Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
I am therefore entitled to ask what he means by
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.
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.
You asked for a definition of a scientific term in a thread about "meaning" and I gave you one (which I did not look up, but wrote myself using phrases I already was familiar with).
I was glad you asked for a definition from all of us because a big part of the discussion problem here is non-compatible definitions.
[EDIT: I mistook your post as also being from the creator of the OP who posted about a minute before you in response to someone else.]
Whether the Theory of Evolution is a good explanatory framework or whether Evolution (the process) is observed are *separate* questions from the definitions.
(God or god-less is irrelevant to the definitions as well.)
The evolution of microbes to man—what is really in dispute—
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"
The definition of evolution = increase in allele frequency is in fact discussed here as point #1:
Evolution means change (or change in gene/allele frequency) so evolution is a fact. This is an example of the equivocation fallacy or bait-and-switch. The evolution of microbes to man—what is really in dispute—means that many thousands of new genes have to be added—about 3,000 million DNA ‘letters’; it is not just a matter of changing the frequency of existing genes. Richard Dawkins commits this fallacy; see: Dawkins playing bait and switch with guppy selection.
Oh boy, the professional creationists. You'd be better off using your own thoughts and words.
So, ... 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.
The winner is the one who uses the least words ...
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 accept as possible the] involvement of said creator or designer, do you regard evolution and creation as in opposition? The definition must tell us.
Evolution - change over time. (But I don't believe the TOE is a fact)
It's a goofy word anyway.If you think about it, "change over time" is a redundant expression, since "over time" is implied by "change," so the definition amounts to equating evolution with any change. Not helpful.
I was actually addressing those who said that "evolution was a scientific fact"...
Um. Okay. We've learned a bit since Darwin. And Dawkins has his opinions or ways of saying things. I may or may not agree with his exposition, but either way, these men are not the "gods" of evolution and what they say or how they said something is not "gospel." Creationists always treat it that way though. I mean, I get why, but just because some scientist said something some certain way that might seem to contradict something some other scientist said doesn't mean the whole theory is therefore wrong.
Probably because you asked about the definition of "evolution" and not of "abiogenesis".
Evolution is the origin of species by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
.....
Having said that, I firmly hold that evolution and creation are not in opposition. I am, indeed, an evolutionary creationist.
Yet you offer no definition. Not helpfulIf you think about it, "change over time" is a redundant expression, since "over time" is implied by "change," so the definition amounts to equating evolution with any change. Not helpful.
Nobody can consider that our minimum complexity known cell leapt into existence from a pool of none living chemicals by accident in a single step.
I agree entirely.Did someone tell you that? Tell him or her that he or she is an idiot.
I agree entirely.
But then I comment that those who then "correct me" (including on this thread) by saying I am referring to abiogenesis as the origin of our minimum known cell are as you say!!! ( I would not dream of using the I**** word myself")
The point I make is there is lot of "evolution" needed to get to the simplest thing we know, and it cannot be airbrushed out of any theory of evolution that a lot of the journey is a complete unknown!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?