My evolutionary challenge, what does evoution actually mean?

[AV1611VET]

I use a definition that includes everything: living and non-living.

Evolution is change over time.

Expressed as a formula, it is: Δ[something]/T

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

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.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

You could have made it clearer that you were pointing to a particular article by Dawkins. You may be entitled to ask what he meant by it, but to do so you'll have to ask him.

I've given you my take on the difference between evolution the fact and evolution the theory.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Probably because you asked about the definition of "evolution" and not of "abiogenesis".

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

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.

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.

 

[levnishbar]

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.)

Is evolution true? - creation.com

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.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The evolution of microbes to man—what is really in dispute—

At one point in time, there were only microbes. Currently, earth's biota includes microbes and a lot of other things. Biota has changed over time. This is a fact.

The theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for that fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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 IbanezerScrooge 's definition is fine as is mine. Neither needs "agency" for the things described as "evolution". Certainly evolution (changes of populations) can happen through agency as selective breeding demonstrates, but there are numerous examples of observed changes in gene pools in nature. There are also observations of speciation in nature that have been recently observed and reported repeatedly on this sub-forum. All absent agency. But this goes beyond the scope of your "definition" challenge and gets in to the evidence.

- 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..

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, I don't believe that is the case. The researchers had very specific signatures they expected from an engineered or lab-modified virus. (For the record, they did not find them.)

As for the more general case of signatures of design, we have repeatedly asked those proposing such a form to provide criteria and all we seem to get is "complexity" which is not a characteristic of design.

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"

I'm not sure what the preservation of ancient DNA has to do with this, but when we do have it the patterns inferred using living organisms are confirmed are they not?

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"

"Belief" is a poor choice of words for a scientific topic. The "colloquial" usage of "believed" vis a vis science is really just a short hand for "confirmed to reasonable probability given the preponderance of the evidence as evaluated by the relevant scientific communities." I endeavor to remove that word from my scientific vocabulary, especially on a site like this one where "believe" has a very specific and very different meaning with a strong emotional resonance.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is evolution true? - creation.com

Oh boy, the professional creationists. You'd be better off using your own thoughts and words.

The definition of evolution = increase in allele frequency is in fact discussed here as point #1:

Not "increase in allele frequency", CHANGE. The total frequency of all alleles is constant any way. This is a generic definition, not an address of the evolution of a specific trait.

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.

I assume the proceeding block is a cut-and-pasted from that website. Your "professionals" are distorting the record (and apparently obsessed with Lalla Ward's ex-husband).

Changes in the gene pool of a population are indeed "evolution" but the existence of such evolution is *not* evidence that it leads observationally to new species. That would require additional evidence. (Which we also have observed, but that is additional -- evolution of a new species, not just within a species.)

Neither the observed evolution within populations, nor the the evolution of populations into new or split species is enough by itself to "prove" the *Theory of Evolution*, but they are part of the supporting evidence. Theories explain facts and patterns of facts. We have no need for "bait and switch" so I shall leave that to "creation.com".

 

[levnishbar]

Oh boy, the professional creationists. You'd be better off using your own thoughts and words.

I would use my own words but I would rather save my time. I have better things to do than argue on the internet.

I wish you all the best. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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.

Evolution is the origin of species by descent with modification from a common ancestor.

The winner is the one who uses the least words ...

I used 12 words. Did I win?

There can be no room for belief in a fact. A single, unanswerable objection or exception renders the definition a belief, not a fact.

When is an objection "unanswerable"? If I provide an answer that you don't like, is it still an answer?

[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.

The definition did not speak to that because

(a) evolution is a scientific theory, so the definition is strictly scientific,​

and

(b) a creator God is outside the limited competence of science, falling under the purview of theology.​

Having said that, I firmly hold that evolution and creation are not in opposition. I am, indeed, an evolutionary creationist.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

It's a goofy word anyway.

 

[Lost4words]

Evolution, to me, means small steps, from being taken out for a walk every day, to learning how to type!

 

[Bradskii]

I was actually addressing those who said that "evolution was a scientific fact"...

Either you are going to listen to the answers or you're going to continue to argue about things that you seem not to understand.

That things evolve is a fact. That is undeniable. Hence we can say that 'evolution is a scientific fact'.

That things gravitate towards the centre of mass is a fact. That is undeniable. Hence we can say that 'gravity is a scientific fact'

I hope you're still with me.

The theory that describes the first is the theory of evolution. Which is an explantion as to how it happens.

The theory that describes the second is the theory of gravity. Which is an explantion of how it happens.

So what do we have in each case? Evolution as a collection of facts and evolution as a theory to describe those facts. And gravity as a collection of facts and gravity as a theory to describe those facts.

Do you follow all that?

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

There are so many posts I cannot do justice to all of them.
But here addresses some common themes.

The point I make is that the words evolution and theory of evolution are used imprecisely (even interchangeably) it seems to mean many things to many people.
- just see how many articles on google reference "evolution vs creation"
which at very least should be "theory(ies) of evolution" - vs creation if indeed they are actually a dichotomy.

And when people refer to "theory(ies) of evolution" it is never clear precisely what they are referring to.
Some address mechanism.
Some address agency.
Darwin had little idea of mechanism, he knew little of mendel and mainstream genetics did not get going in a formal way until the turn of the century - the discovery of chromosomes was after his "origin" so he refers small change and survival of fittest as the agency. He refers separation of populations for why species diverge. To some that is the theory of evolution.

Some refer common descent as the defining centre from which other spokes of the wheel branch out.
DARWIN accepted in later works that there may have been many starts to life. (all of which he called "miraculous"...). Chemistry must support the view of multiple starts. If you accept that entropy/energy/quantum tunnel , whatever were favourable conditions to a (so far undefined first cell) then you cannot rule out multiple instances. Multiple tracks of life. What is favourable in theoretical chemistry remains favourable until conditions change, so multiple tracks must be the default assumption.

So Darwin himself disputed "common descent" by admitting multiple possible starts.

Some focus on the genetic manipulations.

So what is the actual theory of evolution? What is the definition of evolution?
@levnishbar hit the nail on the head with many of the disingenuous self serving definitions that are used.

The answer as this shows evolution is many subtly different things to many people. By the time you arrive at a common agreement it is somewhat facile and useless.

"Biota change. Some of the time."
"alleles change"

I characterised theory of evolution as a "hotch potch of theories, hypotheses and conjecture in various states of evidence down to none at all". I get shouted down, but that is pretty much where it is at. It is not a single theory.

@Hans Blaster dodges the question to an extent with this - indeed it is not a theory.
"The systematic explanatory framework for understanding the diversification of life and the adaption to new environments of populations through (biological) Evolution."

He notes "an explanatory framework", without stating precisely what it is. So it is thereby untestable so not a theory in its own right. There are various theories and hypotheses within the framework which need definition to the extent of testability..

And what is it that is a scientific fact? Mr Dawkins leapt too far.

The final point addresses the fact that our minimum complexity known cell is only a point a long way forward on the journey from abiogenesis. It is not the start of the journey.

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. It is more complex than the biggest of our chemical factories.
For those who think all life came from random chance entirely unguided evolution process, there was a lot of "evolving" up to that point of which there is no trace. So it is wrong to characterise the origin of our known minimum cell as abiogenesis.

That term properly applies only to the first from non living chemicals which first cell is also irreducibly complex if you accept NASA and Harvard definition of life as a function.

Our present minimum known cell cannot have been the most primitive, so it also needs addressing in a theory of evolution. Which in as far as I can tell is at best a hypothesis, and until someone decides where the journey actually started and what detailed form the cell had, it is just speculation not even a hypothes, as was whether it was multiple starts (as Darwin alluded to...)

Will the real definition of "evolution" and "theory of evolution" please stand up? The one that is alleged to be a "scientific fact"

Or can we all agree that
(a) Mostly when people refer to evolution in places like this they mean "theory of evolution"
(a) That THE theory of evolution is a misnomer. There are several flavours you can choose one. Provided you are clear which you mean. Some which are billed as theories are only hypotheses.

(b) Mr Dawkins and many others (ive seen similar on this forum) are guilty of overreach in declaring they know how life happened so much so they call their (undefined) theory a "fact"

Anyway, thanks all for contributing.

 

[BPPLEE]

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.

Yet you offer no definition. Not helpful

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Did someone tell you that? Tell him or her that he or she is an idiot.

 

[Mountainmike]

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!

 

[Bradskii]

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!

Hey, do you want to discuss evolution or abiogenesis? They are two different subjects. Like making a piano and writing a symphony. You can't do the latter without the former having been completed. But you don't need to know how a Steinway is made to discuss Beethoven.

So how about you stick to evolution - and you've had more than enough responses to answer your question.

Or start a thread about abiogenesis. It'll be interesting. We don't have too many on it.