Another post that deserves to be reposted is this one:

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42933#Post42933

(I've spared you the usual meaningless mis-quotes)

Notes:

(1) this "definition" is not used by any university teaching evolution or biology, rather it is a straw man created by RussT, and typical of the false definitions used by creationists to make arguments that are curiously not about evolution. We'll call this "RussTolution" -- and agree with RussT that it is totally absurd.

(2) Abiogenesis is a whole different field of study from evolutionary biology, one that is independent of evolutionary biology. Evolution can exist without abiogenesis, as all it needs is pre-existing life, any pre-existing life, which then evolves. Thus including abiogenesis in the definition of evolution is false, and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution really involves. The "Abiogenesis is just plain crazy" claim is just the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

(3) "Progressive Beneficial Mutation" is another false representation. Not one university teaches that evolution occurs by this process. This is also false because evolution is not "progressive" - it is opportunistic: if an organism has a beneficial mutation it will take advantage of that opportunity to survive and breed, and if it has a mutation that allows it to explore a new ecology then it has a whole opportunity to survive and breed.

(4) "the ratio of harmful mutation to beneficial mutation" on it's own is not a problem as this ignores that natural selection means that the ratio of beneficial mutations to harmful ones is higher in the next generation. Subsequent generations will continue to concentrate the beneficial mutations and eliminate the harmful ones.

(5) "symmetry" is another logical fallacy, this time the argument from incredulity. Curiously a multicellular organism can create several different kinds of symmetry just by duplicating parts. Thus we see starfish and jellyfish with several identical arms arrayed in a radial symmetrical pattern. This is simpler to do than to develop whole different patterns for each arm or tentacle. If we look at octopus we see a similar radial arrangement, but also a front to back organization caused by the simple addition of visual organs that look forward, and with this alignment established we see a differentiation between front and back legs, a differentiation that is mirrored from one side to the other for the same cause, adaptation to forward vision. Instead of being a complex problem, symmetry is a simple solution, one that occurs very soon in the fossil record after the development of multicellular life forms.

(6) "...immediately becomes mathematically absurd" is just another demonstration of not understanding the difference between mathematics and reality. Mathematics models reality, but does not control it: no mathematical equation will make a single thing occur in reality. If there is any conflict between a mathematical model and what happens in reality, the model is what is wrong. There is the old urban myth about a Boeing Aeronautical Engineer that mathematically proved that bees cannot fly. Obviously no bees fell to the earth never to fly again, and what was found was that certain assumptions in the calculations turned out to be false.

Just like each of the above assertions by RussT turn out to be based on a false understanding of evolution. Thus when RussT says:



You can make an educated guess that it really has nothing to do with evolution. Certainly it would be a correct guess in this case.

Enjoy.