[CS-FSLUG] Intelligent design...

[Gabe Ginorio]

I know where you are going,

>      What I mean, is that while there are theories of evolution  
> outside of natural selection (i.e. Grecian theories of evolution from  
> long ago or Hume's naturalism), the process of natural selection is  
> what we call evolution. Note that what people call Darwinian  
> Evolution is just natural selection. I think when we try to say that  
> natural selection is happening in accord with God, we are merely  
> supporting theistic evolution (which need not go to the extreme of  
> what ID suggests).

Perhaps I didn't make my case clear. Natural selection is NOT biological
evolution. That is merely an equivocation made by Darwin, in ignorance,
and now propagated by proponents (not in ignorance) to the populace.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

>      I don't think you are using the terminology in the same way I  
> normally hear it applied.
> 
>      The best definition I have found of microevolution is that of  
> changes within a species. That is, much like the artificial selection  
> we do with domesticated animals. 


Yup. This is the genetics of Mendel. Each population can be bred to the
limits of its preexisting genetic diversity ... but no further. People
have tried with dogs and horses, but there is no breeding program to
create a dog from a horse or vice-versa. God made each "kind" and what
we see today is one genetic "variety" of the original. All dogs come
from wolves (Poodles, St. Bernards and Chihuauas). This genetic
diversity existed from the beginning. In other words, Microevolution is
simply a range of changes from Sub-Speciation to total Speciation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

> Microevolution is, by every  
> definition I've ever heard, evolution without speciation. That is, if  
> a bird with a longer beak survives more often than a bird with a  
> short beak (to use Darwin's example), and so if we have natural  
> selection of the bird with the longer beak -- within the same  
> species, mind you! -- then we have had microevolution.

Don't you like how clearly defined the terms are in everyones' heads.
The school system is doing it's job well. "I don't have any idea what it
is. Yes, it affects my worldview. Following its teachings can draw
people from the church and endanger souls ... but I believe it sight
unseen anyway."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

> 
>      "Microevolution: evolutionary change within a species or small  
> group of organisms, esp. over a short period."

Notice it doesn't specify what kind of change. Evolution requires NEW
GENETIC INFORMATION. Remember that phrase.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

>      "Macroevolution: major evolutionary change. The term applies  
> mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods  
> of time."

This is even worse. Imagine the kind of new genetic information needed
to produce arms on an armless creature or eyes on an eyeless creature.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

>      Personally, neither of these are terribly troubling, I think,  
> and I'd be inclined to suggest both have/will occurred, albeit to a  
> much smaller extent than Darwinians would advocate (that is, I think  
> mutations could negatively cause speciation, but that would only  
> explain some variation, not the gaining of higher forms from lesser  
> forms). 

There is no evolution, period. Only speciation within Mendellian genetic
limits based on the survival of the fittest.