We'll start with the process, where evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation
Where: trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, the length of a bone, the size of a skull, the color of an eye, the thickness of hair, change is a measurable quantifiable difference in a trait, such as the number, length or color, hereditary means that it is passed from parent to child, population means a group of individual organisms of the same species, and generation is the average time it takes for a newborn to become able to reproduce.
You have not described any part of the alleged evolutionary process. This is a description of variation (excluding the out of place "allele/variation of a gene component").
General Reader: RAZD has presupposed 'evolution.' He then creates a list of heritable or non-heritable variations that are assumed to be evolutionary causations or part of the evolutionary process. But, in and by themselves, these variations (whatever their cause) is not evolution.
Evolution is an inference; one species has changed into a completely different species over vast amount of time. So far, RAZD has not evidenced evolution. Variation is not evolution. Darwin had no clue as to the origin of variation, and the modern theory was built having no clue, as well. RAZD has simply described evidence of special creation.
However variation is produced or caused the same corresponds to a mechanism reflecting Divine power. It occurs in the womb; therefore, the womb is a mechanism that produces special creation, and that mechanism itself reflects Divine power or craftsmanship. Evolution says biological reality does not reflect Divine power. But I have just shown you that it does.
Evolution is a process that is observed in everyday life: there is no species that does not change hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This process is an observed fact, and this is the objective evidential basis for the "Theory of Evolution" (ToE), and then both become the foundation of the science of Evolutionary Biology.
Modification evolution (also known as "gradualism") is an alleged process postulated to have taken billions of years to produce us and the nature that we see today. It cannot be observed because it is too slow for the naked eye to see. This is a big lie written by RAZD, or he has confused variation with macroevolution.
Astute creationists will notice that this is "just variation and adaptation within kinds" or "microevolution" which has become a well accepted fact even in these circles (as has a heliocentric solar system). That's the good news: creationists should not be concerned about evolution as defined here. The next question then is "what is the controversy all about," and how does this relate to "the rest of the story."
Now RAZD admits that he has been defining evolution incorrectly - intentionally. It is not even microevolution - just variation. But this is precisely where RAZD is lying. The lie is the admission, which is simply a disclaimer to silence Creationists. RAZD really believes variation is evolutionary.
I will reply to the remainder of RAZDs post ASAP....
I have read enough of this thread to see why you want it closed, RAZD. You are taking a beating.
the University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley definition is â€œevolution, simply put, is descent with modificationâ€
That was Darwin's definition - good grief!
The University of Michigan defines evolution as â€œchanges in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generationâ€ and the â€œgradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversityâ€ ...
Here we have a camel (a horse created by commitee). Gene-centric to standard Mayr-Naturalist inference evolution.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (Population Genetics) definition is â€œevolution is a change in the frequency of alleles within the gene pool of a population from one generation to the nextâ€
Ernst Mayr has said that evolution IS NOT a change in gene frequencies. EvC Forum member, Elmer, has explained this to you slightly up-thread.
That this is consistent with "variation and adaptation within kinds" or "microevolution" as used by creationists, and thus that creationists should not be concerned about evolution as defined here.
Microevolution is an interpretation of evidence that presupposes the falsity of a Genesis Deity active in reality. The interpretation is based on the conceptual mechanism of natural selection to select beneficial changes, thus propelling microevolution. Creationists accept God as the Designer and Creator - not natural selection. Therefore, we reject microevolution to have happened because we reject natural selection as creator.
Your definition: "evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" relies on an anti-Bible assumption, and the assumption that Fundamentalist creationism and their acceptance of microevolution is the Creationist view - it is not.
Atheist-evolutionism and Fundamentalist-creationism agree with one another concerning microevolution. In my opinion this evidence alone is the best evidence that microevolution is false.
RAZD is working through this in a slow an methodological fashion. I'm afraid that given you past history Ray you are NOT welcome to post in this thread and clutter it up with your nonsense. Open a thread in parallel if you want.
If you post here again I will suspend you from the whole forum.
Actually I just made another post. I did not see this post or I would not have made the second post.
You are evidently making a personal point in the form of Moderation. I am comforted that my post, and its arguments, has caused this. My recent posting history shows scant activity, so banning me is not punitive in any way.
Note to AdminNosy: I did not receive a reply to my question in "Suggestions and Questions" topic so I am proceeding under the assumption of a green light.
For those interested in Ray's understanding of what evolution is (and isn't), I refer you to the definition of evolution, message 192, where I showed that Ray was using a quote-mine from Mayr to misrepresent his position. I'll be happy to continue that discussion on that thread, Ray. Elmer may be interested as well.
Mayr said two things:
1. Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies (said in Preface).
2. But genetics is important to evolutionary theory (importance explained in the chapters).
The point I was making using Mayr was to have a source that rejects a gene-centric definition of evolution. Mayr rejects evolution defined at the genetic level but he admits genetics is important to evolutionary theory. Pease do not misrepresent this issue or the plain points I have made above. I think you need to acknowledge that not EVERY evolutionist defines 'evolution' at the genetic level, RAZD.
For the purposes of this thread it doesn't really matter what we call it as long as we agree on what we are talking about. Communication is about ideas, and ideas can be described many different ways.
I completely agree.
So instead we'll talk about RAZDism, where:
RAZDism is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation.
Here you have stipulated a definition, which is fine. Now, what is the "big lie" told by Creationists? I assume you are talking about Creationists that accept microevolution? RAZD, what do these Creationists propose for a mechanism accomplishing the micro-changes?
You know I just might agree with you that these Creationists are lying or extremely deluded or sorely mistaken.
Nor do I, seeing as my definition given previously of evolution is "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" and that is not a genetic definition ... your point would be?
According to your own arguments said definition is based - in part - on a genetic-based definition. Don't get me wrong: I actually like it because it is not overtly genetic-based or centric.
You know EvC member Elmer has, in my view, gone to great lengths to conceal his bias. But based on things he has said he is a Ernst Mayr evolutionist; rejects "Fisherian school" conclusions for the definition of 'evolution' which is terminology straight out of "One Long Argument" (Mayr 1991). He has also taken you to task for a gene-centric component definition of evolution which also corresponds to Mayr's view; and he has specifically stated that unless the phenotype is effected it is not evolution which again corresponds to Mayr's view. I have all of these books written by Mayr, and when I read Elmer I can hear Mayr speaking.
The point is: you want it both ways at the same time. If someone criticizes you for gene-centricism you have an out. If someone criticizes you for a Mayr-Naturalist-based definition you have an out.
But your definition is stated and proposed as stipulated which is perfectly legitimate. It is invulnerable on this "up-front" basis alone.
Also, I find the genetic definition impossible to use outside of instances where you can actually measure genetics, such as with fossils.
Good point. And again that was one of Mayr's reasons for rejecting the gene-centricism of the Ronald Fisherian school. And once more: we are only talking about the best definition of 'evolution'. Mayr wants it in visible reality based on inference and out of the microscopic world of genetics. And again: Elmer is correct when he pointed out that there are genetic changes that have nothing to do with evolution.
And as I said before, here we have an explicit statement where he explains why "a change in gene frequencies" is not evolution, in his opinion, because it involves genes that are not subject to selection, while he says previously that genes that are subject to selection are evolution. See the distinction?
Good. So we can now move on to how a definition for a "theory of evolution" could be phrased?
Why? Is not this topic about your stipulated definition and its relation to the views of certain Creationists?
The lie is that this is not evolution.
Do they not accept microevolution?
That it is just variation and adaptation. Surely you seen those claims.
Yes, I have. But my understanding is that they accept microevolution within kinds, which is simply saying that a genetic barrier exists preventing macroevolution.
It doesn't matter what scale it is, this is still evolution
And they accept microevolution - right?
The lie is that 'evolution doesn't occur' (but we'll call it something else and allow that to occur - the name shell game).
You probably have a point. If they accept microevolution you have a point. Personally, I do not see how a Creationist can accept microevolution. It will inevitably lead to points that you are making. This is why some time ago I announced that my view had changed: I reject microevolution to have ever occurred. Apparently these Creationists do not see the damning position that they are in.
If your are asking me to endorse any of the above, I cannot. My own definition would be something like this--
Evolution is change in organisms, over generations, in those intrinsic, inherent, morphological, physiological, and instinctive behavioural traits which, by their continuing presence, form the empirical parameters that characterize and identify a particular taxonomic group; eg., a herring gull, a spruce tree, a dog. Minor, trivial, non-vital changes to this historically established set of organismic properties constitute micro-evolution, whereas robust, vital changes to the above are macro-evolutionary. It must be noted that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are usually determined on the basis of their contribution to the basic, vital functioning [survival] of that class of organism.
Elmer: I am taking the liberty here in an attempt to reiterate what I think RAZD is trying to accomplish.
YOUR definition of evolution (as articulated above) is essentially what is called a stipulated definition because it is your own and because it contains no references in support. While I am sure you could provide references for each claim or component, and that the same is based on scientific facts - all of this is beside the point because the point is that because your definition has no references and it is your own definition - admittedly - it is therefore stipulated.
RAZD has done the same thing. He has repeatedly pointed out that his definition, while being based on a conglomeration of sources, is stipulated; and he ASKS persons to accept it on this basis for the sake of the debate or the discussion. RAZDs definition of the evolutionary process appears in yellow lettering through-out his posts. It is a working definition that only needs to be understood, and those participating need only to announce that they understand this, and that if they participate in the debate or discussion they will work with his stipulated definition (which he offered to amend early on).
Actually, you might call my definition of evolution, above, 'idiosyncratic', but it will not be, 'stipulated', until those 'to whom it may concern', agree to it. A thing is 'stipulated'when it settled upon, agreed to, by those involved-- be it a decision, a date, a definition, a quantity, a time, or whatever.
Acceptance does not constitute stipulation. The latter only needs to be explained by the author, speaker or "stipulator".
RAZD keeps pointing out that his definition of evolution is the one stipulated by darwinists, that is, population geneticists, biochemists, and molecular biologists. And he is correct about that. That is, in fact the stipulated molecular definition of evolution. As far as I'm concerned, that is fine for defining how chemicals evolve, but as for myself, I'm looking for a definition that applies to live organisms, not macromolecules.
I completely agree.
Gene-centricism is a private esoteric knowledge not available to the general population. It requires too much trust. I define evolution the way Darwin and Mayr define evolution. RAZDs stipulated definition is inclusive of inference-based on visible to the naked eye facts.
Such as the Galapagos finch beak sizes. At this point we don't need to know how the beak size changes, just that it does and that this change is hereditary.
Yes, but you do know that Creationism-Design has a different explanation of these facts (which is not the focus in this topic so I will not relate that explanation)?
What is your take on 'speciation' (Message 73)?
I reject all attempts to number how many species or kinds were on the Ark. It is pure speculation.
The real issue is how did the organisms on the Ark create the nature that we see today? But again this is wholly off-topic here.
Note that I limit it to the division of existing species into two or more new species (and this may be more restrictive than some creationist definitions\usages). Thus each new (daughter) population inherits some (but not all) traits found in the parent population.
I also do not include any new feature in the process, as that is not necessary for species classifications, so this is a rather minimalist definition.
If we can accept this stipulated definition I think we can move on to an initial formulation for a theory that we can then study with examples (such as the Galapagos finches ... ).
No mechanism of diversity is known to mankind that could have produced the nature that we see today if the starting base was the animals on the Ark about 5300 years ago.
The Creationist explanation is the direct hand of God supervising and multiplying nature.
The creationist will just say that is microevolution, and that what they want is evidence that macroevolution occurs.
Creationism rejects microevolution. There are some Creationists of the Fundamentalist nature that do accept microevolution, just like Atheist evolutionism accepts microevolution. But these "Creationists" are the exception based on their affinity with Atheist evolutionism.
Creationism says that each species owe their existence to special creation.
This thread is to define what "large scale change" means in reality and then see how it is shown in the fossil record.
The undisturbed fossil record as seen in the crust of the Earth shows species appearing, changing slightly, then disappearing. No evolution is seen. The same proves special creation. The fact of IC explains why evolution is not seen in the crust of the Earth. All of the same corroborates special creation to be a scientific fact.