Is evolution a fact?

[SpecialFrog]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c

Ps.. You might want to correct this guy. He talks about simple to complex... Has a jab at a theist.

Can anyone kindly tell me if this guy is wrong in his definitions of simple to complex? Or will that question be to difficult?

I predict there will be confusion.

If you had read and understood Dragan Glas's last post you wouldn't be asking this question. Or if you recognized the existence of nuance.

Evolution can create complexity but evolution is not an inherent progression from simple to complex.

Try not to turn everything into a false dichotomy.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Well I did .. You don't agree with any tree of life. Can't give one
You don't agree with simple to complex.. Can't define it,
You don't agree with fossil record. Claim it shows diversity

That bears virtually no resemblance to what I have said. It must have been your imaginary friend who said it.

Try again.

"Evolution can create complexity"... Ok define the complexity created?

I will be happy to if you acknowledge that these two statements are different:
- Evolution means going from simple to complex
- Evolutionary processes can create complexity

and that the first can be false while still allowing the second to be true.

And if you acknowledge that you already agreed to a definition of evolution that is not "simple to complex".

Edited: to fix one sentence,

 

[SpecialFrog]

So Bernhard, I asked this before and you ignored it (like you ignore most of what I say when I do answer your pointless questions).

Pluto was first discovered in 1930. In that time it has not completed a full orbit around the Sun. Is it unscientific to claim that we know what its orbital period is?

If you apply your made-up definition of science consistency then that claim must be unscientific.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

and that the first can be false while still allowing the first to be true.

[Emphesis added.]

I am not sure how something can be both false and true at the same time.

 

[SpecialFrog]

and that the first can be false while still allowing the first to be true.

[Emphesis added.]

I am not sure how something can be both false and true at the same time.

Thanks for spotting that. Fixed now.

Just goes to show that Bernhard doesn't actually read what I write.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am not sure how something can be both false and true at the same time.

Thanks for spotting that. Fixed now.

Just goes to show that Bernhard doesn't actually read what I write.

[sarcasm]Wait, what? The troll is not reading your posts? What has the world come to?[/sarcasm]

In all honesty, I am enjoying your posts, regardless of the troll's actions.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Evolution can be simple to complex... But evolution is multi directional, so evolution is not always simple to complex. Therefore an oversimplification of evolution. Evolution is science, therefore whatever science observes is evolution. We both understand that a simple organism, because of its location in the fossil record is called simple. Simply put that which appears early on fossil record simply equals less complex. So really what is happening, is evolution, in the biological sense, is anything science discovers. Who argues against science? And since evolution is science... It can only be an idiot who argues against evolution.

The argument of an evolutionist. ^^^^^^^^^

The argument of an evolutionist or the straw man of Bernhard Visscher?

Do you not count yourself lucky that there are other commenters that still address you despite all your dishonesty?

Here it is: you claim evolution is science. Everything you agree with is based on that assertion.

If I say evolution is not science because nobody was there to observe it.

Then, please go ahead and add archeology, cosmology, geology, paleontology, etc. to the list of scientific fields that are "not science" as well as add elements of Anthropology, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geochemistry, Hydrology, Mineralogy, Physics, etc. as "not science".

I remember when Prolescum asked why you think every major scientists organizations overwhelmingly accept evolution. Your answer?

the overwhelming majority fall directly under the ignorance category. People, including myself, rush to ignorance, this is where the majority of evolutionists find themselves, steeped in ignorance and unable to shake a theory they have been told is true for majority of their lives.

So there you go everyone, [sarcasm]Bernard Visscher knows science better than the scientists do[/sarcasm].

[sarcasm]It is not Bernhard Visscher that is willfully ignorant, it is everyone else.[/sarcasm]

The sad truth is, scientists do know things that you do not know Bernhard, because not only do you refuse to learn, you take pride in this refusal.

I have yet to enter a church in Canada, (not saying there are not churches who accept evolution) where evolution is taught as valid. Churches by and large refrain from the debate, choosing silence, it is very frustrating to me.

Well I am Canadian too and I have yet to enter a church in Canada that denies reality like evolution (not saying that there no are churches who are completely and willfully dishonest).

 

[SpecialFrog]

No it's not unscientific to claim we know what plutos orbit is.

But it's not science (observation and experimentation) that calculated plutos orbit.

To claim we know plutos orbit is because of observation and experimentation is unscientific for the simple fact Pluto has never been observed making a full orbit.

No it is calculated using the mathematics and logic that is presupposed in science. So do we know it's orbit? Yes. Is it scientific? No it has not been observed.

...

Can it be wrong? Sure we will know when a full orbit has been completed. But to call it a fact before it is observed is simply unscientific.

That's some impressive doublethink to claim that we can know something about the natural world but that is is neither a fact nor scientific.

Also, the orbit was calculated using a combination of observation and Newton's laws of motion (which are themselves a result of observation and experimentation). We built a scientific model of planetary motion and can use that to make calculations. To pretend this is somehow math divorced from science is ridiculous.

Seriously, what is your source of information on what constitutes "science"? You've been asked before where your made up definition comes from and you have yet to explain it.

I would suggest you stick to what can be observed on planet earth... If your going to find evidence for evolution... It's going to be on earth... Not in space.

Well, there could very well be evidence for evolution in space.

But I'll happily talk about evidence for evolution on earth. You are the one who wants to talk about anything but.

So you already agree that natural processes can increase genetic information. Do you want to talk about archaeopteryx or any other transitions you think are impossible?

 

[MarsCydonia]

So if you claim science, without observing, you fundamentally lack the understanding of science, which is defined as observation and experimentation.

And here is the core of the problem: how can Bernhard Visscher learn what science is when he first needs to learn what observation and experimentation is?

A willfully flawed understanding of observation and experimentation leads to a willfully flawed understanding of science.

 

[SpecialFrog]

No not double think... I am claiming it is not a scientific fact. Definition is simple... Google what is science?

Done.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to this body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

I've also quoted this before but you've ignored it because you want to pretend that "observation" means something other than it does.

Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source.
...
In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity.

Do you agree that under this definition of "observation" we can make observations about evolution?

We can't talk about transistionals because you have claimed the fossil record simply shows diversity. So if you want to talk about transistionals you have to define simple to complex. Since you are unwilling to define this, and when I define it you disagree, to continue is pointless.

The question of complexity is only meaningful if you accept the "simple to complex" definition of evolution. You already agreed to the correct definition of evolution and are just trying to obfuscate so you don't have to deal with the evidence you allegedly want.

Besides, under your definition of "complex", you are more complex than your parents. Only teenagers think that is true.

I'm happy to talk about complexity so long as you stop pretending that it is tied to the meaning of evolution, which you seem unwilling to do. For instance, if there is a particular feature you think is too complex to have evolved that could be discussed.

 

[MarsCydonia]

The question of complexity is only meaningful if you accept the "simple to complex" definition of evolution. You already agreed to the correct definition of evolution and are just trying to obfuscate so you don't have to deal with the evidence you allegedly want.

Besides, under your definition of "complex", you are more complex than your parents. Only teenagers think that is true.

I'm happy to talk about complexity so long as you stop pretending that it is tied to the meaning of evolution, which you seem unwilling to do. For instance, if there is a particular feature you think is too complex to have evolved that could be discussed.

I have commented on this point before, a comment that Bernhard Visscher ignored:
If evolution is descent from "simple to complex", this would mean that a bird is more complex than a theropod, and even more closely related, that a pug is more complex than a wolf.

Of course, the theory of evolution does not claim anything of the sort but we cannot expect Bernhard to actually address the theory of evolution, strawmen are much easier to defeat (though the masquerade is obvious to all).

 

[Mr_Wilford]

The question of complexity is only meaningful if you accept the "simple to complex" definition of evolution. You already agreed to the correct definition of evolution and are just trying to obfuscate so you don't have to deal with the evidence you allegedly want.

Besides, under your definition of "complex", you are more complex than your parents. Only teenagers think that is true.

I'm happy to talk about complexity so long as you stop pretending that it is tied to the meaning of evolution, which you seem unwilling to do. For instance, if there is a particular feature you think is too complex to have evolved that could be discussed.

I have commented on this point before, a comment that Bernhard Visscher ignored:
If evolution is descent from "simple to complex", this would mean that a bird is more complex than a theropod, and even more closely related, that a pug is more complex than a wolf.

Of course, the theory of evolution does not claim anything of the sort but we cannot expect Bernhard to actually address the theory of evolution, strawmen are much easier to defeat (though the masquerade is obvious to all).

Did you expect him to do anything else but strawman?

Oh wait, I'm sorry. If he doesn't accept a position he says he can't strawman, so any question, no matter how innacurate or misrepresentative, is valid.

 

[Steelmage99]

Bernhard, do you understand and accept that an "observation" in science can be more than just a human being looking unaided with his/her own two eyes in real-time?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Do I agree with that definition of observation we can observe things about evolution? Well we should but we don't... So long story short it is not
possible to observe evolution. Not possible to observe simple becoming complex, without intelligence.

When you say, "we should" you are agreeing that it is possible. The rest of your paragraph is just trying to back away from it.

So if we should see evidence but don't, what evidence do you think we should see?

You keep arguing about some definition I accepted... I RETRACTED that definition 90 pages ago. The problem with that definition that I didn't see at first was this: " at or above the species level. ".

That was just the definition of macroevolution. I don't believe you retracted your agreement that the definition of evolution is something like:

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

My definition of complex is relative to theory of evolution.

No, it is total bollocks you made up.

Google defines evolution: simple to complex.

Google is a search engine and not a source. When Google provides a default definition it also gives the actual source. Citation needed.

Google defines science.. Knowledge gained through observation and experimentation.

As above, citation needed.

If you observe something now through an instrument, example let's say some decay rates or some bones.. You can say this is what it looked like, but it's not scientific fact because it's an interpretation.

Every single scientific fact is an interpretation. However, they are interpretations that hold up to various rigorous forms of scrutiny. As you clearly still don't understand, that is the way science works.

What you are advocating is some kind of wishy-washy relativism where every interpretation of evidence is equally valid and we have no way of telling a good interpretation from a bad one.

Are you secretly The Dude?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Not possible to observe simple becoming complex, without intelligence. That's the problem.

That I agree with, it is certainly a problem that you have.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Nothing "decided" to sprout anything. No choices are involved, and no individuals ever "decide" to evolve.

Do you really think that's what evolutionary theory claims happens? Things "decide" to evolve?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

God no. The only thing evolution theory claims is " evolution is science"

Where has evolutionary theory, in any piece of scientific literature, ever claimed this?

You should know that by now

Far as I know no actual scientific source has ever "only" claimed what you assert.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Hey itsdemtitans... Maybe you can define simple to complex... Special frog doesn't know how.

Sorry, I'm not interested in word games that go nowhere.

But I will say this: When talking about scientific models, it would be in your best interest to use definitions relevant to the scientific literature and fields of study, and not layman's terms. If laymen say evolution is defined as "Simple to complex," sorry, but they're wrong. That is not how evolutionary theory is described in the relevant literature, so what laymen think is irrelevant.

Specialfrog already described what evolution is earlier

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

Which is exactly how the scientific literature, and actual scientists doing actual research in the fields of evolutionary biology, define it.

Either use scientific definitions when discussing science or don't discuss science. Otherwise you get waste of time bantering like the past eight pages of this thread.

 

[SpecialFrog]

No, there is no citation needed. If I cite the source will you believe me? No. Because you already know those are Google definitions.

So you don't understand Google either? Good to know.

Incidentally, I tried and could not find any sources with your made up definition. So either it is made up entirely or it is from some bullshit site like ICR and you don't want to admit it.

Dishonest either way.

If I was here to make you believe me I would be long gone.

I assumed you were here to engage in reasoned discourse. I can admit when I am wrong and I was clearly wrong about that.

Rut if evolution is defined as : change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations... And you point to a person with brown eyes coming from a blue parent.. Notice not plural.... Anyway and you call that a change in heritable traits then evolution is a fact. But if you wish to call change in heritable traits as in a brand new trait.. Like a cell decided to after a few billion generations sprout legs then no evolution doesn't exist.

You actually looked like you understood something until the end there, then you had to insert your made up nonsense at the end. But apparently you don't even get the concept of mutlicellularity.

See Bernhard, your body is actually made up of (if I recall correctly) trillions of individual cells. So you are (most likely) not just one giant cell with legs. Though you personally developed from a single cell into the multicellular ignoramus you are today.

No a scientific fact is NOT an interpretation. That's the whole fucking point of scientific facts. Unbiased, truths. That's why you science to discover facts, knowledge.

Name one scientific fact you accept and I will demonstrate that it is an interpretation of the evidence. Almost certainly one for which the probability of it being wrong is tiny, but an interpretation nonetheless.

Go ahead. I dare you.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Laymen are irrelevant... Lol ... So fossil record according to the evolution high priests show small simple abimals becoming complex higher ordered animals... Every evolutionary video corroborates with this fossil record... But you idt ... You say no that is false.. That's laymen interpretation. No evolution does not claim we came from LUCA, oh no... That's laymen... The tree of life does not agree there is a LUCA... That's laymen. Only high priests KNOW the TRUE definition of evolution... Change in heritable traits... Blah blah blah....

Nice mocking. A stunning example of why this is waste of time

Great thing is you can go read real science papers, available to the public, that give you the information you want.

Oh, and your tree of life nonsense was debunked a while ago. Like when you claimed the "lollipop" tree was a separate model altogether, even though the actual papers show it was only meant to map out a timeline, not replace anything. And how HGT does nothing to falsify a LUCA, despite you claiming it does. That's beating a dead horse