Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 46 of 217 (489662)
11-29-2008 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Beretta
11-29-2008 1:26 AM


Re: Is it a fact?
Do you or do you not agree that the allele frequency of a population changes over time? If you answer no, then please explain why you don't agree with this very observable fact. If you answer yes, then I don't know why you're still talking about this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 1:26 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 2:16 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 53 by Syamsu, posted 11-29-2008 7:48 AM Taz has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 47 of 217 (489664)
11-29-2008 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taz
11-29-2008 1:31 AM


Re: Is it a fact?
Do you or do you not agree that the allele frequency of a population changes over time? If you answer no, then please explain why you don't agree with this very observable fact.
Taz I have no problem with agreeing with observable fact, in fact I'm advocating it - but one must be careful not to obfuscate the issue through definitions that throw in the unobservable, unproven assumptions along with the scientifically verifiable facts. Unfortunately, the abovementioned additives do tend to be thrown in, as though they were proven, when evolution is discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taz, posted 11-29-2008 1:31 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Blue Jay, posted 11-29-2008 5:06 AM Beretta has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 48 of 217 (489666)
11-29-2008 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Beretta
11-29-2008 1:26 AM


Re: Is it a fact?
Taz writes:
Do you or do you not agree that the allele frequency of a population changes over time?
Do you accept Taz's definition of evolution above?
Beretta writes:
I think it can only be decided upon once the proper definitions are given. Are you talking about macro or micro evolution?
Beretta writes:
There has to be a clear division and specification about what is meant by evolution -if it is not specified, it cannot be said to be true or false.
How do you define macro-evolution in terms of the allele frequency of a population? How much change is required for macro-evolution to have occurred by any definition?
If you cannot define macro-evolution in these terms on what basis do you conclude that "macro-evolution" is anything more than a made up term to describe lots of "micro-evolution"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 1:26 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 7:17 AM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 49 of 217 (489668)
11-29-2008 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Beretta
11-29-2008 2:16 AM


Re: Is it a fact?
Beretta writes:
Taz writes:
Do you or do you not agree that the allele frequency of a population changes over time? If you answer no, then please explain why you don't agree with this very observable fact.
Taz I have no problem with agreeing with observable fact, in fact I'm advocating it - but one must be careful not to obfuscate the issue through definitions that throw in the unobservable, unproven assumptions along with the scientifically verifiable facts. Unfortunately, the abovementioned additives do tend to be thrown in, as though they were proven, when evolution is discussed.
Seems like you agree that allele frequencies change over time? (A simple "yes" would have sufficed, you know).
As you've already been told several hundred times, that allele frequency change over time is evolution. That is the very definition of the term "evolution" in the biological sense. When we talk about transitional fossils and speciation, we are only extrapolating this very observable fact that you have accepted to what looks like its inevitable conclusion (this is called "natural history").
The only argument that has been brought against "macroevolution" is that there is no proof that it can happen. But, you and we both agree that allele frequency change over time is a fact. And, when you find a factual pattern in nature, the most logical and parsimonious conclusion is to extrapolate it out. "Macroevolution" is just such an extrapolation from an observed, factual pattern. In these situations, the extrapolation becomes the default position, and does not require any further logical support (this is not to say that ToE has no further support, however: clearly, it does). All energy then must go into testing alternatives (that's the whole concept of Popperian philosophy). If all alternatives fail, the default position is upheld.
So, in effect, you are beating your head against an observable fact of nature. We do not need to prove to you that allele frequency changes can accumulate to the level of "macroevolution": we’ve already proven that they change over time. Rather, you need to prove that allele frequencies eventually stop changing over time. Otherwise, you have nothing that can stop evolutionary natural history from playing out the way we've been telling you that is did. There is no evidence that allele frequencies stop changing over time, and, until there is some evidence for it, the default position---namely, evolutionary natural history---is still upheld.
Edited by Bluejay, : Clarifications.
Edited by Bluejay, : Spelling.
Edited by Bluejay, : I'm a perfectionist.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 2:16 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 7:14 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 50 of 217 (489675)
11-29-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Blue Jay
11-29-2008 5:06 AM


Change in allele frequencies
A change in allele frequencies over time is too broad a classification considering that it implies unprovable assumptions as a natural extrapolation of evidential science, so I'd have to say no I don't agree in that case.
Ihe implication behind Darwinism is that all organisms originated from a common ancestor over millions of years. That is, mutations, gene duplication mistakes, and natural selection not only lead to changes in allele frequencies, but also caused mice to become men or microbes to become scientists given enough time.
There is no reason to doubt that the observable process of natural selection does occur (as does speciation); however, observing speciation is not the same as postulating that mutations and natural selection could result in the microbes to men scenario.
Evidentially, natural selection can only act upon the genetic information that already exists.
What are often referred to as the “mechanics of evolution” blur the line between what we can repeatedly test and see (e.g., natural selection, reactivation of dormant traits and characteristics) and what is supposition about past events (e.g., the origin of whales).
So, in effect, you are beating your head against an observable fact of nature.
Have you observed a dog population become anything but more dogs? That's because they only have dog alleles.
Anything more would be pure conjecture and certainly not based on observable,repeatable science.So perhaps it is you beating your head against an observable fact of nature.
In these situations, the extrapolation becomes the default position, and does not require any further logical support
You are calling that logic??
There is no evidence that allele frequencies stop changing over time
So I must just take your word for it against all the experimental evidence that shows clear limitations. Even after many thousands of generations of bacterial genetic research that produces nothing but variations of bacteria, I must have faith and believe that more generations and more time will prove what you have already assumed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Blue Jay, posted 11-29-2008 5:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by fallacycop, posted 11-29-2008 11:52 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 11-29-2008 3:55 PM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 51 of 217 (489676)
11-29-2008 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
11-29-2008 4:48 AM


Is it a fact?
Do you accept Taz's definition of evolution above?
Not as such. Given observable experimental limitations, perhaps, but not in the unlimited sense. That would require a faith I do not possess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2008 4:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2008 7:53 AM Beretta has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 217 (489677)
11-29-2008 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Beretta
11-29-2008 1:26 AM


Re: Is it a fact?
Beretta writes:
Frankly Percy, I think it can only be decided upon once the proper definitions are given.
I agree. But the proper definitions have been given, many times.
The fossils in the geologic column are a record of change over time. Allele frequencies change over time. These are facts.
Perhaps the problem for you is that they are non-obvious facts that required a great deal of research to tease out. Perhaps you would prefer if we didn't refer to non-obvious facts as facts, but then your problem is with the English language. That the planets orbit the sun and not the Earth is also a non-obvious fact, but fact is what we call it because it has been so well-confirmed by evidence.
You raised the issue of macroevolution, and while no has been going around saying "macroevolution is a fact," quite clearly it is, as there are enormous changes represented in the fossil record.
Perhaps it is the description of the fossils in the geologic column as a record of change over time that you do not like. Perhaps you would prefer to call it a record of continual new creation over time with differences from previous forms ranging from tiny to huge. But whatever terms you use to describe the facts, this still isn't a thread about theories explaining them. This thread is neither about creation nor intelligent design nor the theory of evolution.
If you'd like to talk about the merits of the theory of evolution as an explanation for this change over time then you should propose a new thread. Or you could peruse the topics over at the [forum=-5] forum to see if one matches what you'd like to discuss. But unlike your last visit, please stay on-topic this time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 1:26 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 8:03 AM Percy has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 53 of 217 (489680)
11-29-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taz
11-29-2008 1:31 AM


Re: Is it a fact?
I think we have to make a distinction between the facts of nature, and facts we manufacture for our own use. For example the moon is white and the wall is white, the wall is whiter than the moon. Now in my opinion the moon is white, and the wall is white are facts of nature, because the light shines of the moon. But the fact the wall is whiter than the moon is manufactured by the observer, by comparing.
So to be objective we have to be careful to make a distinction between information streams in nature, and information we manufacture ourselves.
So then is evolution a fact of nature, or is it a manufactured fact of ourselves. It is the last, generally.
For evolution to be true to fact there must be an actual relationship between organisms based on their difference. But instead what we see in general is that organisms that are the same are generally more likely to have a relationship to each other of some sort, than if they are different. This is because in general organisms in a population that are the same do the same things. They go for the same food, the same shelter etc. they actually interact much, while when they are different they are generally less likely to interact.
So evolution is a manufactured fact, nature does not actually evolve, since organisms do not interact based on difference.
And even when we allow the manufactured fact of evolution, we should consider that populations are more accurately described by stasis, rather then evolution, because they stay the same more than they change. So the primary manufactured fact is stasis, evolution a secondary fact.
Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.
Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taz, posted 11-29-2008 1:31 AM Taz has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 217 (489682)
11-29-2008 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Beretta
11-29-2008 7:17 AM


Re: Is it a fact?
Taz writes:
Do you or do you not agree that the allele frequency of a population changes over time?
Do you accept Taz's definition of evolution above?
Not as such. Given observable experimental limitations, perhaps, but not in the unlimited sense. That would require a faith I do not possess.
OK. So if evolution is not the change of allele frequencies in a population over time what is it?
Are you suggesting that there is a limit to allele frequency change in a population such that "macro-evolution" is not possible?
Or are you claiming that there is another definition of evolution that has this built-in restriction that makes "macro-evolution" impossible? If so what is this alternate definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 7:17 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 8:24 AM Straggler has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 55 of 217 (489683)
11-29-2008 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
11-29-2008 7:34 AM


What is a fact?
The fossils in the geologic column are a record of change over time.
Not a fact; an interpratation of the fact that there are many bones lying dead and fossilized in the earth.
Allele frequencies change over time.
Fact only within the limits of our experimental results, not to be confused with microbes to man evolution which is an unwarranted extrapolation of the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 11-29-2008 7:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 11-29-2008 10:39 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 56 of 217 (489684)
11-29-2008 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Straggler
11-29-2008 7:53 AM


What is evolution?
Allele frequencies change over time.
However innocuous the definition might sound, the implication behind Darwinism is that all organisms originated from a common ancestor over millions of years. That is, mutations, gene duplication mistakes, and natural selection not only lead to changes in allele frequencies, but also caused bacteria to turn into men with time.
So we move from fact to supposition or fiction depending on whether it is true or not.
So evolution is perhaps more aptly described as a limited change in allele frequencies over time. A cake mix changes over time in the oven - so while we admit change, we know that it has limits as it's ingredients only allow it to change into a cake.
Dog genes have instructions to make dogs with varying allele frequencies; the same for human genes and for everything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2008 7:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Syamsu, posted 11-29-2008 8:33 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2008 1:52 PM Beretta has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 57 of 217 (489685)
11-29-2008 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Beretta
11-29-2008 8:24 AM


Re: What is evolution?
In talking about changing over time, you should consider when someting is new.
Now if the change is a consequence of the ingredients, its not much new, since then the information already seems to be present in the future of the ingredients.
You need to answer the question when is something really new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 8:24 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 8:51 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 58 of 217 (489687)
11-29-2008 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Syamsu
11-29-2008 8:33 AM


Re: What is evolution?
Sorry Syamsu, I'm not sure I get your point.
Perhaps you mean how do you get variation if the ingredients only allow for a cake? If so then lets extend the metaphor and say that we have a number of ingredients to make a number of different cakes and we randomly choose which cake we want and put those ingredients together. We'll still end up with a cake but differences depend on what ingredients we chose.
So with humans, we'll only ever get a human but he may have blue eyes and dark hair rather than green eyes and blond hair.
Ingredients for certain combinations may not be available and some ingredients may override others (Mendelian genetics) but the result will only ever be human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Syamsu, posted 11-29-2008 8:33 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 217 (489696)
11-29-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Beretta
11-29-2008 8:03 AM


Re: What is a fact?
Beretta writes:
Percy writes:
The fossils in the geologic column are a record of change over time.
Not a fact; an interpretation of the fact that there are many bones lying dead and fossilized in the earth.
And that the Earth orbits the sun and not vice-versa is an interpretation of many, many individual astronomical observations. And yet we call it a fact.
You're using a quibble about usage of the word "fact" to shift the topic of discussion from this thread's topic, which is the confusion surrounding evolution as both fact and theory, to something that is not the topic of this thread, which is the evidence supporting evolution.
Allele frequencies change over time.
Fact only within the limits of our experimental results, not to be confused with microbes to man evolution which is an unwarranted extrapolation of the facts.
Again, this thread is about evolution as fact versus evolution as theory. If what you want to do is argue simple facts, like changes in allele frequency over time which occurs even in the microevolutionary processes that creationists do not deny, then you need to find a thread where that would be on-topic.
I understand that the tack you're taking is that the facts upon which the phrase "evolution is a fact" is based are not actually facts, but that issue is beyond the scope of this thread.
You exhibited this same persistence in going off-topic during your last visit. If you persist I'll remove your posting privileges in this forum. What you want to discuss are perfectly legitimate topics, but they are not the topic of this thread. If you propose a new topic or two I'll promote them as quickly as I can.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 8:03 AM Beretta has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 60 of 217 (489702)
11-29-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Beretta
11-29-2008 7:14 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies
So I must just take your word for it against all the experimental evidence that shows clear limitations. Even after many thousands of generations of bacterial genetic research that produces nothing but variations of bacteria
Well, clearly "many thousands of generations" is still a very small number of generations. This does not count as evidence against evolution simply because the kind of evolution you are looking for would take many more generations then that and shouldn't be expected to be observed in the lab. Would you care to show us any REAL experimental evidence against evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 7:14 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 1:01 AM fallacycop has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024