Evolution - March 1999: Re: Peppered Moths - in black and white (part 2 of 2)

------=_NextPart_000_01EA_01BE7A8D.971892A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think we need to be very careful about what we mean by variation.
=20
Since creationists now tend to reject "microevolution" as a legitimate =
form of evolution (claiming instead that "macroevolution" is the only =
true evolution) they also tend to use "variation" as a verb, to indicate =
any change in observable morphological traits within a population, while =
defining "evolution" as an increase in complexity or the creation of new =
structures/body parts or some other such schlock. Their definition of =
"variation" is of course by definition what evolutionists mean by =
"evolution", but by employing their false dichotomy and calling any =
change on the "micro" level "variation", creationists are able to =
successfully deflect debate to "macroevolution" while ignoring the =
significance, and fact, of "microevolution".
=20
Evolutionists, however, tend to use "variation" as a noun, to indicate =
the full range of possible observable morphological traits contained =
within a population. This use of the term "variation" is more =
appropriate, but it also is unconcerned with change. It doesn't care =
whether a trait is represented by 99.9% of the population or 0.1% of the =
population, just as long as at least one member of the population has =
it. Nor is it concerned with whether there is a change in the frequency =
of that trait, as long as the trait does not disappear entirely. As =
such, evolutionists define any change in variation as "evolution", =
regardless of whether that change is permanent or not.
=20
Now, of course speciation (the classifical evolutionary definition of =
"macroevolution") does require a more or less permanent change in =
variation, but to limit evolution to speciation (and thus =
"macroevolution") and to use "variation" as a substitute for "evolution" =
on the "micro" level, is to play into the hands of the creationists and =
play the debate game their way.
=20
Kevin L. O'Brien

------=_NextPart_000_01EA_01BE7A8D.971892A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Since creationists now =tend to reject=20"microevolution" as a legitimate form of evolution (claiming =instead=20that "macroevolution" is the only true evolution) they also =tend to=20use "variation" as a verb, to indicate any change in =observable=20morphological traits within a population, while defining ="evolution"=20as an increase in complexity or the creation of new structures/body =parts or=20some other such schlock. Their definition of "variation" =is of=20course by definition what evolutionists mean by "evolution", =but by=20employing their false dichotomy and calling any change on the ="micro"=20level "variation", creationists are able to successfully =deflect=20debate to "macroevolution" while ignoring the significance, =and fact,=20of "microevolution".

Evolutionists, however, =tend to use=20"variation" as a noun, to indicate the full range of possible=20observable morphological traits contained within a population. =This use of=20the term "variation" is more appropriate, but it also is =unconcerned=20with change. It doesn't care whether a trait is represented by =99.9% of=20the population or 0.1% of the population, just as long as at least one =member of=20the population has it. Nor is it concerned with whether there is a =change=20in the frequency of that trait, as long as the trait does not disappear=20entirely. As such, evolutionists define any change in variation as ="evolution", regardless of whether that change is permanent or =not.

Now, of course speciation =(the=20classifical evolutionary definition of "macroevolution") does =require=20a more or less permanent change in variation, but to limit evolution to=20speciation (and thus "macroevolution") and to use=20"variation" as a substitute for "evolution" on the=20"micro" level, is to play into the hands of the creationists =and play=20the debate game their way.