Are there problems with the evolutionary scenario?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@NonlinOrg

Let’s explore Evolution a bit: it seems that all the discussions and arguments appear because we simply do not have a good definition of the concept. “Changes in gene frequencies in populations” just doesn’t cut it as it is too broad.

I’m fine with it, except that it’s changes in ALLELE frequencies in populations over time. If you don’t grasp the distinction, you’re almost certainly not grasping the definition.

It covers everything. I don’t any impression of a desire for exploration in your breezy dismissal.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:16, topic:26482”]
Even J. Coyne admits: “true, breeders haven’t turned a cat into a dog and … bacterium into amoeba”. BUT WHY NOT?
[/quote]
Because for each pair, one is not the ancestor of the other. Evolution is a metaphorical bush, not a metaphorical ladder. It also falsely portrays evolution as happening to distinct individuals, when in reality and by definition it only happens to populations. You’ve already gone outside the definition you just complained was too broad!

You seem to be ignoring the basic concepts of nested hierarchies and common descent. Is that a fair assessment?