Evolution by Definition

quote:

---

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

---

This definition is a little problematic, because evolution and natural selection are not completely linked concepts. Natural selection typically refers to the difference in survival capacity between phenotypes (or, outward characteristics). Sexual selection, one possible alternative method of evolution, refers to the difference in reproductive success between phenotypes. Additionally, mutation and other random and quasi-random factors can cause evolutionary changes. Intermixing of once-separated populations can also alter the genomes of the net generation.So, evolution is, as the simplest and most commonly used definition states, "descent with modification." Natural selection is one (probably the most common) mechanism by which evolution can occur.

From Tesla:

quote:

---

biological evolution misses some truths because it fails to observe other evolutions that could be affecting the biological evolutions.
to be blunt: their overlooking variables.

---

"Biological evolution" does not miss any truths, Tesla. Maybe people trying to study it miss it, but evolution is the product of the forces of the universe that work on it, so there is no possible way it could miss it.Organicmachination said this:

quote:

---

Your argument about the different types of evolution is misplaced. Simply because the word evolution means multiple things depending on the context it is used in, for example: the evolution of heat in an exothermic reaction, the evolution of language, and evolution in a biological sense, it does not mean that biological evolution is inaccurate. It is perfectly accurate. We just use the term "evolution" to describe it because it has to do with change.

---

That's very good stuff, Tesla. In biology, "evolution" is defined as "descent with modification." Therefore, when you say stars and the Earth evolve, you can't be talking about the same process because there is no descent (i.e. no offspring). Minerals cannot evolve because they do not give rise to new minerals: aragonite doesn't build up slowly through geological processes that eventually transform it into ulexite. Therefore, there is no real "modification": there is just the initial production, followed by possible breakdown and production of something different.If you want to include all of these ideas under one definition, your only real recourse is to say it means "change" (as has been asserted ad nauseum by Catholic Scientist) or, to be even more specific, "change over time." You may even want to add "cumulative" in there, because, as in my mineral example, cyclical changes don't really change anything.So: "cumulative change over time"On a more general note, I don't think it's appropriate for a creationist to define evolution, anyway. This is a debate. And, in debates, you don't really get to dictate your opponents' arguments to them.Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

Rahvin's right, Tesla: you don't make any sense. I'd tell you to edit your posts--you know, use punctuation and capital letters--but that would just make it easier to read the nonsense, and wouldn't cause this stuff to be sensical.Anyway, even if there were different "types" of evolution, they would all be considered, at most, factors contributing to an overall process, and only the overall process would be accurately called "evolution."Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar. See: I edit mine.