Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: stew dean <stewdean@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:47:08 -0700
On 16 Jun, 22:30, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nobody has denied the genetic definition of
evolution. The issue is that it is not the only valid definition.
You can define it in informal ways by saying things like it's change
filtered by environment, for example, which is my usual definition,
but genetics are inseparable from our understanding of biological
evolution, they are the means by which information is passed on
through generations. A population's gene pool is what evolution works
on and to try and talk about species without relating back to that
will leave your arguments without any real basis.
Regardless of what any number of ignorant Talk Origin usenet users
say, scholarship does not abide by one definition of evolution.
It doesnt, and you where given multiple definitions in the post you
where repsonding to. The point is no definition of biological
evolution says that it happens without genetics.
Darwin discovered evolution, but did not know the means by which it
happened, Gregor Mendel is the person who is the father of genetics,
who was an Abbot, as you may know. Evolution, as we know it today,
would still be here with us if Darwin or Mendel had never existed,
someone else would have discovered those things.
This is why definitions of evolution don't include Darwin as he did
not define our current understanding of evolution, he got the ball
rolling.
Evolution says species are mutable productions.
It says the collective genetic information of a population changes
over time, yes. 'The species' is the gene pool. I can't see how you
can make an argument about species without reference to that, it's
like explaining how boats float without making any reference to water.
This is what I am going to attack and disprove. Species are not
mutable productions.
Reality already is against you here. Population splitting into
species has been observed directly and indirectly so you'll have to be
very convincing and have amazing evidence to make an argument here.
Stew Dean
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- References:
- Re: What does Bulcher and Ham have in common?
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: What does Bulcher and Ham have in common?
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Re: What does Bulcher and Ham have in common?
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: What does Bulcher and Ham have in common?
- From: Stile4aly
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: *** C
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Stile4aly
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: richardalanforrest
- Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: What does Bulcher and Ham have in common?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Hemline theory
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Hemline theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- Next by thread: Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
- Index(es):