I disagree. Is there a problem with defining evolution to fit natural phenomena? That is how definitions typically come about. Something happens, and then a name is assigned to this “something happens.” In the case of evolution, the allele frequencies of populations change. Evolution is the word used to describe this phenomena. There’s no problem here, GourmetDan.
Your statement “No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes” is ignorant and ignores volumes of evidence in support of both micro and macroevolution. I (re)present to you antibiotic resistance and Darwin’s finches. Have a nice evening.
It's a problem because the term is defined to match observations which do not uniquely support evolution and is then used as though it is unique support for evolution. It's a circular thought-pattern and most naturalists don't have the critical-thinking skills to understand that.
Changing allele frequencies over time does not uniquely support evolution. It could equally apply to a created genetic code that is in reproductive error-catastrophe and would never produce men from hominids. You would never know that because you take the definition and apply it to a concept that the observations cannot support. The problem is that you are being misled by the old bait-and-switch and you don't have the critical-thinking skills to recognize that.
"Your statement “No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes” is ignorant and ignores volumes of evidence in support of both micro and macroevolution. I (re)present to you antibiotic resistance and Darwin’s finches. Have a nice evening."
No, you are projecting ignorance onto me because your credulity is so complete that you cannot begin to understand what I am actually saying.
Antibiotic resistance was already present before antibiotics existed and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there. Darwin's finches have been shown to fluctuate back and forth between beak sizes and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there. It is only in your imagination that such variation could produce the observed variety of life from some proto-life form.
You apparently have believed the naturalist misrepresentation that life cannot have been created with an ability to adapt and that therefore any adaptation is unique support for evolution. That, however, is a metaphysical belief along with the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.
Your level of understanding on this subject is woefully inadequate, almost child-like. You have a nice evening.