Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Proving evolution?
December 29, 2022 at 5:31 pm
Yes, I Googled it (but, I knew exactly what I was after):
Quote:Evolution is change in the genetic composition of populations. In nature, individuals reproduce, die, and move among populations, leading to changes in the population frequency of the alleles they carry.
PNAS -- Allele frequency dynamics in a pedigreed natural population
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Proving evolution?
December 29, 2022 at 5:55 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2022 at 6:02 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(December 29, 2022 at 4:35 pm)Angrboda Wrote: (December 29, 2022 at 4:08 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's not even the theory of evolution. Inheritance with variation is genetics. Mendel worked that one out. Still a useful example. Let's say that inheritance with variation is not the way anything works - we would still be searching for why parents children are similar, but not identical. That's the observation that a theory or hypothesis attempts to explain.
Yes, that is the theory of evolution. No, that's not what Mendel worked out. And now, you've worn out your welcome with bullshit defenses.
........?
Bullshit defenses of what? That is not the theory of evolution, which is called modern snyth - which does include but is not fully described by genetics, which mendel did work out. Now, we could possibly bicker over whether it was just or only mendel...just as we could note that there were people other than darwin working on ns - which is also included in evolutionary theory. However, none of that will change the fact that what you described is not the theory of evolution, nor will it change the fact that a scientific theory is an explanation for a thing, and not the thing itself. That theories can and have been wrong, but the observations they were meant to explain survive their abandonment.
That theory is supported by a pile of successful multi-disciplinary theories and factual observations - the bit another poster mentioned about a rabbit, for example..coming from geology and physics. Modern synth is so strong, as a matter of interest, that finding an animal in "the wrong place" would cause us (and has caused us) to reconsider our knowledge of the geology of an area, or the physics of a dating method, before it would cause us to reconsider whether environmental circumstances can exert selective pressures on population genetics. If the whole bit, from top to bottom, biology to geology to physics were all wrong..we would still be in search of some explanation for the changes we can directly observe in life, and for the evidence of those changes we also find in the fossil record (and, not for nothing..for pretty much every other observed thing as well - hence the theory's moniker as the most well supported of all scientific theories). We might...then... as some creationist nuts do, contend that these changes occur because gods speak them into being, and because gods want them to be that way. That is evolution by magic and artificial selection, as opposed to evolution by genetics and natural selection.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 19881
Threads: 324
Joined: July 31, 2016
Reputation:
34
RE: Proving evolution?
December 29, 2022 at 7:15 pm
I'll just leave this here:
"The term Darwinism was used for the evolutionary ideas of others, including Spencer's "survival of the fittest" as free-market progress, and Ernst Haeckel's polygenistic ideas of human development."
Posts: 4443
Threads: 13
Joined: September 27, 2018
Reputation:
17
RE: Proving evolution?
December 29, 2022 at 7:51 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2022 at 8:31 pm by Belacqua.)
(December 29, 2022 at 4:35 pm)Angrboda Wrote: (December 29, 2022 at 4:08 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's not even the theory of evolution. Inheritance with variation is genetics. Mendel worked that one out. Still a useful example. Let's say that inheritance with variation is not the way anything works - we would still be searching for why parents children are similar, but not identical. That's the observation that a theory or hypothesis attempts to explain.
Yes, that is the theory of evolution. No, that's not what Mendel worked out. And now, you've worn out your welcome with bullshit defenses.
I stand corrected.
Posts: 46031
Threads: 538
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Proving evolution?
December 29, 2022 at 8:07 pm
(December 29, 2022 at 10:45 am)Jehanne Wrote: The moden neo-Darwinian paradigm has made testable predictions over the last century, some of which have been verified; as a scientific model and description of life, it is eminently falsifiable, but, to date, not a single reversal in the fossil record has been found. To claim that evolution can someday be disproven is to claim that we will all awake someday to discover that Science has, finally, discovered the Earth to be flat. While theoretically possible, such is vastly, vastly improbable.
(December 29, 2022 at 7:51 pm)Belacqua Wrote: (December 29, 2022 at 4:35 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Yes, that is the theory of evolution. No, that's not what Mendel worked out. And now, you've worn out your welcome with bullshit defenses.
I think when people talk about the "theory of evolution" today, they include natural selection as a key part of this.
Mendel didn't know about this. Darwin figured it out.
Actually, Mendel knew a great deal about Darwin and his theory of natural selection.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-019-0289-9
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 19881
Threads: 324
Joined: July 31, 2016
Reputation:
34
RE: Proving evolution?
December 29, 2022 at 8:51 pm
Wasn't there a letter from Darwin to Mendel, found in Mendel's desk after he died. Unopen?
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Proving evolution?
December 29, 2022 at 9:33 pm
(December 29, 2022 at 8:51 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Wasn't there a letter from Darwin to Mendel, found in Mendel's desk after he died. Unopen?
Other way around, but, Darwin never read Mendel''s letter.
Posts: 10675
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Proving evolution?
December 30, 2022 at 11:47 am
(December 29, 2022 at 2:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: (December 29, 2022 at 11:18 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Any given theory -of- evolution may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that evolution were false..because life does, in fact, change.
That sounds like an equivocation.
Any given theory -of- gravity may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that gravity were false.
Does this also sound like an equivocation? I think Nudger made a reasonably clear distinction between the theory of evolution and evolution.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Posts: 29599
Threads: 116
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Proving evolution?
December 30, 2022 at 11:54 am
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2022 at 11:57 am by Angrboda.)
(December 30, 2022 at 11:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: (December 29, 2022 at 2:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: That sounds like an equivocation.
Any given theory -of- gravity may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that gravity were false.
Does this also sound like an equivocation? I think Nudger made a reasonably clear distinction between the theory of evolution and evolution.
The term biological evolution is using 'evolution' in a more limited sense than the sense in which evolution simply means 'change'. They are two distinct meanings/senses, thus using one to comment on the other is an equivocation.
To use your example term, it would be akin to saying, "The theory of gravity is false because gravity means a matter having great weight and the theory of gravity has no defined weight."
Posts: 29599
Threads: 116
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Proving evolution?
December 30, 2022 at 12:20 pm
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2022 at 12:22 pm by Angrboda.)
(December 30, 2022 at 11:54 am)Angrboda Wrote: (December 30, 2022 at 11:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Any given theory -of- gravity may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that gravity were false.
Does this also sound like an equivocation? I think Nudger made a reasonably clear distinction between the theory of evolution and evolution.
The term biological evolution is using 'evolution' in a more limited sense than the sense in which evolution simply means 'change'. They are two distinct meanings/senses, thus using one to comment on the other is an equivocation.
To use your example term, it would be akin to saying, "The theory of gravity is false because gravity means a matter having great weight and the theory of gravity has no defined weight."
A clearer explanation would be thus: Evolution in the field of biology refers to the change in alleles in populations of biological organisms. Evolution in the sense that Nudger used it the second time simply means change, but not of a specific type. All organisms are undergoing change all the time, but the change which biology terms evolution is not occurring all the time, as changes in alleles in populations only occur at the birth / conception of a new organism. Thus the two meanings of evolution are distinct and Nudger was using two different definitions of change in the same comparison.
|