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

On Jun 16, 9:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 15, 9:47 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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?


So you are going to redefine in biological evolution in a way with
which no evolutionary biologist would accept so that you can disprove
it.

Do you think that this represents good scholarship?

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.

If that is the case, you are using very old sources.

What happens in the genetic
world is irrelevant if microevolution, seen by the naked eye, in
reality, is true.

No evolutionary biologist would agree with you. Many evolutionary
changes occur at a biochemical level and cannot be seen with the naked
eye. In fact, most living organisms cannot be seen with the naked
eye.

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.

Why should anyone challenge it?

Genetics did not exist in the
1830s, yet evolution was asserted a fact of reality twenty years
later.

So? Genetics was a valuable addition to evolutionary theory, and
provided the mechanism for inheritance which Darwin recognised as
being the biggest gap in his theory. Theories do not appear complete
in every detail and remain forever unchanged.


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.

Yes it is. We can count the frequencies of genes in organisms record
them over several generations.

If said change does
not show up in reality

So genes are not real now?
It seems that many criminals have been sent to jail on the basis of
non-existent evidence.

as to allow the inference of microevolution to
be observed, then there is nothing to falsify or refute.

You're clearly and categorically wrong.

I am only
interested in the effects of these genetic changes that make persons
conclude that evolution has occurred.

These are very well and extensively reported in the scientific
literature. If you want to argue that evolution cannot occur you will
need to address the evidence and argument presented in every single
one of the scientific papers which conclude that it has occured and
demonstrate that the conclusions are false.

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.

Evolutionary biologists and other scientists don't. Although modern
biological science owes a lot to Darwin, his contribution is by no
means the only factor in biological evolution.

Here's a definition of evolution:
"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a
population from generation to generation. These traits are the
expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during
reproduction. Mutations, and other random changes in these genes, can
produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences
(genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from
transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal
gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences
become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through
natural selection or randomly through genetic drift."

It doesn't mention Darwin.

Here's another which doesn't:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-
pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The
ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual
organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are
considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic
material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be
slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in
the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from
the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
"

Here's another definiton which doesn't mention Darwin:
"The word "evolution" has many meanings in different contexts. In this
article the author will attempt to define "evolution" in as many
contexts a possible.

At it's most basic "evolution" simply means change of any type. This
is the usage that is often employed in informal discussions, but is
unsuitable for formal dialogue.

Most creationists define "evolution" as an idea in science including
but not limited to, the old age of the universe and Earth,
abiogenesis, the theory of common decent, and all the various
permutations of the theory of evolution. This is not the sense that
the scientific community, or really anyone but creationists, use the
word in. This definition has caused more misunderstanding than
anything else in discussions about Creation/Evolution.

One scientific definition of evolution is "a change in allele
frequencies from one generation to the next". An allele is one
"version" of a particular gene. This definition allows scientists to
differentiate between changes that are and are not evolution as well
as set a minimum for evolutionary change. It is held by proponents of
the theory of Common Decent (that is all reputable biologists) that
all evolutionary changes are the result of changes in allele
frequencies, from simple changes like the prominence of certain
coloration all the way to humans evolving from fish. This definition
is the fact of evolution because it has been directly observed and
confirmed by experiments and field studies.

Another scientific definition of evolution is this: the collection
theories which state that all modern organisms are descended from
previous organisms with accumulated genetic change, this change is
affected by numerous factors including but not limited to, natural
selection, mutation, and chance. This is the "theory of evolution" or
the "theory of common decent".

Much of the public considers abiogenesis (the creation of life from
non-life) to be included in the definition of evolution. This is not
the scientific definition and the author does not recommend that it
ever be used."

In fact, I can't find any definition of biological evolution which I
*does* mention Darwin.

This suggests that you are wrong.

(by the way, this is something called "evidence" - a concept you seem
not to understand)

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.

And what evidence can you offer to support this assertion?


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.

He isn't. Wallace arrived at the same conclusions. That's why it was
Darwin and Wallace who first proposed the theory of evolution by
natural selection jointly.


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.


This is called "running away".

RF

Ray

SNIP....


.