The Definition for the Theory of Evolution

What I am looking for is a collection of definitions and brief discussion on the merits.Not extended dialogs.So far there is not much to advance as a general statement of the definition other than what is covered early in this thread.So far I have: Is there anything else to add or detract from that?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The question posed is seeking the definition of the phrase "Theory of Evolution." Or, the theory of HOW evolution HAPPENS:The answer is natural selection, all other mechanisms are auxilliary and subservient. The biological synthesis determined once and for all that Darwin was correct and that natural selection is the main (but not the sole) cause of evolutionary change. This is basic science history 101.And by the way there is no such thing as "neutral drift." There is random drift prevented by the same mechanisms which control evolution.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

What does this even mean? You can't just get everyone to ignore the scientific literature by proclaiming that the phenomena they discuss don't exist. Nor can you simply impose your own preferred terminology just by divine fiat.TTFN,WK

So what is your definition? What needs to be included and what is explained by the theory?Thanks

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Evolution: Library: Molecular Evolution: Neutral Drift"One hypothesis suggests that most molecular evolution is driven by random changes in genes, or 'neutral drift'........One, put forward in the late 1960s by Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura is referred to as "neutral drift." According to this hypothesis, most of the changes in DNA inside individuals are the result of "genetic drift" -- random changes that go on all the time and aren't steered by natural selection in one direction or another. Those who support this explanation say that most genetic changes are neither helpful not harmful, but may become common in a population (or disappear entirely) due to chance events. Therefore, random processes explain most of evolution at the molecular level. "Why is random change called neutral drift?Natural selection already prevents an endless random walk. What's the point if NS prevents the walk? "We are here" - right? (LOL).Ray

pbs may use that term but its not what motoo kimura came up with.
his theory is called neutral theory of molecular evolution, which states that a majority if the genome is neutral or unexpressed. the theory is that much can be attributed to genetic driftthe fact is ray this has nothing to do with NS or anything you are making it out to be it has nothing to do with NS, but with the effects of neutral genes and genetic drift

Actually, something that someone who knows that Fisher, Mayr, Huxley, and Dobzhansky are all dead would say.Now, you were telling me that I was ignorant of science history? Because it's complete rubbish, and we are sick of creationists misrepresenting the theory of evolution. No, that is not my point. Of course, there is another possible explanation, which is that my point makes perfect sense, but that you have no idea what it is. In the same way that the theory of gravity does, yes.However, that does not make Johnson's definition sensible, any more than it is sensible to claim that the theory of gravity is defined as "an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator".For the following reasons:(1) A theory is not an interpretation of data.(2) Neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution "explains how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator".(3) Neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution denies in any way that a Divine Creator is responsible for nature; but they ascribe some of the phenomena of nature to natural causes --- what a theologian would call "secondary causes".(4) A definition should actually specify the things defined. In order to define the theory of evolution, it is necessary to say what it is, not what it isn't. It is necessary, for example, to mention natural selection.Hence, if Phillip Johnson claims that the theory of evolution can be defined as "an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator", then he is a liar (if he knows what the theory of evolution actually is) or a fool (if he has wasted his life opposing it without ever bothering to find out what it is). Phillip Johson is not one of my rivals. He might, however, feel a little bit chagrined by the fact that I am right, and that scientists get to define scientific terms, and that he doesn't.And you might feel a little saddened to learn that your opponents get to decide what position we're arguing in favor of, and you do not. I, for one, will continue to argue for the theory of evolution as it appears in science textbooks, rather than for some nonsensical metaphysical moonshine which Phillip Johnson has dreamed up in his head and wishes to call "the theory of evolution".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hold on.(1) It's not sufficient to exclude a divine creator. What about magic evolution pixies? We should make it clear that it excludes all supernatural causes, perhaps by explicitly stating that it is a scientific theory.(2) That still wouldn't specify the theory of evolution, since it might describe, for example, Lamarckism. Or non-supernatural aliens, if it comes to that. So we still need to put in something about genetics and natural selection.Which gets us back to the textbook-style definitions which have already been offered on this thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I meant what does this mean, the bit which assumes the existence of some vague and undefined mechanisms controlling evolution and preventing random drift occurring. I know what 'Neutral drift' means, which is why I thought it strange of you to suddenly declare it non-existent. To differentiate it from changes alleles which are considered the result of selectio. Random drift can fix any type of allele, beneficial, detrimental or neutral, therefore its fixation of alleles is neutral with respect to fitness.The normal directional selective forces may well counteract this to some extent depending on the nature of the population being studied but it is hyperbole to say ... Wrong, because as long as random mutation is still ocurring the drunkard is still walking. Fixation by drift is just one more way for the drunkard to be temporarily checked by a wall. The walk is still endless, but it doesn't need to encompass an infinite phasespace.TTFN,WKP.S. Maybe we should start a new thread on the topic of drift since RAZD is getting hacked off.

Feel free to append anything you want that is not required by evolution. You could even use natural things like 'a combustion engine'. Of course it just describes what a scientific theory of evolution should do. Most of which I agree with, still Ray was talking about what the Theory means to him, so I tried to correct some of the incorrect statements whilst keeping it in his paradigm.

I think you've overlooked my point. We can't list the all the things not involved; so in order to say what is and what isn't involved, we have to list the things which are involved and say that anything not on that list is excluded. Yes, it says what a theory of evolution should do, but it doesn't say what the theory of evolution is. If he wishes to have a "definition" of the theory of evolution which gives the reader no clue as to what the theory actually is, then I don't see why you should help him. He can find such things on any creationist website.

I got the point. Of course we can't list all of the things not involved. However, the things not on that list are not necessarily excluded - they just aren't explicitly included. There are things we don't know about yet which could be influencing evolution so anything not currently in the theory can't be explicitly excluded.I was showing Ray how God is not excluded from the theory of evolution, observe how combustion engines are not excluded from the theory of evolution:

quote:

---

an explanatory framework attempting to explain how populations of biological organisms may have changed with the passing of generations with no assistance from a combustion engine explicitly necessary.

---

If you remember the conversation Ray said He wasn't talking about the same kind of definition you, and RAZD are talking about. He is talking about what the theory of evolution means to him. I tried to reword it so that it was a accurate way he should be looking at evolution: not as a theory that describes nature producing itself without a divine creator but as a theory that describes life changing on earth with no need of a creator explicitly necessary. You said it once, I agreed. You say it again, I agree again. What is the problem with that? There are millions of definitions that don't explain what the theory of evolution actually is. I alluded to the linguistic problem earlier.The theory of evolution is a theory about evolution with pioneers such as Darwin, Wallace...
The theory of evolution postulates evolution happening using the following mechanisms...The latter is what RAZD wants, Ray believes the former is the only thing that matters. If Ray think that is the case, he can go for it: but I thought the least he could do was accurately describe what the theory of evolution is in relation to the 'Divine Creator'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I would like to address your points but it would be off-topic. We (or rather, you) could start a new thread, but I am not the expert in these matters - you are. A thread would, very quickly, end up as a question and answer topic (which I don't mind) but I think you are not into answering questions (per se) as compared with mutual discussion.However, RAZD has included neutral drift into the definition of ToE here:http://EvC Forum: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution -->EvC Forum: The Definition for the Theory of EvolutionSo it is on-topic. Why is an insignificant concept like neutral drift included in the definition of ToE? ND is outside of the control of natural selection, which is the definition of ToE. RAZD has ignored my post saying that ToE is defined as natural selection, but he includes ND in the definition of ToE.The biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s specifically convened to settle the issue as to how evolution proceeds. The universal conclusion was natural selection, yet RAZD seems oblivious to this historic fact. NS is the main force causing evolutionary change, and according to Dawkins, NS prevents an endless random walk, the mutations and variations are directed by the selection process. So I do not see the significance of placing neutral drift into the definition of ToE and leaving out the main motor of natural selection and its apparent ability to control random undirected walk. I am sure I have made an error or two in all of this, maybe you could sort it out.Ray

Well as RAZD points out above this thread is for looking at different definitions of 'the Theory of Evolution'. Any definition which focuses on genetic changes in a population will need to take into account as many factors which can affect the relative gene frequencies as it can, and drift encompasses many of these factors. It is worth pointing out that this period pre-dates the elucidation of the structure and function of DNA, so it is surely not inconceivable that things have moved on in evolutionary theory since then. Kimura's neutral theory itself, which you yourself linked to, is one obvious example of a major change in evolutionary thinking since this period.I'll try and pull some of this discussion together and make an OP on the role of drift in evolution.TTFN,WK

Okay.The following comment is directed at all evolutionists:Evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies; the same is a temporal mode. Reductionism (genetics) needs explanation but evolution is about populations and the principle object of selection - the organism. Evolution is inferred (after the alleged fact) by observation. There are plenty of scholars who reject reductionism and explicitly favor the naturalist or traditional understanding of how evolution is identified. The theory of how evolution happens is natural selection. RAZD's present list of scientific concepts for the definition of ToE, with NS thrown in, defies all published scholarship on this issue.It does not matter what any given person thinks how ToE is defined, what matters is how scholarship defines ToE: natural selection. Just about everything in this topic, offered by most evolutionists, is subjective and unsupported by assertion.Ray