Hi RAZD

I’ve read through CTD’s complaints and, while I think you have a few of the details slightly wrong I can’t see any glaring problems with your description of ToE here.

One definition of evolution which I gave was the change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next which is another way of saying pretty much what you said in point 1 so I think we agree on that.

Point two I think you need to explain better, CTD is right to complain about this one though he overplays it I would suggest as you are certainly on the right track. Reproductive isolation is a prerequisite to the formation of new species but it is not quite the definition of such. Isolation can be imposed such as by selective breeding or a geographic change to a wild organism’s range that splits them. In this situation the separate groups can evolve in different directions and so become separate species who are incapable of interbreeding even if they come into contact again. At that point they have become separate species. It is the inability to interbreed even when they are in contact which defines species. There are some grey areas where interbreeding is possible but produces poor offspring or where creatures are physically capable of interbreeding but, due to their genetics will not do so under normal circumstances. These are simply examples of species which have not totally separated though they are clearly on the path to do so unless something dramatic changes to force them back together.

Micro and Macro evolution are very vague terms with no specific fixed meaning. I personally try to avoid using them preferring to explain what has changed without the labels. It makes for less confusion.

Your four observations all appear fairly obvious, I can’t see any reason that anyone would have a problem with them.

Conclusion (1): is pretty much a more detailed restatement of our definitions of evolution at its simplest level. No conflicts here.

Conclusion (2): I agree with what you are trying to say here but I’d say it slightly differently. The point to emphasise is that fitness is contingent on current conditions so traits that fit within a given niche will become more common among organisms which inhabit that niche. Optimum fitness is a moving target unless the niche remains unchanged. It also varies for organisms of a given species which inhabit a large range as the exact conditions will vary from one extreme of their range to the other. Interbreeding within the population will average out such variations unless or until reproductive isolation comes into play at which point the extremes will probably diverge towards speciation.

Conclusion (3): I’d suggest that this is a controversial point. Meme’s may well be passed on due to their ability to be passed on rather than on their utility. That is certainly one of the conclusions of Meme theory as it stands today. Obviously organisms will be selected based on the combination of their phenotype and their meme’s. Organisms which carry detrimental meme’s will be selected against while those which carry beneficial meme’s will be selected for. It’s a very confusing picture. If an organism phenotype can bias it to selectively learn beneficial meme’s and reject detrimental ones that will be the most fit combination I would suggest.

Conclusion (4): I don’t agree with point four. Hereditary traits can certainly spread within a population even if they are don’t affect fitness or even in some cases if they are detrimental. There are a number of mechanisms known for this such as the gene’s for such a trait being located next to a very beneficial trait and, effectively, hitchhiking with it into successive generations so I agree with this point.
Acquired traits arrive in a population because of exposure to their environment so they will be individually acquired or not based on each individual’s experience. Such traits don’t play a part in evolution excepting for their interactions with phenotype of the organisms. An example would be tanning, different phenotype will react differently to sun exposure from tanning to burning to developing skin cancer and dying. The heritable traits will become more or less common in the population based on their fitness effects in the organism’s environment but the environmental effects and acquired traits don’t spread.

Conclusion (5): I agree. Such divergent populations constitute insipient speciation events. Several such have been observed in the wild and in lab tests in great detail even to the point of full speciation. Fascinating research indeed!

I agree with your theory points. I think there are some more interesting tests of ToE and some more telling predictions but the one’s you have cited are certainly telling.

I'll get further into this exchange and comment as I get time.

All the best

Russell