Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, that's completely wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. So any new mutation is by definition, evolution.Now the question the anatomical structure of the critter:
1) Evolution?
2) Inherited?
3) Mutation (recombination)?
If #2 and #3 are correct, then #1 is false.
Evidence. Even informed creationists admit there is abundant evidence for common descent (which is not evolution, BTW; it's a consequence of evolution)When people speak of evolution, they discuss complete organisms and family trees. Fossil record and such like things.
An assumption of common descent rather than multiple independent pathways.
I reduce it all to its scientific Status.Evidence. Even informed creationists admit there is abundant evidence for common descent (which is not evolution, BTW; it's a consequence of evolution)
Dr. Wise, who is a YE creationist and a paleontologist, disagrees with you. He says the many transitional fossils and series of fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."I reduce it all to its scientific Status.
To identify between- What can be said for certain, what is just supported conjecture , and conjecture for which there is no evidence at all, however sensible it may sound.
Biological evolution has a very precise definition. Because you don't know what biological evolution is, it's just vague blob for you.The illdefined “blob” that is generaliy referred to as “evolution“ is a mixture of all of them
"Change in allele frequency in a population over time." Or Darwin's phrase, "descent with modification." That's what it is.So I am obliged to ask precisely what people mean by “ evolution” when they make a conclusion about it, since there IS no single defintion of “evolution”.
Common descent is a consequence of evolution. It is not evolution. You're right, Darwin didn't know if there was a single common ancestor or several. He just supposed that God made the first living things.It therefore does not , by definition , include the concept of common descent and even he in his writings notes the open question of whether there were multiple starts ( multiple starts incidentally is the default outcome of presumption of first life presumed as a chemical process).
It would be astonishing if any fossil we discovered was the precise individual that gave rise to a major new group. But since evolution happens to populations, not individuals, that's not an issue. Was any herrerasaurus fossil we've found be the one that gave rise to the first dinosaur? The question is absurd. We only know that that species is so close to dinosaurs that by some definitions it is a dinosaur.Can you say for certain that some early fossils or assumed relatives were not the last , of a separate dead end line from an inferior separate start, which competed with, but ultimately lost the battle of survival?
No, that's very wrong. There are entire journals of research into cellular evolution.We know next to nothing about cell devopment from as yet undefined first life to present modern cell horrendous Complexity,
If you want to believe common descent, be my guest, but that’s what it is a belief
But data from DNA analyses is too complicated for you to get? How so? It doesn’t matter who refuses to believe the data; reality is indifferent to denial. Biology might seem too complex and involved to understand, but remember, it still works according to physical laws. You just have to work a little harder to get it.I like scientific precision, because as a mathematical physicist , I was trained and brought up on it.
When you actually address the points I made in a scientific manner I will respond.Dr. Wise, who is a YE creationist and a paleontologist, disagrees with you. He says the many transitional fossils and series of fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
Biological evolution has a very precise definition. Because you don't know what biological evolution is, it's just vague blob for you.
"Change in allele frequency in a population over time." Or Darwin's phrase, "descent with modification." That's what it is.
Common descent is a consequence of evolution. It is not evolution. You're right, Darwin didn't know if there was a single common ancestor or several. He just supposed that God made the first living things.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species
Of course Linnaeus had discovered long before Darwin, that all living things fit nicely into a family tree, and the discovery of DNA confirmed the tree of Linnaeus and Darwin's prediction; genetics and DNA analyses confirm all known life on Earth had a common origin.
It would be astonishing if any fossil we discovered was the precise individual that gave rise to a major new group. But since evolution happens to populations, not individuals, that's not an issue. Was any herrerasaurus fossil we've found be the one that gave rise to the first dinosaur? The question is absurd. We only know that that species is so close to dinosaurs that by some definitions it is a dinosaur.
No, that's very wrong. There are entire journals of research into cellular evolution.
The evolution of prokaryotes is a history of endosymbiosis:
Our mitochondria, for example, reproduce on their own, using their own bacterial DNA. So do chlorplasts in plants. And such endosymbiosis has been directly observed to evolve. Would you like to learn about that?
Comes down to evidence. DNA analyses show common descent. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. You can believe the evidence is wrong, but all you have to counter the evidence is your belief.
But data from DNA analyses is too complicated for you to get? How so? It doesn’t matter who refuses to believe the data; reality is indifferent to denial. Biology might seem too complex and involved to understand, but remember, it still works according to physical laws. You just have to work a little harder to get it.
It's directly observed.Hint: macroevolution is not a theory , it’s a working hypothesis .
As you see, you don't know much about what YECs believe. Worth checking it out before you tell us about it. Might be, you don't know what "macroevolution" means. What do you think it means in biology?Hint. Starting with “ evidence “ of what a YEC believes? Streuth..
Nope. That's wrong, too. It's Darwin's theory. Not related to any other sort of change. That's why Darwin preferred "descent with modification"; he seems to have anticipated that people would conflate "evolution" with unrelated things.Hint: “ biological evolution “ is by definition only a subset of evolution
Since you don't seem very aware of what evolutionary theory or even YE creationism are about, perhaps you would like to show us what Darwin's OWN falsification criterion is. What do you have?Hint: I note darwins OWN falsification criterion. Not your waffle,
Do show us what Darwin's own falsification criterion is.Your Entire post is demonstration of why getting a degree in one thing, is no evidence that one knows anything at all of other things. As we've just shown, you have a lot of misconceptions about biology.
“If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”Do show us what Darwin's own falsification criterion is.
I’m referring to this:“If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”
Sorry i deal In Formal definitions. You are all over the place.It's directly observed.
Many creationists now admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families evolve from other taxa. They just don't like to use the "e" word.
The Institute for Creation Research says that all the different kinds of cats in world evolved from a single pair of cats on the Ark.
Answers in Genesis says that it's an error to think that new species don't come about from other species.
As you see, you don't know much about what YECs believe. Worth checking it out before you tell us about it. Might be, you don't know what "macroevolution" means. What do you think it means in biology?
Nope. That's wrong, too. It's Darwin's theory. Not related to any other sort of change. That's why Darwin preferred "descent with modification"; he seems to have anticipated that people would conflate "evolution" with unrelated things.
Since you don't seem very aware of what evolutionary theory or even YE creationism are about, perhaps you would like to show us what Darwin's OWN falsification criterion is. What do you have?
Do show us what Darwin's own falsification criterion is.
That is chapter 4-5 from which book?Chap 4 - 5 modes of transition,
"Change in allele frequency in a population" is a formal definition. In fact, it's the scientific definition of biological evolution. You are all over the place; this is biology 101. Maybe it's time to do a little reading and catch upSorry i deal In Formal definitions.
Nope. Darwin, had no idea why new traits appeared. They just did. We now know that it's due to mutation, epistasis, immigration, birth or death of individuals in the population, etc. Since Mendel's work became known, we know why, and with modern molecular biology, we know the mechanism. "Scope" depends on the allele.eg “ change in allele frequency” gives no reason for change , mechanism change, or scope of change.
Immigration is indeed one possible way that it can change. And the population is now genetically different. Interestingly, the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a way we test for selection, and it does matter if there is significant immigration or emigration.I can create allele change by simply mixing two existing populations.
Biological evolution is not about the origin of life, or about "progress." Seriously, you need to do some reading so that you can do better in these discussions.By itself that definition says nothing of the origin or progress of life.
If you don't understand something, it always looks like a blob. My point, exactly.So it is only a tiny part- the word “ evolution” is just an illdefined misused blob.
Could you be bothered to learn about the subject?I can’t be bothered to go blow for blow.
Here's the part they cut out before they gave you that quote-mined snippet:Chap 4 - 5 modes of transition,
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down
I have read all of Darwin's books.If you read his book for yourself, you wouldn't have been that easy to fool. Please consider it.
We see in Exodus 23:29 "But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land."Neanderthals seem to have adapted the anatomically modern human toolkit after they shared the same areas with those humans.
Do you realize they are wearing costumes and that is not how they really dress.Not these guys, either. But both forms are clearly the same subspecies, while Neanderthals are about the same distance from both of them anatomically and genetically.
What they wore has no relevance at all to their relationship.Do you realize they are wearing costumes and that is not how they really dress.
So how is it you didn't know that edited quote you presented was missing a comment that changed the meaning?I have read all of Darwin's books.
And again, the quote has been edited to make it seem other than it is:“If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”
Here's the part they cut out before they gave you that quote-mined snippet:
But I can find no such case.”
A quote from The Origin of Species
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my t...www.goodreads.com
No one else can find one, either. You have one? You're trusting the wrong people. If you read his book for yourself, you wouldn't have been that easy to fool. Please consider it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?