Elmer writes:
Well, in truth, where biological evolution is concerned, and aside from those rare instances where one organism consciously or, more oftern unconsciously, selects one member of the opposite sex to be its sexual partner and so join in the mutual effort of generating offspring, [that is, what is commonly called, 'sexual selection], selection' is as far from being a 'fact' as it is possible to get.
You really don't have a clue about evolution, do you?
Nobody has as yet observed, either in the lab or in nature, a case where random genetic mutation is indisputably the causal mechanism for an increase in the productivity of a biosystem.
Yep, not a clue!
Also, nobody has ever observed, in the lab or in the field, a case in which 'natural selection' rises above the level of a meaningless truism, that is a trivial observation of an effect, i.e., the current state of local ecosystem composition.
What is the point of making declarations about something you know nothing about?
Evolution is more than just 'any old change in an organism'.
Uh, remember
Message 1, where RAZD provided his definition? Or
Message 56 where I provided an alternative definition?
What I _am_ denying is the neo-darwinian, 'Modern Synthesis', Fisherian assumption-- that evolution is subsumed within genetics, [including population genetics]. That is, the condition wherein evolution is reduced to being just one facet of the study of heredity. The opinion that evolution is merely an epiphenomenon of faulty inheritance mechanisms.
You're making up your own definitions again. Rebutting your own definition of evolution is a pointless exercise. You have to rebut the actual definition, not your imaginary one.
None of the above has the least pertinence wrt to myself and my opinions. You seem to have somehow managed to confuse me for a creationist, i.e., an advocate of biblical literalism. Please don't do that again.
You're not being equated with a creationist. It is your ignorance of evolution that is being equated with that of a creationist. They're pretty much equivalent.
...we can call it "RAZDism" and say that it is "hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation."
You can, of course, call it whatever you wish. The trick is to get people to agree with you.
RAZD wasn't calling it RAZDism. What he said was, "If it makes you feel better we can call it 'RAZDism'," and he said this because you seemed to be exhibiting an aversion to the word "evolution". He's just saying that if the word "evolution" makes you feel uncomfortable that we could use a different word, but the definition is unchanged and is broadly accepted by the scientific community.
Inherited variety wrt traits, [which I take you to mean by "hereditary variation and adaptation"] can be unchanging, constant, static within a particular taxon, or can be seen as constantly changing and reconfiguring itself between individual members of that taxon, with no reference to 'evolution' whatsoever--IOW, just heredity, plain and simple.
And this is why RAZD suspects you have an aversion to the "evolution" label. Heredity is the genetic storage and transmission mechanism by which traits are inherited. Evolution is genomic change in populations over time.
Yes, it does seem to bear on the question, describing at one point the types of genetic change (mutation) that can occur.
I think it necessary to arrive at a generally accepted definition of the process [evolution] itself, apsrt from its supposed causal mechanisms.
You've been offered several definitions of evolution already. As long as it's accurate, go ahead and offer your own.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
