On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:18:32 +0000 (UTC), "John Edser"
 wrote:

>
>
>> > Definitions of evolution involving gene frequenquencies *are* narrow.
>> > 
>> > Is it possible to do better?
>> > 
>> > Evolution /could/ be defined as being:
>> > 
>> > ``Changes to the heritable elements of a population''
>
>> What is wrong with simply "change over time"
>
>
>TT:-
>Such a definition would turn the process of erosion into evolution.
>
>JE:-
>What is the testable difference between
>the processes of erosion and genetic drift,
>i.e. excluding the difference between
>dirt and genes and just comparing each
>process as a logical structure?
>

The difference is exactly the difference between dirt and genes.
Evolution is a change in the heritable elements of a population.  To
the extent that we believe that these lie in the genes, then evolution
is a change in the allele frequencies of a population.

Period. End of story.  That is what all biologists and, more
partcularly, what all evolutionary biologists say.  What you, John
Edser, say is quite irrelevant.  You are entitled to your opinion.
Just don't call it "evolution."

Someday, also, you are going to have to face up to the simple fact
that you are the only person in the entire universe who does not
accept genetic drift as a mechanism of evolution.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 2/5/04 11:00:28 AM