Quote
Thanks again CTD.

Quote
These "theories" are not the same. The second one lists "Observation (2): some of the differences are hereditary (genetic, genotype), some are due to environmental effects (affect development, phenotype), and some are acquired by the organisms (behavioral, learned, individual traits, memes)." The first only lists heriditary differences.
You are confusing the evidence that the theory is based on with the theory - in both cases they say that evolution and speciation can explain the diversity of life. This is basically the same theory of evolution scientists have used ever since it was first presented by Darwin. That variation and natural selection would cause descent with modification, and that this was sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, was Darwin's original insight.
I'm confusing nothing. Neither of these "theories" has enough in common with Darwin's proposal to be equated therewith. The definitions given are of more recent origin, and there's no trace of the struggle required by Darwin's version of "natural selection". Darwin's attempt was more understandable. Had he merely said "things change", I suspect even his atheistic comrades would've blown him off.

There's a question that begs to be asked: if Darwin's story, or any of the subsequent forms of evolution were satisfactory, why would you be undertaking these rewrites? Would you mind explaining some of the shortcomings?
Quote
Quote
I also noticed that the dog example doesn't seem to work, as the chosen definition of species in "theory" #1 makes each breed a species. The definition has other problems. For example, when does one say the tumbleweed becomes a distinct species from the Russian thistle?
Not really, because the different breeds are not fully isolated reproductively from each other or the wild wolves, and will gladly cross breed when allowed to run free (b reeds are also often bred back with other breeds to change the mix of mutations available for further selection). "Purebred" stock does, however, demonstrate amply the ability of even a little isolation to show remarkable changes between populations. One could argue that the Great Dane and Chihuahua would find breeding difficult, and would appear to represent extremes of a ring species like the Asian Greenish Warbler. Like the rate of evolution, the rate of speciation would depend on selection pressure and opportunity for divergence.
Purebreeds are reproductively isolated by the humans in their environment. As any reproductive isolation is sufficient under your chosen definition, they are separate "species".

Now why don't I offer a competing hypothesis? Might make the thread a little interesting, I think.
Presenting The 2008 Variety Hypothesis
Observation: variety occurs in living and non-living matter, and information.
Hypothesis: It can be explained by employing the imagination.
Conclusion: Variety and imagination are sufficient to account for all forms of variety.
Testing and falsification: this can be tested against any and all forms of variety, and will be falsified if nobody can imagine a way to account for a given instance of variety.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson