Darwinists? and other names for "evos"

Let me have a go at this.First:
The correct term would be biologists or more specfically evolutionary biologists.I think that any sensitivity comes from the suggestion implicit in the terms evolutionist, darwinist and the like is that this "ist" is just like being a creationist. It might go back to the idea that biology is a "faith" too that some literalists like to expound on.The term "dawinist" might be a bit worse than some since it might imply, to some, an attachment to the authority rather than to the concepts put forward.As well, the current theory is "neo-darwinism" as there is some that consider the changes over the 150 years to be enough to separate somewhat from what Darwin originally put forward with a huge amount less information. (I don't happen to see the separation being so much)

That wasn't Darwin's term but you're right in that it is really refering to natural selection (NS). I don't see how anything but drift can occur without some form of selection. Well, perhaps, isolation and drift with no real selection.The evolutionary process includes, right from day one, natural selection as a major pillor. You don't have "evolution" in the sense it is used in biology without NS.The term macroevolution comes up again. There isn't really such a separate thing you know. If you have your own definition it might be useful to supply it.It is, in the way it is occasionally used in biology simply some one or set of "microevolutionary" changes that finally manages to push a population apart into two species. Since species are a bit blurry even that doesn't give a clear split between macro and micro evolution.Let me try a new way of wording this (just in case it is needed).There are genetic changes in individual organisms. These are usually very small and most often don't do much or anything. Some of these are large (polypoidy (sp?) for example ). That is all there is as far as changes in the genome go. Large or small these changes may not result in speciation and so they are all "micro" using the biological definition.The same "size" of changes or even the very same changes might result in a speciation event and then be called "macro".There is, in biology, nothing else but species. For convenience we group them into larger groups, (genus, family, order etc.) but those are just groups of species. There is nothing but species!(as an aside, since the species boundaries can often be a bit blurred we could say that there are only individuals but I think that is a bit extreme)Anyway, once you have a new species you have macro evolution. Done finished!Of course, when two species continue to evolve and slit off more species and have more and more time separated from each other the differences between species that was once pretty small can become rather large. It is still just speciation. One after another, changes piled on changes. The changes are all the same kind of changes we called microevolution way back there.There aren't any macro or micro changes. There are just results that we call speciation or something more.

Who knows; it is obviously a rather personal reaction.As far as the rest goes it is not on topic for this thread.If we are finished with the topic you may open another to discuss that.Someone I know, well, will close this thread if it goes too far off topic.

The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"This is the right thread to discuss transitionals. The literalists, with one exception, avoided it.You might repost your list there too. It is flawed.

There are a number of creationists here (of various persuasions). We have even managed to persuade some to be admins. Odd that you would think there is a void of knowledge when you haven't been here long enough to determine that. With a number of people here actually doing research in a variety of sciences I find it suprising that you would think there is a void.Leaving when asked to support their views is a very common tactic of literalists. It's maybe that you don't like being expected to back up your assertions. We are all free to post pretty much whatever opinions we may have on the topics covered. (with obvious control over polite behavior). I don't see how there is any restriction on freedom of speech.As for controls on new topics: we were forced to that by individuals who were more or less spamming. It also helps some to get their thoughts straight before turning them loose for everyone to jump on.The requirment to remain within the topic of a thread is part of both politeness to others and a way of organizing the material. We find that everything has been discussed before (slight exaggeration ) and it helps to refer back to it sometimes.If you don't have the discipline then I guess this isn't the right place for you.That might be one reason why we have more long-term, regular science type posters; they like the give and take of discussion and are not afraid to defend their views. They also don't mind some discipline.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2004 12:27 AM