I'm surprised no one has taken up this little challenge here:
No, incorrect, adaptation is only a part of evolution, the main parts of evolution are:
1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution. Origin of Life.
5. Origin of major kinds. Macro-evolution.
6. Variations within kinds. Micro-evolution. Only this one has been observed.
Prophecy: You are aware, are you not, that "evolution" in the context in which we are discussing it has nothing to do with 1-4 above? That only in the most generic sense of "change over time" can these be even considered "evolution"? And that the Theory of Evolution that we're arguing about here refers ONLY to 5-6: the development, proliferation and diversification of life?
However, rather than challenging you to come up with something resembling a working definition of "kind" - since it is the basis of your assertion that change between "kinds" is impossible - I'd like to address what appears to be a more fundamental problem. Implicitly or not, you seem to have an extremely narrow, and erroneous, idea of what "science" itself is, based on the above and on subsequent postings. You appear to advocate that only that which is observable or directly manipulatable is science. Every time I encounter this argument, I am again amazed at how anyone living in our modern, technological world can maintain such a limited, parochial view of the incredible endeavor that is science. Do you really think that all scientists do is go out and collect bags of facts or putter about with expensive and exotic glassware in laboratories? It boggles my mind that someone can hold this attitude and yet sit in front of a computer, compose messages to people half-way around the world, and send them out instantaneously through a system that is based in large measure on the theoretical properties and behavior of things no one has ever directly observed or manipulated! The cognitive dissonance inherent in this worldview is beyond my comprehension. It truly is.
For your edification (not that I expect it to do any good for someone whose view of science relegates it to the functional equivalent of using a piece of flint to carve notches in a bone tally stick in order to time caribou migrations), collecting observations is only one small aspect of science - and arguably not the most important one in the sense that it rarely produces new or revolutionary ideas (Francis Bacon notwithstanding). The true nature of science is what is known as the method of hypothesis, or sometimes the "inference to the best explanation". In this case scientists come up with an idea or question - known as a hypothesis, hence the name of the method - mostly for the sake of investigation. They then ask what would follow empirically from the hypothesis - iow, what evidence or observation would be expected
if the hypothesis were accurate. They make a prediction of what should be found. Then they check these consequences and predictions against reality. If actual observations or phenomena or bits of evidence match what was predicted by the hypothesis, then it's a good bet that the hypothesis was "true" in the sense that it provides a reasonable explanation for reality. If not - if the observations don't meet expectations - then the hypothesis is either rejected or modified (i.e., scientists infer that the hypothesis is false as constituted). Scientists look for the hypothesis that best explains the observed data. And note well: it doesn't matter whether we are predicting a future observation OR what we would expect to see if the phenomena occurred in the past. The key point is that the hypothesis explains the pattern of data. If you are considering two or more different hypotheses about the same data, the one that best explains the observations is the winner.
Moving this into the specific realm of evolutionary theory, there may be any number of possible explanations for the observed data - whether it be the fossil record, patterns of genetic similarity and inheritance, population dynamics, morphological, functional or behavioral relationships between disparate organisms (as in co-evolution or symbiotic relationships, etc), or any of the innumerable other lines of observations from multiple disciplines. However, the one, single, hypothesis that to this point best fits
all of the myriad observations (i.e., that provides the best explanation at our current level of understanding for patterns in all of the known data), and the one that has not been shown to be false in relation to reality, is the evolutionary synthesis. Could we still be wrong? Certainly. However, given every test that it has ever been submitted to, given every prediction and retrodiction that it has ever fulfilled, and given every potential falsification that has never surfaced in the data, it remains the single best explanation to date. Some people, myself included, consider it so well-founded that it would be patently absurd to not provisionally accept its reality.
I'll close with my favorite quote from Isaac Asimov:
quote:
Of course science is wrong! It was rather wrong yesterday, and it is, admittedly, somewhat wrong today, and it will be ever-so-slightly wrong tomorrow! But it is continually becoming less wrong, and it is demonstrably closer to the truth about nature than any other form of knowledge. Now, kindly tell us, where is your religion wrong?
™ Version 4.2