This is from an essay by Stephen C. Meyer and Mike Keas. (H/T Justin Taylor)
Meyer and Keas caution people about answering questions about evolution until the term is clearly defined.
Here are their 6 meanings of the word:
- Evolution as Change Over Time
- Evolution as Gene Frequency Change
- Evolution as Limited Common Descent
- Evolution as a Mechanism that Produces Limited Change or Descent with Modification
- Evolution as Universal Common Descent
- Evolution as the “Blind Watchmaker” Thesis
Here is one that everyone accepts:
2. Evolution as Gene Frequency Change
Population geneticists study changes in the frequencies of alleles in gene pools. This very specific sense of evolution, though not without theoretical significance, is closely tied to a large collection of precise observations. The melanism studies of peppered moths, though currently contested, are among the most celebrated examples of such studies in microevolution. For the geneticist, gene frequency change is “evolution in action.”
And one that is controversial:
6. Evolution as the “Blind Watchmaker” Thesis
The “blind watchmaker” thesis, to appropriate Richard Dawkins’s clever term, stands for the Darwinian idea that all new living forms arose as the product of unguided, purposeless, material mechanisms, chiefly natural selection acting on random variation or mutation. Evolution in this sense implies that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variations (and other equally naturalistic processes) completely suffices to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms. Although Darwinists and neo-Darwinists admit that living organisms appear designed for a purpose, they insist that such “design” is only apparent, not real, precisely because they also affirm the complete sufficiency of unintelligent natural mechanisms (that can mimic the activity of a designing intelligence) of morphogenesis. In Darwinism, the variation/selection mechanism functions as a kind of “designer substitute.” As Dawkins summarizes the blind watchmaker thesis: “Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye.”
For discussion purposes, I accept 1-4, which I think are consistent with the evidence. I deny 5 and 6 because they are inconsistent with the evidence.
It’s a good article to read to prepare yourself to discuss this with someone who is antagonistic to design. They may offer evidence for one definition of evolution that everyone accepts, then take it to be proof of a much more controversial definition of evolution. You have to get the definition clear first.
One last piece of advice. If you ever get asked this “do you believe in evolution” question – say, by a secular leftist anxious to label you as a moron – then you might consider going on the offensive, using this list of alternate science-related questions that actually affect public policy from David Harsanyi. Put your questioner on the defensive.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Well would evolution be a way to explain all the different races on this planet? If the first man and woman is from africa then a group lf africans migrated to europe but europeans dont have kinky hair and dark skin, europeans have fair skin,blond hair,brunette,black,red straight hair and green,blue eyes. Europe and asia has a colder climate so there would be no need for the africans that travel there to keep their dark pigment. So over time, generations that got lighter and same goes for native americans,asian,indians,arabs etc.
LikeLike
The divergence of people groups with different racial characteristics could be called “evolution” (according to some definitions of the word), but is not part of the Theory of Evolution (even though a lot of people like to pretend it’s all the same thing).
The kind of change that occurs in diverging people groups with different racial characteristics doesn’t support common descent of all life or show the kind of change necessary to explain how humans got here in the first place. What’s more, it’s perfectly consistent with the concept of special creation.
For example, different skin shades are very easy to explain within just a generation or two from the initial created people (Adam and Eve). Really, everyone has the same skin pigment (called melanin) – just different amounts of it. Genes for more or less pigment combine to give a variety of shades, depending on how many genes you have for lots of melanin versus little bits of melanin. People with very light skin simply have all their skin pigment genes saying “less melanin” while people with very dark skin have all genes that say “more melanin.” People with intermediate skin tones have a mix of “more” and “less” melanin genes.
Even without mutations adding variation (such as albinism), a medium brown couple could have children with widely varying skin tones, depending on how the “more” and “less” genes get mixed up. In a population of people with a wide variety of skin tones, selecting small groups and isolating them from one another could very easily explain how some groups developed lighter skin, others developed darker skin, and some were in the middle.
Much the same kind of thing can explain other “racial” characteristics. They are all easily explained, even if you start with a single human couple created about 6,000 years ago.
LikeLike
Race is a social concept created to classify physical characteristics. As for humans go, there is only one race of humans, homo sapiens (or homo sapiens sapiens.) So if by evolution you mean change over time or gene frequency change then yes.
LikeLike