One more time: "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
Well.. With THAT meaningless and irrelevant definition..
It's the scientific definition. If the gene pool of a population changes, that's evolution.
We OBSERVE changes in allele frequencies in populations over time!!
You're wising up. So evolution is an observed phenomenon. Now pay attention to this; you don't object to evolution as Darwin formulated it ("descent with modification"), or the definition informed by genetics, ("change in allele frequency in a population over time"). You object to a consequence of evolution (common descent). Some YE creationists still object to agencies of evolution, like natural selection, but most no longer do. As you learned earlier, most creationist organizations like AIG and ICR now admit a limited amount of common descent, meaning new species, genera, and families of organisms from earlier ones). Some go a bit farther. John Woodmorappe once told me in an email conversation that the limit would be roughly at the level of family, so it's not a hard limit.
SMALL CHANGES PLUS "DEEP TIME" LEADS TO LARGE CHANGES? (By JT)
Can. Mountains for example very slowly erode over many millions of years, but you could spend a lifetime watching mountain, and notice no change at all. On the other hand, as you were taught, sometimes, it can be very fast, like those lizards that evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades. Can you remember why the pace of evolution is not always the same? Think back.
Sorry, it doesnt work that way.
It always works that way. As you have seen, pacing of evolutionary change depends on fitness of the population to the environment.
Even though Atheists lie and say it has been debunked, (which it hasn't,) everything is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX...
It is, and it surely befuddles a lot of creationists to learn that the amount of evolution that goes on in a population can vary, depending on fitness.
The mechanism of Evolutionism couldn't even build A SIMPLE MOUSETRAP!!
But evolution can and does. Your religion of "evolutionism" has nothing to do with evolution. Even Behe now admits that his "irreducibly complex" mousetrap isn't irreducibly complex. Would you like to learn why? Part of it is that he didn't realize that a simpler mousetrap was possible.
A reducibly complex mousetrap
The other part is something called "exaption." Would you like to learn how that works?
[quote[That is why I ask for, and NEVER GET, a plausible evolutionary order for man's 10 VITAL organs.[/quote]
I showed you how lungs evolved, and suggested that you pick another one (have no idea why you think there are only ten). You declined to go any further. I think I know why. But feel free to pick any one of them and I'll show youl.
. if a microbe S L O W L Y evolved into a human (or ANY mammal) as we are told,..
As you learned, humans evolved from primates. And if you would like, I can show you how mammals evolved from therapsid reptiles which already had most of the features we find in mammals. Would you like to learn about that?
(But you deny) there must have been a Chronological evolutionary order for our 10 VITAL organs..
No, you made that up again. For example, the integument (skin in vertebrates) preceded all others. Your problem is in not realizing that these occured long before there were humans.
Which VITAL organ evolved 1st? Heart? 2nd? Lungs? 3rd Brain? 4th? Pancreas? 5th? Skin? 6th Liver? 7th? U intestine? 8th? Stomach? 9th? L intestine? 10? Kidneys?
See above; integument. Second would be the nervous system. We see both in very, very primitive animals like cnidarians.
Oh, dont forget all of the support systems and the fact that all of these organs are interlocked and ALL must be working together perfectly in tandem or we DIE.
Cnidarians aren't very smart, even if they have primitive nervous systems. So they go on living minus all that other stuff, completely ignorant of the fact that jJIM has decreed that they must be dead.
And guess what?? DEAD THINGS CANT EVOLVE!!
Cnidarians aren't very smart, as you just learned, so they go on doing it, not realizing that you've already ruled that they have to be dead.
I think everyone gets it now. Maybe you don't. I think maybe even a cnidarian would get it, though.
So go ahead and provide a plausible evolutionary order for mans 10 VITAL organs from 1 through 10..
As you're probably beginning to suspect, they were all evolved long before humans. Your assumption that they all had to be present in living things for any living thing to survive, is of course wrong, as the cnidarians have taught you. If you'd like to learn about how other organs evolved, pick another one, and we'll go through it together. Or if you've got some time to read, try Leonard Radinsky's
The Evolution of Vertebrate Design. It's detailed, but written to be accessible to the layman. Well worth your time; it would clear up a lot of misconceptions for you.
So what organ would you like to learn about next?