The allele frequency definition you just rejected answers exactly that question. That definition is not intended to describe the whole of evolution; it’s intended to mark the boundaries of the subject. If it involves a change in allele frequency, we consider it evolution. If not, no. For a description of what it is that evolutionary biology studies, “descent with modification” is much better, but for demarcation, the frequency definition is good.
Why does it matter, anyway? We don’t have a clear definition of what a “particle” is – and certainly not one that’s been stable across time – and the boundaries of the field are pretty fuzzy, yet particle physicists manage to study particles anyway.
That’s an excellent idea for people who are truly interested in learning some facts. Your librarians can help you find books. You can take courses in biology for very little money at a community college. Coursera.org has a wealth of free or inexpensive courses in biology, genetics, etc. and many start at a very basic level suitable for folks who just graduated from high school.
“Do you agree that Christian scientists have a large area …” - my opinion doesn’t matter.
“…it took 500 million (5 x 10^8) years across an entire globe…” - what does another year and another gallon add? Lenski designed his experiment to demonstrate evolution and he failed. So did Miller–Urey with their abiogenesis experiment. Feel free to design a better experiment.
I am not dismissing anything. Just pointing out that Evolution doesn’t meet the ‘scientific method’.
“Lenski has no real idea of how to challenge the genetics…” - so you agree is a failed experiment just like Miller-Urey? But not for lack of trying. Feel free to design a better experiment. Beyond that, I am not sure what your point is.
That’s not good enough, as alleles change a bit with every live birth. And even if one allele changes back next generation, many others change in other directions.
There’s some uncertainty when it comes to particles, but there’s really no comparison. Each electron has the same exact properties like any other electron as far as we know. Are you kidding?
Yes, I know. Why is that a problem?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:65, topic:26482”]
There’s some uncertainty when it comes to particles, but there’s really no comparison. Each electron has the same exact properties like any other electron as far as we know. Are you kidding?
[/quote]
No, I’m not kidding. If it’s so clear, define a particle for me.
That’s quite the odd statement for someone who has felt moved to opine 24 times in one thread. I will take it as tacit acceptance of my point that Christians, atheists and adherents of other faiths can collaborate in a common enterprise of scientific inquiry.
Also, you have dramatically misunderstood Lenski’s goals and his team’s findings. Here’s how he described them a while ago:
You might wonder if the twelve lineages improved in the same or in different ways. Just how repeatable would evolution be if, in the metaphor of Stephen Jay Gould, we could replay the tape of life? On the one hand, mutations are random, so the lineages would tend to diverge. On the other hand, selection would favor the same adaptations because they live in identical environments. We have seen many cases of parallel evolution. The individual cells in all twelve lineages are larger than their ancestors, and all are more efficient at using the glucose in the culture medium we grow them in. Also, all twelve lines have similar mutations in several genes. In other ways, however, they have diverged, including a striking case where a single lineage evolved the ability to consume citrate, another source of energy in the medium, but one the ancestors could not exploit. In fact, a characteristic feature of E. coli as a species is that it cannot grow on citrate. We are now investigating the series of mutations that enabled this transcendent change.
Given the inherent time limitations of any such experiment, they were not expecting to observe the emergence of amoebae or alligators from E Coli. They were expecting to see parallel genetic changes, adaptation, and some divergent genetic changes as well. They have in fact confirmed their evolutionary hypotheses in striking ways. It has been an amazing success in experimental biology.
Unlike electron which are all identical as far as we can tell, organisms are all different and across time too. So how do you define evolution without a baseline? What change constitutes evolution? Is every live birth evolution? If not, what biological change is evolution and what biological change is not evolution?
.[quote=“Chris_Falter, post:68, topic:26482”]
adherents of other faiths can collaborate…
[/quote]
I am not opposed to that one bit.
Far from it. If Lenski’s E.Coli experiment is evolution, then the Japanese people have also evolved after WW2 seeing that they grow bigger and have adopted the citrate (I mean western) diet. And not all of them mind you, just some strains of them Japanese. See? Just like in Lenski’s experiment.
This is my original point: Evolution lacks a testable definition. No one knows what biological transformation is evolution and what transformation is not evolution. And that makes ‘Evolution’ a philosophy and not science.
Lenski designed his experiment to test a specific hypothesis about evolutionary mechanisms, not “to demonstrate evolution.”
I agree with the advice you’ve been given to learn more about how real science works. If you choose a non-evolutionary area as an example, it might work better. You use these sciencey-sounding words, but it’s clear that you don’t really know what they mean in the real world of science.
[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:71, topic:26482”]
Far from it. If Lenski’s E.Coli experiment is evolution, then the Japanese people have also evolved after WW2 seeing that they grow bigger and have adopted the citrate (I mean western) diet.[/quote]
Not unless allele frequencies have changed. You’ve offered two environmental changes that may or may not drive evolution.
We test hypotheses, not definitions. Evolutionary biology is full of testable and tested hypotheses.
Sure we do. Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time. To see whether you grasp the importance of this, what proportion of genetic differences between you and a chimp are merely allelic?
[quote]And that makes ‘Evolution’ a philosophy and not science.
[/quote]Evolution is a phenomenon. Evolutionary biology and population genetics are sciences.
We can’t have a meaningful conversation if you define words differently in every comment.
I can tell you right now that simply Repeating without Demonstrating these anti-science sentiments (for Evolution as a body of knowledge is sustained as a science BY scientists) will simply lead to fewer and fewer people discussing your objections.
You have shown no development in your ideas, no assimilation of more accurate facts.
As far as I can tell, all you are doing is putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the same old garble of words and objections - - without any evidence.
I’m getting off the bus right here, and wishing you a wonderful week.
I will take it as tacit acceptance of my point that Christians, atheists and adherents of other faiths can collaborate in a common enterprise of scientific inquiry.