Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob

On Jun 15, 9:47 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 14, 4:05 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

Noone suggests that there is only one definition of evolution.

Several other Darwinists upthread have most certainly claimed that
there is only one.

What
is being suggested is that the definition that is most applicable is
the change in gene frequency over time.

Nobody has said or implied that, of course, you could prove me wrong
and paste the quotes that "suggest" what you are now suggesting

Darwin himself defined
evolution as descent with modification, which is what we're
discussing.

Negative. We are discussing a contention that the genetic definition
of evolution to be the only correct definition. Dana Tweedy, Steven
J., ***, Greg G. and Rolf have claimed that the genetic meaning is
the only one.

Ray, if I were the cranky sort, I'd say you were misrepresenting me.
But perhaps you simply did not read my post carefully. I noted that
there were several definitions of evolution, but that "change in
allele frequencies in a population over time" was [a] a part of each
of them and [b] basic to the definition of "microevolution."

Okay, what is the point since I am going to define evolution more
upwardly?

If you
want to deny that microevolution happens, then you have to deny that
allele frequencies can change in a population over time.

I disagree. My biology sources disagree. What happens in the genetic
world is irrelevant if microevolution, seen by the naked eye, in
reality, is true. Darwin concluded that his finches were not
varieties, but separate species, based on what London experts like
ornthinologist John Gould concluded. I have never read any report
challenging the conclusions of Gould. Genetics did not exist in the
1830s, yet evolution was asserted a fact of reality twenty years
later.

If you don't
want to deny change in allele frequencies, then you accept that
microevolution occurs. In that case, I'm not sure what it is you're
opposing (besides common descent), but it isn't microevolution.


A change in gene frequencies is not falsifiable. If said change does
not show up in reality as to allow the inference of microevolution to
be observed, then there is nothing to falsify or refute. I am only
interested in the effects of these genetic changes that make persons
conclude that evolution has occurred.

I, on the other hand, have already said that any definition of
evolution MUST include Darwin, I am glad to see that you agree.

On the other hand, *I* technically don't agree with this.

It does not matter if you do not agree since the vast majority of
scholars do agree. You are arguing your own false preconceptions that
are out of touch with your own scholars.

Darwin is
not the prophet of evolutionary theory;

Yes, he is.


his writings are neither the
unquestionable authority on the topic, nor held to be inerrant,


Agreed.


nor
are they necessary for there to be an evolutionary theory.

Completely false. Imagine that; this person believes the founder of
modern evolutionary theory is not necessary.

You are completey unread and out of touch with your own scholarship.
Now that I know you are uneducated in these matters I have lost
interest in this discussion.

Ray


SNIP....


.