Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks

Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks 1

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2358-principal-meanings-of-evolution-in-biology-textbooks

Stephen Meyer, Darwins doubt:
“Evolution” can refer to anything from trivial cyclical change within the limits of a preexisting gene pool to the creation of entirely novel genetic information and structure as the result of natural selection acting on random mutations."

What is fact :
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from
a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly pre-programmed selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria ( See Behe's Edge of evolution )

What is not fact:
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Non random mutations : How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1476-non-random-mutations-how-life-changes-itself-the-read-write-rw-genome

Eukaryotes evolved from Prokaryotes. Really ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1568-eukaryotes-evolved-from-prokaryotes-really

On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story 
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1303-challenges-to-endosymbiotic-theory

Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design

"Tetrapods evolved" . Really ?  
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2219-the-evolution-of-tetrapods

What are the mechanisms that drive adaptation to the environment, microevolution, and secondary speciation ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2460-what-are-the-mechanisms-that-drive-adaptation-to-the-environment-microevolution-and-secondary-speciation

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

The tree of life, common descent, common ancestry, a failed hypothesis
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2239-the-tree-of-life-common-descent-common-ancestry-a-failed-hypothesis

Photosynthesis
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1555-photosynthesis


1.http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/Meanings2000.pdf

How Evolution Became a Fact by Rick Swindell

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2358-principal-meanings-of-evolution-in-biology-textbooks

An intelligent discussion of any issue involves knowing the definition of the words under consideration. This is particularly important with respect to the word science and the word evolution.
Evolution has recently been defined formally as a change in allele frequency over time. (Alleles are alternate forms of the same gene, i.e. blue eyes brown eyes) If more Mexicans than Germans die on a given day the frequency of blue eye alleles has increased and evolution has been proven to be true.
With this definition we have something repeatably observable, repeatably testably, falsifiable, and subject to the scientific method.
But suppose we broaden this definition a little. Suppose we broaden it to include the idea that invertebrates turned into vertebrates in the late Cambrian.
NO ONE EVER OBSERVED THAT, since no human was there.
But evolution is a fact, ACCORDING TO OUR DEFINITION, and so this MUST be true also since the FACT of evolution is established by science.
This is a tactic called bait and switch, or more formally equivocation. You change the meaning of a word in mid-argument and reach an untenable conclusion:
Only man is rational
No woman is man
Therefore no woman is rational.
We have changed the definition of man from human being in the first premise to male in the second.
This is the way evolution became a fact. We define it as something observable and testable and then expand our definition to include the unobserved and unobservable, unrepeatable, untestable, and unfalsifiable, and PRETEND we have proven that.