The primary thing to look for when arguing any issue, from creation to cults, is to check definitions. For the instruction of those who don't know what an 'allele' is, it is a variation in a gene. Same gene, but timed a bit differently for expression, or interacting with other genes a bit differently, etc. It is the difference between blue eyes and brown eyes, between straight hair and curly hair, etc.
In the following link, the author sets himself up to ‘prove’ evolution via his original definitions. Here are the three paragraphs I am talking about:
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm
“What is Evolution? (and, more importantly, what is not evolution.)
Before we proceed, it is essential that we set a few ground rules and delimit exactly to what we are referring when we speak of evolution in the context of the evolution\creation conflict. Thus: by definition, evolution is: (1.) precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. This is the neontological (biological) definition.
Unfortunately, alleles themselves are rarely, if ever, preserved in the rock record as fossils; which are the key data units in the examination of the history of life on Earth. But, the expression of these alleles is preserved in the fossils of populations of organisms, which are readily available for examination. From this, it is readily apparent that (2.) life has developed (not 'progressed') from one or a small set of common ancestors as well as from 'simple' organisms to more 'complex' creatures over the span of geological time. This is one of the paleontological definitions of evolution.
Although already there may be some dissenters bristling over the relative merits of biological 'simplicity' or 'complexity'; I maintain that, in however a general or specific sense, a multicellular organism (say, a human, a blue whale, or a Velociraptor mongoliensis) is relatively more complex (systemically) than a unicellular blue-green alga; although I will concede that complexity is not a measure of a population of organisms success (viz.: bacteria and alga are much more voluminous and have been extant far longer than Homo sapiens), but is used here solely for purposes of differentiation between the neontological and paleontological concept of evolution.”
The MINUTE you see the nonsense about “a change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next” you KNOW, or should know what is going on. Evolution is being redefined as variation WITHIN a species. And we all know that is a fact! No one is arguing variation. The migrations of people around the world show this variation! But we are all human beings!
But look at what he says next – alleles are not preserved (well, ‘rarely, if ever…’) in the rock record….”which are the key data units in the examination of the history of life on Earth.” What he does say is that the ‘effects’ of these allele changes are in the record. What he does not say is whether or not the differences in organisms in the rock record can be attributed to simple allele variation frequencies or whether they can and should be attributed to the fact that the organism is an entirely different created form!
He then muddies the issue with his idea of complexity in the geological record. He compares blue-green algae (which is still around) with humans, blue whales, and such. He then states that he is doing this to show the difference between biological evolution and the evolution record in the rocks. I’m glad he knows there is a difference! The first, however, is simple variation which does not produce new form or function, and the second is presumed with absolutely no data to back it up!
What he is doing is what we see continuously – using the fact of variation to try to explain the vast differences in organisms in the rocks. It’s an unsubstantiated leap and he spends quite a bit of time trying to defend it. He states as fact, by the way, evolutionary presuppositions, in order to prove evolution. That’s called circular in logic.
It is indefensible as science.