Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Clade selection isn't in my wheelhouse, so I don't have any suggestions other than a Google Scholar search. From what little I know, clade selection is a bit hazy and lies more on the philosophical side than the objective scientific side. I would call it more of a high level concept than an actual working scientific theory. It is impressive that Darwin figured out so many of the concepts that remain true to this day. The fact that so little of the theory had to be changed once genetics was understood is a testament to Darwin's insightfulness.The unification of embryonic development and genetics is also an important one, and it has some impact on the theory. We now know that development limits what adaptations are possible, as one example. Epigenetics doesn't have that much of an impact because in the vast majority of cases it is an expression of the underlying DNA sequence meaning the sequence of bases in the genome determines epigenetic outcomes. It is essentially a different form of gene regulation. In some very limited cases there is transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, but these are limited in both effect and scope. It's more of a side show than the main act.As of now, there doesn't seem to be any need for any big adjustments. Much like the standard model in physics, its just a lot of refining. Probably the biggest mountain to climb right now is understanding the direct connection between genotype and phenotype. Exactly how are differences in DNA sequence tied to specific differences in phenotype.

It does make me chuckle when they claim "that's just microevolution because they are still bacteria". That's equivalent to saying, "humans and trees sharing common ancestry is just microevolution since they are still eukaryotes".

You said you wanted to understand evolution. Genetics is a massive part of understanding evolution. Whales are mammals.Also, I am showing you how life evolves. That's what all this genetics stuff is. So is that the default for your beliefs?Also, I am showing you how evolution is true. Here are 29 repeated tests of evolution, all of which it passed.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentYou just dismissed it with a handwave without even looking into it. Your inability to explain the nested hierarchy is proof. You still can't explain why Creationism would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. However, it is the only pattern evolution can produce amongst lineages that operate through vertical inheritance.

Are there any scientific theories you accept? If so, doesn't your argument apply equally to those theories?If you don't accept any scientific theories (e.g. Germ Theory of Disease) could you explain why?

There are many, many Christian groups that call for the rejection of Creationism in the science classroom, and the also wholeheartedly support the teaching and acceptance of evolution. Even in the Kitzmiller case there were Christians who testified for the plaintiffs, saying that ID should not be taught in science class.Here is the Clergy Letter, signed by over 15,000 Christian clergy:

quote:

---

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
The Clergy Letter Project

---

Not to mention that there are thousands and thousands of Christian biologists who accept the theory of evolution. No field in science can be accurately summed up in a concise definition. This is self imposed blindness. You don't want evolution to be true, so you blind yourself to the evidence. First, microbiology is not the study of DNA. Microbiology is the study of microorganisms like bacteria. The phrase you are looking for is molecular biology. That is the study of DNA. Also, I have been discussing genetics in general which is not called microbiology.Secondly, we are interpolating, not extrapolating. We have the end points which are the species living today. What we are doing is looking at the data that lies between those endpoints, and that is interpolation.Thirdly, you are criticizing scientists for using the scientific method. You are criticizing them for doing the very thing you asked them to do. In the scientific method we hypothesize what we should and should not see in the biodiversity of living species, the biodiversity of fossil species, and the DNA sequences of species if common ancestry and evolution are true. We then see if those predictions are supported by observations. That's how science works. As expected, creationists don't like it when scientists do science. What creationists want is blind acceptance of their claims without any skepticism or testing. The very fact creationism can not produce scientific predictions is testament to this problem. Accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field because the theory explains the facts they are observing. For example, the theory of evolution explains why we see more sequence conservation in exons than in introns. It explains why transitions outnumber transversions. It explains why we see a nested hierarchy. It explains why we see transitional fossils like those with a mixture of whale and terrestrial mammal features:The evolution of whales - Understanding EvolutionAdded in edit:
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence | National Center for Science EducationIt also explains why we DON'T see fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features. Creationism can't explain any of these patterns in the data. Evolution can. Scientists use the theory of evolution because it works. Creationism doesn't work because it can't explain the data.Also, no theory becomes fact. Theories and facts are different things. Facts are the world's data. Theories explain those facts. Theories never stop being explanations. I have given you many clear responses. You ignore them. That's completely false. Mutation, selection, speciation, and common ancestry are all observed mechanisms. We see them all operating the world today. In contrast, we have never observed a single supernatural deity produce a new species. We have observed the natural mechanisms of evolution producing new species, new DNA sequences, new descendants, and nested hierarchies.

I have given you the evidence that does demonstrate it. You ignore it. Again, nested hierarchies demonstrate that life shares common ancestry because this is the very pattern we should see if common ancestry is true. Creationism can't explain why we see this pattern instead of a different pattern.I have shown you that the observed processes that produce mutations in living species are the very same processes that have produced the differences between the genomes of different species. That is found here:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=915069#m915069and here:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367I have shown you the data demonstrating natural selection has acted on these genomes through common descent:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=20463&mpp=...It's been demonstrated.

K.Rose,If you are looking for a Christian perspective on evolution I would suggest the following essay:https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdfIt is written by Dr. Francis Collins who is a devout Christian. He headed the Human Genome Project and was head of the National Institutes of Health for quite some time. He discusses both the evidence for evolution, and what it means for his Christian beliefs. There's also this quote from the essay:"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

The one thing I am hoping you take away from what I wrote is that there are many, many Christians who accept evolution. Evolution is no more atheistic than the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of General Relativity. That's how science is done. We hypothesize about what we can't directly observe. Part of that hypothesis is to predict what we should should and shouldn't see in what we can directly observe. Again, you appear to be criticizing scientists for doing science. The whole point of doing science is to understand the processes we can't directly observe. This is why we have scientists and not observationalists. The solid proof is the exons/introns, transitions/transversions, nested hierarchies, and the rest of the evidence I have been discussing. This is the evidence that convinced the scientific community that evolution is true. Whether or not you attempt to understand this evidence is up to you, but if you want to understand why the scientific community is convinced then you will need to understand this evidence. If you want to just mock scientists and handwave the evidence away, that's your choice.

There's lots of words because there's lots of evidence. Handwaving it away because you don't think it is aimed at the layperson is just dismissive. I do agree that some of the topics can be difficult to understand, but this is the level of knowledge one would need in order to even begin to criticize the theory. What I hope you take away from this is that scientists aren't just assuming evolution is true. There are mountains and mountains of data that we are looking at, as well as subjects that you probably weren't familiar with before participating in this thread.One of the sections that may be aimed more at your interests is the section on transitional fossils:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1Specifically, hominid transitional fossils:

quote:

---

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

---

Evolution is both fact and theory just as gravity is both fact and theory.

quote:

---

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

​

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

​

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
https://wise.fau.edu/...s/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html

---

And you still haven't told us why students shouldn't be taught about a theory that is accepted by more than 99% of biologists. Almost nothing in biology makes sense outside the theory of evolution, as Dobzhansky once quipped, and it's true. Why does everything with three middle ear bones also have fur? Evolution explains it. Why does everything with feathers have just one middle ear bone? Evolution explains it. Why don't we see species that lactate and have flow through lungs? Evolution explains it. Creationism can't explain any of this. One of the important subjects that biology students are taught is the overall picture of taxonomy. The fact that species nest within genera, genera nest within families, families nest within orders, and orders nest within classes, classes nest within phyla, and phyla nest within kingdoms is only explained by evolution and common ancestry. There is absolutely no reason we should see this pattern if Creationism is true. I would start with natural selection. There are differences between individuals within a species, and those differences that give the individuals an advantage tend to have more offspring. This causes those advantages to become more and more common within the species. This is where I would introduce the nested hierarchy which is seen in both taxonomy and cladistics. This explains common ancestry and why we see the combination of features we see in these groups. Why do we see transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals but not between mamals and birds? Why are all mammals also vertebrates? What is the common ancestral group for mammals and fish?Almost all of the evidence for evolution is tied to understanding how nested hierarchies work, so that is the first concept that needs to be taught. I would present the evidence I have presented here, including the pattern of substitutions, patterns of sequence conservation, and once again the importance of the nested hierarchy. We could also include shared endogenous retroviruses, which is discussed here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4and here:
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20370 The fit between the predictions made by the theory and the observations that are made is the demonstration.

The first ancestor is often called LUCA which stands for Last Universal Common Ancestor. This was at least a species with a larger population, but could have also been a whole group of species that passed different features between them. LUCA was definitely not the first life to appear on Earth.LUCA would have had, at a minimum, the shared metabolic pathways seen in all life and the shared genetic systems shared by all life. I spoke earlier about the relationship between protein translation and tRNA's. This is one of the evidences for a single common ancestor for life since the relationship between codon and amino acid is mostly arbitrary and could have been different for different groups if life had more than one origin or more than one ancestor.The theory of evolution itself makes no claims about how the first life came about. If God created the first simple replicators that evolved into the biodiversity we see today then not one word of the theory would need to be changed. Why? That's like saying we can't know what happened yesterday because we don't know every fine detail of what happened on this date 50,000 years ago. We have tons and tons of data demonstrating shared ancestry between humans and other primates.

There are some good experiments 4th graders could partake in, one of which teaches students how natural selection works.https://www.dentonisd.org/...%20Evolution%20ActivityDATA.pdfIn this example, one of the students spreads out a bunch of differently colored toothpicks on a patch of grass. The other student is then asked to act like a predator and grab the first toothpicks they see. What the students will find is that they will prey upon the green toothpicks the least compared to the other colors. It would also be interesting to see results from colorblind students.

We have evidence for rare interbreeding between neanderthals and modern humans. I believe some H. erectus survived long enough to co-exist with modern humans, but I haven't seen any evidence for divergent regions of the human genome that would be consistent with cross breeding between modern humans and H. erectus. The other species were not around at the same time as H. sapiens, so we simply don't know. As icky as it sounds, it may even be possible for chimps and humans to interbreed. That group may include chimps and gorillas for all we know.What we do know is that hominid species started out looking very much like earlier apes, and over time became more and more human-like. This is exactly what we would expect to see if humans share a common ancestor with other apes.

It is also worth mentioning that (of course) nature has already done this type of experiment.Mice found in volcanic areas with black basalt are black while those found out in the sandy desert are sand colored. There is free interbreeding between the populations at the borders of the volcanic areas, but natural selection keeps the obvious imbalances. The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

My grandfather was colorblind and was posted to an air field in Italy during WWII. He claims that they would take him and other colorblind soldiers on scouting runs because camouflage is less effective if you are colorblind. Don't know how true that is, but it was a great grandpa story.