Is the def for evolution acceptable?
No. You define evolution as "(
some) natural process(es) which results in BOB+."
In the first place, it is certainly not the definition of evolution used by biologists; and if you wish to talk about something
other than what biologists call evolution, then I suggest that you think of another name for it. You can't just hijack an existing word with an existing definition and fly it wherever you want to go.
In the second place, it would not be useful as a definition of
anything, because BOB is not quantitatively defined. Unless you can tell us how to measure the amount of BOB in a genome or a gene pool, how are we to know if any given event involves BOB+, BOB-, or conservation of BOB?
If the def for ‘adaptation’ (with the understanding that the def is internal to the gibbering) acceptable?
You do not formally define adaptation. But from your remarks I understand that you wish to limit the concept to the action of natural selection in removing existing alleles from the gene pool.
In that case, no, your definition would not be sufficient. For if a brand-new allele arose through mutation which was adaptive, and therefore favored by natural selection, and which therefore spread through the gene pool --- that too would be an adaptation: it would be a change in the gene pool making the population better adapted.
Is the point surrounding the basically irrational manner in which ‘instructional’ simulations are made, mostly OK?
No. Your complaint seems to be that people simulating evolutionary processes ... simulate evolutionary processes: that is, they build into their programs features such as (at a minimum) reproduction, variation, and competition. Well, of course they do. Because what they want to know is what happens under those circumstances.
You might as well complain that people simulating the Earth's weather build in such things as the positions and shapes of the continents, the rotation of the Earth, Boyle's law, the physical properties of water and so forth. Well, of course they do. The essence of simulation is that you build a simulation of the processes that you wish to simulate. That's what makes it a simulation.
Most of all what motivated me was this: it is commonly held that ToE is ‘so easy to understand’ you need only slightly more than half a brain to understand it. Also, that the ‘proof’ for it is so clear, that only a nitwit will fail to accept it. (Unless I am mistaken, this is your view too, correct?
No. Many people fail to understand it, and I would not say that they are all "nitwits". However, I would say that the failure is
theirs: whereas the great cry of creationists seems to be: "Evolution is so stupid that I can't understand it".
The no-evidence for evolution ‘lie’ is not a lie. It is a fact, if you were to accept the framework given.
Any "framework" that requires me to close my eyes to the facts of nature is not readily going to win my acceptance.
As for mutation killing BOB, that is not really what it was my intension was to convey. I suppose I do seem to say so here and there. The view I tried to bring over, strongly, is that the natural chaos which drives/ describes the 2nd law, is killing BOB.
But for "natural chaos" to "kill BOB" it must use some sort of weapon. Abstract concepts such as "chaos" are, well,
abstractions. The things which affect genomes and gene pools are such things as mutation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, selection, and drift. If these things, in total, do not "kill BOB", then BOB is alive and well.
However. As the title of the post would suggest, my main point (I assume in free for all there is no more main point, oh well) was that natural selection is, itself, busy killing BOB, in huge allele-sized chunks at a time.
And when you have managed to quantify BOB, we shall be in a position to see, first of all, whether this is true, and secondly, whether any other genetic processes increase BOB.
'Til then, your point is moot.
™ Version 4.2