Key points of Evolution

You are completely wrong on this. Evolution is not an increase in complexity--that is a misconception that is spread by creationists, and it is completely wrong. Evolution is change from one generation to the next. Period. There are indeed facts in science--billions and billions of them. Empirical evidence, which you mention, actually consists of billions and billions of facts. Facts are something that can be observed and/or quantified in some manner.What may change "if additional evidence comes forward" are the hypotheses and theories that seek to explain those facts.Due to the way the English language names things, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact part is change from one generation to the next--you are not exactly like either of your parents or your grandparents. There is change in each generation. There are also mutations, and the whole mess is combed over by natural selection.That is where the evolution as theory comes in: the theory of evolution seeks to explain all of the observed facts.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Type [qs]The material to quote[/qs] and you'll get: You can also look at the peek button to see how other folks did other things. And to add to that there's dBCode help next to the message box I'm typing in right now. Are you confusing natural selection with natural history? Natural selection is the second half of evolution according to the ToE. Dog breeding is evolution. Just not natural evolution because the selection process is artificial. No, it's not. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Nothing about an increase in complexity or organization or speciation. The ToE states that evolution through mutation and natural selection is adequate to explain the natural history of life on Earth. A fact in science are the empirical bits and pieces like rabbits and compass readings. We do in fact see rabbits. And we can read compasses some better then others. No. Evolution is one of those observable bits and pieces a fact. The ToE is a theory not a fact. A theory tentatively explains the facts. A hypothesis is a well educated guess put forward for testing.This argument has been done a gazillion times. Look around a bit and you'll find other response that get into depths well beyond anything needed to convince all but the intentionally perverse.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo. Dang! two people beat me to the answer while I mis-proof read.Edited by lyx2no, : Another typo.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

While there's more than one way to define evolution, this isn't one of them. Evolution does not require an increase in complexity or organization. All it requires is change over time.--Percy

Here is the dictionary definition;
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection cannot lead from single cell organisms to humans. Natural selection does not lead to an increase in complexity. The industrial revolution caused soot on trees that made white butterflies more visible and therefore easier prey. Their population decreased but there was no increase in the complexity of the genetic code of the darker coloured butterflies to create a more advanced organism.

You are using the logical fallcy of equivocationThe word evolution has many definitions. The one we are using is for the Theory of Evolution. The Evolution we are discussing is this is from a dictionary
Evolution - Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.Here is the what the Theory of Evolution is technically.
1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors).3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Dictionaries have a number of definitions of evolution, and you've managed to choose one of the ones that is not the definition of biological evolution. If you look at Merriam-Webster's definition of evolution you'll see that they include the correct definition of evolution when used in a biological context:

4. a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny;
   b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory

Darwin defined the process as a combination of descent with modification and natural selection. A more precise modern definition is the change in allele frequency of a population over time.--Percy

Yeahwell, ya' see, the thing with dictionary definitions is that they are generally written for laymen such as ourselves, while the EvC debate can't work with layman definitions because we would be arguing straw men. You want to argue real evolutionary theory you have to use grown-up definitions. Evolution is change over time. Chucking in "more complex" or even worse "better" detract from the meaning; even making it wrong. Many things can evolve to become simpler: i.e., troglobite shrimp and fish, snakes, glass snakes and Rhode Islanders. One point for you. Natural selection is not evolution. Who said it was? I specifically said it wasn't few posts back. (BTW, in the lower, right hand corner of each post is a reply button that will tie your response to that post and alert that poster if they have selected that option.)Another point for you. Hat trick! I hear it happen with the moths too; but there's that pesky word complex again. I'm starting to think your argument depends upon it. That makes wonder who you're arguing with.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

That's right. It's one of the mechanisms that drives it. Not on its own, certainly. Not on its own, certainly.Humans are made of single celled organisms, which is, when you think about it, very strong evidence that we evolved from them in itself. We are elaborate colonies of them. What's required is mutation, symbiosis, and natural selection; and lots of all three over a very long time.It is very common for single-celled organisms to form into colonies when they can gain advantage from it.So, in the future, think of yourself as a colony. One big happy family. And don't knock natural selection and the other mechanisms, because without them you wouldn't exist. Welcome to EvC.

You gave a dictionary definition so try this one: Your definition only scratches the surface. It does not matter whether the resultant organism is more complex or not, only that a change has take place in many cases allowing the population of that organism to better survive.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

So if hypothetically evolution is proven wrong as is possible, does that mean it was never a fact or that facts are not actually facts and can change?

Hi, Alaninnont. No, that's not what Coyote is saying.There are two things that are called "evolution" in the English language: (1) the genetic changes that occur between populations and the relative fitness advantages that result; and (2) the scientific theory that explains how this process occurs.Think of a documentary: there's a wasp laying its eggs, and then there's David Attenborough telling you that the wasp is laying its eggs. One is a fact, and one is an aid in learning about the fact.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

I think we're worrying too much about the semantics here. I think that nagging question behind the verbal volleyball is; Did the progression from a one-celled organism to an extremely complex multi-celled organism happen with the help of a creator or not? A precussor to this question is; Did the nucleic acids together with their phosphates and sugars along with the very specific enzymes, the ATP molecules, and intact semi-permeable membrane (which are ALL necessary for life according to experience so far) come together as freak chance or did a creator set them up? Looking at valiant efforts of evolutionists trying to reproduce the first cell and the second law of thermodynamics where in an open or closed system, all things tend toward entropy, not increasing complexity, I'd say it is more probable that a creator was involved.

Perhaps you could do a bit of studying in fields scientific, and avoid the creationist websites for a bit.All of your points of have been refuted ages ago, and your conclusion that there was a creator involved does not follow.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Do I need to provide you the links to show what utter bs this is? Please do some research on things before you recite creationist claptrap.The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution and does not say what you think it does.Well maybe we need to know what you think the second law of thermodynamics says. Before you answer I want you to think about a some things; snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites.Ok. Thought about them? Now tell us what the Second law of Themodynamics says.

You're barking up one of the more ridiculous creationist trees.Speaking of trees, huge trees of great complexity and organization manage to grow from tiny seeds without any help from a "creator". How do you reconcile this with your rule of "all things tend toward entropy." Hint: it has something to do with the snowflakes and other things it was suggested you think about.--Percy