Heritable change due to mutation and natural selection that leads to speciation and biodiversity. Common ancestry as an explaination to what we find in the independent lines of evidence of the fossil record and genetics.
I was under the impression that it was the change of alleles in populations over time. Not all change comes as a result of mutation, mutations are usually transcript errors anyway. Also, natural selection isn't leading to adaptive changes as much as everyone thinks, the potential for adatpations lies cross over of unmutated gene pools. Common ancestor has nothing to do with it, if anything natural history is an afterthought in biology.
Are you suggesting that speciation, heritable change, and genetic and physical comparison or organisms based on common ancestry is not central to higher biology studies? That is laughable. What book did you use in Biology 101 and where did you take it? If find it hard to believe that evolution or the concepts of speciation and common descent didn't come up. Can you share?
I'm not suggesing it, I'm telling you I know it for a fact. Common ancestry is an afterthought, in fact its an aberation. When I was studying this it the focus was on how living systems work, we spent a week on ATP. It has become increasingly obvious that evolutionary biology has absolutely nothing to do with life science. Evolution itself is a secularists attempt to pontificate about prehistoric and primordial history.
Mass.
Mathematical formulas are not the basis of theories.
Natural selection can be reducted to a ratio, Mendel reduced inheritable traits to a ratio.
Mechanisms and physical interations are. You seem to be lacking in a basic understanding of what a good scientific theory addresses and what the theory of relativity, gravity, and light address. They certainly address more than math - just like evolution.
You can't state evolution as a theory so you tell me I lack a fundamental understanding which is typical. Mendel had a theory that it came down to what he called the elementum. It was a theory because no one would be able to see the chromosomes for another 50 years. The fact is that there is no theory of evolution just an assumption of a single common ancestor. That is the fundamental a priori assumption that everyone thinks you should be making. If you don't then it is assumed that you don't understand the first thing about it. That's not science, that's supposition.
The theory of evolution uses observable mechanisms to explain the independent lines of evidene for common ancestry. Life in the past was much different than life today. They theory of evolution explains why this is using observable mechanisms and falsifiable claims. You know - science.[/quote]
Genes and alleles
A human egg cell and a human sperm cell both contain 23 single chromosomes. Fertilisation brings these two sets of single chromosomes together to make 23 pairs of chromosomes in the embryo.
Each of these pairs of chromosomes contains genes inherited from the father and genes inherited from the mother, and these genes are in pairs, both coding for the same characteristic - so you have two genes controlling eye colour, for example. These different forms of the same gene are called alleles (pronounced al-eel). The gene for eye colour has an allele for blue eye colour and an allele for brown eye colour.
If both the alleles inherited by the zygote for a particular characteristic are the same they are called homozygous). If they are different from each other they are called heterozygous. An individual who has homozygous alleles for a particular characteristic is described as purebred. In addition, alleles may be either dominant or recessive. A dominant allele always shows. A recessive allele only shows when it is on its own (because it's on a sex chromosome) or when both the alleles are the same (homozygous).
Biology, variation and inheritance
You are not describing evolution as it is defined in biology, evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time and it doesn't get anymore basic then that. You don't need this metaphysical a priori assumption of a single common ancestor, it has been imposed on science not deduced from it.
I can't really make much sense of this paragraph. The science of evolution is there for everybody to see in reams and reams of peer reviewed research. I accept that research just like I accept relativity research or medical research. The theology of my worldview is based on the scriptures, particularly the New Testament - I am after all Christian.
There is no science evolution, at least not in the kind we are talking about. Evolution has become such a mystical term riddled with assumption and bias it's become virtually meaningless. If biology is taught without evolution is does not change a thing, there are still adpatation and the genetic mechanisms are still a challenge for even the most knowledgeable person.
Christianity is based almost exclusivly on redemptive history and God's interaction in human affairs, literally from the beginning to a predictable end. Christians believing the God created the world in 6 days should not come as a big supprise to anyone, that's what the Scriptures say.
I just accept one more mainstream scientific theory than you do based on the evidence and the study I have done. I'm in good company with a great many Christians who teach it, accept it, use it in their research, and yet somehow live fantastic and faithful lives as Christians - just like those that accept relativity.
What is lost in all of this is both the import from our sacred theology as well as a comprehensive understanding of the life sciences. Here's a link to a neutral site, basic stuff but it is pure undiluted genetics. I don't think anyone will argue that it is not genuine life science. The odd thing is notto, evolution is not mentioned anywhere in these pages:
Genome Science Images
I have no problem with Biology as life science, it's this red in tooth and claw monstrocity they keep calling a theory that I consider a pagan mythology.
