Definition of Evolution

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It is not an imagined process. Evolution is a verifiable fact when accurately defined thus:

"...any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

(Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)

Isn't that natural selection rather than a definition of evolution?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I was trained in one of the top Engineering colleges in India and have practiced as a structural engineer for the last 42 years !
Yet I believe in God not by compulsion of birth as a Hindu but by a conscious choice nurtured over the years by reading,thinking and following the advice of my Guru.
I believe that Science progressed because scientists kept ...[text shortened]... d all riddles facing humanity and try to persuade them by appealing to their sense of balance.

But I request all theists to be patient with such scientists who claim to have solved all riddles facing humanity

Which scientist(s) has ever made that claim?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]But I request all theists to be patient with such scientists who claim to have solved all riddles facing humanity

Which scientist(s) has ever made that claim?[/b]

I think Dr Who did once

Originally posted by JS357
You need to read about the fallacy of ad hominem. Calling someone an idiot is not an argument.

In this case rwingett may be right. To equate the religious right in the USA
to the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan is such an idiotic comparison,
the guy must be an idiot. So what is the point of arguing with an idiot.
As Richard Dawkins would say, "I got more important things to do".

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]But I request all theists to be patient with such scientists who claim to have solved all riddles facing humanity

Which scientist(s) has ever made that claim?[/b]

Many posters on this forum such as twithead,Andrew Hamilton,agerg have claimed that God belongs with tooth fairy and spaghetti monster as an imaginary entity. All of them are scientists or inclined wholly towards science.By so clubbing God with tooth fairies and spaghetti monsters,they have implicitly claimed to have solved the biggest riddle facing humanity since the dawn of history namely the existence of God. Am I therefore wrong in saying that these are the scientists who have claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity ?

Originally posted by divegeester
Isn't that natural selection rather than a definition of evolution?

Nope. It says nothing about the nature of the influences causing the variation in allele frequency. It is a precise and scientific definition of the term 'evolution', nothing more or less.

Originally posted by black beetle
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/327900.html
😵

Your source states, "There is dispute amongst etymologists about the
origin of this phrase." This source is also a poor dictionary for the term as
it is used in Texas. For it is more like an exclamation there. So since there
is no definite evidence we will have to say it is of unknown origin.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Many posters on this forum such as twithead,Andrew Hamilton,agerg have claimed that God belongs with tooth fairy and spaghetti monster as an imaginary entity. All of them are scientists or inclined wholly towards science.By so clubbing God with tooth fairies and spaghetti monsters,they have implicitly claimed to have solved the biggest riddle facing human ...[text shortened]... saying that these are the scientists who have claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity ?

I'm not sure where to start with this.

Firstly, twhitehead is a computer programmer, Agerg has just finished a maths degree, and i'm not sure what Andrew does but i'm sure he's not a scientist. So it appears in actual fact none of them are scientists which makes you're initial claim fall down like a pack of cards in a gusty wind.

Secondly, this was your initial statement (note the bold text) -

But I request all theists to be patient with such scientists who claim to have solved all riddles facing humanity

Now you're saying -

they have implicitly claimed to have solved the biggest riddle facing humanity

We've gone from the rather grandiose claim that 'all' riddles have been solved, to the 'biggest'. Could you just clarify 'exactly' what you mean there my good man before we continue?!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That particular quote is ubiquitous on creationist websites, and it's not really what it appears to be. The first part of the quote is actually Darwin's own words relating to the provability of the process of evolution during his lifetime. Matthews himself was, when he wrote this passage in the late sixties, close to the end of his career, a career t ...[text shortened]... finition I posted above, the fact of it's existence is now quite beyond rational argument.

You are wrong my dear puttycat. There is much rational argument
against evolution. Even the DNA discoveries, as you pointed out, is
evidence of design and not evolution. You may not have seen the video
of Richard Dawkins, the self-proclaimed british authority on evolution
being stumped by a question on the proof of evolution that I posted the
link to earlier. It is not over until the fat lady sings, my dear.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Many posters on this forum such as twithead,Andrew Hamilton,agerg have claimed that God belongs with tooth fairy and spaghetti monster as an imaginary entity. All of them are scientists or inclined wholly towards science.By so clubbing God with tooth fairies and spaghetti monsters,they have implicitly claimed to have solved the biggest riddle facing human ...[text shortened]... saying that these are the scientists who have claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity ?

If these are really scientists and examples of the scientists to come, the
world is in for a heap of trouble. I doubt if any of them could experiment
themselves out of a paper back. Just an expression, we sometimes use
around here.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Nope. It says nothing about the nature of the influences causing the variation in allele frequency. It is a precise and scientific definition of the term 'evolution', nothing more or less.

It is definitely in the "less" category. No evolution there.
Only adaptation, my dear puttycat.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are wrong my dear puttycat. There is much rational argument
against evolution. Even the DNA discoveries, as you pointed out, is
evidence of design and not evolution. You may not have seen the video
of Richard Dawkins, the self-proclaimed british authority on evolution
being stumped by a question on the proof of evolution that I posted the
link to earlier. It is not over until the fat lady sings, my dear.

There is much rational argument against evolution.

But the sum argument, if you can even call it that, from you is -

The Bible says animals were created according to their kinds so therefore evolution is false.

Explain to me how that is 'rational'?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is definitely in the "less" category. No evolution there.
Only adaptation, my dear puttycat.

Evolution is adaption.

How many times have i told you that?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not sure where to start with this.

Firstly, twhitehead is a computer programmer, Agerg has just finished a maths degree, and i'm not sure what Andrew does but i'm sure he's not a scientist. So it appears in actual fact none of them are scientists which makes you're initial claim fall down like a pack of cards in a gusty wind.

Secondly, this w ...[text shortened]... uld you just clarify 'exactly' what you mean there my good man before we continue?!

So you are saying they have been lying all this time. How interesting.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Evolution is adaption.

How many times have i told you that?

So why can't we just agree to use the word "adaption" and drop the
term "evolution" so at least the two of us can get along nicely?