Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

Hi guys.
Let's clarify a few things. Maybe that would have read better as: Is it not the goal of the study of evolution to provide a logical and consistent way as to how this happened in natural history?So yes, I sit on the fence a bit with the definition that started this conversation. Because in one sense, it doesn't give a reasonable definition of what evolution involves, but in another sense it gives a definition of the purpose of what the science of evolution does in our society. I think that the definition should be understood in this latter sense.
Maybe it could be rephrased like this
"Evolution is the biological mechanism which allows us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record (according to a secular interpretation of the fossil record)"
I think this is a reasonable definition of the function of evolution in secular science, and therefore I think both definitions are valid: and

The goal of evolutionary biology is to find out all the facts about evolution and explain them. Or at least as many as possible.But this is barely relevant to the definition of evolution. Well that's wrong in two ways. First, it conflates evolution, the theory of evolution, and evolutionary biology.Secondly, that is not what the suggested mechanisms were suggested for, nor the only thing that they are used to explain.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi Arphy, This is still not a definition of what evolution is, but rather it is a statement of what the process of evolution explains if you use a proper definition of evolution (ie the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation). In this you would mirror what Berkeley has to say about what evolution explains:An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

The definition is descent with modification (eg Darwin's formulation), and evolution by this definition "helps us to understand the history of life."This also says nothing about whether evolution must "progress" towards an imaginary pseudo goal of "increased complexity" or not.Likewise one can say that gravity can be roughly defined as the attraction between masses, and this helps us to understand how our solar system functions. We don't need to include the orbit of Uranus in our definition of gravity, as it is something that exists regardless of the definition of gravity, and it is explained by the definition of gravity. Except that the creationist "daffynition" (see below) does not explain the diversity of life, as noted in Message 22: So no, creolution does not help us "to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record" as it fails in each one of these tests, and these are but a few of the examples that could be brought to bear.That is epic fail in the explanatory department.From Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.:

quote:

---

Definition: common usage, clearly set out and easily verified by some credible source or other (dictionary, encyclopedia, etc)

​

Daffynition: not common (daffy) usage, not verified by any credible source, usually false or misleading or just plain irrlevant.

​

If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science.

​

If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science.

---

It's that simple.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : creolution instead of it for clarity

---

But the thing is it may not have to but according to secular natural history overall IT DID! What??? now i'm confused. Are you saying that evolution does NOT "help us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record". Wasn't quite ready for that comment. Not sure what to do with that. Please explain.

And according to secular natural history it DID rain in Las Vegas this Thursday, but that is not part of the definition of "rain". He's saying that your made-up definition of evolution does not help us to do that. What he calls the "creationist "daffynition"". The actual theory of evolution does allow us to understand these things, but what creationists want evolution to mean doesn't.Presumably this is why they do it. They invent their own theory of evolution which any biologist can tell them is wrong. Then they pretend that this is the theory of evolution. Then they proudly proclaim that it's wrong.Yes, the theory of evolution that creationists have invented is as wrong as everything else that creationists have made up. But this has nothing to do with the merits of the actual theory of evolution, does it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi Arphy, The instances of increased complexity are explained by both, the instances of decreased complexity are only explained by the real definition of evolution.So if it's 51-49, overall you are correct, but the creolution definition only applies to 51% of all the diversity of life, while the evolution definition applies to 100% of all the diversity of life.Given the overwhelming amount of bacteria in the world 51% may be optimistic. Are you sure? I'm not. It could well be that the "more complex" forms of life only account for 30% of the biomass. Sorry, it is creolution that fails, "it" refers to creolution not evolution. I've edited the post to make this clear, thanks.Enjoy.

---

As opposed to what other kind of natural history?Hint: there is no other kind of natural history. There is dogma and scripture and revelation and the like, but those do not qualify as natural history, nor do the interpretations based on such religious beliefs qualify as natural history.The closest antonym for natural history would be religious apologetics.

Sure, for the most part. The thing is that increased complexity is not required and there are exceptions to this supposed rule. For example there are many groups of organisms that have remained relatively static over long periods of time. As RAZD has noted, the real Theory of Evolution can explain this; the strawman version does not.Look at it this way. It may be true that Christians gather and sing, but it is not a definition of Christianity.People may gather and sing because they are Christian, but that doesn't explain what Christianity actually is.What about exceptions? Some Christians might not sing, or gather on a Saturday, yet they are still Christians.Be honest; if you saw a definition of Christianity like that, wouldn't you want to point out how bad it was? Now imagine that almost every atheist you spoke to insisted upon using this definition, or one just as bad and you'll have a fair idea what it can be like to discuss evolution with creationists.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi RAZDI really don't see much difference in the definitions: and You suggest that an increase in complexity has not necessarily occured with the majority of life and therefore a definition which puts too much emphasis on this is wrong. Yet I think that an increase in complexity is the defining feature of secular natural history, therefore I think it is valid to mention it, especially as stasis and loss of complexity are more of byproducts of trying to understand the rise of complexity. Because otherwise evolution is seen as more a "sorting mechanism" rather than a "creative mechanism".so tell me, why do think berkley felt it necessary to include the sentence "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." in their definition? Because according to you this shouldn't be part of the definition of what evolution is . So why add it? Is this any different from what me or your creationist source did? If not, then don't complain. If it is, how so?Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.

This is off-topic. Please, no replies to this message in this thread. --AdminWhich universe is this forum discussing - a finite or infinite one? There are only two options here, and whichever one settles on - everything they say thereafter must allign with their preamble.I ask because apples and oranges apply with each selected preamble. Usually, this question becomes corrupted with a runaway pseudo qualification of limited and conditional versions of finite.So to prempt: What applies with a non-conditional and absolute definition of which ever preamble is selected? This says that in a finite uni, at one time there was no:TIMESPACEMATTERENERGYFORCESQUARKSLIGHTDARKNESSHEAT/COLDCONTRACTIONS/EXPANSIONS.PARALLEL UNI'sIn fact, in order to learn, I would request those who do not accept a finite universe, to please play devil's advocate: what applies if the uni is accepted as totally and absolutely 'FINITE'? I ask this because devil's advocate debate is a legitimate eye opener and a most scientific mode of arriving at the most correct premise. Have a go!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Add note at top.

You're looking for the philosophy department.Try down the hall.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Which part is not scientific?

Well, if they're all the same to you, then why not just agree that from now on you'll use the same definition as everyone else? Why insist on saying something that everyone else thinks is wrong when you could say something that everyone else thinks is right, if to you it makes no difference which you say? It's a feature of natural history, to be sure. But it is not part of the definition of evolution. It's not even part of the definition of natural history, any more than the rise and fall of the Roman Empire is part of the definition of history. I don't think they did. I think the first sentence in that section was the actual definition, and the rest was commentary.And I think they said: "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life", because this is true. Do you, a creationist, think that this statement is so true that it ought to be included in the very definition of evolution?And are you, a creationist, so certain that the history of life includes the evolution of "higher" organisms from simpler ones that this would then implicitly be part of the definition of evolution?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't know, and, as this has nothing to do with the definition of evolution, I am, at present, not particularly interested.

Hi Arphy, That is because you are only looking at the part of evolution that conforms to your understanding of creolution, and you are ignoring the parts that are different.Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Curiously what you think is irrelevant to the fact that science defines the terms in science. Science does not need to add observations about natural history to the definition of evolution. It isn't, they didn't. Read the paragraph again:An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

Let me parse that for you.Read the beginning of second sentence: "This definition encompasses ... "This tells you that the definition is limited to the first sentence: "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification."The second sentence tells you that this definition is applicable to the whole diversity of life: "This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)."The third sentence summarizes what the application of this definition does: "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."Also notice that "increase in complexity" is not mentioned at all on that page, nor the next (which begins a new section on patterns):The History of Evolutionary Thought - Understanding Evolution
The History of Life: Looking at the Patternsnor the next pageThe family tree - Understanding Evolution
The Family TreeSo they have discussed the formation of family trees and the whole history of life without mentioning "increase in complexity" at all.In fact I can get through the whole section on definition (1 page), patterns (6 main pages 18 subtopic pages), mechanisms (7 main pages 38 subtopic pages), microevolution (3 main pages 3 subtopic pages), speciation (4 main pages 11 subtopic pages) and macroevolution (3 pages 3 subtopic pages), without "complexity" being mentioned at all, to say nothing about whether it must increase or not.One would think that if this concept really really really was absolutely critical to understanding evolution that it would at least be mentioned somewhere in those first 97 pages teaching you about evolution at the most basic (101) level, yes?Don't you wonder why it isn't?Perhaps - just perhaps - it is not mentioned because your impression of what is important to evolution is false, and your impression is false because it is based on creationist definitions that are false. Yes, because the real world definition of evolution does explain the diversity of life and the creolution daffynition fails to do this.Yes, because there is no mention of complexity in the real world evolution definition, nor in the application of that definition to the study of life around us.Yes, because there is no mention of progression in the real world evolution definition, nor in the application of that definition to the study of life around us. Curiously, Berkely also includes a section on misconceptions about evolution, including one on progressive development:Misconceptions about evolution - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Misconception: Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better.

​

Response: It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, good enough is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.

---

Yes, because the real world definition of evolution does explain the diversity of life, and the creolution daffynition absolutely fails to do this.Enjoy.

---