>>Evolution is something beyond this. Evolution is
>>irreversible; the moth phenomenon is reversible; therefore, the
>>phenomenon is not an instance of evolution. I don't think I'm making
>>idiosyncratic definitions here.
>As a matter of fact you are, but it is understandable. You have accepted as
>true the creationist claim that "macroevolution" is the only true form of
>evolution. Since "macroevolution" does involve more or less irreversible
>change, it is natural for you to assume that evolution as a whole requires
>irreversible change. However, "microevolution" is also evolution, even
>though changes here are not always irreversible.
Irreversibility has long been recognized as a general characteristic of
evolution, micro and macro. Dollo's Law, isn't it?
But I can see that my belief in macroevolution influences me in this. If I
were wedded to microevolution, then the slight variations I see among
populations would seem to me the very stuff of evolution, as it did for
BTW, I don't think macro is the "only true form of evolution." And I don't
think creationists believe in macroevolution; they believe in special creation.
Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ firstname.lastname@example.org