[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is not based on empirical evidence

[Guest]

8-) Just Explain Science to him!

 

[Blazin Bones]

To keebs: I do indeed need definitions to discuss with you all fairly, and for heathen, with as little a condescending attitude as possible.

To Tua: Evolution has not been proven. But if that staement Is wrong I shall wait until you and BL bring it up in the debate to further understand your stance.

 

[Asimov]

To Tua: Evolution has not been proven. But if that staement Is wrong I shall wait until you and BL bring it up in the debate to further understand your stance.

Even BL accepts that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is defined as "the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". This has been observed on many occasions, and is still being observed.

If by unproven, you mean the Theory of Evolution, then yes. It has not been proven, and I'm not advocating that it has.

 

[Asimov]

8-) Just Explain Science to him!

He doesn't need an explanation of what science is. I've already posted what science is, so I need go no further.

 

[Blazin Bones]

[quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":af885]To Tua: Evolution has not been proven. But if that staement Is wrong I shall wait until you and BL bring it up in the debate to further understand your stance.

Even BL accepts that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is defined as "the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". This has been observed on many occasions, and is still being observed.

If by unproven, you mean the Theory of Evolution, then yes. It has not been proven, and I'm not advocating that it has.[/quote:af885]

I don't call the change in the allele frequency evolution, It's adaptation. I think this is merely a difference of opinion. Adaptation, I will agree, can be interchangable with microevolution.

 

[Asimov]

[quote="The Tuatha'an":cbb97][quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":cbb97]To Tua: Evolution has not been proven. But if that staement Is wrong I shall wait until you and BL bring it up in the debate to further understand your stance.

Even BL accepts that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is defined as "the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". This has been observed on many occasions, and is still being observed.

If by unproven, you mean the Theory of Evolution, then yes. It has not been proven, and I'm not advocating that it has.[/quote:cbb97]

I don't call the change in the allele frequency evolution, It's adaptation. I think this is merely a difference of opinion. Adaptation, I will agree, can be interchangable with microevolution.[/quote:cbb97]


This is where you are wrong. The change in allele frequency is evolution. It is the very definition of evolution. Any other definition is wrong, because it's not accepted by the scientific field.

There are two things in evolution. The fact (see definition) and the Theory.

The fact of evolution is seen in organisms changing over successive generations.

The Theory of Evolution is seen in the fossil record. The Theory is used to explain the relationships between organisms, more commonly known as the Origin of Species.

Evolution is comprised of:

Natural Selection
Genetic Drift
Mutation
Recombination
Gene Flow


Within these different methods (some increase genetic variation, some decrease), are what is known as speciation and adaptation by some of you.

Speciation is a mechanism of macro evolution.
Adaptation is a mechanism of micro evolution.

Macro and micro evolution are simply human distinctions. They do not exist in the real world. Micro evolution is small changes of small periods of time....macro evolution is small changes leading up to difference species over a larger period of time.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Tuatha'an, I follow, don't agree, but nonetheless follow what you are saying. That break down you provided, is similar to the One keebs gave me earlier. I still look forward to seeing this topic in the debate. Which, I must say is teaching me a lot already. 8-)

 

[Asimov]

Tuatha'an, I follow, don't agree, but nonetheless follow what you are saying. That break down you provided, is similar to the One keebs gave me earlier. I still look forward to seeing this topic in the debate. Which, I must say is teaching me a lot already. 8-)

Whether or not you agree is irrelevant though. This is what evolution is.[/b]

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Tuatha'an, I follow, don't agree, but nonetheless follow what you are saying. That break down you provided, is similar to the One keebs gave me earlier. I still look forward to seeing this topic in the debate. Which, I must say is teaching me a lot already. 8-)

Debate over a set definition is pointless. You're attempting to push goalposts set by other people, because you don't like were they have set them.

 

[Highlander]

You are talking at cross-purposes. One believes (bl) evolution is an ancient religion, another believes that evolution is BECOMING a religion. Neither are right, as T has pointed out the definition of religion quite well, nevertheless, some arguments are not getting the difference between the two points.