You just posted to me that you didn’t CARE about “any” change in frequency … because it was “unremarkable” … if not meaningless!
@glipsnort I don’t think you and I should spend any more time on this “science pirate”. He pretty much defines problems into and out of existence on a random basis.
I know I don’t have time to teach him things he intentionally ignores.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. And that’s a fact.
Or at least it’s an alternative fact.
OK, I see arguments for the sake of arguing. Thanks, but I am not interested. You too have a blessed day.
Size and weight, yes. But beyond that? Is a chihuahua just a sack of potatoes of a certain length?
My thoughts exactly.
Question is, do you have something to add, or just argue for the sake of arguing?
“Because I know” and “what are your qualifications?” just don’t cut it.
One or two allele, yes but “an entire genome”? Elaborate.
You just did define it as any allele change including those associated with every new birth. I am fine with that, but this definition makes Evolution totally unremarkable and gets you nowhere near “Common Descent”.
Sorry, your professorial tone is unwarranted and doesn’t work on silencing opponents. If that’s your approach to debates, good luck to you.
It’s great that we got to this agreement, but as mentioned, this doesn’t get you to “Common Descent” which was the whole point of Darwin and his followers.
Just to be clear, you dismissed the scientific measurement of morphology while knowing literally nothing about the subject. In fact, you don’t even seem to be aware that it is a subject. Doesn’t it worry you that drawing conclusions based on knowing nothing might be a bit prone to error?
As it happens, there are lots of things you can measure. Not just size, but sizes – sizes of the many parts that make up the structure of a body. Sizes, weights, angles, shapes. There entire textbooks on morphometrics.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:85, topic:34603”]
One or two allele, yes but “an entire genome”? Elaborate.
[/quote]
To look at an entire genome, first you look at the first base in the genome. Then you look at the second base. Then the third base. You keep going until you’ve looked at all of the bases. Then you look at a second genome and do the same thing. Then you look at a third genome. And so on, through all the genomes you have available. Then you compare the genomes. You identify places where they differ; those are sites with alleles. You count how many copies of each allele there are in your sample. Then you compare your sample to another sample – from another time, another place, another species. (There are lots of other things you can do with genomes, too.)
No, the definition does not get you near common descent. It also won’t wash your car or pluck chickens for you. It does what it’s supposed to do: delineate the range of processes we consider evolution. We accept the reality of common descent because of the evidence for common descent, not because of a definition. (And I still have no idea why you think the definition is so important.)
Yes, absolutely. It may be a very small bit of evolution, but it sure still counts!
You don’t know what I do or don’t know. It was just a joke - I thought you might not get it.
That’s the theory - not my question. Has it been done? To what extent? Introns too?
…and that’s the problem with Evolution.
Then “Evolution” is a non-event. But that’s not what I hear and read all over.
I know you wrote this: “Another nonscientific term. How on earth do you measure “morphological change”?” Was that a joke too?
I didn’t state a theory; I said that’s what you do. Yes, we sequence complete genomes all the time. Everything from Ebola virus to thousands of human genomes.
I’m sure in your head this response somehow makes sense, but out here, not so much. This definition tells us only what counts as evolution. It doesn’t tell us whether there have been minute amounts of evolution or immense amounts, whether we’re only related by descent to other humans or also to kumquats and mushrooms. A definition can’t tell you those things; only evidence can. Yet for some reason you display interest only in the definition, not in the evidence.
It’s a very basic and ordinary biological process that’s been going on for a long, long time. Don’t ask me why some people can’t untwist their knickers on the subject! It’s quite bewildering.
I just looked up the definition of the word ‘definition,’ since I thought it might be interesting and relevant to this conversation. I think what we have on our hands is a ‘precising definition,’ which is of course a great thing for science. Are you looking instead for a ‘nominal definition?’ Because I think that’s where common descent would come in.
Because it was presented as an alternative religion. Read Darwin, Dawkins, Coyne, etc. etc. Is this new to you? But if we stick with “changes in gene frequencies in populations”, Evolution is a nonevent. It would really not even need a definition, let alone defending.
Again, I think we can agree that the hypothesized evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor is quite an event.
What proportion of the genetic differences between you and a chimp are merely allelic?
The point was that morphological change is not the whole story of what is different between the Dane and Chihuahua. And in fact they are more closely related than the picture shows.
“What you do…” is by definition theory. Did Lenski actually sequence the genomes of his E.Coli? Did others? What were the observations? This was my question.
You’re playing stupid (or not?). No one cares about an inconsequential definition of a known-for-ever-fact. From Darwin to Dawkins, Coyne, etc. the whole idea of Evolution was synonymous with “Common Descent”. But if every single new birth is “Evolution”, then the concept of Evolution is not only meaningless (i.e. who needs a new word for ‘birth’), but also useless to the cause of “Common Descent” (i.e. provides zero evidence).
Did you think to look in the scientific literature for the answer? Whole-genome sequencing has been routine for years. Did you not know that?
Look, Dawkins advocates atheism, but Darwin wasn’t particularly interested in riding that steed. I don’t know Coyne, but it doesn’t matter. Evolution is just plain good science, whether or not religion agrees.
I don’t know what you mean by nonevent. I do know that you’ve been corrected on that definition multiple times but you still haven’t fixed it, so fine. Let’s go with your version.
Originally, zero genes existed. Everybody agrees on this, I think. The frequencies of gene occurrence has increased, overall, from the beginning of the earth to now. Evolution covers each new gene as it enters a population and each gene which is deleted from a population (overall a smaller number, of course, since originally there were no genes and now there are lots) but if you want to call the entire history of life a nonevent, all I can do is raise my eyebrows at you in a deeply skeptical manner.
I think it would help a lot if you distinguished between genes and alleles (“versions” of genes), because there are very, very few “new genes.” Hence my question about what proportion of the genetic differences between you and a chimp are allelic (versus new genes).
How can you have an informed opinion if you don’t know this?
Are all your opinions of evolutionary biology based on vague hearsay?
I observed that @NonlinOrg still hadn’t corrected their definition in this regard, so I wanted to see if they’d notice the difference. 
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.