The phrase "Evolution is a fact"

Seems like you agree that allele frequencies change over time? (A simple "yes" would have sufficed, you know).As you've already been told several hundred times, that allele frequency change over time is evolution. That is the very definition of the term "evolution" in the biological sense. When we talk about transitional fossils and speciation, we are only extrapolating this very observable fact that you have accepted to what looks like its inevitable conclusion (this is called "natural history").The only argument that has been brought against "macroevolution" is that there is no proof that it can happen. But, you and we both agree that allele frequency change over time is a fact. And, when you find a factual pattern in nature, the most logical and parsimonious conclusion is to extrapolate it out. "Macroevolution" is just such an extrapolation from an observed, factual pattern. In these situations, the extrapolation becomes the default position, and does not require any further logical support (this is not to say that ToE has no further support, however: clearly, it does). All energy then must go into testing alternatives (that's the whole concept of Popperian philosophy). If all alternatives fail, the default position is upheld.So, in effect, you are beating your head against an observable fact of nature. We do not need to prove to you that allele frequency changes can accumulate to the level of "macroevolution": we’ve already proven that they change over time. Rather, you need to prove that allele frequencies eventually stop changing over time. Otherwise, you have nothing that can stop evolutionary natural history from playing out the way we've been telling you that is did. There is no evidence that allele frequencies stop changing over time, and, until there is some evidence for it, the default position---namely, evolutionary natural history---is still upheld.Edited by Bluejay, : Clarifications.Edited by Bluejay, : Spelling.Edited by Bluejay, : I'm a perfectionist.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Beretta. This is ridiculously simple, Beretta. And it's frustrating that you don't get it.It is a fact that allele frequencies change.
It is a fact that these changes accrue.Logically, you don't assume that there is a limit to a proven phenomenon unless you can prove that there is a limit. So far, you have not done this. In the absence of negating evidence, we default to the universality of what we already know, which is that changes accrue (which is a fact), and use that as our model for describing natural history.-----Now, let’s, for a second, grant that you’re correct in postulating limits to the accrual of change. How does this render the phrase, “evolution is a fact,” false? Don’t changes still accrue? Do all facts have to be universally extrapolable to their extreme in order to qualify as facts?Once again, you are conflating “living things evolve” with “all living things evolved from a single common ancestor over a billion-year time span.” You are claiming that this is an “implication” of Darwinism. But, assuming that you see “evolution” and “Darwinism” as not being synonyms, you should probably stop being disingenuous by saying that the phrase, “evolution is a fact” is the same as the phrase, “Darwinism is a fact.”----- Um... yes. I call it "hypothetico-deductive logic." You've heard of a guy called "Karl Popper," haven't you? "Proof by disproof," and all that?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Archangel.Welcome to EvC! I take it you are also vehemently opposed to the judicial system, which allows juries to determine who committed a murder without any of the jurors having actually seen the murder take place?There is a basic tenet of science that states that all natural events produce evidence of their occurrence. It is by examining this evidence that we can understand natural events.The evidence, in this case, is (1) the nested hierarchy of morphological similarities between a series of fossils; (2) the stratigraphy (aging and relative placement) of the rock beds in which the fossils are found; and (3) evidence of similar patterns occurring throughout the entire fossil record, between modern species, and even between individuals within single populations.To illustrate the point, I give you a series of numbers:1, 4, _, _, _, _, 19, 22, 25, _, _, _Can you tell me what the missing numbers in that series are? I bet you can. It's a simple matter of extrapolating the pattern you see into the spaces where you don't see anything.This is exactly the process used to determine evolutionary relationships based on fossils. There are lots of pieces missing, sure, but there are enough pieces known that we can see the pattern that emerges. And, we can correlate that pattern with other patterns that we see, including genetic patterns.Can you argue with me that the method is flawed?
Or, do you argue that the pattern in the Pelycodus diagram that RAZD presented does not actually exist?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.