If Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Redefining evolution to support your position is called dishonest, Barbie.

Using non-scientific sources to redefine scientific terms is what's dishonest. I suspect you merely took what dishonest people told you, and fell for the deception. Let's take a look at some scientific definitions:

The "allele-frequency" definition of evolution has survived to become the "standard" definition in textbooks and discussions about the nature of evolution. Here is a more-or-less random collection of quotations from various sources to illustrate how different views have developed based on this initial insight.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/defining-evolution-0

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions
Futuyma DJ. Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer, 1986.

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next
Curtis H, Barnes NS. Biology, 5th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 1989.

The fundamental evolutionary event is a change in the frequency of genes and chromosome configurations in a population
Wilson EO. The Diversity of Life. London: Penguin, 1992

On the simplest perspective of all, biological evolution is analyzed initially as changes in allelic frequencies at a single locus. More complicated phenomena must be explained by means of combinations of these minimal units
Hull DL. 1992. Individual. In: Keller E, Lloyd E, eds. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1992. p 180-7.

Since evolution may be defined as cumulative change in the genetic makeup of a population resulting in increased adaptation to the environment, the fundamental process in evolution is change in allele frequency
Hart DL. A Primer of Population Genetics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer, 1988.

evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time of the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits; such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of alleles or genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by the alterations of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations of a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon
Futuyma DJ. Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer, 1986.

I see nothing about "allele frequencies" in any of those definitions.

And now you see how easily you were duped. If you learn nothing else from this embarrassment, remember not to get scientific definitions from dictionaries.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution is the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.

Darwinists want it to be "change" so they don't have to justify their religion.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

any moment now, i'm hoping my power cord will turn into a tesla :banana:

 

[CherubRam]

The first and oldest life forms on earth have not changed their basic form. There is no real evidence of animal life changing its basic form. If Evolution on this planet was a matter of fact, then we would see it everywhere.

God evolved.
Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

 

[Eeset]

any moment now, i'm hoping my power cord will turn into a tesla :banana:

That's not your power cord that you are shaking about. :mock:

 

[CherubRam]

That's not your power cord that you are shaking about. :mock:

Funny :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.

No. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. Evolutionary theory is the theory that explains it. One of the consequences of evolution, as was discovered by Linnaeus long before evolution was discovered, is that all living things on Earth form a family tree.

Later, Darwin discovered why. And much later, genetics showed that the family tree was confirmed by the genes of living things.

Creationists want it to be anything but a change in allele frequency, so they don't have to justify their religion.

 

[6days]

Technically, evolution is a fact. We can directly observe changes in allele frequencies in a population.

We observe changing populations....That is a fact. Common ancestry however is a fairy tale, and contradicts what God's Word tells us.

 

[ok doser]

so far all I have is a prius


maybe by tomorrow morning it will have evolved into a Tesla Model S P100D :banana:

 

[CherubRam]

Scientist often speak of their theories as if they are a mater of fact.

 

[Stripe]

No.

Darwinists desperately want evolution to be "change." Who in their right mind would argue that things do not change? It's called the fallacy of equivocation. Darwinists love it.

Nope, evolution is an idea with specific inner workings, ie, random mutations and natural selection.

These are the ideas that are challenged.

If you want to defend evolution, those are the things you need to justify.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwinists desperately want evolution to be "change."

The scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." You might like that, or you might not like that. But that's what it is.

Who in their right mind would argue that things do not change?

YE creationists. As you know, having realized that there's no way for them to argue against the theory as it is, they tried to redefine it to their own liking. It's called the fallacy of equivocation. YE creationists love it.

Stipe tries to equivocate, again:

Nope, evolution is an idea with specific inner workings, ie, random mutations and natural selection.

You were suckered on that, too, Stipe. Darwin had no idea about genes or mutations. That's a modern addition to the theory after Mendel's discoveries showed why a new trait could spread in a population. It wasn't part of Darwin's theory.

This brings up and important point. If you actually learned what evolutionary theory says, or just learned what the definition of "evolution" is, you'd be a lot more effective peddling your new religious doctrine against it.

These are the ideas that are challenged.

If so, you're dead in the water again, Stipe. Even the major creationist organizations admit that random mutation and natural selection are observable facts. Would you like to know why they admit this?

If you want to defend your new definition of "evolution", you'd be embarrassed a lot less often, if you learned what it actually is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientist often speak of their theories as if they are a mater of fact.

One of the most common misconceptions of people who are ignorant of science, is that "theory" means something like "an educated guess." That's closer to "hypothesis" than it is to "theory."

A theory is an idea or group of ideas that have been repeatedly tested and verified by evidence. A hypothesis becomes a confirmed theory only after much testing and verification.

 

[ok doser]

so far all I have is a prius


maybe by tomorrow morning it will have evolved into a Tesla Model S P100D :banana:

still a prius, but it's evolved a dozen cup holders and fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view mirror! :banana:

 

[The Barbarian]

We observe changing populations....That is a fact.

Which is why scientists now accept the fact of evolution. It's directly observed. Not just variation in a population, but the evolution of new species, and of new traits and organs. This is why YE organizations like the Institute for Creation Research admits the evolution of new species, genera, and even families of organisms. Partially, they made that concession to justify their interpretation of Noah's Ark, but also because of observed evolution.

If you want to be up to date in your YE beliefs, they now consider species, genera, and families to be within their new doctrine of "kinds."

Of course that puts humans and apes in the same "kind." Rock and a hard place.

Common ancestry however is a fairy tale

The first evidence for it was discovered by a creationist. Linnaeus noticed that living things formed a family tree, just like any other sort of common descent.

Then Darwin explained why that family tree existed.

Then Mendel showed how it happened, and his findings predicted a way to test the idea. Later, DNA and genetic analyses confirmed his prediction. And we know it works, because we can test it on populations of known descent.

Much later, as YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, one transitional after another was found, linking major groups in the family tree first discovered by Linnaeus. They are, as Dr. Wise admits, "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Wise is an honest creationist; he won't deny the truth, but he prefers his own interpretation of the Bible instead.

Even more striking, there are no transitionals to be found where the the theory says they shouldn't be. As Wise writes, creationism has no answer for these facts, although he expressed faith that someday there would be an answer consistent with his beliefs.




, and contradicts what God's Word tells us.[/QUOTE]

 

[ok doser]

... all living things on Earth form a family tree.

I believe this part is the part that is in dispute

can you explain it more fully, clearly and concisely, in terms of "evolution" or "evolutionary theory" or whatever appellation you may wish to use?

if possible, could you avoid talking about "creationists" and "YE"?

tia

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe this part is the part that is in dispute

Nope. At least not for anyone who actually knows anything about it. Even honest YE creationists like Kurt Wise, admit the fact.

can you explain it more fully, in terms of "evolution" or "evolutionary theory" or whatever appellation you may wish to use?

Look above. Post 1575. I just summarized how that family tree was first discovered and then confirmed by various sources of evidence.

This is why Dr. Wise, although a YE creationist, admits that it's strong evidence for macroevolution. Even stronger is the fact that there's no connections any place evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be. That is, as Wise admits, an unsolved problem for YE creationism.

 

[ok doser]

I believe this part (Barbie: all living things on Earth form a family tree) is the part that is in dispute

Nope.

OK, let me try again:

I believe this part is the part that is in dispute in this forum, in this discussion, here at TOL

can you explain it more fully, clearly and concisely, in terms of "evolution" or "evolutionary theory" or whatever appellation you may wish to use?

if possible, could you avoid talking about "creationists" and "YE"?

tia

 

[The Barbarian]

OK, let me try again:

I think everyone would be happy if you'd try once.

I believe this part is the part that is in dispute in this forum, in this discussion, here at TOL

all living things on Earth form a family tree) is the part that is in dispute

That issue ended when Linnaeus published his findings. It's been confirmed hundreds of times since, and as you just discovered, genetics and transitional fossils reconfirmed the fact.

I don't know of any creationist organizations that deny it now. They just claim it isn't what it appears to be.

can you explain it more fully, clearly and concisely, in terms of "evolution" or "evolutionary theory"

As you also learned, the family tree was discovered before evolution was known. So, it's not necessary to involve evolutionary theory. Linnaeus thought it meant something like what YE creationists would call "common design." And he was puzzled and disappointed that other things, like minerals, didn't fit into a similar family tree.

However, evolution nicely explains why the family tree exists, and Mendel's discovery of genes predicted the data showing genetic relatedness confirms the tree, just as it does for organisms of known descent.

When I was young, there certainly were known transitional forms, but since then, almost all the gaps between major groups now have transitionals as predicted by evolutionary theory (and inadvertently, by the family tree discovered by Linnaeus).

As you know, honest creationists agree that this is strong evidence for evolution.

And as I said, the absence of such transitionals where the theory says they shouldn't be, is even more convincing.

Sorry to bring up YE creationism, but evolution denial is pretty hard to discuss without it.

 

[ok doser]

I believe this part (Barbie: all living things on Earth form a family tree) is the part that is in dispute in this forum, in this discussion, here at TOL

can you explain it more fully, clearly and concisely, in whatever terms you want to use?

the family tree was discovered before evolution was known.

ok, so we have that "the family tree" was discovered

So, it's not necessary to involve evolutionary theory.

ok, then don't

use whatever terms you want to

Linnaeus thought it meant something like what YE creationists would call "common design." And he was puzzled and disappointed that other things, like minerals, didn't fit into a similar family tree.

ok, but that doesn't really explain, clearly and concisely, what you mean by "family tree"

However, evolution nicely explains why the family tree exists, and Mendel's discovery of genes predicted the data showing genetic relatedness confirms the tree, just as it does for organisms of known descent.

ok, but that doesn't really explain, clearly and concisely, what you mean by "family tree"

When I was young, there certainly were known transitional forms, but since then, almost all the gaps between major groups now have transitionals as predicted by evolutionary theory (and inadvertently, by the family tree discovered by Linnaeus).

ok, but that doesn't really explain, clearly and concisely, what you mean by "family tree"




care to try again?

what i'm looking for is a clear, concise explanation of what you mean by "family tree"