Some Evidence Against Evolution

"The change in allele frequency over time" isn't a summary of evolution, and it isn't an explanation; it's a definition, in that it delimits what counts as evolution (as far as biology is concerned). Any process that involves the change in allele frequency over time is evolution, and any that doesn't isn't. Thus neutral genetic drift is considered part of evolution -- whether you think it's interesting or not is up to you, but it's still evolution. Phenotypic changes that aren't associated with changes in allele frequency (like the increasing height of humans in developed countries over the last 100 years) are not evolution.This does not mean that all of evolution can be reduced to changes in allele frequency, and it also doesn't mean that the definition is perfect. Speciation is an important part of evolution, but it cannot be described solely in terms of allele frequency changes, and in fact need not involve any change in frequency at all.When people object to evolution, of course, they're seldom objecting to allele frequency changes. What they're objecting to is common descent (something that involves allele frequency change but does not necessarily follow from it), and the explanation of change in terms solely of natural processes (mutation, natural selection, drift, etc).

quote:

---

I know I'm just being snarky pointing this out, but honestly... it's just something that gets up my craw. If he literally dropped a safe on your head, we would have to rush you to the hospital.

---

Not a new peeve. From Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary (1911):

quote:

---

Literally, adv. Figuratively, as: "The pond was literally full of fish"; "The ground was literally alive with snakes," etc.

---

quote:

---

Just for pure aguments sake:
If your "peers" think your a nut to start with whats the point of letting them review your work...

---

Hardly anybody knows who Milton is, so why would they be biased against him? There's nothing obviously nutty about attacking the supposed identification of specific human ancestors, so I don't see any reason why he couldn't have submitted to peer review. Judging from his exchange with Foley, however, it's highly unlikely that he could ever pass peer review, given his demonstrated level of knowledge and argument. Have you considered the possibility that he's actually incompetent?

quote:

---

Source for my belief of the definition of the word "scientism" : Professor Huston Smith author of "Why Religion Matters" and the teaching of Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D. Stanford University}

---

The guy with the cigar and the horses? Is he still around? Brings back old memories -- I used to see him on TV late at night.

quote:

---

Ned: I do not understand how you cannot understand the statement that you pasted and cutted.

​

I am not trying to be a ***hole with you but what I said is neo- Darwinism 101. I just don't get what you don't get.

---

If you mean the bit about the origin of life, what Ned doesn't get is the connection between Darwinism and the origin of life. Darwinian evolution, like evolutionary biology in general, deals with changes in life. The study of the origin of life is a different field -- with some overlap (hence his comment), but not a lot.

quote:

---

The issue is the refusal of evolutionists to fulfill the dual requirement of acknowledging the Creator and being thankful.
This refusal taints every claim of certainty that is offered in the larger context that evolution exists - which is that God is not the Creator.

---

Hmm. I acknowledge the Creator and I'm thankful. And yet I still think creationism is a load of garbage and evolution is great science. What could possibly be my problem?I also see that you haven't actually posted any evidence against evolution yet -- real evidence, that is, not a journalist's opinion. Could you please get back on track?[This message has been edited by sfs, 12-10-2003]