Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Sensei, are you familiar with the psychological concept of "projection"?Mutate and Survive

Hi K.Rose, There really aren't. Not really. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that demands common ancestry. It's just that when we look at the evidence, such as genetics and the fossil record, we see common ancestry. It is perfectly easy to conceive of a world where there were two origins of life and both of those went on to evolve and diversify into two varied but wholly separate biota. Nothing about the ToE would be violated by such a scenario. It's just that that's not what happened here on Earth.The fact that Christian creationists dislike the idea of universal common ancestry as much as they dislike the ToE doesn't mean that the two ideas are inextricable from one another. By random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift... you know, all the stuff that you would find in any basic biology textbook. This information is not a secret. Yes and yes. I'm curious however; what would you consider a satisfactory example of this? What would you have to see to conclude that - for instance - speciation is real? I ask because in a previous post you said this; This is problematic because, as others have already pointed out to you, that is not how evolution works. If we observed a dog giving birth to a non-dog IT WOULD DISPROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.The ToE would be falsified by such a thing, dead in the water, finito, kaput. Bereft of life, it would rest in peace... it would be an ex-theory, etc. So you can see why I'm keen for you to define your conditions for sufficient evidence. It's no use you demanding evidence for something that no-one is claiming. Citation needed I think. Care to share your source for that howler?Spoiler Alert; you won't be able to show any reputable scientific source for that claim because it's not true. What is it with internet Christians and weird capitalisation? It's so odd.Mutate and Survive

Sorry to be a downer, but... have you seriously considered the possibility that you really don't know what you're talking about? Because I don't want to insult or demean you, but you do come across as not understanding some pretty basic concepts in evolutionary biology. This is not intended to belittle or ridicule you. I'm not framing this as some sort of personal failing on your part. It's just that biology is a huge field. The basics of evolutionary theory are simple enough, but scratch the surface and it gets complicated very fast. Not everyone is going to be well informed in a field like that, especially if they haven't received any formal education in the subject. Have you ever taken any kind of biology course? If not, how could you possibly be expected to know the subject?Take me for example; I know bugger all about physics. It's not a subject I understand well enough to hold forth on. That's why I rarely take part in online discussions about physics. I simply don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion or even ask sensible questions really. There's no shame in that. It's just not something I've learned much about. I think it would be somewhat shameful though if I, from my position of relative ignorance, went around making sweeping accusations about the validity of physics or the professionalism of physicists. That would be poor form.Not that I'm any kind of expert on the subject of biology. I have no formal education there either. But at least I know a little bit, enough to not embarrass myself too frequently. And... I just don't think you do. You just don't seem to understand the subject of evolution, even the basics. Sorry, I know that's not flattering, but personally, I value candour above false flattery.I recently saw an internet atheist lecturing in the comments of a Youtube video about how the canon of the New Testament was set at the Council of Nicaea, an utterly false talking point literally taken from The Da Vinci Code. It's hard to take someone seriously when they make errors like that. It's like if I were to attack the Bible by complaining that I don't believe the bit where Jesus rides to Mecca on a flying horse. This is what you're doing. You're complaining about strawmen. It's probably not your fault. You've probably been exposed to some pretty shoddy depictions of the ToE. It is a problem though if you're going to continue asking questions that betray your lack of understanding of the subject, especially if you are going to refuse to even contemplate the possibility that your knowledge of evolution is in any way faulty.Mutate and Survive

Hi ICANT,That was a hypothetical, not a suggestion about actual reality. It was only meant to illustrate a point, that whilst evolution is critical to common ancestry, universal common ancestry is not essential to the ToE.Mutate and Survive

Hi Percy,There's a fascinating article here that K.Rose, with his distaste for genealogy, might find worrisome. It's about finding murderers not simply by their DNA, but by tracing their relatives' DNA. Your DNA Test Could Send a Relative to JailNew York Times MagazineThese are cases where they have the killer's DNA, they just don't know their identity. Without a match from criminal databases, they instead compared the DNA to big genealogy databases, looking not for the killer, but their relatives. With that information they can narrow it down, identify the suspect and match their DNA to the original forensics. Clever stuff.I guess K.Rose must regard these cases as miscarriages of justice. I would be interested to hear his explanation for how this method could possibly work if genetic comparisons cannot be used to infer relatedness.Mutate and Survive

Hi K.Rose, That is fortunate for the ToE. That is what the ToE actually predicts. If we observed say, a prokaryote giving rise to a non-prokaryote, that would falsify the ToE. By the same token, if we observed a dog giving birth to a non-dog, that would falsify the ToE. Is there some reason why microbes can't undergo macroevolution? Macroevolution only means evolution at or above species level. It doesn't mean "evolution of things that are big". A quest! How grand. What exactly has this quest consisted of so far? Does it include any formal education on the subject of biology at all?Mutate and Survive

I hear you and I understand that macroevolution and universal common ancestry are the amongst the biggest objections creationists have, with the common ancestry of humans and apes being perhaps the biggest problem. My concern though is that you appear to have an inaccurate - if familiar - view of what macroevolution is and what it entails. To be clear; Microorganisms can undergo macroevolution. Macroevolution is simply change at or above species level. There is no reason why microbes can't display change above species level and indeed they do exactly that. Macroevolution in microbes is still macroevolution.Do you take issue with that or are we on the same page? Macroevolution is not a dog giving birth to a non-dog. That is not an accurate characterisation of macroevolution nor is it a prediction of the Theory of Evolution. In fact, if we observed a dog giving birth to a non-dog it would destroy the ToE.Do you take issue with that or are we on the same page?I've got to say, if you take only one thing away from this conversation I wish it could be that you understood that evolution does not predict such things.Mutate and Survive

That's fair. I was more focused on the other related points, but yes, I agree that microevolution and macroevolution are the same process, just viewed at different scales.Mutate and Survive

Personally I don't think that the term is very helpful one, but as far as it means anything, that is pretty much what it means. Nonetheless, I agree that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution adding up. It's the same process. I do get that. I also think you're right in suspecting that K.Rose... let's be diplomatic... isn't going to see it way. It's a familiar bone of contention. Perfect sense. I agree with all of that.I wish we needn't use the term at all, given that it is so easily misunderstood, but creationists will bring it up. Sadly, their usual definition of macroevolution is "change beyond the level that I am prepared to admit".For now I am more focused on the points I raised:The "micro" in "microorganism" and the "macro" in "macroevolution" do not negate or oppose each other in any way. Microbes can undergo macroevolution.Dogs dogs begetting non-dogs isn't a prediction of the Theory of Evolution and would be strong evidence against it.I would be really interested to know what K.Rose has to say about that.Mutate and Survive
​

Yeah, I wonder if it's a linguistic mix-up or if it's part of the broader creationist trend of denying macroevolution in any organism with a fast enough life cycle to for evolutionary change to be obvious in a practical experiment. What's always struck me is how little interest creationists typically show in the natural world. They don't seem that interested in wildlife, don't seem to know much about it. Your passion for dragonflies is not something we see replicated in the creationists who've posted here at least. It's weird. These are, after all, the same people who supposedly believe that the supreme being of the universe made all these things for their specific benefit and then explicitly placed them in charge of it all... and it's like they don't want to know. I can never get over how odd that is. Hopefully because the ones who do cease to be creationists.Mutate and Survive