Are there problems with the evolutionary scenario?

The concept is important because it helps everyone understand that evolutionary change continues to occur in every species even now. And that it can be studied observationally, as Lenski showed.

Evolution provides the mechanisms that underlie common descent. It’s true, though, that you have to add paleontological and genomic evidence with Bayesian methods to clinch the scientific case.

You also saw some impressive mathematical analysis. :smile:

I must say, you have quite the habit of insinuating evil motives to your interlocutors. First you accused me of fabrication, now you attack my motives. Out comes the yellow hankie: personal foul, unnecessary roughness.

You’re fifteen yards back with a loss of down. Better come up with a different game plan, NonlinOrg.

Best,

2 Likes

I scarcely know where to start with that sentence.

@NonlinOrg, do you understand that allele frequencies in populations change with each generation? How can that be “meaningless”? And considering that it is–obviously–a single generation of change, a single step in the many-generation changes which undergird the Common Descent concept, I don’t understand why you are objecting.

How is this simple concept “meaningless”? It is about as meaningful as one can get!

I’m a late-comer to this discussion but you got my attention when you stated that “evolution is not science”. If “evolution is not science”, don’t you think the science academy would have noticed? And if “evolution is not science”, how do entire industries produce entire product lines and billions of dollars in sales if evolution is not science?

I can understand a statement like “I don’t like evolution” or “Evolution conflicts with my religious beliefs.” But denying evolutionary biology as a science strikes me as some kind of denial of reality. Am I missing something?

1 Like

@NonlinOrg

The assertion doesn’t make sense.
You are attempting to nullify the working definition of Evolution so you can then criticize us for not having a working definition.

The definition:

“Any change in a population’s gene pool is an Evolutionary event.”

Is concise, and consistent with any testing method a researcher might want to employ to test his laboratory work and/or conclusions.

Why would we want to remove GENETICS from a definitional criterion for Evolution?

@Lynn_Munter, you can comfortably ignore his comments on this part of your discussion with him.

Thanks for nothing.
Sorry guys and girls, I don’t have time for this useless exchange.

If you want, go see http://nonlin.org/evolution/ , http://nonlin.org/evocoyne/ and more…
I promise to entertain any Clear, Concise, and Insightful Pro/Con Ideas you might have. But so far I don’t see any.

1 Like

@NonlinOrg

I know you won’t really follow how this can be true, but I think you are the test case for why at least one thread topic should be considered “out-of-scope” - - discussions about Evolution not being a science.

It would be like having a wonderful Bee-Keeper website where people trade views on how to make the most nutritious honey … when suddenly there are 2 or 3 new posters who want to discuss why Bees are not really insects.

Perhaps what would save everyone time on the BioLogos boards is a collection of 3 or 4 quotes from known and respected Creationists who state (though perhaps grudgingly?) that Evolution IS a science!

But you had time to produce a truckload of useless posts

2 Likes