Some Surprising Facts About Evolution

[truth above all else]

And you point is dead wrong. Accept it.

Evolution: the change of allele frequencies of a population over time. This is observed, it is fact.

Macro-evolution: evolution above species level; has been observed, is a fact.

Theory of evolution: the change of allele frequencies of a population is caused by mutation, selection, genetic drift, perhaps some other mechanisms; an explanation of why the fact is evolution happens hence called the theory of evolution.

Need any explanation for any of these?

not really , all you've done is reproduce arbitrary definitions from a Biology 101 course,cunningly avoiding the obvious fact of falsification. You suppress the real possibility of failure by hand waving into existence the "fact" of evolution, and expertly distinguishing it from the theory.Hence all objections associated with the hopelessly inadequate fossil record and the woefully impotent mechanisms of change , hurt the theory only. The so called fact continues to remain immune from falsification because it has been defined that way.

 

[truth above all else]

Facts are descriptions. Descriptions are tautological by there very nature.

Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. Reading from your post above, you didn't know that. That is good, because now you can learn the definition. Learning this definition will also stop you from making incredibly stupid mistakes, like lumping in abiogenesis with evolution.

You fail yet again to understand the difference between fact and philosophy. Try not to confuse pure science with the philosophical theories written to explain the facts discovered by science. Facts are one thing and explanations of facts is quite another.

 

[us38]

I find it incredibly ironic that someone with the username "truth above all else" seems only interested in perpetuating demonstrable lies.

 

[z3ro]

Facts are one thing and explanations of facts is quite another.

You've said something right; facts are one thing, like the fact that allele frequencies change over time(evolution). Explanations of facts are another, called theories.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what words mean.

 

[Tomk80]

not really , all you've done is reproduce arbitrary definitions from a Biology 101 course,cunningly avoiding the obvious fact of falsification.

These are the generally accepted definitions used by biologists. If you want to provide better ones, feel free to provide them. Be sure that they actually describe what is going on though, you seem to have problems with that.

You suppress the real possibility of failure by hand waving into existence the "fact" of evolution, and expertly distinguishing it from the theory.Hence all objections associated with the hopelessly inadequate fossil record and the woefully impotent mechanisms of change , hurt the theory only. The so called fact continues to remain immune from falsification because it has been defined that way.

And? Facts are descriptions of what happens. What happens in nature is that allele frequencies in populations change over time. This is called evolution. That is the name given to the thing, just like the fact that things fall to the ground when released is called gravity. I can call things falling to the ground blaha if you want to, and then the explanation of why things fall to the ground I will call the theory of blaha.

Similarly, I can call the fact that allele frequencies in populations change over time goobelooboo. Than the explanation of why they do so will be called the theory of boobelooboo.

Facts describe what happens, theories describe how they happen.

 

[Tomk80]

You fail yet again to understand the difference between fact and philosophy.

What, pray tell, is the philosophy here. What I was doing was explaining to you the difference between fact and theory. I am not the first. I think you need to read up on the philosophy of science, the scientific method, evolution and a whole lot of other things, because you are very wrong about all of them all the time.

Try not to confuse pure science with the philosophical theories written to explain the facts discovered by science. Facts are one thing and explanations of facts is quite another.

Facts are one thing: the allele frequencies in populations change over time is one of those things. We call that fact evolution.

Explanations of facts are another. They are called theories. For example, we explain the fact that allele frequencies in populations change over time with mutations, selection and genetic drift. Because this theory explains the fact of evolution, we call it the theory of evolution.

 

[truth above all else]

You've said something right; facts are one thing, like the fact that allele frequencies change over time(evolution). Explanations of facts are another, called theories.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what words mean.

Congratulations, finally some appreciation of the difference, please assist Tomko with his education. Explanation of facts become respected theories when when they supply scientific hypotheses that are permitted to be tested unconditionally .If the testing of a theory continously fails to provide empirical evidence of its process or believable mechanisms that dont require Shakespearian wordsmiths to explain away difficulties , then such theories must fail as empirical theories.
To take an arbitrary example , lets say that the common ancestor is a hypothesis in a theory, that allegedly explains how specie dissimilarities came into being. Of course such an imaginative theory may be plausible, but it may nonetheless be false. the truth may be beyond your comprehension

 

[Tomk80]

Congratulations, finally some appreciation of the difference, please assist Tomko with his education.

Do you take special pleasure in lying? Or is it just a modus operandi for you? To pretend that I do not know the difference when I have explained it a number of times in this very thread isn't particularly hinting at your honesty. Although given that I did explain this difference a number of times in this thread, it may hint at your intelligence.

Explanation of facts become respected theories when when they supply scientific hypotheses that are permitted to be tested unconditionally .If the testing of a theory continously fails to provide empirical evidence of its process or believable mechanisms that dont require Shakespearian wordsmiths to explain away difficulties , then such theories must fail as empirical theories.

Hence, the theory of evolution is that, and creationism is junk.

To take an arbitrary example , lets say that the common ancestor is a hypothesis in a theory, that allegedly explains how specie dissimilarities came into being. Of course such an imaginative theory may be plausible, but it may nonetheless be false. the truth may be beyond your comprehension

And that is why we test the theory. For example by looking at the twin-nested hierarchy or the fossil record. Then we see that these do not falsify the theory. In fact, they support it. On the other hand, creationism has not supporting facts for it whatsoever. In fact, the twin-nested hierarchy as well as the fossil records go right against any prediction ever made by it (insofar there have ever been made predictions by creationism). So we, stupidly of course, go with common ancestry. I know, biologists are so dumb.

 

[plindboe]

To be fair, it's easy to see how the misunderstanding arises. "Evolution" and the "theory of evolution" are two different but related things, just as gravitational pull and Einstein's theory of general relativity are.

The problem arises because the word "evolution" is often used when people talk about the theory of evolution, often even by the scientists themselves. Therefore we end up with a word that has two different meanings.

Add to this confusion that the word "theory" means something very differently in common usage than it does in science.

Peter

 

[plindboe]

Congratulations, finally some appreciation of the difference, please assist Tomko with his education.

In his two posts just above yours he made the distinction rather clear. I can't see any posts that indicate he thought otherwise.

Peter

 

[truth above all else]

To be fair, it's easy to see how the misunderstanding arises. "Evolution" and the "theory of evolution" are two different but related things, just as gravitational pull and Einstein's theory of general relativity are.

The problem arises because the word "evolution" is often used when people talk about the theory of evolution, often even by the scientists themselves. Therefore we end up with a word that has two different meanings.

Add to this confusion that the word "theory" means something very differently in common usage than it does in science.

Peter

Evolutionary scientists embrace the confusion with evolution, its parent theory, and perhaps its progenitor-abiogenesis. In any case the analogy with real scientific thinkers (Einstein, Newton et al) is spurious. We observe that apples fall when released from a height, but we dont observe a common ancestor for apes and humans when a bungee jumper is dropped.
The theory is merely the theory or put simply, the idea of natural selection. The fact is the supposed fact that evolution may occur by chance mechanisms

 

[monkeypsycho62]

My point is that evolution is NOT a fact.

And my point is that in science, theory > fact.

So saying that evolution isn't a fact doesn't hurt its credibility at all.

 

[plindboe]

Evolutionary scientists embrace the confusion with evolution, its parent theory, and perhaps its progenitor-abiogenesis. In any case the analogy with real scientific thinkers (Einstein, Newton et al) is spurious. We observe that apples fall when released from a height, but we dont observe a common ancestor for apes and humans when a bungee jumper is dropped.
The theory is merely the theory or put simply, the idea of natural selection. The fact is the supposed fact that evolution may occur by chance mechanisms

No, the fact is that we can get this:

From this:

That is not in question. Change in allele frequency over time, aka. evolution, is an observed fact.

The theory of evolution (that is, the theory, not the fact) seeks out to explain the above fact and alot of similar facts, and encompasses several sub-theories, hypotheses and mechanisms. One of these is the theory of universal common descent and that's the one creationists usually have a beef with.

The problem is that the creationist propaganda machinery have worked so effectively for decades to convince people that "evolution" is evil and anti-God, so that there is this automated rejection of anything that carries the label "evolution". And that, my friend, is what you exemplify.

Peter

 

[sfs]

Evolutionary scientists embrace the confusion with evolution, its parent theory, and perhaps its progenitor-abiogenesis. In any case the analogy with real scientific thinkers (Einstein, Newton et al) is spurious. We observe that apples fall when released from a height, but we dont observe a common ancestor for apes and humans when a bungee jumper is dropped.

At least try to get the physics part right, even if you mangle the biology. Newton's theory of universal gravitation was not "apples fall down", but that the same force causes apples to fall down and planets to orbit the sun (and that the force was proportional to the masses and to the inverse square of the distance). This is not something we observe. Rather, the theory succeeds in tying together quite different sorts of observations in a single, coherent explanatory framework, one that provides great insight into how nature works.. That's exactly what the theory of evolution does for biology, and that's what makes it such a powerful tool.

The reality of the situation is that scientists use evolution as an explanation because it works superbly well, explaining wide ranges of data, predicting numerous new observations, and guiding research into fruitful new avenues. All the whining in the world by creationists isn't going to change that. Until creationism can put together an explanatory framework that works even remotely as well, scientists (whatever their religious beliefs) will continue to ignore it.

 

[Phred]

Evolutionary scientists embrace the confusion with evolution, its parent theory, and perhaps its progenitor-abiogenesis. In any case the analogy with real scientific thinkers (Einstein, Newton et al) is spurious. We observe that apples fall when released from a height, but we dont observe a common ancestor for apes and humans when a bungee jumper is dropped.
The theory is merely the theory or put simply, the idea of natural selection. The fact is the supposed fact that evolution may occur by chance mechanisms

One more guy without the slightest idea what he's talking about and no qualms about letting everyone know it. I learned a term for this... it's called virulent ignorance. We're all guilty of mundane ignorance about all sorts of things... but this is the type of ignorance composed of myths, half-truths and outright falsehoods that make it sound as if he actually might know something. It's what the creationist mindset thrives upon.

Virulent ignorance. If the shoe fits...

 

[Tomk80]

Evolutionary scientists embrace the confusion with evolution, its parent theory, and perhaps its progenitor-abiogenesis.

No, creationists like you try all their might to confuse others. Biologists, public educators and just lay-people like me need to counter these tries time and time again.

In any case the analogy with real scientific thinkers (Einstein, Newton et al) is spurious. We observe that apples fall when released from a height, but we dont observe a common ancestor for apes and humans when a bungee jumper is dropped.

The analogy was exactly right. Newton observed things falling down. He observed the fact of gravity. How forces act, namely that something will keep going in the same direction unless different forces act upon them again is not observed. It is an explanation of why things fall down, the theory. The first was already known before Newton, the second was explained subsequently by Newton and Einstein. The theories of gravity have not been observed, the fact of gravity has. What has been observed are the things that should be true if the theories were true. Just as with evolution.

The theory is merely the theory or put simply, the idea of natural selection. The fact is the supposed fact that evolution may occur by chance mechanisms

No, the fact is that allele frequencies in a population change over time. See, that is the good thing about learning. If you would have learned this definition the first time I gave it, you wouldn't now be confusing the theory of evolution with the fact of evolution. You see, the theory of evolution is that evolution happens by mutation (ie, the chance part) and natural selection. But that is something else that you would have gotten right had you actually tried to learn from my previous posts.

Learning, such a good way of avoiding to make mistakes. One has to wonder why someone with the screenname 'truth above all else' doesn't want to participate in that process.

 

[Galle]

Evolutionary scientists embrace the confusion with evolution, its parent theory, and perhaps its progenitor-abiogenesis.

The only people I've seen to intentionally confuse (i.e., lie about) the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution are creationists.

 

[gluadys]

To be fair, it's easy to see how the misunderstanding arises. "Evolution" and the "theory of evolution" are two different but related things, just as gravitational pull and Einstein's theory of general relativity are.

The problem arises because the word "evolution" is often used when people talk about the theory of evolution, often even by the scientists themselves. Therefore we end up with a word that has two different meanings.

Add to this confusion that the word "theory" means something very differently in common usage than it does in science.

Peter

And to complicate matters still more, to many lay persons "evolution" means the historical paths that evolution took, not the mechanisms of evolution--which is what the theory of evolution is really about.

Common descent is a prediction of the theory but concluded from the evidence. It is not an a priori assumption as often claimed.

 

[Ryal Kane]

One more guy without the slightest idea what he's talking about and no qualms about letting everyone know it. I learned a term for this... it's called virulent ignorance. We're all guilty of mundane ignorance about all sorts of things... but this is the type of ignorance composed of myths, half-truths and outright falsehoods that make it sound as if he actually might know something. It's what the creationist mindset thrives upon.

Virulent ignorance. If the shoe fits...

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.

Daniel J Boorstin:

 

[FishFace]

not really , all you've done is reproduce arbitrary definitions from a Biology 101 course,cunningly avoiding the obvious fact of falsification. You suppress the real possibility of failure by hand waving into existence the "fact" of evolution

FACT: allele frequency changes over time, therefore...
FACT: evolution happens.

It's easy to falsify these facts (since they're both the same fact) all you have to do is go out there and demonstrate that all the times we thought we saw allele frequencies changing, they actually didn't.
Oh, maybe that's not so easy after all - maybe that's why educated folk believe in evolution. Because... it's a fact.

and expertly distinguishing it from the theory.

Simply because you are unable to understand the difference between the observation and the explanation is no reason to accuse us of drawing non-existent distinctions.
The fact is evolution, the explanation is the theory of evolution.
The fact is allele frequency changes over time, the explanation is that some alleles are more beneficial than others and so increase in frequency by natural selection.

Hence all objections associated with the hopelessly inadequate fossil record

Another lie. I'm sure you've seen the talkorigins transitional fossils page - if not you can google it yourself. The fossils are there - if you want to keep lying about this, please only lie to yourself.

The so called fact continues to remain immune from falsification because it has been defined that way.

Immune from falsification?! No fact is immune from falsification, you just have to go out there and show the fact isn't a fact at all! If you wanted to disprove the fact that things fall to earth, you just have to step outside, throw things into the air, and record them not falling.
To disprove the fact of evolution, you just have to get out, sequence some genomes, and observe them not evolving.