googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Evolution by Definition

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Evolution by Definition

How many times have you heard that we “observe” evolution happening? But I don’t believe evolution happens at all. How can these seeming opposite views both be true? It all boils down to this – what does someone mean when he says, “evolution.”

Consider some of these definitions of “evolution” given on the popular, evolutionist site, (TO).
"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."
That’s a fairly lengthy way of saying, “evolution is change.” When we see any change in a population, we are seeing “evolution.” The same article goes on to say:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
This is, by far, the most commonly accepted definition of evolution by secular biologists. As far as utility, it’s not a bad definition. It’s certainly objective. The problem is that it’s still just a clinical way of “evolution is change.”

There is still another definition offered in the same TO article:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
OK, this is more like it. This is more along the lines of what most people think of when they hear “evolution.” But NO! TO doesn’t like that definition. In fact, they condemn it in the strongest way:
“This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring.” [bold added for emphasis]
Now we see what’s going on. Evolutionists don’t like this definition because it makes it harder for them to claim evolution is still occurring. But do evolutionists really do that? Do they point to just any example of change and call it evolution? You bet your booty they do!

Consider the peppered moth. In this famous example, during the time of the industrial revolution, birds would eat particular coloration of moth depending on which offered better camouflage. When soot began to settle on trees, light colored moths were less camouflaged and so were eaten more frequently. Consequently, there were more dark moths in the population. This certainly fits the definition of “change” which evolutionists call, “evolution.”

The peppered moth is a textbook example of “natural selection.” You’ll notice that no new features appeared in the moths – only environmental pressures acting on already existing information. Time is of no consequence to the experiment. How long, for example, would birds have to eat one color moth before NEW colors would begin appearing among the moths? How long before the moth was anything besides a moth? It doesn’t matter if it happened for 10 years, 100, or a million. The moths will always be moths.

But evolutionists don’t want you to think that. It’s small changes like this that evolutionists claim can lead to big changes over time. Consider this quote from Wikipedia:
“Critics have argued that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution, rather than speciation or other changes at the larger macroevolutionary scale. Biologists agree that this example shows natural selection causing evolution within a species, demonstrating rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change, and accept that it is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. However, though creationists accept "microevolution" of varieties within a "kind", they claim that "macroevolution" does not happen. To biologists there is no dividing line between the two, and in the modern evolutionary synthesis the same mechanisms are seen operating at various scales to cause both evolution within species and speciation at a macroevolution level or wider changes, the only difference being of time and scale.”
There it is in black and white. Evolution is change, we see change, and that’s all we need for all life to have descended from a common ancestor. Never mind the kind of change. Never mind that the peppered moth example only removes traits from a population. It’s still change and change is evolution.

I’ve read a lot of examples of “evolution” being observed. Most of them fit into the same category as the peppered moth. It’s not the kind of change that could turn a fish into a frog. It’s not the kind of change that could turn an ape into a man. But it fits the definition of evolution.

It seems to me evolution only occurs via definition.


Jorgon Gorgon said...


Sorry ::takes a breath:: My apologies for appearing to be so rude, but I just couldn't help it. When are the creationists going to learn that the only difference between "micro" and "macro" is not qualitative but that of scale only? If you accept "minor" changes, you are logically bound to accept that the accumulation of such will produce major changes. And I can assure you, thre has been plenty of time...

bobxxxx said...

You obviously know nothing about science. What makes you think you're qualified to talk about it?

bobxxxx said...

We know a new species can develop from another species. Of course it's a very gradual process, but it has been going on for billions of years.

How can biologists be so certain of this? Because they can see the history of life with their own eyes when they compare DNA sequences of living animals. For example biologists now have the complete genome of the human apes and the chimpanzee apes. Biologists who compare the DNA of these two ape species are discovering every day more evidence for the fact these two animals are closely related. Biologists are absolutely 100% certain people and chimps share ancestors who lived about 5 or 6 million years ago. Biologists are as certain about this fact as astronomers are certain about the earth's orbit around the sun.

Don't believe me? Then look it up. The powerful and rapidly growing evidence for evolution from molecular biology and genetics is available to anyone who knows how to use google.

Creationists need to grow up and face facts. They disgrace their religion when they deny modern scientific discoveries. They should learn how educate themselves without letting their religious indoctrination get in the way. They need to study and understand scientific discoveries first and worry about the religious implications later. It's a terrible waste of a life to never understand how the natural world works.

bobxxxx said...

Now, I'm a full-blown, young-earth creationist (YEC).

That's disgraceful. Your idea that the earth is just a few thousand years old requires the denial of just about every branch of science.

It's your life you're wasting, not mine. So I don't care what you believe. I just hope you have the decency to keep your breathtaking ignorance out of our schools.

bobxxxx said...

I'm not a scientist

Yes, it's extremely obvious you're not a scientist. You don't even know what science is. (Hint - scientists don't invoke magic fairies. Even the most religious scientists know they can't say "Here a miracle occurred". They know invoking God is not doing science. Instead it's called preaching. No competent scientist in the world would invoke supernatural magic to solve a scientific problem.)

RKBentley said...

Jorgon Gorgon,

Thank you for your assurances but I believe I’ll continue to remain skeptical. Anyway, you seem to have missed the entire point of my post. After all, I did include a quote which said, “To biologists there is no dividing line between [micro and macroevolution], and in the modern evolutionary synthesis the same mechanisms are seen operating at various scales to cause both evolution within species and speciation at a macroevolution level or wider changes, the only difference being of time and scale.”

So you can see that you did not need to point it out to me. However, I discourage the use of the terms micro- and macro- evolution altogether as discussed on a previous blog here:

Evolutionist call ANY change in a population, “evolution.” But I’m not “logically bound” (as you assert) to believe that changes like those seen in the peppered moth are “the same mechanisms” which can turn a dinosaur into a bird. It doesn’t matter how long it continues.

Thanks for visiting my blog. I have already returned the favor and looked over your blog. No surprises there. I suspected as much after having read your comment. Keep visiting though and God bless.