Evolution and the BIG LIE

Thanks Elmer, It also works for field naturalists measuring beak size in finches on the Galapagos islands and for paleontologists comparing traits in fossils. It also includes epigenetic effects as well as genetic traits in development of organisms and the phenotype that is subject to selection. Just for clarification. Are you saying that hereditary traits do not change in populations from generation to generation? Changes in beak size in Galapagos finches for example? Just curious.In fact I know of no species population that does not show change in hereditary traits from generation to generation, so I have trouble understanding your point.What I am looking for is a common ground on which to build a discussion. For this we do not need your definition of evolution, we need to recognize the factual existence of certain basic processes in life. We can call it something else, like "variation and adaptation" or "RAZDism," if necessary to get around common misunderstandings caused by using the word "evolution" ... Message 67
I am not really interested in what your definition of "evolution" is at this point, especially when they include any confusion in "taxon" definitions. What I am interested in is your agreement that the process occurs, and then what we should call it for further discussion:(1) "'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...OR(2) "'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"Think of this as describing in general terms what is observed in the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches from one generation to the next (whether the beaks get bigger or smaller).Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : phenotypeEdited by RAZD, : reorg for clarityEdited by RAZD, : (2) was "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"? -- clarity and consistencyEdited by RAZD, : more clarityEdited by RAZD, : 2 - 2a & 2a - 2Edited by RAZD, : a s

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Note that this is not much different from the initial position, edited to show changes to date (with additions and subtractions): Message 1
The major difference seems to be a preference to use other words than "evolution" at this time.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I have made a general edit of "RAZDism" to be more consistent with the general creationist substitution of "variation and adaptation" for "(micro)evolution" and usually added "variation and adaptation" as another alternative.Subtractions have be struck out, like:"'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation."Additions are underlined, as in:"'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation."OR'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.This is similar to "track changes" in word documents. The messages edited are Message 53, Message 54, Message 62, Message 64, Message 66, and Message 70The purpose is discussion of the basic process without confusion of what it is called. This also keeps the definitions of the words from Message 1.Sorry for any confusion my confusion has caused anyone.Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : listed changes

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Speciation, how does it fit in?From one well known creationists:

quote:

---

... John Woodmorappe,2 in his book on the reasonableness of Noah’s ark, used the genus level as the average for the Genesis kinds. He ended up with only 16,000 animals that needed to be on Noah’s ark.3 So, there would have been plenty of room on the ark for all the animals that would have repopulated the earth after the Flood.

---

Giving you ~8,000 kinds,or creationist organizations like AiG:

quote:

---

How many animals were on Noah’s Ark? If created kinds really are families, as few as 2,000 individual animals might have been on the Ark.10

---

Giving you ~1,000 kinds.This requires a lot of rapid and continual adaptation and variation since any theoretical "flood date" and it requires a vast amount of division of populations into new species to account for the diversity of life today:

quote:

---

Currently, scientists have named and successfully classified over 1.5 million species. It is estimated that there are as little as 2 million to as many as 50 million more species that have not yet been found and/or have been incorrectly classified.

---

Even using 1.5 million known species and 8,000 "original kinds" means each on average resulted in 1,500,000/8,000 = 187.5 species per kind and increasing, a rather permanent result.This brings up the issue of "speciation" which occurs when one population divides into two (or more) populations that no longer interbreed, and they are considered different species. This too is an accepted process in creationism:

quote:

---

... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind, ...

---

This gives us variation and adaptation within species and the division of populations by speciation, both as common and accepted processes within the world of creationism:

• 'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation
• 'speciation' is the division of a single species into two (or more) species.

That should be enough for further discussion.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : improved link

---

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

I've got a number that by two counts (out of unknown hundreds?) varies from ~1,000 to ~8,000 and you want to subtract ~{⁶ⁿ/₂}_{(n=1→∞+/-)}? Depends on the amount of soap available ... and how much fudge they got into.Let's say we have "several thousand" kinds on the (supposed) ark and "several million" species today, and we note that every "kind" would qualify as a species today, and that leaves us with a number of "speciation events" as being necessary to the "flood" model of life. The exact number doesn't matter.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ∞Edited by RAZD, : 7-1=6

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks Ray. 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.What is your take on 'speciation' (Message 73)?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 ... ).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

... you are wrong again. It amazes me how you can ignore what is plain:From Message 1
(color and bold added for emPHAsis)The size of a finch beak would be another quantifiable trait. You really should stop arguing against false representations of positions - it's called a straw man, and it is a logical fallacy - especially when it is so easy to show that this is what you are doing.So can we move forward with 'variation and adaptation'? 'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from one generation to the next.Where (as given in Message 71 = Message 1 with corrections): We observe this in every day life, and this process is recognized by a creationist organizations. Do you have a problem with this process?One step at a time eh? Then we can discuss Message 73Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Which is not "genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ..." as I specifically defined trait to "an aspect that can be quantified," and gave specific examples that were NOT genetic. Here you appear to be confusing evolution with something else of your own invention. We'll call it Elmerism. What you have done is shown that this thread is not about Elmerism.Unfortunately, we are not here to discuss Elmerism (you have your own thread for that), but the process laid out in the OP. Actually what I was doing was specifying a term used in the definition, indicated fairly clearly in the original post. This is for the purpose of clarity and communication. Thus demonstrating that your characterization of my definition of evolution as "genetically based, arithmetically and chemically" is false. Thank you for that clarification. You know, Elmer, people can read the original post: The only thing changed in that from when it was posted is the addition of the population definition to the list.The definition of evolution in Message 1 has always included traits and those trait have always been specified as "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," and this has always included other possible traits like finch beaks. You mean it's not Elmerism (what you think evolution is), thus providing additional justification for calling the process under discussion something else. So?This would be why evolution RAZDism would include the changes from one generation to the next as part of the overall process. Individuals do not evolve, and neither do parts of individuals. You mean Elmerism. It is a quantifiable trait that can be hereditary, and that may affect the phenotype, and as such it cannot be excluded from consideration. And some of those traits are determined by single genes, and thus they can be measured by the gene. The world at large talks about the genes for blue eyes, blond hair and other familiar traits. The phenotype does not exclude the genotype. Yet you are the one that seems to be confusing the parts of the process with the whole of the process. Yet you are the one that seems to be confusing the parts of the process with the whole of the process. Seeing as "population" is a (continually) changing entity in nature, made arbitrary by the (human) drawing of boundaries, the definition needs to reflect that lack of precise definition, especially in wild populations (controlled lab conditions being somewhat different). You must be talking about Elmerism again.Individual organisms do not evolve, the population changes because the offspring have different phenotypes from the parents, and their phenotype is driven by their genotype, and their genotype includes what they inherit from each parental genotype (in different mixes) plus mutations\changes. So we won't talk about "evolution" then -- not because we don't agree on the process but because we don't agree on which process to call evolution. The topic is the process, not what it is called, so we are not here to talk about Elmerism, but RAZDism: RAZDism is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generationWhere:
trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, or the length of a bone, or the size of a skull, or the color of an eye, or the thickness of hair, etcetera,
change is a measurable quantifiable difference in a trait, such as the number, length or color,
hereditary means that it is passed from a parent to its offspring,
population means a (temporal\spacial\natural) group of individual organisms of the same species, and
generation is the average time it takes for a newborn to become able to reproduce.In other words we can measure the variation in trait {A} in population₁ and then we can measure the variation in trait {A} in population₂ and compare the results.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That it's the topic. Not what you want to make it.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks for your contribution. Opinion is not reality, no matter whose opinion is involved, and participation is voluntary. It is the foundation. If there were no changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, there would be no evolution ... in my (humble yet sometimes arrogant) opinion.I find it rather amusing that just using the word "evolution" causes such topic drift ... as a result, I have decided to try not to use the word further in this discussion to prevent wasting another 87 posts.Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks Percy, but I'm not really interested in another thread about what the definition is, rather I want to explore what we can deduce about biological life based on basic processes and observed mechanisms. People who want to discuss the definition can go to "the definition of evolution" thread (it is still open).Using neutral language we can say that: Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.This process can be measured and documented, it can be observed in all living species and thus is an observed fact, part of the evidence of objective reality.There are several mechanisms that cause this process to occur, and these include

• genetic mutation,
  • insertions\deletions during replication
  • point mutations,
  • etc.
• epigenetic effects on the development of phenotypes,
  • nutrition effects,
  • chemical effects,
  • climate effects,
  • etc.
• various selection processes,
  • sexual selection,
  • ecological selection,
  • intentional selection,
  • survival selection,
  • etc.
• neutral trait drift,
  • etc.
• etc.

Each of these mechanisms can be tested and observed in various species at various times, but it should be noted that several don't need to be continual mechanisms. Nor is their any "hierarchy" in action of the mechanisms and their relative importance can change (neutral trait drift could be more important during static than rapid periods of change, for instance).It would be interesting to list all the mechanisms that are involved, but this would be a good topic on it's own, if not needing a thread topic on each mechanism, as we see continued debate about the mechanism of mimicry spanning several threads. It's also a good topic for individual study in depth (say by taking a university course in biology ... ).Discussing all the different mechanisms involved in the process should not be necessary to this thread, other than to mention some in passing as necessary, and thus we should be able to start with the most basic process that anyone can validate with their own observations: Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.Creationist say this is just "variation and adaptation within kinds," which they use to describe the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation from their hypothetical "original created kinds," with special reference to those that survived the hypothetical world flood event.Included in the creationist model of biological change ("variation and adaptation within kinds") -- especially following the hypothetical flood event -- is speciation. The definition of species is also covered in an existing open thread - the "Definition of Species" thread - so we don't need to pursue that particular definitional\philosophical\semantic rathole here either. Going back to Message 73:

quote:

---

( Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis )

quote:

---

... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind," ...

---

'speciation' is the division of a single species into two (or more) species.

---

Speciation is also often seen as the division line between micro-effects and macro-effects in the study of biological life, and so we may want to look at this as another process, with an emphasis on the hereditary relationship (to ensure the creationist position of "within a kind" is included): Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.Again there are several known and observed mechanisms involved, each of which could become a new thread. Speciation occurs by:

• allopatric mechanisms,
• peripatric mechanisms (including "founder effect"),
• parapatric mechanisms (including "ring species"),
• sympatric mechanisms (including "cryptic species"),
• artificially, through animal husbandry or
• artificially in laboratory experiments,
• etc.

There's a graphic that shows the four basic types of speciation at:File:Speciation modes.svg - WikipediaI think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now: Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : emphasis parent\daughterEdited by RAZD, : syli spling

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks, ICANT. We can come back to this later. Actually, I am trying to discuss a process, so I have stopped using the word "evolution" to prevent everyone being confused and distracted by their pet (& often divergent) definitions.I think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now: Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks ICANT. Good. They are both part of the same (creationist) model. Some biologists keep speciation as part of micro-effects, and others use it to start macro-effects, so the safest position is that it is the boundary between micro and macro. Until speciation occurs any variations and adaptation that occurs in one sub-population that differs from another sub-population can be eradicated by the two sub-populations intermixing and interbreeding. However, once breeding isolation has occurred this intermixing can no longer happen and the two (or more) daughter species are independent - they can each continue with variations and adaptation within their populations - independent of variations and adaptation that occur in the other daughter population/s. I don't know if we can really talk about these processes and their relation to "macro-effects" yet (part of the problem is defining what those are, where the line is). Rather we are looking at what the processes of variation and adaptation plus speciation can cause\explain. This is from wikipedia on speciation (see picture):

quote:

---

An experiment demonstrating allopatric speciation in the fruit fly (Drosophila pseudoobscura) conducted by Diane Dodd. A single population of flies was divided into two, with one of the populations fed with starch-based food and the other with maltose-based food. After the populations had diverged over many generations, the groups were again mixed; it was observed that the flies would mate only with others from their adapted population.

​

Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila

---

What we are looking at is descent from parent populations and variation and adaptation within isolated sub-populations of species up to the point they become independent daughter populations. So we agree (so far)? Let's save this for later, and see if we need to come back to it. For now I want to take small steps, taking the time necessary to get as many interested people in agreement as possible.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Good. It may be a long wait, it's taken 94 posts to get to this point.Looks like we are ready for the next installment.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

We seem to have agreement then that we have two processes (even though they may overlap) that occur in modern everyday biological life as we know it: Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

​

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.We observe instances of these processes happening by various mechanisms as previously noted, and thus these are facts in today's world.The question is whether this is what has happened in the past and whether anything else was involved. To test this we will form a theory:

---

Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

---

Stated simply: we posit that Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the diversity of life today from the records of previous generations of species.We start with today and work backwards, generation by generation, species by species (in theory). Where we do not have sufficiently complete information to show Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the descent of daughter species from parent species, we will have to say that we don't know for sure.This is essentially the creationist model, using (1) variation and adaptation, plus (2) speciation, to explain the diversity of life today back to the hypothetical biblical flood event and a point where we started with known kinds.Lets stop here to make sure everyone is on-board still, or find out what problems we need to iron out. Then we can look at what we need to do to test the theory.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : format

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.