rephrase:
Genes determines the characteristic of an organism - Truism - Wikipedia
Gradual changes in generations has its basis in genes. - Truism - Wikipedia
The abstract authority Mr.Molecular biology doesn’t teach anything, who is the individual that influenced your mind to think truistically ?
Molecular biology is hardly an abstract authority. It is a discipline that investigates and applies biochemical knowledge about macromolecules, and routinely finds application in fields such as agriculture and medicine. For instance, by introducing a new piece of DNA into a yeast cell, a molecular biologist can have the yeast cell produce a new protein that it normally has no business producing. I hope the mere though sends shivers down your spine, because it should. It is a massively exciting principle!
But lets take it one step at a time:
Can we agree that the appearance of any organism is determined by its genetic constitution?
Mintaka
We agree but your sentence is a logical fallacy: Truism - Wikipedia. Also see the Wikipedia article on Tautology the bulk of which I wrote. They censored about half but the essence remains, there I explained in more detail what a tautology is and how it relates to a Truism. See Tautology Wiki | Fandom for the uncensored version.
Ok hang on. Then we don’t quite agree. Are you calling my sentence a logical fallacy because genotype implies phenotype, and it is therefor a tautology?
By the way, are you equating “tautology” with circular reasoning?
Mintaka
Actually, the definition is one favoured by biologists. I merely restated it slightly – perhaps inadequately so. By way of an analogy, the layman will possibly be puzzled by the definition of a computer (Turing machine) as “a device for manipulating symbols,” yet that is exactly what a computer does. By thinking of a computer as a powerful calculator or arithmetical contraption, you are, in fact, limiting your view unnecessarily.
Who says that either (or both) of the above is a truism (which neither of them is)?
Tell that to molecular biologists. I’m sure they’ll have a good chuckle. Who is the individual who taught your mind to conjure up such flawed drivel?
Please, if I may? Despite evolution having been described to this person amply and repeatedly and in many different ways, mentari/metari1/backspace has a proven track record of saying anything in an attempt to discredit evolution. (S)He seems to have a particular liking for the idea that criticising the rigour of the terminology is criticism of the theory itself. Like all creationists, (s)he is very selective about where (s)he applies those standards. Specifically, (s)he’s completely loose about answering questions and defining his or her god who is supposed to be an answer to everything (s)he doesn’t understand.
'Luthon64
As I explained on Wikipedia and scratchpad a tautology is not circular reasoning. What theory precisely am I attacking? You still have not given me the formally established , defined theory of evolution. It doesn’t exist on Wikipedia because ToE redirects to Evolution and “evolution” is a word not a theory. Evolution the word can be used in multiple contexts, it isn’t a theory.
I think the answer to the question posed in this topic was given in the first few posts. I don’t see the need to continue with the direction the topic has taken. A final link which was probably posted already, and will no doubt not be satisfactory to mentari, as he will likely label it as a tautology as well:
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology on talkorigins.org
@mentari
Go read it, go read the research and books at the bottom of that article. I think we all hear you loud and clear, and not for the first time (see the links to other threads where this was already discussed that Luthon posted).
I’m not closing the thread, but unless you have something new to add to the discussion, don’t bother.
The trivial absurdity and absurd triviality of your argument should now be clear even to the most obtuse reader.
You would, I’m sure, defend the idea that the Christian bible must be read with due regard for context. Why then do you so hypocritically seek to deny scientists the same privilege when it comes to their own jargon?
I really do rest my case except for one thing: Who is the individual who influenced your mind to think so irrelevantly?
'Luthon64
This is a logical fallacy know as shifting the burden of proof: You claim to have the Theory of Evolution, it is for you to tell me who established it and where, not me. Show me the page and the Nobel prize that was awarded to the author for the formal establishment of the ToE and what exactly is this theory.
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1997). Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.
Ridley, Mark. (2003). Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.
Hartl, Daniel L. & Andrew G. Clark. (1997). Principles of Population Genetics. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.
Crow, James F. & Motoo Kimura. (1970). Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Edina, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Company.
Graur, Dan & Wen-Hsiung Li. (2000). Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.
Lewontin, Richard C. (1974). The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Gillespie, John H. (1997). The Causes of Molecular Evolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Golding, Brian, ed. (1994). Non-Neutral Evolution. Boston: Chapman and Hall.
Kimura, Motoo. (1983). The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Endler, John A. (1986). Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.
Eldredge, Niles. (1989). Macroevolutionary Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cowen, Richard. (2004). History of Life. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.
Dawkins, Richard. (1987). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton.
Kitcher, Philip. (1982). Abusing Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wilson, Edward O. (1992). The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Belknap.
Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the Origin of Species.
Darwin, Charles. (1871). The Descent of Man.
Haldane, J.B.S. (1932). The Causes of Evolution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press (reprinted 1990).
Simpson, George G. (1944). Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Mayr, Ernst E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Belknap.
Provine, William B. (2001). The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
At the risk of committing an unspeakable logical fallacy, guys, I think we’ve been had. Surely this must be an elaborate April fool’s prank?
Nice one! 
Mintaka