Epistemologically False Definitions of Evolution.

> WA:-
> The most minimal definition of evolution is merely "a change in gene
> frequencies," thus if a population can be shown to have had a change in
the
> content of its genome over some observable period of time, then evolution
> can
> be said to have occurred.
> However it is very important to note that this definition explains
nothing,
> no
> more than measuring a change in the angle of the sun during the course of
a
> day
> explains the nature of celestial mechanics. Both are only easily
> accomplished
> empirical measures of readily observable physical qualities.

> JE:-
> The definition of evolution as  "a change in gene
> frequencies" does not exclude random changes in
> gene freq. Thus the definition is incorrect because
> it allows a _non_ testable view of evolution.

BOH:-
Not so, see for example Mueller et al. (1985) Genetics 110: 495-511.
The specifically test changes in allozyme frequency changes to see if
the changes could be caused by genetic drift (sampling error is even
easier to test for).

JE:-
Incorrect. All random patterns, without
exception, can be validly suggested
to be caused by _either_ random or
non random processes. This is because non random
processes commonly produce random patterns
but random processes can only produce random
patterns, by definition. This being the case,
it is logically _impossible_ to refute
any claim of evolution being caused by just
a random process. This is why observations
of just random events are thrown out
as _not significant_, within the sciences.

Popper's basic requirement that views within the
sciences must be testable is simply not met when
just a random process is allowed to alone,
be causative process a scientific
theory, e.g. the theory of genetic drift is a
classic example of an non testable view of
evolution.


John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]