There is a great big difference between statistical fluctuations of specific traits within the overall store inherited trait variations, and evolution itself. Darwinists insist that the one is the other, but that is just their ideologically inspired lie.
Evolution requires a change in the overall number of inherited trait variations, per se. That is, a real and actual increase or decrease in the total number of distinct traits accepted as describing and defining a particular taxon. Moreover, these traits must be organismic, not molecular, since molecular 'traits', [call them alleles, genes, or whatever], can be added or subtracted from a genome/genotype without affecting the taxon of the organisms specified.
Evolution, besides not being ordinary hereditary variation, is not a srraight forward continuum whereby novel, original, trivial and inconsequential morpological and behavioural changes cumulatively increase until, eventually, their sheer quantity make them big enough to matter. This is the standard darwinist stand on micro andmacro evolution--that they are simply a single continuum seen from opposite ends. Apparently different, but not really so. Don't you believe it.
Evolution is one kind of change. Evolution is directional, in that some changes are interconnected, so that 'what is' is to a large degree dependent upon 'what was', and 'what will be' is to a large degree dependent upon 'what is'. In some cases evolution is terminated by 'what is', where 'what is' is too complex and too vital to survival to change without mortal consequences which would lead to individual death and taxon extinction. This should be contrasted with change that is non-directional, being entirely discontinuous and entirely disconnected with any past or future changes. [Such as cutting the tails off of innocent little mice in a vicious and notorious neo-darwinian "experiment".]
Having discovered what kind of change makes for an evolutionary change where biology is concerned, let us note that additions to and subtractions from the total store of organismic traits that taxonomically define a certain group of organism, that is,evolutionary effects, can be either trivial and inconsequential in terms of vital functions, or they can be vital in terms of biosystem function. The former sort of evolutionary effect is 'microevolutionary', while the second is 'macroevolutionary'. Micro and macro evolutionary outcomes are clearly distinguishable on the basis of their vital, functional necessity to the organism. Most sexually identifying traits, for instance, are not necessary to to the life-sustaining functions of a taxon, but only to its identification in the eyes of its fellows. Thus, sexual selection is a matter of micro-evolution where such traits are entirely cosmetic. See, "ring species" and "sexual dimorphism", etc.
Macroevolution is that which adds to or subtracts from, (or increases/decreases to an unprecedented degree), the productivity of a vital biosystem function by a change to the morphological and/or instinctive traits of a specified taxon.
The issue, then, is the question of whether or not macro evolution is simply micro evolution 'writ large', meaning that evolution is a matter of material 'extension' [size], rather than function [form, design]. Darwinists insist on the former, since for them biological change, evolution, is simply a matter of physical parts growing larger or smaller, randomly, [thanks to genetic mutations], so that the resulting organism is forced to accept these accidental morphological/behavioural changes and adapt their vital functions, (both internal and external behaviours), to suit these unasked for changes, or to perish at the point where they cannot.
Other evolutionary theorists see evolution in terms of optimal biosystem functioning; that is, with productivity, not random chance, as the deciding factor. In that POV, increase or decrease in physical size is not the be-all and end-all of evolution. Rather vital function- dependent shape/form/design is the determinant criterion discrinating micro-from macro evolution. IOW, in the darwinian materialist POV, function follows physical form, but in the autopoietic, systems design POV, form follows function.
Well, I could go on but this post is already too long, so I'll simply stop right here.
For John Locke, extension is "only the space that lies between the extremities of the solid coherent parts" of a body. It is the space possessed by a body. Locke refers to the extension in conjunction with 'solidity' and 'impenetrability,' the other primary characteristics of matter."
By extension I mean that corporeally-speaking [and that is the only language that materialists and darwinists speak], the only thing that happens in evolution is that morphological traits, which are physical entities, grow or shrink, get longer or shorter, thicker or thinner, heavier or lighter, wider or narrower, and so on. All thanks to random genetic mutation. And the organism changes then changes what it does [its behaviour, i.e., its functioning]in necessary accord with what it has randomly become. When it fails, it becomes 'naturally selected'; i.e., dead.
For example, the poor old giraffe. Darwinists say that random genetic mutation caused the long neck, long legs, and generally large size of the giraffe. So the function of the proto-giraffe was forced to switch from grazing to browsing to high-top browsing. In any short-grass ecosystem such full-size giraffes would have been unable to function, and so 'natural selection' would have made them dead, poor mutants. Luckily, there were some tall and tasty trees out there. Duh!
... to be clear organisms are not "forced" to do anything including accepting morphological/behavioral changes due to mutations.
I agree, but darwinism depends entirely upon the false notion of genetic determinism. Once it is accepted, [as it has been accepted by real scientists since the genome projects wound up], that the gene does not rule the organism, but is merely the organism's tool, and putting paid to all that 'selfish gene' malarkey, we now know that organismic traits are not at all the linearly determined results of inflexible chains of immutable chemical reactions generated by accidental molecular reconfigurations at the 'gene'level. R.I.P., RMNS. Unfortunately, many darwinists haven't yet heard the news.
Also, after the "changes" (mutations) the organism does not adapt, it is the changes that causes the organism to adapt.
I don't know what you are trying to say here. Darwinism says that random genetic changes [genetic mutations]cause determined organismic mutations [mutants], and that these mutants are forced to accomodate their bodies and its behaviours to the circumstances in which they find themselves. That is, the mutant must adapt its functioning to what a random genetic mutation has made of it. If it finds itself hairless in the arctic, for example, it either finds a way to adapt to that, or surrenders to 'natural selection'. That is, turns tits up.
Of course, the same darwinist opinion applies to non-mutants in cases where the environment 'mutates', but they do not. For instance, polar bears that are not lucky enough to catch a random mutation that enables them to catch seals in the absence of ice, [see global warming], are also likely to be visited by 'the grim reaper', aka, 'natural selection'.
How does your example on giraffes come into conflict with genetic determinism?
Please remember that this is the genetic determinist, i.e., darwinian, explanation for 'how the giraffe got its long neck'. So of course there is no 'conflict' between the example and genetic determinism.
A genetic mutation causes a giraffe's neck to grow longer allowing it to eat more leaves from the tall trees and thus get more resources. A genetic changed influenced the long neck.
You are sugar-coating genetic determinism, semantically. Genetic determinism means, first, that a genetic mutation causes a long neck; but a long neck forces, not enables, a giraffe to eat off the tree tops. Just watch a film of a giraffe drinking at a waterhole if this is not obvious to you. Secondly, genetic determinism says that a random genetic mutation does not simply 'influence' a long neck, but rather, as you yourself just finished saying, it _causes_ it. Unavoidably and directly/linearly.
quote: we now know that organismic traits are not at all the linearly determined results of inflexible chains of immutable chemical reactions generated by accidental molecular reconfigurations at the 'gene'level.
Please provide a source.
For what? The death of genetic determinism? Any genome project that contradicts the 'one gene, one trait' dictum of genetic determinism? The fact that some 'genes' [molecular DNA configurations] can be correlated to different traits in different taxons, and that several different 'genes' can be correlated to the same trait in different taxons, or that most traits require not one but several different 'genes' to be expressed simultaneously within the same taxon, or that the number of 'genes' in a genotype does not, as was previously expected, even approximately correlate to the phenotypic trait complexity of a taxon, or that the 'gene' for controlling the exptession of gene complexes [see, 'infinite regress', on the subject of 'genes' controlling and directing 'genes'] that correlate with particular traits cannot be found, or the fact that 'correlation is not causation'? All of the facts can be derived by web research, but the conclusions are derived by examing the logical inferences to be reasonably derived from those facts, and for that nobody needs a "source". Asking me to provide one is simply a demand that I use the fallacious, 'argument from authority'.
While there can be epigenetic changes that affect the phenotype but not the gennotype of the organism, the epigenetic effects induce the same mechanism as would be if there was genetic change.
Which fact takes genetic determinism, along with the RMNS darwinism that depends upon it, and shoots it down in flames.
Gene regulation is an important part of phenotype expression, but without the gene present that phenotype would not exist. This is why the idea of genetic determinism is still alive.
Actually, the only reason that genetic determinism is still holding on by its fingernails is that it is the fundamental notional underpinning for RMNS darwinism. Nobody is denying that 'genes' contribute to the reiteration [inheritance] of traits. But 'contributing' is miles away from 'determining', and reiterating [inheriting]is leagues away from generating novelty.
I currently have a proposed new topic dealing with a paper that talks about epigenetics and genetic determinism, but it has yet to be directed to the Biological Evolution area.
What is your point supposed to be? That giraffe's splay their legs when they drink. I didn't notice any giraffe's failing to drink and dying of thirst. So in what way do longer necks 'force' a giraffe to eat off tree tops, are you saying that Giraffe's have no range of vertical motion in their necks? Giraffe's can eat grass so how can you possibly contend they are forced to eat from the tops of trees.
The point of my example is obvious [to everyone but you, apparently]. It is that to get its head down to ground [grass or water] level, the giraffe's long legs have to splay, creating a very awkward position that restricts motion and taxes musculature, etc. Highly disadvantageous and disfunctional. It is a posture that is tolerable for a few minutes, once or twice a day, at a watering hole, but would entirely intolerable and disfunctional over the course of a full day of grass grazing. And that is why, even though you object that giraffes can eat grass, they do not. They simply cannot 'make a living' at it.
Your knowledge of giraffe's seems as made up as your knowledge of genetics.
I'll leave it to others to decide as to which of us has a better understanding of giraffes. More importantly, I see that you still haven't learned how to behave properly. In your first paragraph you once again abandon reasoned argumentation for your customary 'personal insult and abuse' approach to debate. Bye.