The Theory of Evolution: Defined

[Abraxos]

When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with.

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.

 

[Strathos]

I believe the second is more commonly referred to as "common descent".

 

[RC1970]

The primary problem with "Evolution" in the modern way of thinking is that it is wholly dependent on the concept of "chance".

Chance lacks ontological status, it can do nothing because it is no-thing.

Things can devolve by themselves, but they cannot evolve without an intervening force.

 

[pitabread]

It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.

It can be tested though. This is where scientists can form testable hypotheses based on evolutionary relationships. For example, if two species are thought to be related via common descent, a hypothesis can be formed about an intermediary ancestor's morphology and placement in the geological column. And then that hypothesis can be tested by trying to find evidence of such an ancestor.

For example, this led to the discovery of the fossils of Tiktaalik.

 

[pitabread]

The primary problem with "Evolution" in the modern way of thinking is that it is wholly dependent on the concept of "chance".

Natural selection is the opposite of chance.

 

[RC1970]

Natural selection is the opposite of chance.

All theories of natural selection inevitably involve a chance occurrence. The problem here, once again, is that "nature" lacks a will (thinker). The process of selection is a willful act.

 

[Abraxos]

I believe the second is more commonly referred to as "common descent".

Common descent (the tree of life) is having a lot of problems holding up to today's modern science.
Many evolutionists themselves are quietly saying there may not have ever been a "tree of life" as there are too many varieties of metabolisms with vastly different bodily structures. I've encountered a few here who also have their doubts about common descent. Here's a clip of one of those discussions about common descent by some notable atheists:

Regardless, the theory of evolution presupposes that all life began from a single cell and then increased in complexity.

 

[pitabread]

All theories of natural selection inevitably involve a chance occurrence. The problem here, once again, is that "nature" lacks a will (thinker). The process of selection is a willful act.

We can quibble over semantics, but the bottom line is that species do not evolve in a vacuum. They evolve in response to environmental pressures.

For example, do you think it's random chance that polar bears have white fur and grizzly bears have brown fur?

 

[pitabread]

I'd say this needs some better context of exactly what he was referring to. It doesn't sound like he's denying common descent, but rather remarking that the current view of the "tree of life" maybe overly simplistic relative to the history of life on Earth (hence, his reference to a "bush of life"). Especially with cases of bacterial DNA transfer or possibly if life may have actually arisen independently more than once.

Without a more detailed explanation of what he was referring to, it's a little difficult to draw a definitive conclusion on his views on the subject.

Regardless, claiming he is outright denying common descent is quite a stretch based on that clip.

 

[RC1970]

We can quibble over semantics, but the bottom line is that species do not evolve in a vacuum. They evolve in response to environmental pressures.

For example, do you think it's random chance that polar bears have white fur and grizzly bears have brown fur?

But don't you see that it is in the "semantics" that the primary problem exists. Nobody seems to care about the "meaning" of what they are talking about so everything has become meaningless nonsense.

 

[pitabread]

But don't you see that it is in the "semantics" that the primary problem exists. Nobody seems to care about the "meaning" of what they are talking about so everything has become meaningless nonsense.

The term "natural selection" with respect to evolutionary biology is well understood. Arguing that nature lacks a will and that selection implies a willful act seems entirely besides the point.

The point is simply that natural selection is a mechanism by which an species' environment provides a natural constraint around how it may evolve. It doesn't necessarily mean that a species evolution will be entirely predictable, but it also doesn't mean it is entirely random either.

Again, polar bears have evolved white fur, grizzlies have brown fur. This wasn't by pure chance given their respective environments.

 

[Abraxos]

I'd say this needs some better context of exactly what he was referring to. It doesn't sound like he's denying common descent, but rather remarking that the current view of the "tree of life" maybe overly simplistic relative to the history of life on Earth (hence, his reference to a "bush of life"). Especially with cases of bacterial DNA transfer or possibly if life may have actually arisen independently more than once.

Without a more detailed explanation of what he was referring to, it's a little difficult to draw a definitive conclusion on his views on the subject.

Regardless, claiming he is outright denying common descent is quite a stretch based on that clip.

Basically he's saying there is no tree of life. It was a relic of past studies failing to modern science. Common descent however is still vaguely up in the air with many evolutionists. They have to be.

A few problems with Tiktaalik (to address your other point), which is why many 'smart' evolutionists tend to steer clear from it. They found fossilized tracks of a tetrapod creature millions of years older than the Tiktaalik. So the Tiktaalik being the connection from sea to land animal was quietly dismissed and put into the category as a "cousin" of the actual transitional form that's conveniently still missing.

 

[pitabread]

Basically he's saying there is no tree of life.

That's not the impression I got. He seemed to be suggesting it's simply more complex than we currently know (hence, his reference to a "bush of life").

A few problems with Tiktaalik (to address your other point), which is why many 'smart' evolutionists tend to steer clear from it. They found fossilized tracks of a tetrapod creature millions of years older than the Tiktaalik. So the Tiktaalik being the connection from sea to land animal was quietly dismissed and put into the category as a "cousin" of the actual transitional form that's conveniently still missing.

Last I had read a lot of this was still up for debate. Regardless, it doesn't change Tiktaalik as an example of a transitionary form. Given the relative evolutionary time frames and sheer abundance of lifeforms on the planet, we're never going to find the exact species that was a direct descendant of another species or higher clade. Even an extinct off-shoot that demonstrates blending of features between taxa is still often considered a transitional form.

It's similar with Archaeopteryx. It's not considered to be a direct descendant of modern birds, but is still considered transitionary with respect to features found in modern birds and extinct dinosaurs.

 

[Abraxos]

That's not the impression I got. He seemed to be suggesting it's simply more complex than we currently know (hence, his reference to a "bush of life").

If you re-watch the video (1.05) he candidly says "there is no tree of life." Evolutionists do have to re-evaluate their common descent hypothesis, some suggest a "bush of life".

lol

 

[Speedwell]

So, you go on about common descent being included in the theory of evolution as if somebody was trying to put something over on you. What's the problem with it? It's a reasonable conclusion from what we know about how evolution works.

 

[pitabread]

If you re-watch the video (1.05) he candidly says "there is no tree of life."

Again, context. If you listen to the rest he seems to be suggesting a greater level of complexity around common ancestry, not that common ancestry itself doesn't exist. Hence his reference to life being a "bush" not a "tree" (not the first time this has been suggested).

This is the problem with latching onto soundbites and short statements. For example, I once had a professor declare "all theories are false". He wasn't stating that theories are necessarily wrong; his point was that because theories are simplified models of reality, they can never be 100% representative of reality. But anyone simply latching onto the statement "all theories are false" might completely misconstrue what he meant.

 

[pitabread]

What's the problem with it?

It runs contrary to certain people's deeply held religious beliefs. Is there ever any other reason?

 

[Abraxos]

So, you go on about common descent being included in the theory of evolution as if somebody was trying to put something over on you. What's the problem with it? It's a reasonable conclusion from what we know about how evolution works.

What part of the OP are you having trouble understanding?

 

[JackRT]

The best definition of the Theory of Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time".

 

[Speedwell]

What part of the OP are you having trouble understanding?

"This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with."

I just asked a question: what's the problem?