My evolutionary challenge, what does evoution actually mean?

[Mountainmike]

This is wrong; coelacanths (note the spelling) have a long fossil record, from the Lower Devonian to the Upper Cretaceous, and they did change during that time - Coelacanth - Wikipedia . The modern coelacanth (genus Latimeria) belongs to a different genus from all extinct coelacanths, and the youngest recorded fossil coelacanths (Megalocoelacanthus dobiei and Axelrodichthys megadromos) belong to different families (Latimeriidae and Mawsoniidae). The Latimeriidae comprise eleven genera and the Mawsoniidae nine.

I think that this is enough to show that the statement that coelacanths 'didn't change over time' is inaccurate. I should add that coelacanths are not a single species or even a single genus but an order (Actinistia), on the same taxonomic level as Primates. This implies that coelacanths of the Latimeriidae and the Mawsoniidae were no more closely related than, for example, apes and lemurs.

Whatever example used : The generality is still true.
Indeed punctured speciation bothered Darwin as the advocate of gradual speciation. So continuous change is not necessarily proven or consensus. So evolution as “ biota chance, mostly” is not unfair as definition.

 

[ruthiesea]

Evolution: An explanation of the changes in physical characteristics of living organisms over time in order to better adapt to the environment and reproduce.

 

[Mountainmike]

Evolution: An explanation of the changes in physical characteristics of living organisms over time in order to better adapt to the environment and reproduce.

One of the best so far. It didn’t end up reductionist to absurdity,
Very much Darwinist. Agency of change rather than genetics of change.

Picking some nits. Organisms don’t adapt, species do.
Darwin worried about punctuated equilibrium and stasis. It’s easier to reconcile gradualism with adaptation. “ explanation” of changes is a theory of evolution or hypothesis ( if unproven) rather than evolution itself, which is just the changes in this example. It also expresses purpose “ in order to”. Some would question that.
They argue the reverse. The change has no purpose. They just drift in morphology purposelessly , but only some species survive environmental shocks.

I notice you resisted the temptation to use the word “ all” ( organisms, life, species ) whatever. So you claim only partial coverage? One part of the puzzle?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Yet you offer no definition. Not helpful

Yeah, except I did. It seems you missed it, but that doesn't mean I didn't offer one.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

This is largely because there are no real new ideas in "creationism" and nearly everything is just newbies posting tired arguments for creationism and long-term creationists that seem immune to even understanding the opposing arguments. (I'm not saying I expect them to be convinced, but I would expect them to eventually learn something about the thing they argue against. `Tis very frustrating.)

I just felt like mentioning that some creationists do learn. I mean, I used to be a rabid anti-evolutionist who thought Answers in Genesis was too compromising. But I eventually learned something about the subject I opposed (after first taking care of the Genesis question which, it turns out, was the only real obstacle). Some of us do learn. And it's the patient teaching attitude of people like you that make the difference, so don't give up.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I just felt like mentioning that some creationists do learn. I mean, I used to be a rabid anti-evolutionist who thought Answers in Genesis was too compromising. But I eventually learned something about the subject I opposed (after first taking care of the Genesis question which, it turns out, was the only real obstacle). Some of us do learn. And it's the patient teaching attitude of people like you that make the difference, so don't give up.

Glad to here you've escaped from that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Glad to here you've escaped from that.

I pray he won't be the next victim of Paul's caveat.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I pray he won't be the next victim of Paul's caveat.

Which is ...?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is ...?

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Paul warns that embracing evolution (professing oneself to be wise [Homo sapiens]) puts a person at risk of becoming an atheist [fool].

I pray that doesn't happen.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

It's a good point, it's pretty hard to nail down a specific definition.

In essence it is just change over time, by which definition Genesis also describes evolution- beginning in the ocean and culminating later with mankind.

In practice though it is often indented to infer Darwin's theory of evolution.
Which is quite ironic, since Darwin avoided any discussion of any mechanism of actual change, merely describing how changes might be distributed by natural selection.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I pray that doesn't happen.

It can't (e.g., Jn 6:39).

 

[AV1611VET]

It can't (e.g., Jn 6:39).

You are correct.

If you are truly born-again, you cannot lose your salvation.

Even if you sink to the level of becoming an atheist, you will still die and go to Heaven.

What I'm praying about, is that you (or anyone) doesn't sink to that level.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I don't know what you're talking about. Becoming an atheist and dying in that state cannot happen. As that beautiful song by Andrew Peterson says, "And does Jesus our Messiah hold forever those He loves? (He does)."

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Atheism is a mindset that stems from the heart.

Psalm 14:1a The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Yes, a born-again person can sink to that level.

Remember the story of the Prodigal Son? remember Nimrod?

The term we use for this is: "backsliding."

A Christian, then, can backslide into atheism.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Yes, a born-again person can sink to that level [atheism]. Remember the story of the prodigal son? Remember Nimrod? The term we use for this is "backsliding." A Christian, then, can backslide into atheism.

I agree that a Christian can backslide.

However, I don't agree that a Christian can remain backslidden unto death. "Becoming an atheist and dying in that state cannot happen" (emphasis added).

 

[AV1611VET]

"Becoming an atheist and dying in that state cannot happen" (emphasis added).

I'm going to disagree here.

In Christian theology, there is a difference between STATE and STANDING.

STATE is our position IN OURSELVES.

STANDING is our position IN CHRIST.

1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Notice this verse brings out both aspects of our position: state and standing.

1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, [STATE] even as he is pure [STANDING].

 

[46AND2]

Not really. This thread was you asking people to provide their own concise definitions. And now you're taking some bizarre victory lap because different people gave you different answers.

And yet, those answers weren't really different (by people who accept TOE); they were internally consistent and complementary.

 

[sfs]

So I am confused. Is it belief or scientific fact? Do those two contradict?

No, they don't contradict. 'Facts' are beliefs -- beliefs that are well enough supported that we can routinely treat them as true. Microbes are believed to be the cause of most infectious diseases. It is a fact that microbes cause most infectious diseases.

 

[sfs]

As this post is in the "Creation and Evolution" forum, the context of evolution here is as a God-less substitute for Intelligent Creation.

That is not correct. 'Evolution' describes a physical process while 'creation' ascribes a metaphysical cause. Acceptance or rejection of evolution is independent of belief or disbelief in God.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"