Barbarian
Member
Barbarian observes:
Non-biologists often conflate the two.
Few biophysicists know anything at all about taxonomy or paleontology. And what they know about evolution is molecules. So it's not surprising that they might not know what the theory is about. I do notice that this is never conflated in the biophysics literature. Probably because such a paper would be caught by an editor. Of course, if you can show me something in the literature to that effect, it would at least suggest that biophysicists have a theory of common descent.
Barbarian observes:
As you see, common descent isn't even a theory.
Don't think so. If so, that was an error. As you have seen, it's not part of Darwinian theory or modern evolutionary theory.
Show us that. Seriously. You'll need to substantiate that accusation.
We'll know that when we see you show where I said one has to change the definition of the most basic terms of the theory, in order to support evolution. I'm sure we're all eager to see that.
We discussed why it's such a problem for creationists in another thread:
Barbarian wrote:
In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:
Finally, varieties cannot be distinguished from species-except, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms; and secondly , by a certain indefinite amount of indifference between them; for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that they cannot be closely connected; but the amount of indifference considered necessary to give any two forms the rank of species cannot be defined.
Darwin did not consider species to be a real entity as creationists imagine; he saw species as a mental construct with no absolutes. His prediction has been repeatedly verified. There are all sorts of intermediate grades between species which are often very difficult or impossible to classify precisely. This contrasts with the doctrine of special creationism, which claims that God created each kind separately ex nihilo, and denies the possibility of such intermediate forms.
Some scientists, like Mayr, suggested that species do have an objective existence, but the accumulating evidence indicates otherwise. They shift and change over time, and their borders are impossible to discern in many cases.
How do creationists deal with this problem? The first and most common among the rank and file is merely denial, insisting that if someone would properly define the term, the problem would go away. Unfortunately, there seems no way to do that. Darwin's statement remains as valid today as it was when he wrote it.
Other creationists are willing to allow some speciation. It has the collateral benefit of explaining how all those animals were able to fit into the Ark; a few basic "kinds" were collected, and all the species we see today evolved from those by some sort of hyperfast evolution in a few thousand years, after which it stopped.
This is an attractive idea for many, but no one seems to be able to show anyone noticing that new species were appearing on a monthly basis. And while species-to-species transitionals are not common in the fossil record, they are, as Stephen Gould wrote, abundant at higher taxa. So the denial of evolution beyond the level of family is precisely where creationism is most at odds with the evidence.
It looks like an impossible dilemma. How do creationists reconcile these facts with their religion?
No creationist had a solution for this dilemma. Can you figure out a way to reconcile this with creationism?
Well, let's see if you can show us that. There's two statements you attributed to me, which we'll need to see, if you want it believed.
As you just learned, common descent is not part of Darwinian theory. It's a consequence of the theory, but as you see, if God made a few dozen basic "kinds" evolutionary theory would still account for the variety of life today, as the "baraminologist creationists" admit.
Edit: Checked your claims about what I wrote here. There are 8 pages of posts in which I discussed common descent. And only one post in which I referred to it as a "theory", and that was referring to E. Koonin's mention of a hypothesis of common descent, which he said as you might remember, was well-supported by evidence. I noted that a theory is a hypothesis which is well-supported by evidence, so if Koonin made such a hypothesis, then it would be a theory.
It remains true that common descent is a verification of evolutionary theory, not a theory for the rest of us as far as I can tell from a literature search. Koonin is entitled to make such a theory if he chooses, of course.
Your other claim seems to be false, but I'll wait to see what you have for evidence.
Non-biologists often conflate the two.
Few biophysicists know anything at all about taxonomy or paleontology. And what they know about evolution is molecules. So it's not surprising that they might not know what the theory is about. I do notice that this is never conflated in the biophysics literature. Probably because such a paper would be caught by an editor. Of course, if you can show me something in the literature to that effect, it would at least suggest that biophysicists have a theory of common descent.
Barbarian observes:
As you see, common descent isn't even a theory.
Don't think so. If so, that was an error. As you have seen, it's not part of Darwinian theory or modern evolutionary theory.
Show us that. Seriously. You'll need to substantiate that accusation.
We'll know that when we see you show where I said one has to change the definition of the most basic terms of the theory, in order to support evolution. I'm sure we're all eager to see that.
We discussed why it's such a problem for creationists in another thread:
Barbarian wrote:
In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:
Finally, varieties cannot be distinguished from species-except, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms; and secondly , by a certain indefinite amount of indifference between them; for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that they cannot be closely connected; but the amount of indifference considered necessary to give any two forms the rank of species cannot be defined.
Darwin did not consider species to be a real entity as creationists imagine; he saw species as a mental construct with no absolutes. His prediction has been repeatedly verified. There are all sorts of intermediate grades between species which are often very difficult or impossible to classify precisely. This contrasts with the doctrine of special creationism, which claims that God created each kind separately ex nihilo, and denies the possibility of such intermediate forms.
Some scientists, like Mayr, suggested that species do have an objective existence, but the accumulating evidence indicates otherwise. They shift and change over time, and their borders are impossible to discern in many cases.
How do creationists deal with this problem? The first and most common among the rank and file is merely denial, insisting that if someone would properly define the term, the problem would go away. Unfortunately, there seems no way to do that. Darwin's statement remains as valid today as it was when he wrote it.
Other creationists are willing to allow some speciation. It has the collateral benefit of explaining how all those animals were able to fit into the Ark; a few basic "kinds" were collected, and all the species we see today evolved from those by some sort of hyperfast evolution in a few thousand years, after which it stopped.
This is an attractive idea for many, but no one seems to be able to show anyone noticing that new species were appearing on a monthly basis. And while species-to-species transitionals are not common in the fossil record, they are, as Stephen Gould wrote, abundant at higher taxa. So the denial of evolution beyond the level of family is precisely where creationism is most at odds with the evidence.
It looks like an impossible dilemma. How do creationists reconcile these facts with their religion?
No creationist had a solution for this dilemma. Can you figure out a way to reconcile this with creationism?
Well, let's see if you can show us that. There's two statements you attributed to me, which we'll need to see, if you want it believed.
As you just learned, common descent is not part of Darwinian theory. It's a consequence of the theory, but as you see, if God made a few dozen basic "kinds" evolutionary theory would still account for the variety of life today, as the "baraminologist creationists" admit.
Edit: Checked your claims about what I wrote here. There are 8 pages of posts in which I discussed common descent. And only one post in which I referred to it as a "theory", and that was referring to E. Koonin's mention of a hypothesis of common descent, which he said as you might remember, was well-supported by evidence. I noted that a theory is a hypothesis which is well-supported by evidence, so if Koonin made such a hypothesis, then it would be a theory.
It remains true that common descent is a verification of evolutionary theory, not a theory for the rest of us as far as I can tell from a literature search. Koonin is entitled to make such a theory if he chooses, of course.
Your other claim seems to be false, but I'll wait to see what you have for evidence.
Last edited:
