Question Evolution!

Hi Butterflytyrant This is typical equivocation of meanings. The process of evolution (change in hereditary traits and the frequency of their distribution within breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological challenges and opportunities is not the same as the Theory of Evolution (ToE).The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.Neither of these are a "General Theory of Evolution".Curiously, doing a google on ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) does not get me to pages dedicated to biological science, but to pages dedicated to creationist misrepresentations. The top contender there is conservapedia . . .and when I use google scholar I get Safarti not science.Reference is made once again to Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. and Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.Then I looked up Gerald KerkutGerald A. Kerkut - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Controversy

​

Kerkut's book The Implications of Evolution pointed out some existing unsolved problems and points of concern for evolutionary studies. He referred to seven evolutionary assumptions which he felt lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Creationists have taken these points as evidence against evolution and interpreted them to support their own claims [1]. They claim that he distinguished between the Special Theory of Evolution (often referred to as microevolution) and what he termed the General Theory of Evolution (often referred to as macroevolution).[2]

---

It looks to me like quote mining in progress, and an author that may have been careless. In any event this is the fallacy of appeal to authority, and a book written in 1960 is hardly an up-to-date reference even if it had been peer reviewed or used as a text book.Amazon.com

quote:

---

Implications of Evolution. (International series of monograps on pure and applied biology, vol. 4), G.A. Kerkut (Author), Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Pergamon Press Oxford. (1960)

---

It appears to be online at
Implications of evolution : Kerkut, G. A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
But I am having trouble downloading it. More later.By contrast I offer these definitions of evolution: University of Michigan definitions of evolution:

quote:

---

Definitions of Biological Evolution

​

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

​

• Definition 1:
  Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  ​
• Definition 2:
  The gradual 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 diversity

​

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

---

and Berkeley University definition of evolution:

quote:

---

The Definition:

​

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

The sources here are universities teaching biological evolution.Also see Introduction to Evolution (not yet promoted)EnjoyReferences

1. Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide
   An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
2. U. of Michigan on-line course material
   The Process of Speciation

Hi again Butterflytyrant,I've had some time now to review the book online from
Full text of "Implications of evolution"

quote:

---

PREFACE

​

May I here humbly state as part of my biological credo that I believe that the theory of Evolution as presented by orthodox evolutionists is in many ways a satisfying explanation of some of the evidence. At the same time I think that the attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an evolution from a unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence. It may in fact be shown ultimately to be the correct explanation, but the supporting evidence remains to be discovered. We can, if we like, believe that such an evolutionary system has taken place, but I for one do not think that " it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt." In the pages of the book that follow I shall present evidence for the point of view that there are many discrete groups of animals and that we do not know how they have evolved nor how they are interrelated. It is possible that they might have evolved quite independently from discrete and separate sources. There are only a limited number of chemical elements that are capable of forming stable polymerisation compounds and it is not at all surprising that the same compounds have been formed on several occasions. Quite complex materials such as carbohydrates, peptides and even nucleic acids can be formed by irradiating water containing simple salts and gases.

​

It may be suggested that the problem we are examining here, namely that of the evolution and interrelationship of the basic living stocks is a major problem and one that will test the strength and ability of many hundreds of research workers. If this book merely indicates to some of the readers that certain lines of thought are still open to examination, then I shall consider that it has done its allotted task.

---

That doesn't look controversial, especially for 1960. A lot has happened in the field of abiogenesis, and a lot has happened the field of cladistics of early life forms, and we have much more evidence than was available in 1960.Curiously, searching for the phrase "General Theory of Evolution" it get all the way to the end (p157) before I get to the quote in question:

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS

​

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the " Special Theory of Evolution " and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the " General Theory of Evolution " and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.

---

This is the quote mine (underline and color added for emphasis).There is only one other place that this phrase is mentioned:

quote:

---

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

​

There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. These are as follows.

​

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

​

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

​

The other assumptions all follow from the second one.

​

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

​

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.

​

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

​

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

​

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.

​

For the initial purposes of this discussion on Evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of Evolution hold that all these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the " General Theory of Evolution."

​

The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. ...

​

The assumption that life arose only once and that therefore * all living things are interrelated is a useful assumption in that it provides a simple working basis for experimental procedure. But because a concept is useful it does not mean that it is necessarily correct. The experimental basis for this concept in particular is not as definite and as conclusive as many modern texts would have us believe.

---

Now "not capable of experimental verification" would mean that this "General Theory of Evolution" that he alone proposes is not a testable scientific theory.Certainly this is not a theory "that secular scientists would agree with" -- in fact even HE does not agree with it. He says these assumptions are questionable and may not be true.Enjoy.

and hi again, Butterflytyrant, Understood: I was adding my 2¢ worth. I've seen a number of creationists argue that there is a "General Theory of Evolution" or a "Grand Theory of Evolution" but I've never seen a version accepted by a group of biological scientists.See Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone), Message 8 (09-19-2006) where Murkywaters was quite adamant that he had a valid definition\approach for evolution:

quote:

---

Finally, the "General Theory of Evolution" (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." This I believe should be our goal, to define a general theory of Evolution and Creation, not merely their components.

---

Wot a surprise. It seems there is one and only one source for this wondrous theory ...Enjoy.

Hi herebedragons and Catholic Scientist Indeed. Several here will be happy to participate. The biggest problem may be the number of responses, so I would keep it simple at the start: one question at a time.Enjoy

Hi Butterflytyrant okay alreadyhere's an avatar picture to go with it Enjoy