How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.

..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.

Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.

Quote from: Pongo on July 05, 2010, 10:07:11 PM

..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.

Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

it's in quite a few more words than I used, but if you are as smart as you want to seem just a few seconds of reading should confirm that my link matches what I said.


Edit: also, evolution being discovered before genes means nothing to the definition. In science definitions can be changed to fit reality.

edit edit: if you are new to this subject http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html this link will confirm what I said and is a rather interesting read.

Quote from: trig on July 06, 2010, 07:00:35 AM

Quote from: Pongo on July 05, 2010, 10:07:11 PM

..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.

Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

it's in quite a few more words than I used, but if you are as smart as you want to seem just a few seconds of reading should confirm that my link matches what I said.


Edit: also, evolution being discovered before genes means nothing to the definition. In science definitions can be changed to fit reality.

edit edit: if you are new to this subject http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html this link will confirm what I said and is a rather interesting read.

You are still failing miserably. Lets see the quote from Wikipedia:

Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic, such as eye color, height, or a behavior, that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species

It is clearly stated that "altered genes, or alleles" are related to "the main cause of variation", and are part of the "processes that constantly introduce variation in traits". The other part mentioned when they said "Evolution is the product of two opposing forces" is the "processes that make particular variants become more common or rare".

Not even your selected quote supports your definition that says Evolution is "the change of allele frequency over time".

Just give it up: the changes in alleles is a part of Evolution, not Evolution. And your capacity to read scientific material is even worse than that of this dumbass, so I can only imagine the epithet that correctly describes you.

Quote from: Raist on July 06, 2010, 08:42:18 AM

Quote from: trig on July 06, 2010, 07:00:35 AM

Quote from: Pongo on July 05, 2010, 10:07:11 PM

..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.

Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

it's in quite a few more words than I used, but if you are as smart as you want to seem just a few seconds of reading should confirm that my link matches what I said.


Edit: also, evolution being discovered before genes means nothing to the definition. In science definitions can be changed to fit reality.

edit edit: if you are new to this subject http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html this link will confirm what I said and is a rather interesting read.

You are still failing miserably. Lets see the quote from Wikipedia:

Quote

Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic, such as eye color, height, or a behavior, that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species

It is clearly stated that "altered genes, or alleles" are related to "the main cause of variation", and are part of the "processes that constantly introduce variation in traits". The other part mentioned when they said "Evolution is the product of two opposing forces" is the "processes that make particular variants become more common or rare".

Not even your selected quote supports your definition that says Evolution is "the change of allele frequency over time".

Just give it up: the changes in alleles is a part of Evolution, not Evolution. And your capacity to read scientific material is even worse than that of this dumbass, so I can only imagine the epithet that correctly describes you.

Epic Fail for Raist.

Quote from: Raist on July 06, 2010, 08:42:18 AM

Quote from: trig on July 06, 2010, 07:00:35 AM

Quote from: Pongo on July 05, 2010, 10:07:11 PM

..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.

Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

it's in quite a few more words than I used, but if you are as smart as you want to seem just a few seconds of reading should confirm that my link matches what I said.


Edit: also, evolution being discovered before genes means nothing to the definition. In science definitions can be changed to fit reality.

edit edit: if you are new to this subject http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html this link will confirm what I said and is a rather interesting read.

You are still failing miserably. Lets see the quote from Wikipedia:

Quote

Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic, such as eye color, height, or a behavior, that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species

It is clearly stated that "altered genes, or alleles" are related to "the main cause of variation", and are part of the "processes that constantly introduce variation in traits". The other part mentioned when they said "Evolution is the product of two opposing forces" is the "processes that make particular variants become more common or rare".

Not even your selected quote supports your definition that says Evolution is "the change of allele frequency over time".

Just give it up: the changes in alleles is a part of Evolution, not Evolution. And your capacity to read scientific material is even worse than that of this dumbass, so I can only imagine the epithet that correctly describes you.

Yes. Two opposing forces make these alleles more common or rare.

Both of those forces CHANGE THE FREQUENCY.

Like I said, if you are as smart as you pretend to be, you should see what I mean.

"The frequencies of all the alleles of a given gene often are graphed together as an allele frequency distribution histogram, or allele frequency spectrum. Population genetics studies the different "forces" that might lead to changes in the distribution and frequencies of alleles?in other words, to evolution. Besides selection, these forces include genetic drift, mutation and migration."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency

Here is a link that also supports what I said. The bolded part (if you can actually comprehend what is being said) will show you again that I'm correct.

I don't think that last post will help so I will bring in the null hypothesis for evolution in a population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

They hardy weinberg model makes certain assumptions, and these assumptions basically say that evolution is not happening in a population. If the model is true there is a certain constant distribution of genes and alleles in a population. If the hardy weinberg model is wrong, aka there has been a change in distribution of genes and alleles, then evolution has occurred.

This literally means that evolution IS the change in genes or allele frequency in a population.

I don't think that last post will help so I will bring in the null hypothesis for evolution in a population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

They hardy weinberg model makes certain assumptions, and these assumptions basically say that evolution is not happening in a population. If the model is true there is a certain constant distribution of genes and alleles in a population. If the hardy weinberg model is wrong, aka there has been a change in distribution of genes and alleles, then evolution has occurred.

This literally means that evolution IS the change in genes or allele frequency in a population.

You still do not accept that you made a simple, clear and very short claim, where you declare that "Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles at a specific loci", made the clear statement that "I gave you the actual definition of evolution", called me a dumbass because I do not concur, and still cannot show even one place where Evolution is defined as a change in frequency of alleles.

This is becoming as stupid as the "acceleration is gravitation" discussion, where some pretended physicist decided to take a shallow look at gravitation and make an over-simplistic definition, then fight for his definition to the point of absurdity.

Nobody is denying that alleles are at the very center of Evolution, just as natural selection, mutations, the coding of proteins in the DNA chains, speciation, and other subjects are at the center of Evolution. Just as you can show me "ad infinitum" that the cycle of Evolution passes through allele changes in every cycle, I can show you how natural selection (and recently artificial selection) are in the cycle also. Each is first a consequence, then a cause, then a consequence because that is what a cycle is all about.

Why don't you just accept the definition you, yourself, quoted from Wikipedia and accept that the definition is longer and encompasses more than you would like?

(and by the way, stop using ad hominem attacks when you are not able to at least show you are superior to the attacked part?)

I don't think that last post will help so I will bring in the null hypothesis for evolution in a population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

They hardy weinberg model makes certain assumptions, and these assumptions basically say that evolution is not happening in a population. If the model is true there is a certain constant distribution of genes and alleles in a population. If the hardy weinberg model is wrong, aka there has been a change in distribution of genes and alleles, then evolution has occurred.

This literally means that evolution IS the change in genes or allele frequency in a population.

Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive (If B then A). Hence you've not shown that (A=B). EPIC fail for you.

Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive (If B then A).

Well, it sure is a good thing that he didn't imply that.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 05:22:58 PM

Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive (If B then A).

Well, it sure is a good thing that he didn't imply that.

Please wake up, as he most certainly did. His quote showed (If A then B), but he claimed (A=B) that requires (If B then A). Now do you understand?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 06, 2010, 05:24:54 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 05:22:58 PM

Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive (If B then A).

Well, it sure is a good thing that he didn't imply that.

Please wake up, as he most certainly did. His quote showed (If A then B), but he claimed (A=B) that requires (If B then A). Now do you understand?

You seem to like saying the exact same thing over and over despite being wrong. Please reference:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40352.msg1009499#msg1009499
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40352.msg1009509#msg1009509
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40352.msg1009519#msg1009519
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40352.msg1009702#msg1009702
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40352.msg1009721#msg1009721
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40352.msg1009776#msg1009776
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40352.msg1009950#msg1009950
Please note that saying the same thing twice won't suddenly make a statement true, or a question justified in any way.
Your A/B implication is completely unrelated to Raist's post, and saying it several times won't help.
Again, do remember that saying the same thing, just using slightly different words, does not affect their credibility, at least not in a positive way.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 05:30:07 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 06, 2010, 05:24:54 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 05:22:58 PM

Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive inverse (If B then A).

Well, it sure is a good thing that he didn't imply that.

Please wake up, as he most certainly did. His quote showed (If A then B), but he claimed (A=B) that requires (If B then A). Now do you understand?

Please note that saying the same thing twice won't suddenly make a statement true, or a question justified in any way.
Your A/B implication is completely unrelated to Raist's post, and saying it several times won't help.
Again, do remember that saying the same thing, just using slightly different words, does not affect their credibility, at least not in a positive way.

I suspect that you have some intelligence, but not the education regarding this logic error, so I'll spend some time trying to explain this carefully.

I'm going to use the symbols 'A' and 'B' to represent two things that Raist claims are equal.

Now A can only equal B if and only if both If A is true than B must be true AND If B is true than A must be true. If Boolean Logic we call the first the positive and the second the inverse.  Please reference: http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm

Now just to show you where Raist's error is (though I really think you can find it for yourself.)

A='there has been a change in distribution of genes and alleles'
B=' evolution has occurred'
His quote from Wikipedia was (If A then B)=
'If the hardy weinberg model is wrong, aka there has been a change in distribution of genes and alleles, then evolution has occurred.

His conclusion is A=B: 'evolution IS the change in genes or allele frequency in a population'.

This is a fundamental logic error. Until he shows that if B then A, or If evolution has occurred then there has been a change in distribution of gene and alleles, he cannot claim that they are the same. (BTW he'll still have to show more to be right even then, but let's give him one problem at a time, okay? Hint: the next problem will focus on "has occurred" phrase.)

As far as saying the same thing twice, I recommend it in any debate where your opponent tries to derail the topic. Getting BF back to the debate means not affording him the quarter to Goodwin this thread. I repeat it not to make it true but to hold a troll's feet to the fire.

You seem to like saying the exact same thing over and over despite being wrong.

He's been doing that for years.  It's quite amusing.

Yeah, you've made a point there, but it's like with squares and rectangles. Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. If A then B, but if B then not necessarily A. Raist has defined a square as a rectangle, which is not at all incorrect, but might be inaccurate. However, once again, you are picking on words instead of focusing on the general point.

Now, since you're trying to derail this thread, feel free to reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Variation and carry on.

Yeah, you've made a point there, but it's like with squares and rectangles. Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. If A then B, but if B then not necessarily A. Raist has defined a square as a rectangle, which is not at all incorrect, but might be inaccurate. However, once again, you are picking on words instead of focusing on the general point.

Now, since you're trying to derail this thread, feel free to reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Variation and carry on.

You're right. I probably should stop posting so far off topic here. I disagree that we can call a fundamental logic error 'picking on words'. Raist has really failed, and we need to stop similar logic errors by either side.

I disagree that this is a fundamental mistake. It's unfortunate wording, which, if taken literally, leads to inaccuracy, not incorrectness. Anyway. I believe we both know each other's view on this well enough to drop it. Unless you feel there's something to add, let's get back to the subject.

This is ludicrous.  Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  Raist is right.  I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual.  If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics). 

This is ludicrous.  Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  Raist is right.  I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual.  If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics). 

A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.

This is ludicrous.  Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  Raist is right.  I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual.  If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics). 

The discussion is not with Webster's. The discussion is with people that believe themselves so expert in the subject that their definition is better than all the published definitions, and use ad hominem attacks against those who disagree.

There are a number of ways in which you can show that your definition is the right one and all the others are wrong, but all you and Raist have done is ranting. Tell us why the definition should change and we will happily try and change it for the rest of the world.

Quote from: Pongo on July 06, 2010, 11:48:15 PM

This is ludicrous.  Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  Raist is right.  I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual.  If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).  

A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.

PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?

Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.

Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.

My biology professor (who got his Ph.D. at Harvard) gave the definition of evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population. The mechanisms for evolution are obviously far more complex, but at its most basic level, that is all he said it was.

My biology professor (who got his Ph.D. at Harvard) gave the definition of evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population. The mechanisms for evolution are obviously far more complex, but at its most basic level, that is all he said it was.

And we should believe you because... why exactly?

You have a history of reasonable, well thought posts, which is a lot better than you can see on Pongo's or Raist's posts, so I am willing to accept your word. Anyway, you also felt the need to to explain that this is the "most basic level", so I imagine you also feel that this definition does not give enough information.

Quote from: Raist on July 07, 2010, 12:48:57 AM

Quote from: Pongo on July 06, 2010, 11:48:15 PM

This is ludicrous.  Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  Raist is right.  I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual.  If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).  

A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.

PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?

Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.

Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.

No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."

Quote from: trig on July 07, 2010, 01:09:09 AM

Quote from: Raist on July 07, 2010, 12:48:57 AM

Quote from: Pongo on July 06, 2010, 11:48:15 PM

This is ludicrous.  Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  Raist is right.  I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual.  If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).  

A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.

PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?

Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.

Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.

No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."

Please refrain from using the fallacy appeal to ridicule.

Quote from: Pseudointellect on July 07, 2010, 03:24:30 AM

My biology professor (who got his Ph.D. at Harvard) gave the definition of evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population. The mechanisms for evolution are obviously far more complex, but at its most basic level, that is all he said it was.

And we should believe you because... why exactly?

You have a history of reasonable, well thought posts, which is a lot better than you can see on Pongo's or Raist's posts, so I am willing to accept your word. Anyway, you also felt the need to to explain that this is the "most basic level", so I imagine you also feel that this definition does not give enough information.

Lies, my posts are always eloquent, well thought.

Quote from: Raist on July 07, 2010, 09:06:55 AM

Quote from: trig on July 07, 2010, 01:09:09 AM

Quote from: Raist on July 07, 2010, 12:48:57 AM

Quote from: Pongo on July 06, 2010, 11:48:15 PM

This is ludicrous.  Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  Raist is right.  I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual.  If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).  

A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.

PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?

Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.

Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.

No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."

Please refrain from using the fallacy appeal to ridicule.

I wasn't using a fallacy appeal. I gave a simplified analogy to show where his logic breaks down. His analogy was the fallacious one. And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.

And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.

This is the age-old Yoda fallacy, by invoking it, you make yourself appear to be a centuries-old Jedi master; as wise as you are skilled with a lightsaber.  It does not make your arguments stronger and I would appropriate it if you refrained from using it in the serious forums.

Quote from: Raist on July 07, 2010, 03:02:00 PM

And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.

This is the age-old Yoda fallacy, by invoking it, you make yourself appear to be a centuries-old Jedi master; as wise as you are skilled with a lightsaber.  It does not make your arguments stronger and I would appropriate it if you refrained from using it in the serious forums.

This is a mudkip fallacy, by using it you must search your deck for another card entitled mudkip and bring it into play. It has an upkeep of 2 chocolates.

Quote from: Catchpa on July 07, 2010, 09:28:14 AM

Quote from: Raist on July 07, 2010, 09:06:55 AM

Quote from: trig on July 07, 2010, 01:09:09 AM

Quote from: Raist on July 07, 2010, 12:48:57 AM

Quote from: Pongo on July 06, 2010, 11:48:15 PM

This is ludicrous.  Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  Raist is right.  I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual.  If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).  

A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.

PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?

Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.

Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.

No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."

Please refrain from using the fallacy appeal to ridicule.

I wasn't using a fallacy appeal. I gave a simplified analogy to show where his logic breaks down. His analogy was the fallacious one. And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.

You present his argument in a way that makes it seem ridiculous, thus it is an appeal to ridicule.