Biology Prof: Evolution Isn’t Theory, it’s Fact

Human Events ^ | August 17 | Christopher Flickinger

[PApatriot1]

Did you hear the news? Evolution is no longer a theory. It’s a fact! I know, I can’t believe it either. Wait, you haven’t heard about this breakthrough discovery? Well, you might want to check with Professor Colin Purrington, an evolutionary biologist who teaches at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. Professor Purrington says, “Evolution is a ‘theory’ like gravity is a ‘theory.’”

[HawaiianGecko]

	Before this thread turns ugly, here's a pretty girl to make Freepers smile.   It is hard to think that this happens randomly without purpose!

!

 

 

Before this thread turns
ugly, here's a pretty girl
to make Freepers smile.
 

It is hard to think that this happens randomly without purpose!

 

[wideawake]

Correct, and scientists have demonstrated genetic change within a population (evolution) millions of times.

Very sloppily said.

Genetic change does not equal evolution.

My children, while genetically quite similar to me are still genetically different from me - my bloodline has changed in one generation.

Yet I would hesitate to call my daughter a different species from my wife.

In fact, the extreme conservatism of genetic change from generation to generation militates against the plausibility of macroevolution - hence the stopgap arguments like "punctuated equilibrium" etc. to temper the extremism of evolutionary claims.

[ml/nj]

It's done all the time with fast reproducing critters.

Really?

Do you know of an example where some of the descendant critters produced offspring that could only breed with a subset of the descendant critter population?

ML/NJ

[stremba]

Most likely, if you changed your DNA enough, while you would still bear a very close resemblance to other people, you would be rendered incapable of interbreeding with them, and hence by the usual working definition of species, you would no longer be human, or more preciesly you would no longer be a member of the species homo sapiens.

[bobdsmith]

Cabbage and Broccoli decended from the same ancestor..

[stremba]

#1 has nothing to do with evolution, and #2 has been done.

[stremba]

no one has ever bred a barley into a tomato

If they did, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution. Evolution states that the various species now in existence arose from accumulated small changes, not from a major change over a single generation.

[stremba]

Evolution cannot occur to a single individual organism, so your example of your daughter being different from you and your wife is certainly not evolution. However, evolution does occur in populations of organisms. This is observed fact. Evolution can lead to speciation, but does not always do so. Evolution is simply the variation over time of allele frequencies in an organism population.

[ClearCase_guy]

Evolution is simply the variation over time of allele frequencies in an organism population.

That's the definition.

A definition is not evidence of the event.

[wideawake]

Evolution is simply the variation over time of allele frequencies in an organism population.

No one denies that there are changes in allele frequencies.

This is not how Darwin defined evolution.

[bobdsmith]

but observations are

[bobdsmith]

who cares how darwin defined evolution 150 years ago. We are talking about biology today

[biblewonk]

She'd be ever prettier without the implants.

[Diamond]

The smoking gun proof that humans share a common ancestor with primates is contained in your very own DNA. There were rare pre-historic viral infections in our common ancestor that have left remnants in the DNA of primates and humans. The only possible explanation is a common ancestor.

If there is a smoking gun here it is firing blanks. 1) Common ancestry can accommodate these alleged 'shared' 'errors', but TOE does not even predict their existence in the first place, much less that they will be in the same chromosonal locations in different species. 2) There are NO examples of ‘shared errors’ linking mammals to other species. 3) The assertion that common ancestry is the only possible explanation for endogenous retroviruses in identical chromosome locations of different species is based SOLEY on the mere ASSUMPTION that they are nonfunctional, but the fact of the matter is that they are not all nonfunctional. Some of them are active in protein expression in humans. Anyone who claims to know everything these things may be doing in a species or what their role was in the past is blowing hot air. It is just as possible that that retroviruses are a degeneration of a designed system rather than having arisen through some random process.

Cordially,

[trebb]

The professor is correct. There are facts that can be tested and observations made to confirm the hypothesis.

Wouldn't that then make it "The Law of Evolution"?, which could then be used to make highly accurate predictions?

[Mad Dawg]

All that needs to be shown is that the new population can no longer breed with the original. Bingo, new species.

Has this been shown?

I must say that nearly all the pro-evolution arguers sound like Liberals in their approach to persuasion:

• Those who disagree with are stupid.
• Those who disagree with them are ignorant.
• Those who disagree with them are nut jobs.
• Those who disagree with them are evil.

My faith does not stand or fall on the general theories of the origin of species or the Descent of Man. I would like to see the discussion carried on in a way that would help me learn more about the arguments either way. I already know how to insult and disparage people who disagree with me.

[Stark_GOP]

"Most likely, if you changed your DNA enough, while you would still bear a very close resemblance to other people, you would be rendered incapable of interbreeding with them, and hence by the usual working definition of species, you would no longer be human, or more preciesly you would no longer be a member of the species homo sapiens."
---
Most likely you will be dead for the damage to your DNA.
Let's say (for giggles) that you do live to reproductive maturity. You're probably sterile.
Let's allow the possibility that you're not sterile.
You could not select a homo sapien as your mate since you wouldn't produce children.
You would have to search the world in the hope of finding a member of the opposite sex with the same DNA mutation you have that you agree to mate.

[wideawake]

who cares how darwin defined evolution 150 years ago

Quite a few people. Including the most vocal advocates of ideological Darwinism like Richard Dawkins.

We are talking about biology today

And today, biologically, no one has been able to replicate the evolution of radical speciation in a controlled environment.

[DoctorMichael]

In a corollary article Mr. Flickinger, the author of this article, further puts forth the opinion that Homosexuals and Pedophiles should be able to recruit children in America's schools into their respective lifestyles since "students deserve to hear both sides of the debate. If not, how else are aspiring Homosexuals and Pedophiles going to realize they’re wrong?"