Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Did I guess right about the point I think you're trying to make (see my Message 223)? If so then I think everyone's missing it because they see it as having so little merit that they wouldn't expect anyone to make it, in which case you need to make clear to everyone why this argument has merit.And if I guessed wrong then please try to explain your point again, because it just isn't coming across to anyone.--Percy

This doesn't seem an accurate analogy to what Taq's been saying, but I also think it's possible he doesn't see the point you're trying to make.If your point is important to you and you think others would find it important too then it would be worth your effort to expend your energies on clarification rather than on ad hominem, which I don't think will settle anything.--Percy

I'm pretty sure sensei gets this probability point. My guess is that he's analogizing to a coin which is not "true", but he hasn't confirmed that yet.--Percy

The link Taq provided was to the section on Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1. It makes clear that nested hierarchies cannot be formed from things like refrigerators or bicycles, and it clearly explains why. The nesting is a reflection of the evolutionary branching that took place in the past, something that doesn't happen with refrigerators or bicycles.A nested hierarchy means that the phylogenetic tree is objectively formed, which means the node characteristics (primarily DNA) drive the organization. With refrigerators and bicycles many tree-like organizational structures are possible. One person might organize bicycles with manufacturers at the top level, bicycle types at the next level, and size at the next level. Another person might put bicycle types at the top level and manufacturers next. Other manner of organization are possible, too.But with a nested hierarchy only one organization is consistent with node characteristics. This means that only one node qualifies for the top position. For mammals the top node would be the common ancestor of all mammals. The top node could never be, for example, cetaceans, because no mammalian order, like primates, rodents and carnivores, are descended from cetaceans. DNA analysis makes this very, very clear.A nested hierarchy means you have a tree with evolutionary branching. Life isn't the only thing that produces a nested hierarchy. Languages do, too. If I come across other things that produce a nested hierarchy I'll mention them. Evolution occurs in all life, not just in "higher" life forms, and again, "higher" isn't really meaningful.Evolution is an accepted scientific theory and is no more foisted on the public than any other accepted scientific theory. You're free to believe evolution is wrong and misguided and atheistic and whatever else you like. No one can stop you. But if you want to knock evolution from its perch as accepted science then you're going to have to do science yourself and produce the evidence that accomplishes that.But this has already been tried. ICR, CRS, Answers in Genesis and a host of others all tried to make inroads into scientific circles to make creationism or Intelligent Design into accepted science, and they all failed. Because they're religion, not science.Sometimes "Einstein was wrong" people come here. They, like you, complain about a false theory being foisted on the public. Again, there is no certainty within science. All science is tentative.And evolution is ubiquitous. Evolution occurs every time there is reproduction. How could that not be so given that mutations are inevitable and selection is unavoidable?--Percy

I subscribe to the Times - I think I might have read that article when it first came out. Yes, this is what I was thinking of when I mentioned law enforcement tracking down criminals.--Percy

Yes, that's it. In Message 228 sensei said my guess was wrong and that I should add myself to the ranks of the idiots. But he does offer further explanation this time: So finally we know what he's asking: Since the probability of ten consecutive tails is 1/1024 given a fair coin, is that the same as the probability that we have a fair coin. The question seems meaningless to me. He'll have to clarify further.--Percy

It seems possible to me that you haven't grasped PaulK's question. PaulK can correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but I think he means that given the DNA of a person we can extrapolate back to their parents and their parents' parents and their parents' parents' parents, and so on. At what point does that extrapolation cease to be valid? Common ancestry is simply what happens reproduction. It's unavoidable. A great grandmother is a common ancestor of all her children, all her grandchildren, and all her great grandchildren. You'll often see a picture of a grandparent with a large collection of their progeny gathered around. Common ancestry is just a fact. It's not true that it's being read into genetic history because it *is* genetic history. DNA evidence of genetic history *is* evidence of common ancestry. I think you're reading a Creator into genetic evidence. I'm not as optimistic as Tanypteryx that this isn't something religion couldn't do at some point. You're in effect saying, "You could be wrong," and then leaving it at that, instead of showing how he's wrong.--Percy

I'm talking about common ancestry. If you're talking about something else then you'll have to tell us what it is. Honest scientific investigation means following the evidence where it leads. Seeking conclusions that don't offend anyone's religious beliefs isn't part of the process.--Percy

But we're talking about all life, right? Not just people.But it sounds like we're in agreement that life in the past was lived pretty much as it is today. In that case, why wouldn't common ancestry have occurred in the past, just like it does today? Our knowledge will always remain incomplete, and all science is tentative. We accept as likely true that for which we have sufficient evidence. If you think the evidence insufficient for something in particular, such as common ancestry, then you have to make the case. The claim, "Well, we don't know everything so you could be wrong," carries no weight because it can be said about literally everything. You mentioned them in response to one of my posts about DNA analysis and common ancestry. I don't myself see how they fit into the discussion, and I don't know anything about them.--Percy

I think there have been some insulting exchanges, and I'm sorry you've come away feeling this way. You're just resetting to an earlier position. I think we've already established that there's plenty of DNA to analyze and a great deal of analytical results. You haven't identified any actual problems or issues yet.--Percy

You have yet to raise any objections that are true to evolution's view that life changes over time through a process of descent with modification combined with natural selection. You seem to have begun a reset to where you started of just saying evolution is wrong while ignoring the discussion of the past couple hundred messages where you were unable to find anything that was actually wrong.--Percy

You're ignoring more than biology then. Onward Christian soldier, to physics, to chemistry, to astronomy, to cosmology, to geology, to boldly do battle with all the rebukes to your religious fantasies.More on topic, genetic analyses reveal events of biological change that took place millions of years ago.--Percy

You and K.Rose should get together in a thread and present your evidences to each other. You could build from these:

1. The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1)
   
2. The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 2)
   
3. The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 3)

--Percy

Understandings of what were formerly considered DNA's non-functional regions have improved. Some regions *are* non-functional or have functions we do not yet understand, but others have functions. But a region doesn't have to have a known function to trace it's genetic history. The fewest possible common ancestors is 1. Zero is not possible and is shown wrong by the existence of your own parents. In the Biblical view of you and K.Rose, if God created 10 million species then there are 10 million common ancestors, not none.--Percy

That question makes sense, your question makes no sense to anyone here. If you decide to clarify to the point where people understand then we can comment. Are you asking whether I consider humans primates? Of course I do. It's definitional. It's like asking is a Ford Fairlane a car. Of course it is, by definition.--Percy