More on Evolution

I almost regret doing this, but it's a lazy Saturday afternoon, there's a thunderstorm brewing outside, the wife is back at her mother's, and I have little desire to work on my SHARE presentation. So, I shall jump back into the abyss.

Over at "Tech Central Station" (www.techcentralstation.com) there's an article on evolution. The link is here:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072205B.html

The author is defending a statement he made in a pervious article in which he claimed the theory of evolution had been proved. The author provides this:

By the theory of evolution I mean the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological, structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one species from another.

I have no particular objection to that definition of evolution. In fact, that definition is a rather more concise definition than the one I typically use:

Random genetic mutation that leads to reproductive advantage.

The author reports he received considerable e-mail response, both pro and con to his original article. That'll happen any time the subject of evolution is opened up. (The same holds true for discussing the question of predestination and free-will.)

This leads me to ask a few questions:

Q1: What the heck is an "intron?" The website dictionary.com provides this definition:

A segment of a gene situated between exons that is removed before translation of messenger RNA and does not function in coding for protein synthesis.

Okay. Whatever. I won't run down the rabbit trail and ask what an "exon" is. It's an oil company, isn't it?

Q2: It's my understanding that there's no fossil evidence of trans-specie mutation -- in other words, any kind of "missing link." Some argue that the reason for that is that fossils are generally rare and do not survive the eons. That strikes me as a weak argument. "The evidence doesn't stand up well over time, so we have to assume it was there originally. So therefore our theory is true." If the theory is indeed "proved," wouldn't such evidence be more abundant and readily available?

Q3: Does the author's definition of evolution allow or preclude an intelligent designer? To my eye it does not preclude it.

The author then offers this:

For biology is not the only field for which the theory of evolution is an essential foundation. Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially founded on evolution.

I find that a rather striking assertion. If I go back to the author's own definition of "evolution," I'm not sure how "genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission" works its way into geology and chemistry. I suspect what the author has done is allow his focus to drift, and has re-defined evolution to mean "a gradual, cummulate change in scientific knowledge across time." Clearly the disciplines of geology and chemistry have benefited from work done in the past, such that the cummulative knowledge base has "evolved" across time. But that's not really the same thing as "evolution" in a genetic sense, is it? The chemical laws of nature haven't changed since the origin, have they?