1. Then only the Egyptians can define evolution since it was their idea in the FIRST place. If you bothered to read the rest of my post you will see how the definition you gave doesn't even describe evolution at all... oops
Hey, you're the one who's all about using Darwin's definition for some reason. Science is an ever-progressing enterprise so it's always best to go with the most recent definition.
2. What I have said is what evolution is. Biology online disagrees with you....Oops!
"(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.
Interesting. Hmm, does this (2) in front of the definition indicate there's a (1) ? Let's see, oh yes it does :(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
You have GOT to be kidding me here.
So too does Berkley, http://evolution.ber...01/IIntro.shtml
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."
Um, what part of "This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)" don't you get ?
You said that microevolution isn't part of evolution. I said it is. I never said it was THE WHOLE of evolution, in fact I seem to recall saying several times, as in "in each of my posts on this thread", that the theory of evolution consists of several interrelated but different concepts. Those two definitions you have quoted show clearly that microevolution is a part of the scientific definition of evolution
. I mean, I assume that changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next falls under "microevolution" for you ?
5. Again refer to point 2, no strawman has been used, and I'd like you to retract your statement that I have used as such.
At this point I honestly have no idea what you're arguing or what you think I'm arguing. A population going from 50% blondes to 60% over a few generations is a change in "gene" frequency (actually allele frequency, but let's go with the way Berkeley phrased it if you want) from one generation to the next. And your Berkeley definition of evolution says "This definition [of evolution] encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)". Thus, that definition of evolution encompasses a population of 50% blondes getting to 60% blondes over time. What am I missing here ? If a box contains green blocks and red blocks, it contains red blocks. The fact that it contains green blocks too doesn't make it stop containing red blocks.
6. No it isn't independent. As I said if you refute or disclose one part then the "theory" collapses.
ie- No speciation therefore no common descent as there is no explanation for the multitude of species from a single one
ie- No common descent then no requirement for speciation as there is no need for the explanation of life from a single cell
"requirement for" isn't a relationship of logical implication. Life could have several different independent origins that subsequently speciated. That's in fact what baraminologists think - they think that all living species can be classified into a few "kinds" (that often correspond to genera or families) with each "kind" descending from one of the creatures Noah took onto the Ark and that speciated after the flood into its current diversity.
The evidence points against those interpretations but there's nothing about them that's logically incompatible with speciation.
ie- No macro evolution = No evolution at all as this is the touted "mechanism"
Well, you know, except for microevolution, which according to the definitions of "evolution" you posted is encompassed in said definitions. And that's another "no requirement for X" relationship which is not, as a matter of fact, a relationship of logical implication. There could exist that much-vaunted limit to microevolution that makes speciation or too-large changes impossible while populations still adapt and change a bit through the mechanisms of random mutation, natural selection and drift.
Again, the evidence doesn't point that way but there's nothing logically inconsistent about it.
7. If its a "fuzzy" concept then I cannot see how it is considered "scientific"... Perhaps metaphysical, not scientific, science deals with FACTS, not "fuzzy" stuff, that is pseudoscience.
Science deals with reality. Reality rarely lends itself to absolute clear-cut universal definitions. Scientific definitions are
much more precise than vernacular ones, but they get that precision at the expense of uniqueness and universality.
8. Obviously you do not understand evolution, nor do you understand how life works and the genetic mechanisms of how DNA attributes to the various forms of life.
Premise 1: An organism is composed of its cells
Premise 2: DNA is information that accounts for the growth, upkeep and functions of an organism and its cells
Premise 3: In order to have NEW functions for either the cell or the organism there must be NEW information to code for said (NEW) functions.
Premise 4: Therefore in order to have NEW species with NEW functions there is a requirement for NEW DNA.
This is very very basic logic, so your confusion on this point is quite worrisome.
Why don't you look up a definition of "species" in a biology resource of some sort ? I can wait.
9. Please don't blame your confusion on me. Furthermore just a moment ago you were saying to use scientific definitions rather than dictionary, (which I have done so), so it seems that your comments here contradict what you said earlier..... Interesting...
I was telling you to use scientific definitions for scientific words. "Kind" isn't a scientific word, so not using a scientific definition for it isn't a problem.
10. Did I claim as such? Please quote me, if you cannot I ask that you retract your slanderous statement.
Sorry; I usually try to avoid mindreading in internet arguments, and that was a particularly obnoxious example. I retract it and apologize.
11. Neither do you since the species concept is, (as you said), "fuzzy"..... Hmmm
Among scientific definitions of "species", there is the Biological Species Concept : "a group of organisms
capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.", there are morphospecies, groups of organisms that share a number of diagnostic traits (that one's mostly used in paleontology because you can't exactly see what interbreeds with what there), there are genetic species, groups of organisms with similar DNA (that one's used for bacteria and viruses insofar as "species" is used at all for those, because they don't reproduce s*xually).
Usually science responds to fuzziness by restricting the scope of its definition and if necessary creating several different ones that apply to different cases, and sticking with a particular one in any given context. And that's what's done with "species". All of those definitions have in common the idea that there's a smallest group of individuals that are all similar to each other and different from others; the problem is quantifying "similar" and "different" in a consistent way. It can't be done across all of life, so different methods are used in different contexts.
I ask you to keep on track, I won't be replying to anything about this point as it is a waste of time and a distraction. (Perhaps later we may come back to it, when everything else is finished).
If you still think after reading this post that the definitions you posted vindicate you then I don't think there's anything I can add either. I've also just noticed you did actually respond to my second post on the first page that was on the topic, I'm sorry I'd missed it. Seeing as you had after all responded I'll be glad to get back on topic as soon as I've read it said response (also seeing I'd missed a response by Teejay. Really sorry about that).