[__ Science __ ] Think You Know How Evolution Works? You’re Wrong (Because They Changed the Definition)

[AIG.com]

A recent article defined evolution according to a definition from Richard Dawkins: “evolution is changed gene frequencies in populations.”

Continue reading...

 

[John Doe Smith]

There’s no known naturalistic method that can create brand-new genetic information.

Ummmm, mutation? It happens really often because of how prone to error gene copying is in reproduction.

Mutation and Evolution

biology-pages.info

I looked through this website for acticles about mutation. The definition of "beneficial" isn't really clearly defined. Neither is "upward" or "downward". Beneficial in an evolutionary context just means being able to reproduce more.

ake away the antibiotics, though, and the mutant bacteria may not be able to compete well with the normal bacteria for limited nutrients in the environment.

Why assume so? There's no reason to suspect their repoductive ability is lesser.

Genes linked to antibiotic-resistant superbugs found in Arctic

Discovery of genes, possibly carried by birds or humans, shows rapid spread of crisis

www.theguardian.com

This also caught my attention.

Wingless beetles are still beetles. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria. Hairless dogs are still dogs.

If these changes effect which parents can repoduce, not exactly. Taxonomy as a whole is an abstraction humans made for convenience. "Dog" and "beetle" are only useful simplifications. Like all abstractions, they are only so useful and can cause confusion. Why is the platypus a mammal? Because it is warm-blooded. So why does it lay eggs? Because it is a oviparous. What is "oviparous"? Something people made up because it's easier. Whenever something like a slime mold was found that can't be easily clasified, they made up a new group for it.

 

[Barbarian]

A recent article defined evolution according to a definition from Richard Dawkins: “evolution is changed gene frequencies in populations.”

Yes. Prior to the 20th century, the definition was (Darwin's terms) "descent with modification." After the rediscovery of Mendel's work, it was refined to the present term. It's always meant the same thing.

AiG seems to have confused evolution with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent.

It should be noted that AiG recognizes the fact of natural selection, and admits a limited amount of common descent.

 

[Edward]

I have an evolution question. If evolution is true, natural selection, survival of the fittest and all that, then why do we help the poor?

 

[Truthfrees]

A recent article defined evolution according to a definition from Richard Dawkins: “evolution is changed gene frequencies in populations.”

Continue reading...

always great articles - your clear logic cuts through the moving goalpost tactics

liked this part:

"What is evolution? Well, that really depends on whom you ask. There are all kinds of definitions out there. Typically, when we think of evolution, we think of Darwinian evolution—the idea of all life descended from a common ancestor as one kind turns into another kind, and eventually ape-like creatures supposedly evolved into humans. But now we often hear a very different definition: those small changes within a kind are, well, evolution!

Shop Now

A recent article defined evolution according to a definition from famous evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins: “evolution is changed gene frequencies in populations.” The article goes on to state:

If, for some reason, a given gene in a patch of weeds, say, gets slightly more or less common from one generation to the next,evolution has happened.
The gene doesn’t have to confer a survival advantage, or be “adaptive” or make the weed “fitter”. It doesn’t have to be “selected for” or increase biological complexity. It simply has to change in frequency, maybe by chance. That is all.

"

 

[stovebolts]

It should be noted that AiG recognizes the fact of natural selection, and admits a limited amount of common descent.

To my knowledge, they always have, so to say they admit this, is not to say they've changed their view or are admitting to a previous error in their position.

In the below link, there is a video that I first watched years ago that discusses this very topic. Let me know what you think.

Natural Selection Is Not Evolution!

Evolutionists often refer to natural selection as equivalent to biological evolution. Is this claim warranted by the observation evidence?

answersingenesis.org

 

[Barbarian]

That's correct. Far as I know, they've always acknowledged the fact of natural selection, speciation, and a limited amount of common descent.

That's not true of all such organizations, but I believe it's true of AiG. Didn't mean to imply that they had recently changed their position on these points.

 

[stovebolts]

That's correct. Far as I know, they've always acknowledged the fact of natural selection, speciation, and a limited amount of common descent.

That's not true of all such organizations, but I believe it's true of AiG. Didn't mean to imply that they had recently changed their position on these points.

I've always appreciated AIG because they don't pit science against the Bible and even though they disagree with Evolution, they seem respectful.

 

[Barbarian]

I've always appreciated AIG because they don't pit science against the Bible and even though they disagree with Evolution, they seem respectful.

There used to be one fellow there who sometimes got out of hand, but reading their material now, I have to say that they are one of the best creationist sites out there.