Proving evolution?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Verbal shortcuts hinder communication. "Biological evolution" for clarity?

[LinuxGal]

The term biological evolution is using 'evolution' in a more limited sense than the sense in which evolution simply means 'change'.  They are two distinct meanings/senses, thus using one to comment on the other is an equivocation.

To use your example term, it would be akin to saying, "The theory of gravity is false because gravity means a matter having great weight and the theory of gravity has no defined weight."

A clearer explanation would be thus:  Evolution in the field of biology refers to the change in alleles in populations of biological organisms.  Evolution in the sense that Nudger used it the second time simply means change, but not of a specific type.  All organisms are undergoing change all the time, but the change which biology terms evolution is not occurring all the time, as changes in alleles in populations only occur at the birth / conception of a new organism.  Thus  the two meanings of evolution are distinct and Nudger was using two different definitions of change in the same comparison.

Changes of alleles in individual organisms occur at the conception of that organism.  Changes of alleles in a population are obviously on a statistical basis with many factors.

[Jehanne]

A clearer explanation would be thus:  Evolution in the field of biology refers to the change in alleles in populations of biological organisms.  Evolution in the sense that Nudger used it the second time simply means change, but not of a specific type.  All organisms are undergoing change all the time, but the change which biology terms evolution is not occurring all the time, as changes in alleles in populations only occur at the birth / conception of a new organism.  Thus  the two meanings of evolution are distinct and Nudger was using two different definitions of change in the same comparison.

Changes of alleles in individual organisms occur at the conception of that organism.  Changes of alleles in a population are obviously on a statistical basis with many factors.

Changes in alleles is largely a non-random process (aka, natural selection). It is mutations in the germ line that are random, hence, statistical. Alleles can change somewhat due to genetic drift as long as those changes do not involve any selective pressures via natural or sexual selection.

[The Grand Nudger]

The term biological evolution is using 'evolution' in a more limited sense than the sense in which evolution simply means 'change'.  They are two distinct meanings/senses, thus using one to comment on the other is an equivocation.

To use your example term, it would be akin to saying, "The theory of gravity is false because gravity means a matter having great weight and the theory of gravity has no defined weight."

A clearer explanation would be thus:  Evolution in the field of biology refers to the change in alleles in populations of biological organisms.  Evolution in the sense that Nudger used it the second time simply means change, but not of a specific type.  All organisms are undergoing change all the time, but the change which biology terms evolution is not occurring all the time, as changes in alleles in populations only occur at the birth / conception of a new organism.  Thus  the two meanings of evolution are distinct and Nudger was using two different definitions of change in the same comparison.

Another useful example.  We began to refer to evolution in this way -after- theories of evolution had already been described....as they predated our contemporary understanding of genetics.  The term biological evolution is certainly more limited, but also not the current theory of evolution, there were competitors even in that subset, lamarckian evolution for example.  They were wrong, and yet the observation that all theories of evolution attempt to explain remained to be explained.  

The word itself has an even longer history than it's use in this way (unfolding, unfurling, turning etc).  As I said at the start, I can't help the way things sound..and I can even see why they may sound that way.  Nevertheless, there's no equivocation required for them to sound that way, and a given theory of how is not the what.

[Ferrocyanide]

Any given theory -of- evolution may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that evolution were false..because life does, in fact, change.

If rabbit fossils, world-wide, were found in a layer below trilobite fossils, then evolution would be falsified.

If Genesis 2 said a Day Six human being existed before Day Five birds (actually, it does), then believers would say one of the following:

1. Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally. It's just a litany used in temple worship. 
2. Genesis 2 is a secondary creation that all happened on the sixth day so Adam could name the birds that already existed.
3. Genesis 2 is not intended to present the chronological sequence of events, it's a theological statement.

I've already asked OEC about this:
Saying that Genesis is an allegory is saying that the story is fake, that it is not history.
So my question is:
At which line in the Bible does it switch from fake story to real history.

If it is just Genesis 1 and 2 that is(are) fake story, then does this mean that it switches to real mode at 3:1

Genesis 3:1 KING JAMES VERSION
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?