom from complexity, intricacy, or division into parts: an organism of great simplicity.
3. absence of luxury, pretentiousness, ornament, etc.; plainness: a life of simplicity.
4. freedom from deceit or guile; sincerity; artlessness; naturalness: a simplicity of manner.
5. lack of mental acuteness or shrewdness: Politics is not a field for simplicity about human nature.

But regardless of the definition of the words, the text I posted made ZERO mention of simplicity. Science doesn't seek simplicity. Simplicity is for simpletons (heh). Simplicity allows for misinterpretations and inaccuracies. Theories HAVE to be complex to accurate predict the different events in the universe, because there are MANY variables at work among any theory and by changing one, you could end up with an entirely different result/prediction. You clearly don't understand what a theory is.

It's funny that you continue to call me wrong even AFTER I posted information that shows that science has NOTHING to do with simplicity when making theories. And this is on top of you not posting ANY information to back up what you are saying. I gave you proof that you are wrong and you just said "Nope, you don't know what you are talking about." Well I guess RationalWiki and all the science minded folks who edit don't know either.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
Come on Barcs, I expected more from you than that!
Yes the C.E. happened in the oceans, but do we look in the oceans for the fossils now? No, we find them ALL OVER THE GLOBE. I am sure there is no need to explain plate tectonics so I will leave it at that.

Stop backtracking, you clearly stated, "What we actually see is a HUGE amount of diversity, all over the globe, at the beginning of the Cambrian". During that time period there was only one continent and one ocean. Life wasn't all over the globe at the beginning of the Cambrian, you said nothing about where they are found today (which is irrelevant anyways because of plate tectonics). Nice try.

If you know anything about science and theories you should know what I am talking about with "simplicity". Think about it, or maybe they don't teach those things anymore. .........that would actually explain a great deal.

Yeah, I obviously don't know science. Every theory should be simple and should ignore new details when discovered, just so we can keep it simple. You need to do a better job explaining yourself because your arguments are getting silly.

Please pin point one fossil that they have declared to be the actual L.C.A. in any species, or genus.

en.wikipedia.org...

Instead of one, how about 37?

en.wikipedia.org...

You may want to read that as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
What? Perhaps you should stop now.
Let's put it another way, if you had an itch in your back side, would you go around your elbow to get to it (aka going around your elbow to get to you ass) or would you take the simplest route?
In case you have forgotten I was talking about species and how the term has not been made clearer or more defined as the theory of evolution evolves. To me this shows that it is not a good theory. A hallmark of a good theory is simplicity.
Do we see this in the theory of evolution? No, as stated by others as we get more information it gets more complicated. Should not the reverse be true? As we get more information shouldn't it come together more smoothly? Should it not be easier to understand? Why the need for all the speculations and assumptions we find littered throughout the theory?

a reply to: Quadrivium

But it does come together more smoothly as we discover more and more fossils. Do you realize how many gaps have been filled since just 40 years ago? I don't know if you are trolling now, but your arguments do not have anything to do with the validity of evolution. What speculation and assumptions are you talking about? Can you please refer directly to the theory when stating them? The term species is very clear. If an organism diverges to the point where it can no longer reproduce with the original, it is a new species. I'm not sure if you are trolling now because I always thought you did a better job debating than that. Your simplicity argument is nonsensical.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What? Perhaps you should stop now.
Let's put it another way, if you had an itch in your back side, would you go around your elbow to get to it (aka going around your elbow to get to you ass) or would you take the simplest route?
In case you have forgotten I was talking about species and how the term has not been made clearer or more defined as the theory of evolution evolves. To me this shows that it is not a good theory. A hallmark of a good theory is simplicity.
Do we see this in the theory of evolution? No, as stated by others as we get more information it gets more complicated. Should not the reverse be true? As we get more information shouldn't it come together more smoothly? Should it not be easier to understand? Why the need for all the speculations and assumptions we find littered throughout the theory?

It does... We get more information and things make more sense. We fill in more holes as we discover new information. You, at this point, have completely lost me. Maybe it's because you've failed to back up anything you are saying with any links to the theory and what you think isn't coming together smoothly. Sure some new information requires tweaking of the theory, but that is how science works. Your statements aren't making sense in the context of how the theory is developed and is developing. Maybe you should go and more thoroughly study the theory of evolution since it looks like you don't understand what you are talking about.

a reply to: Barcs
The first Wikipedia link does not have 37 L.C.A's listed. It has the groups that are believed came from a L.C.A.'s
The second link wasn't much better. It made it sound like that all points in the theory were settled and we both know that they are not.

As for the simplicity of a scientific theory perhaps researching the philosophy behind science would help.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
The first Wikipedia link does not have 37 L.C.A's listed. It has the groups that are believed came from a L.C.A.'s
The second link wasn't much better. It made it sound like that all points in the theory were settled and we both know that they are not.

As for the simplicity of a scientific theory perhaps researching the philosophy behind science would help.

Science and philosophy are 2 entirely different things. Why won't you explain yourself beyond generalizations? Scientific theories are based on facts, not philosophy.

Yes it is settled. There aren't any problems with evolution whatsoever, there are problems in the heads of creationists who don't do the research and are too stubborn with their worldview. Nothing more. Scientists only debate the minute details these days.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
As for the simplicity of a scientific theory perhaps researching the philosophy behind science would help.

The only philosophy behind science is the scientific method:
Scientific Method

mobile.dudamobile.com...

This should he common knowledge for anyone claiming to know what a scientific theory is.
Perhaps if more people understood they would question more.
It is a peer reviewed source and it is rather long.......enjoy.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I see nothing. Just a picture of an iphone with a message on it saying "Error establishing a database connection". The site is rather short as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
yeah, trying to find d something other than the Mobil version. I will update the above post when I have it.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
yeah, trying to find d something other than the Mobil version. I will update the above post when I have it.

The anticipation is killing me worse than Lebron's decision 2.0. We're about to get schooled on science, I can't wait!

sorry double post.

Barcs are you above learning something new? Do you come into this with the preconceived notion that you already know everything there is to know about evolution?
Scientist (real scientist) understand that they do not know everything, even about their pet subjects. They would also tell you that much of the science is not settled. They understand that what they think they know can be changed at just the next discovery.

ETA: They must be having a problem with the site. I can't get it to pull up at all now. I will continue looking.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Barcs are you above learning something new? Do you come into this with the preconceived notion that you already know everything there is to know about evolution?
Scientist (real scientist) understand that they do not know everything, even about their pet subjects. They would also tell you that much of the science is not settled. They understand that what they think they know can be changed at just the next discovery.

ETA: They must be having a problem with the site. I can't get it to pull up at all now. I will continue looking.

I love learning new things. That's why I'm excited to finally understand where you are coming from. Thus far you haven't really explained your position here other than a few one liners about philosophy that you claim we are all supposed to know already.

I do not claim to know everything, but I do know that the scientific method is great for learning and discovering new things. I also know that the science behind the evolutionary process is as solid as the science behind gravity and the earth revolving around the sun. What kind of discoveries do you think could drastically change or disprove any of those scientific facts? When new things are discovered via science, minor details of theories are updated. The theories don't just suddenly become wrong.

For example if we find out that there is actually something else pulling on the moon causing it to leave the earth's orbit faster than we originally believed, it doesn't negate the fact that the moon revolves around the earth tidally locked. Either way I'm interested in what you have to say here. If what you are talking about is true and is taught in school, then surely it's all over the web, and not just on a single mobile phone website.

www.iep.utm.edu...
Try this. Let me know if it works.

It is not a "mobil site". I am on my phone so the site redirects to a mobil version. There are many books on this subject but not much on the web. Find it a little weird.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Doesn't work...