My evolutionary challenge, what does evoution actually mean?

[Mountainmike]

Please note, this is meant to be a fun but interesting challenge.
No demeaning of beliefs here! This is about what can be proven.

Background.
If we look at the word evolution - Various posters have declared evolution as a "scientific fact". They somehow claim the imprimateur of science for whatever definition it is they hold.

Yet I am told by google if I search the "definition of evolution" in the dictionary is one of faith not science it says: "the process by which different kinds of living organism are BELIEVED to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth" (upper case was mine)

So I am confused. Is it belief or scientific fact? Do those two contradict? Only those who declare it a scientific fact can tell us the definition they think is factual. Belief is OK! All of us hold some. But "scientific fact" clearly goes beyond that.

Dawkins wants to tell us he has no idea where life came from, but then simultaneously wants to tell us it is a fact it came from random chemistry or his words used for that. Cognitive dissonance seemingly.

My personal view of "evolution" or particulary theories of evolution is that they are a mish mash of theories , hypotheses and pure conjecture in various states of evidence and proof. (eg is survival of fittest, implicit, explicit or nothing to do with the core definition?) As someone who likes legal precision, The word is mushy and the more I hear people quoting such as Darwin or references to such as intelligent design, the more I discover they almost certainly have never read the source references. If they did for example they would discover that Darwin stated life was miraculous!( Darwinists do not popularise that!)

So my question to those here who think "evolution is a scientific fact" not a belief:

Here is the challenge. Give me the shortest definition you can of evolution
(yes this is an excercise in irreducible complexity). What precisely do you say is a "scientific fact"?

Ground rules.
- For the basis of the argument we will use NASA and Harvard definition of life as "self replicating , self evolving". If you use the word "life" or "living" that is what you mean, and all instances must be included unless you exclude some.

The answer cannot use the word evolving or evolution otherwise it becomes circular!

The winner is the one who uses the least words - but there can no exceptions permitted , the answer must catch all of what it purports to cover..

If you use "life" you must mean all life unless they explicitly restrict it. It must also be an unbroken chain. The chain is as strongest as the weakest link.

There can be no room for "belief" in a fact. A single unanswerable objection or exception renders the definition a belief not a fact. If you mean "could have" it renders it not a fact!

Unless you actively reject the possibility from the definition of a creator/designer ergo you accept the possible involvement of said creator or designer. So do you regard evolution and creation as in opposition?
the definition must tell us.

Any takers.
What is this "evolution" that is a scientific fact. I am genuinely interested.

 

[Nithavela]

I don't think many people claim evolution to be a scientific fact. It's a scientific theory.

A scientific fact would be the average temperatur of the air in central New York during 2 pm on August 1st.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Five years ago as an atheist I would have said: “Evolution is the theory that all life is the product of environmental forces working upon self-replicating organic material.”

My current self would smile politely, pat my previous self on the head, and tell him he might want to look and think more deeply into the matter.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't think many people claim evolution to be a scientific fact. It's a scientific theory.

A scientific fact would be the average temperatur of the air in central New York during 2 pm on August 1st.

There are posters on these threads that have said just so: but I will let them introduce themselves if they wish.

And high priest of atheists and either leader? misleader? (take your pick) of the messianic wing of atheism and/or evolutionary biology called Richard Dawkins once titled an article on the theory of evolution...

"Is it a Theory? Is it a Law? No, it’s a fact."

So Dawkins thinks it is a fact! But one of my dislikes of the man is he rarely uses any rigour in definitions so he can conclude as he wishes. In the article he ends "evolution is a fact". Nowhere does he define , what it is he thinks is a fact.

So of course that is the problem.
Until you say exactly what you MEAN by the word "evolution" (what is included/ excluded) it is hard to make progress in a debate of it.
So that is why I have come back to the question of definition.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

It is a scientific fact that populations of living organisms change over time. i.e. evolve. It's documented. We can observe it happening. It is also a scientific fact that organisms are related. We can sequence DNA and show this relatedness between apparently different groups. We can see the genes moving though time through morphology and DNA sequences. That is what is meant when people say evolution is a scientific fact.

Evolution is also a theory about how all that happens and makes predictions about what we should find if the theory is correct. It has stood up beautifully for over 100 years.

 

[levnishbar]

Evolution and adaptation are not to be confused. Evolution in theory creates new species, whereas adaptation just chooses the most adapted offspring in a pool of possible phenotypical permutations.

Adaptation is an observed fact. For example bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant, or peppered moth changing color according to the surroundings. But crucially, the genes for antibiotic resistance or different peppered moth colors already exist in the population.

I do not believe anyone has yet shown the creation of an entirely new species via evolution.

 

[Mountainmike]

Thanks for an answer.

The parts of your post are very different in character.

It is a scientific fact that populations of living organisms change over time. i.e. evolve. It's documented. We can observe it happening. It is also a scientific fact that organisms are related. We can sequence DNA and show this relatedness between apparently different groups.

This few would dispute, but it does not of itself define agency
- for example man has been selectively breeding longer noses and shorter legs in animals for long history. So things change, can be made to change. All? of the new "developments" or species (take your pick) in recent history are through man made agency.

- The agency cannot be determined just from DNA. As the questions over the origin of COVID - natural or unnatural? show. It is one of the problems with most of the arguments about "intelligent design" generally. There is a rarely an indelible signature of creator/designer involvement, even when it is known to be true..

And It also only covers recent development
- even MtDNA can only be sequenced for a few thousand years so it covers only recent times.
- the commonality of DNA allows conjecture of relatedness of species ie "could have" developed from one another, it does not demonstrate "did develop from one another"

In short the above whilst OK in as far as it goes, is not a theory of life in general without much extrapolation - it might form the basis of belief in one. So it is factual but only compatible with the google definition
""the process by which different kinds of living organism are BELIEVED to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth"

And it can coreside with belief in intelligent steering or creation. It does not of itself exclude either.

We can see the genes moving though time through morphology and DNA sequences.

"moving through time" is imprecise, Genes do not move. As for progressive change , we only have recent DNA so it suffers from the "recent" issue.. Not precise enough to be in a definition.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Evolution is believing in miracles without Miracle Maker

 

[BPPLEE]

Please note, this is meant to be a fun but interesting challenge.
No demeaning of beliefs here! This is about what can be proven.

Background.
If we look at the word evolution - Various posters have declared evolution as a "scientific fact". They somehow claim the imprimateur of science for whatever definition it is they hold.

Yet I am told by google if I search the "definition of evolution" in the dictionary is one of faith not science it says: "the process by which different kinds of living organism are BELIEVED to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth" (upper case was mine)

So I am confused. Is it belief or scientific fact? Do those two contradict? Only those who declare it a scientific fact can tell us the definition they think is factual. Belief is OK! All of us hold some. But "scientific fact" clearly goes beyond that.

Dawkins wants to tell us he has no idea where life came from, but then simultaneously wants to tell us it is a fact it came from random chemistry or his words used for that. Cognitive dissonance seemingly.

My personal view of "evolution" or particulary theories of evolution is that they are a mish mash of theories , hypotheses and pure conjecture in various states of evidence and proof. (eg is survival of fittest, implicit, explicit or nothing to do with the core definition?) As someone who likes legal precision, The word is mushy and the more I hear people quoting such as Darwin or references to such as intelligent design, the more I discover they almost certainly have never read the source references. If they did for example they would discover that Darwin stated life was miraculous!( Darwinists do not popularise that!)

So my question to those here who think "evolution is a scientific fact" not a belief:

Here is the challenge. Give me the shortest definition you can of evolution
(yes this is an excercise in irreducible complexity). What precisely do you say is a "scientific fact"?

Ground rules.
- For the basis of the argument we will use NASA and Harvard definition of life as "self replicating , self evolving". If you use the word "life" or "living" that is what you mean, and all instances must be included unless you exclude some.

The answer cannot use the word evolving or evolution otherwise it becomes circular!

The winner is the one who uses the least words - but there can no exceptions permitted , the answer must catch all of what it purports to cover..

If you use "life" you must mean all life unless they explicitly restrict it. It must also be an unbroken chain. The chain is as strongest as the weakest link.

There can be no room for "belief" in a fact. A single unanswerable objection or exception renders the definition a belief not a fact. If you mean "could have" it renders it not a fact!

Unless you actively reject the possibility from the definition of a creator/designer ergo you accept the possible involvement of said creator or designer. So do you regard evolution and creation as in opposition?
the definition must tell us.

Any takers.
What is this "evolution" that is a scientific fact. I am genuinely interested.

Evolution - change over time. (But I don't believe the TOE is a fact)

 

[Mountainmike]

Evolution and adaptation are not to be confused. Evolution in theory creates new species, whereas adaptation just chooses the most adapted offspring in a pool of possible phenotypical permutations.

Adaptation is an observed fact. For example bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant, or peppered moth changing color according to the surroundings. But crucially, the genes for antibiotic resistance or different peppered moth colors already exist in the population.

I do not believe anyone has yet shown the creation of an entirely new species via evolution.

I accept the point you are trying to make.

I wonder if even Mr Darwin might object to characterising them as separate processes. Hard to say. His "thing" was progressive small change. And that isolated populations can diverge in circumstance, as he observed on separate island populations, so resulting in different ultimate outcomes/ species. He then extrapolated big ideas from there assuming them to be product of a similar process ( so therefore a belief not a fact) . At the time he could have no idea of macro genetic changes (eg in chromosome number)

But even he was surprised by the lack of visible change in fossilised remains so he presumed it to be lack of fossil record not the lack of change going on. The present thought it is still only changes in isolated groups that deviate from the main groups so leads to bifurcation. The geeks use the phrase "punctuated" equilibrium. ie Jumps after periods of apparent stabililty. But much of this is belief built on incomplete evidence. Ie not a fact.

So I am not sure it stacks up with others views of what evolution "is" who call it a fact. I am not sure they would make the same distinction. Let us see.

 

[Mountainmike]

Evolution - change over time.

Its a good enough definition - not entirely usable by those who oppose intelligent design or creationism.

Sadly it fails.. I will cite ceolocanth as an exception, that didnt change over time.

It reminds me of hitchikers guide where they changed earth from "harmless" to "mostly harmless" after an unfortunate incident. So you would have to revise it "mostly change over time" - which is even less usable!

It certainly wins on length!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Gravity is a fact. There are also several theories of gravity, of which Einstein's is the latest and greatest.

Evolution is a fact:

"Biota change over time."

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Evolution is a fact:

So you believe in life, that everything happened by chance and coincidence, then you have no purpose in life. Life cannot come from no life, that's the most basic biology principle, and yet people still believe in Darwinism

 

[Mountainmike]

Evolution is a fact: "Biota change over time."

Its A definition, but hardly a useful definition since it fails to define either agency or action which is what all the arguments are normally about. Why did it happen? What happened it?

I refer to the previous poster , where I noted the exception of Coeleocanth.
Which does not appear to change over time. So at very least add the word "can" to make "can change over time" - which makes it truer but rather more useless!

Gravity is a fact. There are also several theories of gravity, of which Einstein's is the latest and greatest.

Are you trying to distinguish between "evolution" and "theory of evolution"
"gravity is a fact" means presumably we observe an interaction of motion between large bodies.

"newtonian gravity"
and
"einsteinian gravity"
Are specfic models of it. Neither are a "fact".
The latter gives better and more predictions than the former. Like gravitational lensing.

( speculation - I wonder what zogs theory will be , that models it better that says (for example) that dark matter does not exist, it is the definition of gravity at fault... or it is changing , or has changed or something! or Greenmans theory about how an electric field can bend it, so motion by bending space..or something - pun on "Green Man intended!) ) ... the point I make is models are in flux.


But what I also point out is Mr Dawkins ( and others on these threads )tell us that evolution is not a theory it is a fact ( some here say "evolution is a scientific fact") using it to dismiss creationism. (with no real definition of what he meant by any term)

 

[Hans Blaster]

No demeaning of beliefs here! This is about what can be proven.

No need for beliefs or proofs here, nor to demean anything or one. It's just a definition (or two).

(biological) Evolution: The change in allele frequencies in a population of organisms over time.

Theory of Evolution: The systematic explanatory framework for understanding the diversification of life and the adaption to new environments of populations through (biological) Evolution.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Thanks for an answer.

The parts of your post are very different in character.



This few would dispute, but it does not of itself define agency
- for example man has been selectively breeding longer noses and shorter legs in animals for long history. So things change, can be made to change. All? of the new "developments" or species (take your pick) in recent history are through man made agency.

Evolution is about the mechanisms of the change. Whether people breed the animals or they are naturally allowed to change through more natural selective pressures the mechanism of change is still the same: DNA passed from one generation to the next.

- The agency cannot be determined just from DNA. As the questions over the origin of COVID - natural or unnatural? show. It is one of the problems with most of the arguments about "intelligent design" generally. There is a rarely an indelible signature of creator/designer involvement, even when it is known to be true..

Evolution doesn't really address "agency." It addresses mechanisms. How traits are passed from parent to offspring and how that affects populations.

And It also only covers recent development
- even MtDNA can only be sequenced for a few thousand years so it covers only recent times.
- the commonality of DNA allows conjecture of relatedness of species ie "could have" developed from one another, it does not demonstrate "did develop from one another"

Sure, but has something changed in the last few thousand years of human existence that justifies questioning the way DNA works now versus a few thousand years ago or before?

In short the above whilst OK in as far as it goes, is not a theory of life in general without much extrapolation - it might form the basis of belief in one. So it is factual but only compatible with the google definition
""the process by which different kinds of living organism are BELIEVED to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth"

And it can coreside with belief in intelligent steering or creation. It does not of itself exclude either.

Right, evolution does not address a "creator", only the mechanisms of change in populations. I personally don't think belief is much of factor here, at least not the way you're trying to make it one. It seems like you're trying to paint it like religious belief. It's not the same. Generally you either accept a scientific theory or you do not. Your reasons for doing so can be grounded in other scientific knowledge and observations or not. Creationists generally do not reject evolution because of any extra scientific knowledge. They do so because they have beliefs which conflict with our observations and they lack the intellectual integrity to modify those beliefs despite our observations of how reality works.

"moving through time" is imprecise, Genes do not move. As for progressive change , we only have recent DNA so it suffers from the "recent" issue.. Not precise enough to be in a definition.

I disagree. Genes do, in fact, move from parents to offspring via imperfect replication, which is the main driver of evolution in conjunction with selection. Over time, this leads to observable changes in populations of organisms resulting in speciation and giving a fairly complete and relatively simple explanation of the diversity we see in all life.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Its A definition, but hardly a useful definition since it fails to define either agency or action which is what all the arguments are normally about. Why did it happen? What happened it?

Your request was:

"Only those who declare it a scientific fact can tell us the definition they think is factual. ... What precisely do you say is a "scientific fact"?"

There are facts, and then there are theories that explain those facts. You asked for the factual phenomenon of evolution.

Are you trying to distinguish between "evolution" and "theory of evolution"
"gravity is a fact" means presumably we observe an interaction of motion between large bodies.

That's right. even before 'interactions between large bodies, we have: "Things fall."

This is a fact. When we ask why and how do things fall, then we start getting into a theory of falling. We start to talk about mass, and center of gravity and distances and forces...

I refer to the previous poster , where I noted the exception of Coeleocanth.

It's a bit of a myth to say that coelacanth is absolutely untouched by evolution. But, the definition I was using refers to biota, which is the sum total of all the flora and fauna in a particular place or time. The biota of the cretaceous is different from the biota of the Cambrian, and both are different from the biota of today.

Trilobites are found in these strata, but not here or here.
Dinosaurs are found in different strata.
Humans are found in yet others.
Biota change over time.

"newtonian gravity"
and
"einsteinian gravity"
Are specfic models of it. Neither are a "fact".

Exactly. You were asking for the fact of evolution. So you should not expect to receive a theory as an answer.

Mr Dawkins ( and others on these threads )tell us that evolution is not a theory it is a fact

No what we say is that it is both. Gravity is a fact: things fall. Evolution is a fact: biota change over time.

Both of these factual phenomena have various scientific explanations: the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution.

When we speak loosely, we often leave off "the theory of", which may cause confusion.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your request was:

"Only those who declare it a scientific fact can tell us the definition they think is factual. ... What precisely do you say is a "scientific fact"?"

There are facts, and then there are theories that explain those facts. You asked for the factual phenomenon of evolution.



That's right. even before 'interactions between large bodies, we have: "Things fall."

This is a fact. When we ask why and how do things fall, then we start getting into a theory of falling. We start to talk about mass, and center of gravity and distances and forces...



It's a bit of a myth to say that coelacanth is absolutely untouched by evolution. But, the definition I was using refers to biota, which is the sum total of all the flora and fauna in a particular place or time. The biota of the cretaceous is different from the biota of the Cambrian, and both are different from the biota of today.

Trilobites are found in these strata, but not here or here.
Dinosaurs are found in different strata.
Humans are found in yet others.
Biota change over time.



Exactly. You were asking for the fact of evolution. So you should not expect to receive a theory as an answer.



No what we say is that it is both. Gravity is a fact: things fall. Evolution is a fact: biota change over time.

Both of these factual phenomena have various scientific explanations: the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution.

When we speak loosely, we often leave off "the theory of", which may cause confusion.

I was actually addressing those who said that "evolution was a scientific fact"
Who like Dawkins then use whatever they believe it means as an anthisesis of creation.

Dawkins titled an article that the (theory of evolution) he stated was not a theory or even a law , it was a fact, then followed his normal act of rubbishing creationists with the fact of it being a fact , which is all about agency.

It lives under the title
"Is it a Theory? Is it a Law? No, it’s a fact."
His words not mine.

So The imprecision in wording is not mine, it is theirs. Others have echoed the sentiment here. I had hoped they would come to tell us what THEY mean. For them it means more than the fact of change, but also the mechanism and agency.

I am therefore entitled to ask what he means by "evolution" if he removes the words "theory of" to replace with "fact of" and then regards it as dismissing "creationism" or agency of any form other than random , selection of fittest whatever.

Darwins "radical new idea" was that species were the product of small change separation and survival of fittest. Which is all about the agency of change. Another poster chose mechanism of change rather than agency ie the molecular biological theories of inheritance. .

Which clearly shows all have a varied interpretation as what is the "essence" of it. And there has to be a certainty of definition for anything claimed as a fact.

 

[Mountainmike]

Evolution is about the mechanisms of the change. Whether people breed the animals or they are naturally allowed to change through more natural selective pressures the mechanism of change is still the same: DNA passed from one generation to the next.



Evolution doesn't really address "agency." It addresses mechanisms. How traits are passed from parent to offspring and how that affects populations.



Sure, but has something changed in the last few thousand years of human existence that justifies questioning the way DNA works now versus a few thousand years ago or before?



Right, evolution does not address a "creator", only the mechanisms of change in populations. I personally don't think belief is much of factor here, at least not the way you're trying to make it one. It seems like you're trying to paint it like religious belief. It's not the same. Generally you either accept a scientific theory or you do not. Your reasons for doing so can be grounded in other scientific knowledge and observations or not. Creationists generally do not reject evolution because of any extra scientific knowledge. They do so because they have beliefs which conflict with our observations and they lack the intellectual integrity to modify those beliefs despite our observations of how reality works.



I disagree. Genes do, in fact, move from parents to offspring via imperfect replication, which is the main driver of evolution in conjunction with selection. Over time, this leads to observable changes in populations of organisms resulting in speciation and giving a fairly complete and relatively simple explanation of the diversity we see in all life.

But Darwin disagrees with you and certainly Dawkins does.

Darwins "radical new idea" was that species were the product of small change separation and survival of fittest. Which is all about the agency of change.

You choose mechanism of change rather than agency ie the molecular biological theories of inheritance.

Dawkins stating "is it a theory? is it a law? no it is a fact! is all about the agency of change not just the mechanism.

And nobody is addressing the gulf between the simplest living thing we know, the simplest cell which is still horrendously complex, a factory of hundreds or thousands of proteins, plus all the structures to interpret a genome and to process the proteins and enzymes which cannot have come into existence out of random chance meeting of chemicals. It is far too complex.

So any reasonable definition of "evolution" had come a long way before it ever arrived at that point.

So darwin jumps in a long way down the track for evidence of his perceived agency. . There is no precise structure either evidenced or proposed with a pathway to the minimum So how , why , when , whether, or even how many times that happened is still up for grabs. That part of the puzzle is still up for grabs. It is not a fact the development happened in any specific way. There is no mechanism for that.

The action of abiogenesis is only to the simplest first. The rest must be part of what is called evolution. A big black hole in certainty. Certainly not a fact.

Out of interest Darwin called that first part (one or more) miracles. He is rightly imprecise in saying how many times and places it happened so whether even the idea of "a common ancestor" is correct. Even the dogma of random chance chemistry as the author of life may have many ancestors not one, even in Darwins perception. He says just that in one of his later works.
Dawkins says he has no idea. Dawkins is right.

 

[levnishbar]

No need for beliefs or proofs here, nor to demean anything or one. It's just a definition (or two).

(biological) Evolution: The change in allele frequencies in a population of organisms over time.

Theory of Evolution: The systematic explanatory framework for understanding the diversification of life and the adaption to new environments of populations through (biological) Evolution.

Only with much respect, this is a bit of a straw man. As this post is in the "Creation and Evolution" forum, the context of evolution here is as a God-less substitute for Intelligent Creation.

Therefore in this context, evolution must demonstrate the creation of new species, rather than the dictionary meaning you quoted.