Question for those who do not accept evolutionary theory: Can you even define it as it is used scientifically?

Question

If you do hold, based on evidence, that evolution is accurate, please hold off on defining it for now.

I want to see if the creationists can.

Deicidal:

Hush you, or I'll get Lemmiwinks to take care of you!

Bajingo:

Shhhh. I didn't ask for people to spoof Christians. They do that well enough on their own usually.

Besides, you make it too obvious that you are a troll. Learn some subtlety.

nemesis:

Incorrect. There is a single definition which is universally accepted for Evolution as it is used in scientific circles.

It may be worded differently, but it without fail will encompass one detail, one only -- any definition which lacks it is incorrect, any definition which includes more is superfluous.

thefinalresult:

Very well, turn on your email. I will not answer my own question.

By the way, your response was not an answer, and has been reported as such.

mighty.macabros:

If DNA accidentally loops in transcriptionase, the strand the transcriptionase spits out will have more base pairs than the original. It may even contain a complete copy of a gene, so that the new strand contains two or more copies of the one gene.

By this, one copy can change, break, or otherwise be modified by future mutations or transcription errors, while the other maintains proper functionality.

As it happens, this seems to be how one of the enzymes in our clotting system works -- it was originally involved in digestion.

mighty.macabros:

I am always willing to discuss with those willing to discuss. You have always struck me as an honest seeker for knowledge and truth.

Those who do not, don't even warrant the textbook upside the head response, but at least it gets me my two points. ;)

nemesis:

You will recognize your error when I post it the definition before I close this question.

It is only one single detail from which all else in evolution flows, and as such is the core definition.

nemesis:

I guarantee you -- you will find no scholarly site which will disagree.

darwin lied:

Incorrect. You've defined speciation, not evolution.

darwin lied:

Let me correct MYSELF:

You've mingled adaptability and speciation.

But you did not define evolution.

nemesis:

rhymezone is not a scholarly site, and its definition is incorrect scientifically speaking.

Congratulations on finding the proper definition though, with your first attempt.

mighty.macabros:

"evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next"

Correct. Generally "allele" is used instead of "inherited traits", but inherited traits are determined by alleles.

nemesis:

Actually, technically I believe in nothing and have faith in nothing.

Either I have evidence or I form no opinion either way.

mighty.macabros:

Height is co-factored. Genes play a part, but so does childhood diet (specifically, caloric intake).

However, there is evidence that the genes for taller persons have become more prominent in the gene pool, and those for shorter persons have become less prominent. This shift in percentage of alleles is evolution.

In this case, it is evolution by adaptation, though it certainly has not progressed far enough to cause speciation.

Speciation requires a divergent evolutionary pressure. Height is subject to a shift pressure (the whole pool is being shifted one way, not being split apart). So you would not see speciation out of the height difference.

Answer 1

I firmly believe in adaptability, JP, and believe that the principle behind evolution is sound, however, I do have a two major problems that keep me from believing in it whole-heartedly.

1. I don't see how something can spring more DNA up over the course of time. In fact, science would kind off scoff at the idea. However, one of the primary things about evolution, is having to accept this fact, and quite frankly I do not.

2. Despite the multiple discoveries made in Geological digs, there has yet to surface any of the 'missing links' to the completed products we see today. Human remains from thousands upon thousands of years ago, are still quite human in appearance, just smaller in overall size. The fact that humans have progressively gotten larger over the years is proof of adaptability, but I can not call that evolution.

edit: Interesting point, and I can see that as a factor to possibly explain the cause for cancer as well. So that will alieviate the first problem for me. Well said, I usually just get people to smash my over the head with a text book and call me dumb when I list that a reason I don't subscribe to the idea.

additional note: I found this description

evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Edit (with a vengence part duex):

So would humans typical height range increasing be an example of this, or is it still adaptability? Oh and Nemesis, not to take sides dude, but (although the wording is different), they both state the same thing.

Answer 2

The theory of evolution, or 'toe' accompanied with natural selection states that a organism that acquires a 'step forward' in development will have a higher chance at survival, it in turn will create off-spring which have a higher chance of survival, than those that did not acquire the same 'step forward' Darwin's famous 'finches' stated that the finches with the longer beaks were are to extract seed from the pods when the weather was dry, the finches with the shorter beaks where not so lucky and died out. so now you find finches with longer beaks. Makes good sense. A giraffe with a longer neck could reach just a little higher for food than the others it and its off spring went on to survive, while the shorter versions died out. Once again makes good sense.

The issue that comes into play is this, weather it be a million years, or 6 billion years, when you see the fossils of a finch, it is a finch, not something else. When you see the remains of a giraffe, it too is a giraffe, all species, ALL SPECIES appear in the complete form from day one. There are shorter, taller, fatter, and some skinny , but they are all still fully formed from day one. That is the part that the preachers of evolution attempt to cloud over and huff and puff around. That is why as to the origins of mankind and all life, 'toe' is a small portion of the truth, not the truth it's self. Man kinds record shows man as man, yes there are deformed fossil records, but yes just as we have seen in the last few days there are deformed people, as in the child with 8 limbs.

Answer 3

If you ask a person who is all into that evolutionary theory they may say its something entirely different from what you define it as. And what I have seen is you Evolutionists have a different Definitions for it. and all you claim that your idea of what it really is is 100% fact. Their are many Evolutionary theories not just one. each person who believes in that seems to say something different. you ppl make no sense. About Creatism and evolution I don't know I'm not all knowing I didn't live on the first day earth was born I don't know neither do you, to say otherwise would be foolish. but if you really care about my explanation then here it is. I believe that God is real, Do I believe He suspended Nature No, Do I believe he manipulated nature to create it all yes. their you have it.

And that is untrue that their is only one definition for evolution.
every year scientists find new things that conflict with their old ideas so they switch around their old beliefs and finds to try to figure out how the puzzle goes together. and since this theory was made they have no been able to solve the missing link between apes and humans and other animals as such. because every year they keep finding new stuff. and literally my faith in Evolution is broken because of that.

Once you post a Definition of the Evolutionary theory I can go to another site and find another definition for it that conflicts with yours.

here is one definition: Any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_evolution.htm
theirs the link to it

here is another one

noun: (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms and here is the site
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=Evolution&typeofrhyme=def&org1=syl&org2=l

the first is is talking about inherited traits from one generation to another.

the second is saying Changes in a species not changes in one species to a entire different species. Their is a big missing link between humans and apes and Science since the creation of it has not been able to find it nor come close. I believe some science is accurate though.

You just proved me correct One definition you agree with the other you dont therefore its wrong, No matter what you will believe what you want as I will. But I think it would be wise to keep a open mind when it comes to how the world came about, regardless what we know their will alwayys be a unknown. Peace.

Answer 4

I want to see if YOU can define it, evolution, scientifically. Also, the other side of the issue is, if you reject creationism then you must know what it is in order to reject it so please give a thorough and comprehensive definition of creationism.

You didn't ask a question for an answer you are ranting and chatting which is against the rules. This isn't a message board but you started it.

Answer 5

It's when a fish squirrel has butt sex with a monkey which created us. I think that's what creationists think evolution is.

Answer 6

I'm religious, belive in god, but I'm not a creationist. They are retards. They think the world is 6,000 years old

Answer 7

No it (evilution, LOLOL!!!1)athiest religion and is a lier.

How can a rock have wings or a fish become a monkeyman?

Do we see a rock with wings?

Do we see fish in a zoo become monkeyman?

ANSWER IS NO!!!

EVILUTION IS ATHIEST LIE!! ppl ur belive anythying if it hate God. When Jehallah come from the body of a Jesus then u will see the world is shaked and all Chrislims ppl go 2 the Heaven. Xept the evil siners.

Do you know who that us?????