Is evolution a theory?

[Greg1234]

They learned it from the talking snake.

I could've sworn it was a talking fish.

 

[Greg1234]

I It's happening right now in your body

The body is ruled by the soul and spirit.

 

[Davian]

The body is ruled by the soul and spirit.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

[Loudmouth]

The body is ruled by the soul and spirit.

Evidence please.

 

[Trogool]

The body is ruled by the soul and spirit.

Evidence?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Gracchus]

The body is ruled by the soul and spirit.

I know that some people think there is a soul, and some believe there is a spirit, and some believe they are the same thing and some believe they are different. (The Egyptians, so I have read, associated five or sometimes seven incorporeal entities with each human being.)

The body, which can be perceived and measured, is ruled by something(s) that cannot be perceived or measured or otherwise demonstrated? If a brain injury can turn a saint into a monster, what role do soul or spirit play? And anyone who is familiar with degenerative diseases knows that the body is not under the control of some operator disassociated from biochemical processes.

The body does what the body does. There is no evidence that it is "ruled" by anything other than the laws of chemistry and physics.

 

[Greg1234]

I know that some people think there is a soul, and some believe there is a spirit, and some believe they are the same thing and some believe they are different. (The Egyptians, so I have read, associated five or sometimes seven incorporeal entities with each human being.)

They are used interchangeably in the bible. It all depends on how specific one wants to get.

 

[Jamin4422]

(The Egyptians, so I have read, associated five or sometimes seven incorporeal entities with each human being.)

Remember Moses was raised as a Pharaoh' son. So he had the best education Egypt had to offer. That would have been his brother that we read about that was the Pharaoh of Egypt at the time. They both would have been raised the same and have the same education. Even though Moses was basicly adopted and was Jewish. Actually Jewish people are known to have an IQ 5 points higher. The Arab people today have Abraham for a father and the Egyptian Hagar for a mother. So they are basicly half Egyptian. Abraham came from the city of UR and he had a very advanced education at the time. These are the people that later had the city of Babylon in what is Iraq today. Moses would have been a overseer, but he killed a Egyptian because of his zeal for the Hebrew nation and he had to flee from Egypt. At the time there was a lot of complaining about the Jewish people about the Egyptian overseer they had. So the Egyptians responded by making life more difficult for them. They actually had a pretty good life. They were far from the slaves you see in the movies. If you look at the homes they lived in, they had a comfortable life. There was jewlery made out of gold and silver. They had pottery and clothing that was latest style and all of that. So archeology tells us quite a bit about them there in Egypt. The Bible tells us it was their job to make bricks or building materals.

 

[Publius]

And evolution is part of science.

Really? So, evolution is subject to scientific method? It can be observed in a controlled setting? It can be replicated? How can this be, when you, yourself, claim that it takes place over millions of years?

As long as "having a tusk" is a genetically controlled trait, removing tusked elephants from the breeding pool is evolution, as science defines evolution.

Actually, science defines that as devolution, not evolution.

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

Pretty much the same nonsense you're spouting. That's why we're so far behind the rest of the world in science.

 

[Publius]

Which is the same as evolution.

No, adaptation is not 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

Appeal to authority is not a good argument.

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

Yes, because tusk bearing elephants have been removed from the breeding pool.

Yep.

Then you should have no problem showing examples of this.

 

[Publius]

Not lately.

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

If the "religious folks" stopped killing Christian scientists, then wouldn't there be more of them, not less of them?

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

Actually, that would be the definition of devolution, not evolution.

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

No, it's adaptation by removal of tusked elephants from the breeding pool.

Removing an allele from the gene pool, increases information

Removing something increases it?

So, let's put this on a level your average atheist can understand:

If Johnny has three apples and gives Sue one apple, does Johnny have more apples or fewer apples?

 

[sfs]

Really? So, evolution is subject to scientific method?

Of course. The scientific method as actually practiced by scientists, that is, not some fictional version.

There are many bad arguments against evolution, but this one, that evolution isn't science, has got to be high up on the list. On the one hand, you've got some guy on the internet who has probably never read a scientific paper in his life, much less written one, who announces that evolution isn't science. On the other hand, you've got every professional institution involved in science -- the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Smithsonian, the American Museum of Natural History, the professional organizations of biologists, of physicist and of chemists, the editorial boards of Nature, Science, Nature Genetics, Genome Biology, Molecular Biology and Evolution, PNAS, Trends in Genetics, PLoS Biology, Genome Research, the American Journal of Human Genetics and every other biology or general science journal, Yale, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, Penn and every other research university in the country -- who all think that evolution is science. It's not much of a contest.

It can be observed in a controlled setting?

Certainly. Laboratory experiments in evolution are done all the time. You can't recapitulate the entire history of life in the lab, of course, but anyone who knows anything about science should know that that's not a requirement.

It can be replicated? How can this be, when you, yourself, claim that it takes place over millions of years?

Of course the entire history can't be replicated, but science doesn't require that historical events be replicated. Were you under the impression that geology, meteorology and astronomy were not sciences either?

Actually, science defines that as devolution, not evolution.

Science does no such thing. Where are you getting these ideas?

Pretty much the same nonsense you're spouting. That's why we're so far behind the rest of the world in science.

Wow -- here's an argument you really don't want to be using. Countries whose children do better in science (U.S. professional science still leads the world) all accept and teach evolution much more readily than the U.S. does.

 

[sfs]

No, adaptation is not the same as evolution.

Adaptation that has a genetic basis is not the same as evolution; it is a subset of evolution. Learn something about the field you're attacking.

Appeal to authority is not a good argument.

Appeal to a biology textbook for the accepted definition of a term within biology, however, is a fine argument. It's certainly a more persuasive argument than "Is not".

Yes, because tusk bearing elephants have been removed from the breeding pool.

Exactly. That's natural selection in operation: some genetic variants increase in frequency and some decrease, depending on whether the trait they cause is currently beneficial or not. Right now, having tusks is harmful for elephants, and the frequency of the relevant variant(s) is decreasing. "As first articulated by Darwin and Wallace in 1858, positive selection is the principle that beneficial traits—those that make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce—tend to become more frequent in populations over time." ("Positive natural selection in the human lineage", Science, 312:1614-1620 (2006)). That's what's happened here.

 

[Publius]

Of course. The scientific method as actually practiced by scientists, that is, not some fictional version.

There are many bad arguments against evolution, but this one, that evolution isn't science, has got to be high up on the list.

Yeah, nothing says "credibility" like straw men and insults. Keep it up, please.

On the other hand, you've got every professional institution involved in science

Certainly.

So then, how can something that takes place over millions of years be observed? Do we have the notes from the scientists who began this study millions of years ago?

Laboratory experiments in evolution are done all the time. You can't recapitulate the entire history of life in the lab, of course, but anyone who knows anything about science should know that that's not a requirement.

It's not a requirement of science to be able to observe and replicate?

Of course the entire history can't be replicated, but science doesn't require that historical events be replicated.

But this isn't an historical event. It is a scientific event, remember?

Science does no such thing. Where are you getting these ideas?

From a lifelong study of science.

Wow -- here's an argument you really don't want to be using. Countries whose children do better in science (U.S. professional science still leads the world) all accept and teach evolution much more readily than the U.S. does.

Do you know what post hoc ergo proptor hoc means?

 

[Elendur]

From a lifelong study of science.

Lifelong study?

Could you explain it further?

 

[sfs]

So then, how can something that takes place over millions of years be observed? Do we have the notes from the scientists who began this study millions of years ago?

It can't be directly observed, but direct observation is certainly not needed to do science -- so what's your point? To do science, you need to be able to test hypotheses against objective data; this can be done readily in evolutionary biology.

It's not a requirement of science to be able to observe and replicate?

Directly observe? No. Replicate events? No. Astronomers do not replicate supernovae, nor do they directly observe the interior of the sun or of other planets. And yet they form hypotheses about these things and test them against data.

But this isn't an historical event. It is a scientific event, remember?

It's an event that happened in the past.

From a lifelong study of science.

So what, specifically, in your lifelong study of science led you to think that science considers a change to a gene pool not to be evolution but devolution? Please cite the paper that gave you this idea.

Do you know what post hoc ergo proptor hoc means?

Yes, I know what it means. Do you know why it has nothing to do with this exchange?

 

[Publius]

So what, specifically, in your lifelong study of science led you to think that science considers a change to a gene pool not to be evolution but devolution? Please cite the paper that gave you this idea.

So then, basically, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what I say. You're just going to make things up and attribute them to me.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know there's no point in continuing to try to talk to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, that would be the definition of devolution, not evolution.

Then you are using a different definition than biologists are using. Why do you refuse to use the definitions that biologists use? What do you hope to accomplish by redefining scientific terms?

No, it's adaptation by removal of tusked elephants from the breeding pool.

It's evolution by increasing the frequency of the fittest allele due to selective pressures. That is 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

When scientists talk about evolution, that is what they are talking about.

 

[Elendur]

So then, basically, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what I say. You're just going to make things up and attribute them to me.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know there's no point in continuing to try to talk to you.

Could you specify what he wrongfully attributed to you?

 

[sfs]

So then, basically, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what I say. You're just going to make things up and attribute them to me.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know there's no point in continuing to try to talk to you.

Huh? Here's the exchange:
Gracchus: "Removing tusked elephants from the breeding pool, results in the change of allele frequency in the species genome. That is the definition of evolution."
Publius: "Actually, that would be the definition of devolution, not evolution."
sfs: "Science does no such thing. Where are you getting these ideas?"
Publius: "From a lifelong study of science."
sfs: "So what, specifically, in your lifelong study of science led you to think that science considers a change to a gene pool not to be evolution but devolution? Please cite the paper that gave you this idea."
Publius: "So then, basically, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what I say. You're just going to make things up and attribute them to me."

It sure looks to me like I accurately summarized Gracchus's definition, which is what you said was a definition of devolution, not evolution. Your last response seems completely out of the blue.