My Evolution Challenge

[Naraoia]

...still waitin'.

I suspect that you've got some more waiting to do

 

[kharisym]

Define evolution in such concise terms that it cannot be mistaken as a theory.

Define theory. Depending on what fouled up labyrinthine rebuggery of the word you're working under, I might have to pad the sentences I write in japanese and pass them through an english to abyssal translator to meet the criteria.

 

[Skaloop]

Define evolution in such concise terms that it cannot be mistaken as a theory.

But it is a theory. And that's a good thing.

I might as well ask you to define Genesis in such concise terms that it isn't Biblical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is someone waiting for me to answer something?

 

[Naraoia]

Multiple people are waiting for you to provide your definition of "theory"

 

[AV1611VET]

Multiple people are waiting for you to provide your definition of "theory"

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

[kharisym]

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution is indeed a set of statements or principles that explain a group of facts and phenomena. It has been repeatedly tested and is widely accepted. It can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution is a theory under this definition you gave, therefore there's no point to attempt to try to argue otherwise.

Is there a particular reason you wanted an attempt to try and make evolution not be a theory?

 

[Anaximander]

A change in the frequency of alleles in a population generationally through time fits it perfectly. Are you talking about common ancestry, which is different than evolution?

 

[Greg1234]

A change in the frequency of alleles in a population generationally through time fits it perfectly. Are you talking about common ancestry, which is different than evolution?

We call the science, adaptation (youre missing some stuff btw). Evolution we relate to common ancestry, or the theory where bacteria can become men.

 

[Skaloop]

We call the science, adaptation (youre missing some stuff btw). Evolution we relate to common ancestry, or the theory where bacteria can become men.

That isn't any sort of theory, it's Creationist nonsense.

 

[Greg1234]

That isn't any sort of theory, it's Creationist nonsense.

tsk

 

[Anaximander]

We call the science, adaptation (youre missing some stuff btw). Evolution we relate to common ancestry, or the theory where bacteria can become men.

Oh contraire. Adaptation is in reference to natural selection, which is not evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution to occur. I am missing nothing. ...and where does it say the definition of common ancestry is bacteria becoming men? That's like saying Ben Franklin became your dad.

best,

 

[Skaloop]

tsk

"Tsk"? What does that even mean?

(OK, I know what it means in general, but what does it mean in this specific context?)

 

[kharisym]

We call the science, adaptation (youre missing some stuff btw). Evolution we relate to common ancestry, or the theory where bacteria can become men.

Took me a few reads to understand what you're saying. You should take an english class. Normally home-schooled people are better in the reading and writing department while the products of an educational institution have a better grasp of math and science. In this case you seem to have the advantages of neither.

Maybe you're just really good at math (or rather, I hope). Can you give me the area of a region in the first quadrant, bounded by the lines y=x^2, y=0, and x=2 rotated around the y-axis?

"We call the science of allele change adaptation. Evolution is more related to common ancestry; ie the theory that claims bacteria can become humans."

Is that your claim?

 

[AV1611VET]

Greg is right on.

What we call 'adaptation', you guys call 'microevolution'.

I believe that species adapts to a point, then reaches a boundary that it cannot cross.

 

[Anaximander]

"Microevolution and Macroevolution" are creationist terms. You quote mine and find a couple of scientists that refer to this and then you embellish it. Here's my challenge, go through the peer reviewed literature and see how many times scientists use these words. Now, I'm waiting for you quote mining.

best,

 

[MoonLancer]

Greg is right on.

What we call 'adaptation', you guys call 'microevolution'.

I believe that species adapts to a point, then reaches a boundary that it cannot cross.

sure! show me observation of this barrier. The only barrier that exists is when a species changes so much one can no longer acknowledge as the same species. It is simply a barrier in nomenclature that is man made.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Microevolution and Macroevolution" are creationist terms. You quote mine and find a couple of scientists that refer to this and then you embellish it. Here's my challenge, go through the peer reviewed literature and see how many times scientists use these words. Now, I'm waiting for you quote mining.

best,

I believe it is Split Rock who will support me on this.

He has (if I have the right person) shown that microevolution is indeed a useful term behind scientific doors.

 

[kharisym]

Greg is right on.

What we call 'adaptation', you guys call 'microevolution'.

I believe that species adapts to a point, then reaches a boundary that it cannot cross.

I think that's a testable hypothesis. Do what no other creationist is willing to do: devise an experiment and test it.

That is, unless you're afraid of the results.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that's a testable hypothesis.

I don't.

There are some things that can be done in a laboratory that I'm sure nature herself is not allowed to do.

So just because they pass with flying colors in a laboratory -- (like Thalidomide did) -- doesn't mean it's the way God set it up to operate.

Do what no other creationist is willing to do: devise an experiment and test it.

You do it -- I'm not interested.

Like I have said before, if tomorrow they create a star quarterback in a laboratory from scratch, or the next world Chess Champion that can beat Nigel Short or Viswanathan Anand -- cool!

That is, unless you're afraid of the results.

I have fears, but I don't have those kinds of fears.