How do you define the word Evolution?

Deleted. Same.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Ah, CRR. How to you quantify genetic information?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

You're pretty obsessed about a one letter typo. Get over it.

OK, so you did miss the sarcasm, even though I flagged it.

Nope. Didn't miss it. Professional Creationists preach that the BB is part of evolutionary theory.

Hey CRR. How do you quantify genetic information?

The way I see it, Durstan's definitions

quote:

---

Message 47: Kirk Dunstan discussed micro- and macro- and proposes definitions;

- Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.
- Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.
He says "Both statistical significance and functional information are already defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on, ..."

[edit] http://p2c.com/...roevolution-vs-macroevolution-two-mistakes

---

are very different because (a) they are wrong and (b) they are intended to mislead.To begin with there is no real definition of "information" or "functional information" that can be used to determine whether or not "statistically significant increase" occurs.Notice that he says "... so we are ready to move on, ..." but what is curious is that NO such work has been done in the 10 years since the paper cited for the methodology was published ... even though he is one of the authors. This is the misleading part: it sounds good, but it's garbage. That's not how science works, scientists wait until they have the results.Until there is a scientific way to measure this "information" there is no way it can be used scientifically. It's just a way to deny reality by slathering on layers of obfuscations.He is also wrong because he claims microevolution is simply variation while ignoring selection: a mistake frequently made by people who are either stupid, ignorant, deceitful, or deluded about how evolution actually works.Evolution in scientific terms on the other hand is actually quite simple and straightforward and quite scientifically sound by comparison: This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.The basic mechanisms of microevolution (mutation, selection, drift, etc) are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses. Thus microevolution has been observed and documented to occur.If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is called macroevolution by scientists.This is often confusing to lay people, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution above the species level over many generations and in different ecologies.The basic mechanisms of "macroevolution" (anagenesis and cladogenesis) are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations). Thus macroevolution has been observed and documented to occur. This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. All the processes listed here are observed and documented, and it is a fact that they have occurred.It's that simple, and this should clear up the "two mistakes" Durstan makes in talking about evolution.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

It was just a random mutation.

and it propagated to following posts.

And it propagated throughout the creationist literature without truth selection being able to weed untruths out in creationism ...they just keep on telling the same untruths.

So what's your definition of evolution?

Hi Razd, Just one of my stupid questions.If what you just quoted and said is true shouldn't there be a complete trail of the different changes visible today in the fossil record?Which is what Darwin said would exist.If what you say is correct why does the fossil record show times of new life forms without a connection to previous life forms, that has been called punctuated equilibrium?God Bless

No. There is nothing there that makes statements about the frequency of fossilization, the resolution of the fossil record or our present state of knowledge about what exists buried under the earth's surface No, he didn't. And his word is not law in any case. If habitats are generally stable with occasional times of change that are short in comparison to the periods they are stable, then species will reach an equilibria where they are adapted for the present habitats for long periods which is punctuated with periods of relatively rapid changes as they adapt to changing circumstances in their habitats.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hey, ICANT, fun fact: we haven't yet looked at all the fossils in the fossil record. Yeah, that's right, crazy though it may seem we haven't split open all the sedimentary rocks and looked inside them. No it isn't. That's actually called something you made up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes Darwin did say there should be and wondered why we didn't find them. He suggested that the extreme imperfection of the fossil record was the reason. The fossil record has been explored extensively since then and the transitional fossils are still not there. Instead the fossil record shows sudden appearance and disappearance with stasis in between. This is what Gould referred to as "the trade secret of paleontology" and the reason he and Eldridge developed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.Darwin argued in "Origin of Species" that even in a stable environment there should still be evolution since there was always competition within the species for food and reproduction. However there has never been extensive periods of stable environment and even if the abiotic environment was stable the biotic environment would be changing as predator and prey adapted to counter each other. So the "no change because they're already so well adapted" argument fails.The continued lack of transitional forms in the fossil record is a slap in the face for [neo-]Darwinian evolution.