Definition of evolution

Your way of arguing is very strange. But no matter the method, it does appear you're trying to blatantly insult me.

I like it :flowers:

Ah, I see you edited your post.

Evolution, fundamentally, is population genetics.

yes, I try to be a bit less abrasive than comes naturally.

Now, if I see this kind of statement I see a closed mind behind it.

I see a closed mind behind it. "Evolution" is neither a study of genetics nor the genes of a population.

but by equivocation, people become misled.

My only other current thought: Are we sure inheritence is a part of evolution?

In other words, perhaps inheritance has nothing to do with evolution at all, but is simply another way organisms can change (and, in this case, we can still call evolution the change in allele frequency in a population over time).

now I see that you are starting to enquire into your beliefs on the subject. Who said it's all about inheritance and nothing else ?

but you have no reason to call Evolution "change in allele frequency", although allele frequency change is a kind of evolution.

Of course I do. Many sources cite evolution as, "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations", or something close.

If a good number of sources specify that evolution is the change in genetic material, I have a good reason.

OK, it's your authorities that have no good reason.

Authorities are a reason. If they weren't they wouldn't be authorities.

I agree with you there, you have reason to take it for granted from them.

but you do note that "genetic material" is not "allele" ?

From "allele frequency change to "genetic change".

But is it possible that your exceptions have nothing to do with evolution at all? That is what I was getting at earlier.

What reason do you have for thinking the vast majority of authoritative sources are incorrect?



They used "genetical material" because it sounds more layman. "Allele" is a more technical term, but it is genetic material.

They used "genetical material" because it sounds more layman. "Allele" is a more technical term, but it is genetic material

but it's incorrect to say that genetic material is the gene.

But if you know that what they mean by genetic material is the gene, based on other sources, then any reasonable person can agree they are synonymous.

Genetic material encompasses more than just the genes (according to wiki it also includes the non-coding sequences), but I believe the genetic material the articles refer to are the genes. Don't you?

yes, sometimes they mean "the pieces of DNA, physical genes" and at other times, they mean the whole caboodle of anything that makes things happen..and you see Aedes use that kind of meaning sometimes.

Genetic material never means anything that makes things happen. I don't know why you think that, and I don't remember reading where Aedes used the term "genetic material" in that manner. Can you provide an example?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Can you reiterate?

After I defrost the fridge I might have time to scan through Aedes' posts on a couple of threads. maybe he can let you know if he reads this.

So back to your reason for thinking that the majority of authoritative sources are incorrect in their definition of evolution.

What is it?

Do you accept Dawkins as an authority on Evolutionary Biology ? Can I show what he says about the gene and genetics ?

So, because genes weren't known to Dawkins ...