Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Please see Message 5!

What substantiated? Every farmer in forever knows this. You say you have seen evidence. You didn't understand it? It was not in the right format? What substantiated? Your kids almost, but not quite, look like you. Not every puppy in the liter is a clone. I think that 'descent with modification' is well substantiated.If you want to discuss how this 'modification' takes place then take a look first at meiosis of the germline cells then at mutation vectors. We can go from there.Also, realize that Evolution works on populations not individuals. You will want to understand the concept of a gene pool and allele frequency within that pool. You can't adequately discuss anything evolution without these concepts in place. You're looking at the wrong data or misinterpreting what you see or expect to see. Common with highly complex systems when a person's knowledge is limited and wrong. First understand that evolution is not a process but hundreds of processes in unison and in conflict, creating both life and death.

What are you talking about? The preponderance is formed by many thousands, millions, of data points. Chart populations over time. The changes in allele frequency is a major process in evolution. It is the conglomeration of the data that is overwhelming, not any single data point. If you want to see a single data point for evolution take a look in the mirror then get yourself a statistics class and study population dynamics. And study nested hierarchies. They are vital in understanding descent in evolution.What did you expect to see? New animals pop into existence? What are you looking for that would show you evolution?

But not the same species. You know there are different species of corn? We modify the genes of one species and make a whole new species of corn. That is directed evolution. Like selective breeding on the farm.When a gene change happens whether natural or artificial the allele frequency for the population has been changed to add the new variants. If those variants come over time to appear in larger portions of the population that population has evolved.Change in allele frequency. Evolution. Lots of different definitions for evolution. All of them correct.

Why? Do you think you can comprehend the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon by looking at one scatter plot?It appears you do not comprehend the static single item of the scientific method. How can you hope to comprehend the complex interplay of thousands of different process like evolution by seeing one example? It's a dog. Big deal.Can you see the frequency charts for the dog population? Can you read the charts of the dog population to determine changes in the allele frequency? Can you see those charts spread over multiple dozens of generations? That is a clear demonstrative example of evolution.If you're expecting a single proof case easy on the mind without too much thought then you are in the wrong world.

Irrelevant. You do not know what a scientific theory is. If you did you would define it as asked.
Just a troll.

Physicists do not have a clear definition of "physics". Scientists do not have a clear definition of "science". Mathematicians do not have a clear definition of "mathematics". Artists do not have a clear definition of "art".

Are you serious? Reproduction, every single reproductive event is the verification. It has been observed for millennia that offspring do not exactly resemble their parents, like they would if they were exact clones. Every offspring carries mutations that did not occur in the parents. That's the descent with modification or the genetic part of evolution. And selection is the other aspect of the process that plays out on the tapestry of populations across time. Really? So you are saying, the pictures and explanations were NOT showing and describing and explaining the supporting evidence?What were the pictures and explanations for if not showing the supporting evidence? You mean like mapping and comparing the genomes of tens of thousands of species, and often from multiple populations of a species, that kind of hard repeatable data? You mean like mapping the paleo-biogeographical history of this planet, that kind of hard repeatable data? You mean like cataloging all the endogenous retroviral insertion in all the genomes that are sequenced, that kind of hard repeatable data?I don't know about your scientific method, but our scientific method is chugging along just fine on that data. And by the way, these huge datasets generated by rapidly advancing genome sequencing technology are being combed for hidden patterns are wonderful testing grounds for AI systems that are good at looking for interesting patterns.ABE: It occurred to me that maybe by "hard repeatable data" you meant something like fossils, going and finding the same type of fossils from the same rock layers? Or maybe you meant you wanted the actual fossils instead of pictures and descriptions?

Let's have a look. Could you present some of it here?--Percy

Probably about the same time he tells us how he defines scientific theory

Evidently you are incapable of reading with comprehension. Le's try again. Do you disagree with this?

quote:

---

The Scientific Meaning of the Terms
People working outside of science often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
Outside the science community , if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon that is generally accepted as being true because it is based on large amounts of empirical evidence.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is a prediction based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the continental drift theory, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories have been tested and verified and are generally accepted by scientists beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

---

Hypothesis, theory, law - Google Docs

Yep, that's exactly what he expects to see. The problem here is, no matter how many times and how many ways we try to correct his basic misunderstanding of evolution, he will continue to think evolution is an organism giving birth to a "wholly different lifeform."

Here are some:<link removed>
<link removed>
<link removed>
<link removed>
<link removed>

Here are some:http//stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html
https//evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
https//web.neomed.edu/web/anatomy/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html
http//www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
https//<link removed>

Here are some:Stones and Bones: Emergence of New Species
The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution
Whale Origins
Philip D. Gingerich