Is evolution a theory?

[ProScribe]

Darwin was the original pioneer - several hundred years later it became evolution science . . .

 

[Gracchus]

All he doing is story telling and there is evidence pointing his story is wrong.

How can creationists say this with a straight face?

They learned it from the talking snake.

 

[Smidlee]

How can creationists say this with a straight face?

So you are admitting evolution just another creation story, the creation created itself? Do you admit you are accepting the "little eyeball that could" story by faith?

They learned it from the talking snake.

Let's use Darwin requirement to disprove his theory , that is you must show it's not possible for something to evolve. (must prove a negative) Can you prove to me it's not possible for a snake's ancestor (with legs) to talk. Since a bird can talk then using your imagination you can see a snakes in the past could talk.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So you are admitting evolution just another creation story, the creation created itself? Do you admit you are accepting the "little eyeball that could" story by faith?

Would we be more or less convincing if we told you a talking snake told us?

 

[Smidlee]

Would we be more or less convincing if we told you a talking snake told us?

The talking snake was satan and it was a one time event never to be repeated. If snakes are talking to you today then you had a little too much to drink.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LifeToTheFullest! Would we be more or less convincing if we told you a talking snake told us?

The talking snake was satan and it was a one time event never to be repeated. If snakes are talking to you today then you had a little too much to drink.

How do we know Satan didn't appear to Jesus as a "nacash/serpent"?

Mark 1:13 And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts;
and the angels ministered to Him.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are admitting evolution just another creation story, the creation created itself?

Where did I admit that? What I am saying is that the fundamental aspect of creationism is a story found in a religious text. It is story telling, from start to finish.

Let's use Darwin requirement to disprove his theory , that is you must show it's not possible for something to evolve. (must prove a negative) Can you prove to me it's not possible for a snake's ancestor (with legs) to talk. Since a bird can talk then using your imagination you can see a snakes in the past could talk.

Again, this is nothing more than storytelling. When you want to discuss EVIDENCE please let me know.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Darwin was the original pioneer - several hundred years later it became evolution science . . .

Did you forget about Wallace?

 

[UseLogic]

It has been proven time and time again, It's happening right now in your body. Face it science is real.

Fact: Elephants have just recently started to EVOLVE without tusks.
In order to avoid poaching.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

So who's the other wise guy that voted no?

 

[Smidlee]

It has been proven time and time again, It's happening right now in your body. Face it science is real.

Fact: Elephants have just recently started to EVOLVE without tusks.
In order to avoid poaching.

You mean elephants having smaller tusk because man is killing the ones with bigger tusks. There are many examples of man screwing up the balance of nature. This seem to be more of an example of artificial selection than natural selection as with wolves becoming dogs.

 

[Gracchus]

You mean elephants having smaller tusk because man is killing the ones with bigger tusks. There are many examples of man screwing up the balance of nature. This seem to be more of an example of artificial selection than natural selection as with wolves becoming dogs.

Selection, whether caused by man or otherwise, is a factor in evolution.

Long before Darwin, it was known that man could change the characteristics of plants and animals by culling/selection. What Darwin showed, via Malthus, was that the environment, unreasoning as it is, could also cull the species, producing change.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean elephants having smaller tusk because man is killing the ones with bigger tusks. There are many examples of man screwing up the balance of nature. This seem to be more of an example of artificial selection than natural selection as with wolves becoming dogs.

If evolution is true, then nature is never in balance. Predators will continue to evolve new adaptations to increase their success rate. Prey will continue to evolve new adaptations that make it harder for predator's to eat them.

Also, humans are as much a part of nature as any other species.

 

[Publius]

Face it science is real.

Nobody is arguing that science isn't real. In fact, the greatest scientists in history have been Christians who affirmed the Biblical view of the nature of the Universe.

Fact: Elephants have just recently started to EVOLVE without tusks.
In order to avoid poaching.

Hey, Mr. Science-is-real! That's not evolution. That's adaptation as the result of tusked elephants being removed from the breeding pool through poaching.

Evolution is always the addition of information into the genetic code of the species, not the subtraction of information.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey, Mr. Science-is-real! That's not evolution. That's adaptation as the result of tusked elephants being removed from the breeding pool through poaching.

Selection of one trait over another due environmental conditions is evolution. That is exactly what Darwin described in Origin of Species.

Evolution is always the addition of information into the genetic code of the species, not the subtraction of information.

The way in which creationists define information, evolution actually requires a subtraction of information. Creationists define any change in DNA sequence as a subtraction of information.

 

[Publius]

Selection of one trait over another due environmental conditions is evolution.

Actually, that's adaptation.

The way in which creationists define information, evolution actually requires a subtraction of information. Creationists define any change in DNA sequence as a subtraction of information.

We do? Really?

 

[sfs]

Nobody is arguing that science isn't real. In fact, the greatest scientists in history have been Christians who affirmed the Biblical view of the nature of the Universe.

And evolution is part of science.

Hey, Mr. Science-is-real! That's not evolution. That's adaptation as the result of tusked elephants being removed from the breeding pool through poaching.

As long as "having a tusk" is a genetically controlled trait, removing tusked elephants from the breeding pool is evolution, as science defines evolution. (You seem to have your own definition, but it's the scientific one that matters when talking about science.]

Evolution is always the addition of information into the genetic code of the species, not the subtraction of information.

That is simply wrong. What do they teach in schools these days?

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, that's adaptation.

Which is the same as evolution.

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974



With these elephants, we see a change in the frequency of tusk alleles within the elephant gene pool from one generation to the next.

We do? Really?

Yep.

 

[sfs]

Actually, that's adaptation.

Right. And adaptation of organisms to their environment is precisely what Darwinian evolution was intended to explain.

We do? Really?

Frequently, yes, as when it is claimed that all mutations reduce information. Creationist definitions of information tend not to be consistent, however.

 

[Gracchus]

Nobody is arguing that science isn't real. In fact, the greatest scientists in history have been Christians who affirmed the Biblical view of the nature of the Universe.

Not lately.

Not since the religious folks stopped torturing and killing those who disagree with them.

Hey, Mr. Science-is-real! That's not evolution. That's adaptation as the result of tusked elephants being removed from the breeding pool through poaching.

Removing tusked elephants from the breeding pool, results in the change of allele frequency in the species genome. That is the definition of evolution.

Evolution is always the addition of information into the genetic code of the species, not the subtraction of information.

In information theory, information is quantified as the level of uncertainty.

1) I state "'A' is true, OR 'B' is true, OR 'C' is true". Three possibilities, two degrees of freedom.
2) I state "'A' is true, OR 'B' is true". Two possibilities, one degree of freedom.
3) I state "'A" is true". One possibiity, zero degrees of freedom.

Note that statement 3 carries more information than statement 2, which in turn carries more information than statement one.

Selection of one trait over another due environmental conditions is evolution. That is exactly what Darwin described in Origin of Species.

Actually, that's adaptation.

It may be adaptation, but it is adaptation by evolution.

Now an animal might adapt by by migrating to follow seasonal changes in food supply. This may or may not involve a change in the gene pool. If it doesn't, it is adaptation without evolution.

The way in which creationists define information, evolution actually requires a subtraction of information. Creationists define any change in DNA sequence as a subtraction of information.

We do? Really?

Removing an allele from the gene pool, increases information because it decreases uncertainty. Adding an allele to the gene pool, increases uncertainty and so decreases information. But whether you add or subract an allele from the gene pool, and whether this results in an adaptive, maladaptive, neutral, or no change in phenotype, it is evolution.