[_ Old Earth _] The Definition of Evolution

[Poke]

The Definition of Evolution

1.A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
a.The process of developing.
b.Gradual development.
2.Biology.
a.Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b.The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3.A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
4.Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
-- from Dictionary.com; American Heritage dictionary.

“Species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms.†-- Darwin; Origin of Species, preface.

“Change in allele frequency†-- an Evolutionist twit in an argument with his mathematics teacher, on the topic of extraction of a root of a quantity.

“The belief that Nature, not God, is the Creator.†-- me.

You can define a word anyway you want to. But, if your definition is not relevant then your definition is trash, and no amount of appeals to the priests of Evolution will change that. The definition of Evolution as changing allele frequencies has no relevancy because it is not the subject of the Evolution debate, nor is this any historical definition of the word. Evolutionists themselves usually do not mean changing allele frequency when they use the term Evolution.

The first definition from the dictionary is generally the most relevant. Evolutionists believe that gradual, natural processes account for the creation of all complexity found in nature. They believe this about the origin of humans, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. When Creationists dispute Evolutionists on the origin of these various things, this is the relevant definition.

So, when you see someone ask how the first life developed, and an Evolutionist replies “Evolution says nothing about the origin of life,†you have just seen an Evolutionist who is either a lair or does not know what he is talking about.

Evolution limited to the scope of biology is Darwinism. See Darwin's definition. If Evolutionists want to use the term “Theory of Evolutionâ€Â, I can live with a that. But, they believe the Theory of Evolution is a fact. It is kind of stupid to call a hypothesis a theory while insisting that it is a fact.

Biological Evolution is the natural modification of existing forms (usually adding new complexity gradually) to create new forms. This is how Darwin defined it. It is how the dictionary defines it. And, this is the subject of the Evolution debate in regards to the origins of species.

 

[jwu]

The definition of Evolution as changing allele frequencies has no relevancy because it is not the subject of the Evolution debate, nor is this any historical definition of the word.

So you do not dispute that the frequencies of allele change?

Biological Evolution is the natural modification of existing forms (usually adding new complexity gradually) to create new forms. This is how Darwin defined it. It is how the dictionary defines it. And, this is the subject of the Evolution debate in regards to the origins of species.

...which is nothing but a change of frequency of allele. Your definition (and a dictionary's definition of the term "evolution", which is not synonymous to "theory of evolution") implies that there is a direction to evolution, which is not the case.

The first definition from the dictionary is generally the most relevant. Evolutionists believe that gradual, natural processes account for the creation of all complexity found in nature. They believe this about the origin of humans, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. When Creationists dispute Evolutionists on the origin of these various things, this is the relevant definition.

Not true. An evolutionist could believe that God created the first cell directly and then He let the elegant mechanism of evolution do the rest of the work. Same about the origin of the universe - God could have poofed it into existence, be it directly or by means of the big bang, who knows? The theory of evolution doesn't care how life an the universe came to be, as long as both happened long ago and resulted in imperfect replicators.


If you want to argue against the common speech word "evolution", then that's fine - but don't conflate that with the "theory of evolution", which has very specific dealings.

 

[Poke]

...which is nothing but a change of frequency of allele. Your definition (and a dictionary's definition of the term "evolution", which is not synonymous to "theory of evolution") implies that there is a direction to evolution, which is not the case.

"New forms" means something like turning chimps into humans, not an increasing percentage of brown eyes in a population. Only the latter is mere change in allele frequency.

Oh yes, Evolution does imply a direction. We're not interested in mere changes in allele frequency. We're intested in explaining the origin of complexity.

Not true. An evolutionist could believe that God created the first cell directly

Yes, that might be the position of a god-of-the-gaps Evolutionist. But, it is a violation of the principle of Evolution.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Not true. An evolutionist could believe that God created the first cell directly and then He let the elegant mechanism of evolution do the rest of the work. Same about the origin of the universe - God could have poofed it into existence, be it directly or by means of the big bang, who knows? The theory of evolution doesn't care how life an the universe came to be, as long as both happened long ago and resulted in imperfect replicators.

Fair enough.

It does violate Occam's Razor though.

That being the case, it requires extraordinary evidence.

In that case, you know my stance.

 

[jwu]

"New forms" means something like turning chimps into humans, not an increasing percentage of brown eyes in a population. Only the latter is mere change in allele frequency.

Well, since the reunification of branches of the phylogenic tree is not predicted by the theory of evolution, it could actually disprove it if this were to happen.

However, how would that not be a change of frequency of allele? Neew forms are just that.

Oh yes, Evolution does imply a direction. We're not interested in mere changes in allele frequency. We're intested in explaining the origin of complexity.

And change of allele frequency does exactly that.
But ok, how do you measure complexity in first instance?

Yes, that might be the position of a god-of-the-gaps Evolutionist. But, it is a violation of the principle of Evolution.

That might be the position of a god of the gaps person in general - it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Equivocating theory of evolution with the term evolution doesn't make it the same.

 

[Poke]

Well, since the reunification of branches of the phylogenic tree is not predicted by the theory of evolution, it could actually disprove it if this were to happen.

Evolution predicts nothing, so I don't see how you think you're contributing by saying Evolution doesn't predict something. And, it's absurd of you to suggest that if chimps evolved into people that Evolution is refuted. Evolution doesn't predict it can't happen. Here are all of Evolution's predictions: --> <--.

Furthermore, nothing I said requires "reunification of branches of the phylogenic tree." I just want to see some new forms.

And change of allele frequency does exactly that.

Yeah, like the human body is just water and dirt.

That might be the position of a god of the gaps person in general - it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Equivocating theory of evolution with the term evolution doesn't make it the same.

I started this thread with a post that addresses this.

 

[jwu]

Evolution predicts nothing, so I don't see how you think you're contributing by saying Evolution doesn't predict something.

Evolution predicts in which strata which fossils should be found (and they are consistently found there, recently a nice fish-land dwelling animal transitional was found; Tiktaalik), it predicts genetic patterns such as the distribution of ERVs which are quite hard to explain without common descent, and many other things.

Furthermore, nothing I said requires "reunification of branches of the phylogenic tree."

Chimps evolving into humans would be exactly that. They branched off the common ancestor with humans in a different directions. Chimps changing into humans would mean that the branch is reunited with the human one, which would be quite a problem for the theory of evolution to explain.

I just want to see some new forms.

Then please define "form". It's as ambiguous as "kind". Is it a new species? A new genus? A new whatever?

Yeah, like the human body is just water and dirt.

Yaddayadda.
Again, how do you measure complexity?

I started this thread with a post that addresses this.

Could you quote that section of the OP which addresses specifically this? I must be missing it.

 

[Slevin]

The Definition of Evolution

1.A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
a.The process of developing.
b.Gradual development.
2.Biology.
a.Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b.The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3.A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
4.Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
-- from Dictionary.com; American Heritage dictionary.

“Species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms.†-- Darwin; Origin of Species, preface.

“Change in allele frequency†-- an Evolutionist twit in an argument with his mathematics teacher, on the topic of extraction of a root of a quantity.

“The belief that Nature, not God, is the Creator.†-- me.

You can define a word anyway you want to. But, if your definition is not relevant then your definition is trash, and no amount of appeals to the priests of Evolution will change that. The definition of Evolution as changing allele frequencies has no relevancy because it is not the subject of the Evolution debate, nor is this any historical definition of the word. Evolutionists themselves usually do not mean changing allele frequency when they use the term Evolution.

The first definition from the dictionary is generally the most relevant. Evolutionists believe that gradual, natural processes account for the creation of all complexity found in nature. They believe this about the origin of humans, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. When Creationists dispute Evolutionists on the origin of these various things, this is the relevant definition.

So, when you see someone ask how the first life developed, and an Evolutionist replies “Evolution says nothing about the origin of life,†you have just seen an Evolutionist who is either a lair or does not know what he is talking about.

Evolution limited to the scope of biology is Darwinism. See Darwin's definition. If Evolutionists want to use the term “Theory of Evolutionâ€Â, I can live with a that. But, they believe the Theory of Evolution is a fact. It is kind of stupid to call a hypothesis a theory while insisting that it is a fact.

Biological Evolution is the natural modification of existing forms (usually adding new complexity gradually) to create new forms. This is how Darwin defined it. It is how the dictionary defines it. And, this is the subject of the Evolution debate in regards to the origins of species.

No.

 

[Poke]

No.

Two letters then your brain was warn out?

 

[Slevin]

No.

Two letters then your brain was warn out?

I like to be concise. I pride myself in brevity.

Evolution, as it concerns the natural selection mechanism is the change in frequency of alleles.

The Theory of Evolution posits three things, and can be defined by these three things:

1. The common ancestry of all living things.
2. The inheritance of traits in a lineage.
3. The mechanisms which determine which traits are kept and which are lost.

 

[Poke]

Evolution, as it concerns the natural selection mechanism is the change in frequency of alleles.

Would it be too much to ask what your claim has to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[jwu]

I feel ignored.

 

[Slevin]

Evolution, as it concerns the natural selection mechanism is the change in frequency of alleles.

Would it be too much to ask what your claim has to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing, maybe you should answer jwu.

 

[peace4all]

its sad, but i think the only way that fundies would be content, is if every human in the world, gave birth straight to seaqulls all at the same time.

Or better, yet, Turtles... (rolls eyes)

 

[Poke]

Evolution predicts in which strata which fossils should be found (and they are consistently found there, recently a nice fish-land dwelling animal transitional was found; Tiktaalik), it predicts genetic patterns such as the distribution of ERVs which are quite hard to explain without common descent, and many other things.

I had replied earlier, but after having tried for over an hour to submit the reply, I gave up. This forum is intolerably slow.

Tiktaalik? What's that? 99.99% of fossils clearly refute Evolution, but Evolutionists comb through the fossil record looking for that very rare fossil which, if Evolution were true, might actually be a transitional form. Then suddenly, the burden of proof is shifted to the critic to prove that it isn't a transitional species. Evolutionists have an embarrassing track record when it comes to trying to prove that a given fossil is transitional. All you really know about tiktaalik is that is is a unique species that is probably extinct. But, it could be swimming in real deep water today, far from land, just waiting to be discovered to prove Evolutionist imagination is wrong again (ala the coelacanth)?

This thread has already strayed from the topic and I'm a bit frustrated in losing my earlier response (sure, I could have saved it to a text file, but I didn't). And, slowness of the board is keeping me away. So, rather than thinking you're being ignored, let's just end this, at least for now.

 

[jwu]

Tiktaalik? What's that?

A recently found fish-amphibian transitional - and it was found exactly where predicted by evolution.

99.99% of fossils clearly refute Evolution

How so?

but Evolutionists comb through the fossil record looking for that very rare fossil which, if Evolution were true, might actually be a transitional form.

Hardly. Everything that lived in the past is transitional. We're just trying to be nice and to show creationists some very spectacular looking ones. Of course these are more rare. But again, what exactly are you looking for? A creature sharing features of two distinct clades?

Evolutionists have an embarrassing track record when it comes to trying to prove that a given fossil is transitional.

Examples?

All you really know about tiktaalik is that is is a unique species that is probably extinct. But, it could be swimming in real deep water today, far from land, just waiting to be discovered to prove Evolutionist imagination is wrong again (ala the coelacanth)?

Something doesn't have to be extinct to be a spectacular transitional or descendent thereof - just look at the platypus.

And today's coalecanths aren't even the same genus as fossil coalecanths...and things don't necessarily have to change if they found a veryy stable niche. What is the problem?