Is there any evidence for evolution?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know the origin of its use or the context of that original use with respect to evolution in general. However, it has become quite a favorite term misused by creation science in general. With respect to biology, that is not my field of expertise and I do not mind admitting mistakes when I make them. My descriptions of micro and macro evolution are mine and how I understand them.

To be fair, him saying that you have to be consulted on this kind of sounds like an appeal to authority to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't have to.

FYI, sfs is a real scientist.

Not just a scientific methodist, but the real deal.

Specifically a geneticist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know the origin of its use or the context of that original use with respect to evolution in general. However, it has become quite a favorite term misused by creation science in general. With respect to biology, that is not my field of expertise and I do not mind admitting mistakes when I make them. My descriptions of micro and macro evolution are mine and how I understand them.

Evidentially you don't believe sfs then?

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, him saying that you have to be consulted on this kind of sounds like an appeal to authority to me.

Then forget Rick.

Rick is a climatologist by trade.

Go with what sfs said, who probably has forgotten more than Rick has learned.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

FYI, sfs is a real scientist.

Not just a scientific methodist, but the real deal.

Specifically a geneticist.

And the term that creationists call micro-evolution is something that they have made up, being completely distinct to the one that was historically used by evolutionary biologists.
And as Split Rock said: "The difference is no longer emphasized as it once was, as nowadays there is a great deal of overlap."

 

[lesliedellow]

The change of allele in populations over time was the working definition in the modern synthesis.

No, that is the definition of population genetics; not of evolution.

Perhaps you would like to offer some clarification regarding your use of a verb as an adjective. Assuming that you know the difference.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then forget Rick.

Rick is a climatologist by trade.

Go with what sfs said, who probably has forgotten more than Rick has learned.

Did you even read what RickG said? He clearly said "However, it has become quite a favorite term misused by creation science in general." So he knows that is is term than is used in evolutionary biology, but has been misused and twisted by those follow creation science.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes Nature magazine wants me to do an article on the deleterious effect of Darwinian fallacious rhetoric on brain cells. Would you consider donating a sample? I need it for my research.

I see.

I take that as an affirmation that you cannot support your position and admit defeat.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not the scientific definition. You just defined Darwinism. Now I have already defined it and differentiated it from Darwinism. For this I need neither your permission nor your approval. I must admit you may well be the first to openly admit the equivocated meaning but you left out population genetics. That's what happens when you don't bother to think seriously about meticously crafted scientific terminology.

Are you just going to argue semantics?

 

[Loudmouth]

TOE is a misnomer for the Darwinian a priori assumptions of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

It isn't assumed. It is a conclusion drawn from evidence:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=29+evidences+for+macroevolution

 

[Loudmouth]

The change of allele in populations over time was the working definition in the modern synthesis.

That includes new alleles produced by random mutation and the divergence of alleles between populations that lack genetic flow between them.

 

[Loudmouth]

These discussion are riddled with poisonous fallacious logic specifically of the issue of equivocated meaning.

You are projecting. You have equivocated homology with phylogeny from the very start. You are the one committing the fallacy.

The actual scientific literature is the down hill slope. You just have to get past the shallow debate tactics first

The shallow debate tactics is your strawman version of evolution. In the real theory of evolution, common ancestry is evidenced by phylogenies, not simply homologies. You refuse to address the actual theory of evolution, and instead attack your strawman version. In the real theory of evolution, the null hypothesis is a lack of a nested hierarchy among species that do not participate in lateral genetic transfer. You also refuse to address this null hypothesis.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, that is the definition of population genetics; not of evolution.

No the definition is from Ernst Mayr the famous orintholigist turned philosopher at Harvard during the time when Darwinism was being synthesized with an emerging science called genetics.

Perhaps you would like to offer some clarification regarding your use of a verb as an adjective. Assuming that you know the difference.

No its cool because two things will happen. One you will eventually learn the definition and know I'm right and two you will learn why it matters later. Been doing this a while and it candy from a baby when evolution wraps itself around your ego and tells you your an expert. Sure saves me a lot of trouble.

 

[Loudmouth]

No the definition is from Ernst Mayr the famous orintholigist turned philosopher at Harvard during the time when Darwinism was being synthesized with an emerging science called genetics.


No its cool because two things will happen. One you will eventually learn to actual definition and know I'm right and two you will learn why it matters later. Been doing this a while and it candy from a baby when evolution wraps itself around your ego and tells you your and expert. Sure saves me a lot of trouble.

Still arguing semantics and using pedantic arguments?

 

[Loudmouth]

The change of allele in populations over time was the working definition in the modern synthesis.

And it still is. Natural selection can change allele frequencies. A new random mutation can change allele frequencies. Random mutations will produce different alleles in different populations that don't interbreed, producing a change in alleles between populations. This is the theory of evolution.

 

[RickG]

Evidentially you don't believe sfs then?

I indicated no such thing. And please do not quote mine me out of context.

 

[AV1611VET]

And please do not quote mine me out of context.

After you pulled this doosey on me: 61?

 

[lesliedellow]

No the definition is from Ernst Mayr the famous orintholigist turned philosopher at Harvard during the time when Darwinism was being synthesized with an emerging science called genetics.

Like every other biologist, Myer understood natural selection to be the driving force behind evolution.

No its cool because two things will happen. One you will eventually learn the definition and know I'm right and two you will learn why it matters later. Been doing this a while and it candy from a baby when evolution wraps itself around your ego and tells you your an expert. Sure saves me a lot of trouble.

There is nothing cool about thinking that you can violate the rules of grammar, and still compose sentences which make sense. What, for instance, might "speak car" mean?

 

[mark kennedy]

Like every other biologist, Myer understood natural selection to be the driving force behind evolution.

Yea so important in fact he forged the current working definition based on genetics and including the various aspects of selection.

There is nothing cool about thinking that you can violate the rules of grammar, and still compose sentences which make sense. What, for instance, might "speak car" mean?

I'm not a good cell phone typist but its not like your actually listening anyway.

 

[mark kennedy]

And it still is. Natural selection can change allele frequencies. A new random mutation can change allele frequencies. Random mutations will produce different alleles in different populations that don't interbreed, producing a change in alleles between populations. This is the theory of evolution.

Natural selection is an effect not a cause. Selective pressure can influence the emergence of a new trait but the cause is always genetic.