Originally posted by Coletti
You are correct, I could have been clearer. But even the word evolve means much more than change. A good example of evolution would be the evolution of mechanical human transportation: from the gas powered buggy to the space shuttle. That is what is at the heart of Darwin's theories. And telerion has still not provided a legitimate example of that kind of evolving system.

Given you've only presented lies and misinformation, I'd say I'm doing significantly better.

The only problem I have with your buggy to space shuttle analogy is that while it captures the movement from simple to complex, it fails to take account for the important endogenous characteristic in the system. This does not surprise me given your "dino-bees" comment. That revealed that you also know nothing about the subject. The idea is that organisms are not only affected by their environment, but in turn affect their environment. Thus there is are continuous linkages among the development of all organisms. If their were no bees to spread pollen, then the sorts of flowers that we have today that need bees to spread pollen would not exist.

I'm afraid it will impossible to satisfy you. I've given many examples of dynamic systems that have endogenous continuous change within them and whose aggregate characteristics move over time, changing the entire system. You've made some erroneous statements about zero-sum gain, mischaracterized long term weather systems, and made up a new word. I'm getting the feeling that the word "evolution" triggers a alarm in your brain which drives all critical thought into a frenzy. Kinda like a bull seeing red.

Originally posted by telerion
Coletti macroeconomies are not "guided" by intelligence, unless you think your SkyGhostDaddy is manipulating the whole thing. Now if you mean economies are guided by "intelligence" because humans are an important ingredient and they possess intelligence, then any process which includes mammals is one "guided" by intelligence. Coletti, stick to what ...[text shortened]... ic theories being observable. Oh I forgot, the very word "evolve" offends your superstitions.

do I detect a differential equation in your post?

Originally posted by frogstomp
do I detect a differential equation in your post?

Probably a nonlinear one at that.

Originally posted by telerion
Your responses to my post demonstrate your ignorance of the concept (hence my use of the word "fatuous" ). "Dynamically evolving system" does not mean the same thing necessarily as macroevolution. Macroevolution is just an example of such a system. In fact, I encourage you to educate yourself by pulling out a dictionary or browsing one online. Just ...[text shortened]... retort, and go learn a few things tonight about dynamic systems and endogeneity vs. exogeneity.

"Dynamically evolving system" does not mean the same thing necessarily as macroevolution. Macroevolution is just an example of such a system.

If a "dynamic evolving system" does not neccessarily mean the same thing as macroevolution, then how to you explain one specie "evolving" into another specie?

Sure, pinhead. Here's just a few of many examples: weather systems, financial markets, macroeconomies, the growth and spread of viruses, traffic patterns, geological formations, political processes.

Do these systems explain a change in specie? If not, what does? As I see it a weather system still remains a weather system. How then do you explain a bee "evolving" out of a chemical soup? Btw, the word "evolve" was invented by the evolutionists. Go find a dictionary dated 1850, and you will find that the word did not exist.

Originally posted by dj2becker
"Dynamically evolving system" does not mean the same thing necessarily as macroevolution. Macroevolution is just an example of such a system.

If a "dynamic evolving system" does not neccessarily mean the same thing as macroevo ...[text shortened]... tionary dated 1850, and you will find that the word did not exist.[/b]

The word "evolve" dates back to 1641. The modern use of it predates Darwin by a little bit; Lyell used it in 1932 (he was a geologist).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolve

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am talking about the flowers that need bees for pollination.

Who said thy didnt evolve around the bees... or the evolving plants that wer more benificial to the bees thrived..

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The word "evolve" dates back to 1641. The modern use of it predates Darwin by a little bit; Lyell used it in 1932 (he was a geologist).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolve

The meaning of the word "evolve" was changed. Charles Lyell was a stuanch believer in evolution.

You will notice the meaning in 1641: "to unfold, open out, expand" is vastly different to what it means today.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The meaning of the word "evolve" was changed. Charles Lyell was a stuanch believer in evolution.

You will notice the meaning in 1641: "to unfold, open out, expand" is vastly different to what it means today.

how... there kind "opens out" in new directions... "unfolds" in to new possabilities some dont work out but the ones that "expand" there options... have a better chance...

Originally posted by dj2becker
The meaning of the word "evolve" was changed. Charles Lyell was a stuanch believer in evolution.

You will notice the meaning in 1641: "to unfold, open out, expand" is vastly different to what it means today.

Yes, that's what I meant by "modern use". Lyell did use the word differently.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The meaning of the word "evolve" was changed. Charles Lyell was a stuanch believer in evolution.

You will notice the meaning in 1641: "to unfold, open out, expand" is vastly different to what it means today.

Go find a dictionary dated 1850, and you will find that the word did not exist.


That was a lie, wasn't it, dj?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Go find a dictionary dated 1850, and you will find that the word did not exist.


That was a lie, wasn't it, dj?

No, it wasn't.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolve

I believe you owe dj2 an apology.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]"Dynamically evolving system" does not mean the same thing necessarily as macroevolution. Macroevolution is just an example of such a system.

If a "dynamic evolving system" does not neccessarily mean the same thing as macroevolution, then how to you explain one specie "evolving" into another specie?

Sure, pinhead. Here's just a fe ...[text shortened]... e evolutionists. Go find a dictionary dated 1850, and you will find that the word did not exist.

Oh Muffy, you didn't take my advice. Read up. Just a little. Life is too short to be a parrot.

Originally posted by telerion
Given you've only presented lies and misinformation, I'd say I'm doing significantly better....

This does not surprise me given your "dino-bees" ...

...I've given many examples of dynamic systems that have endogenous continuous change within them and whose aggregate characteristics move over time, changing the entire system. You've made some ...[text shortened]... rm in your brain which drives all critical thought into a frenzy. Kinda like a bull seeing red.

What you seem to appreciate, but won't come out and say is that almost all systems that are endogenous do not evolve, and almost all systems that are clearly evolving are are non-endogenous.

As far as weather systems, you have not provided any large scale examples of evolution except to fall back into the same assumptions and speculations common to all evolutionist. You described climate changes over millions of years, things which are just as much speculation as anything else. The speculations made by a scientist do not automatically make them good science.

No one has observed the changes that occurred millions of years ago - they have only given possible scenarios to support their other theories. The zero-sum-gain comment may have been the wrong term technically, but the point is we have no data that proves that there has been any increase in the complexity or net energy of our global climate. We don't even have a way to measure the net energy at any given moment in time. At best we could get a very rough estimate.

BTW, the dino-bee comment was a joke - get a sense of humor will ya! And the new-word (I can't believe people actually looked it up 😀 ) was done to illustrate a valid point - change alone does not describe evolution.

Do alarms go off when I hear the word evolution? I suppose so. I also notice when people misuse certain terms like penultimate, or paradigm. People are often misuse or misunderstand terms. And evolution is one of them. And most people assume systems evolve without guidance. Most people assume evolution means improvements, but in that case, we need a anti-evolution term because some systems get worse.

An example of the misuse of the term evolution: there was a report that mentioned the evolution of teach techniques made in the last 50 years. The problem with this is the inherent assumption that the changes to teaching technical has been an improvement in educating children. There is also a misconception that cultures evolve - get more humane with time. And we often see the error of people attributing the characteristic of evolution to any system show large amounts of change, even if they loose energy or complexity, or are going through normal cycles.

The bull analogy was humorous, and I don't take much offense if you joke about my intelligence or ideas, sometimes the comments are very witty and I'll give them a rec. I don't see red when I hear the word evolution - but I do find being called a liar offensive. You may say that you only accused me of "presenting lies" but think that is a thin veiled you have placed over your accusation. So if you want to say I am wrong, that is fine - but you should show why. If you disagree, just say so. But please don't attack my character. I expect things like that from other people, not you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, it wasn't.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolve

I believe you owe dj2 an apology.

dj2becker: Btw, the word "evolve" was invented by the evolutionists. Go find a dictionary dated 1850, and you will find that the word did not exist.

HUH????? He said the word didn't exist in 1850 and the site you gave (the same one as ATY) says the word dates from 1641!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How exactly do I owe him an apology for saying he told a lie when he did???

Originally posted by no1marauder
dj2becker: Btw, the word "evolve" was invented by the evolutionists. Go find a dictionary dated 1850, and you will find that the word did not exist.

HUH????? He said the word didn't exist in 1850 and the site you gave (the same one as ATY) says the word dates from 1641!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How exactly do I owe him an apology for saying he told a lie when he did???

Oh, sorry. I thought you were asserting that the word did not exist prior to 1850s (I got lost trying to follow the thread of the discussion backwards.)

In which case, dj2 owes an apology.

No hard feelings,

LH