The Definition for the Theory of Evolution

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.

Care to explain how saying 'no help from combustion engines is explicitly necessary' renders a theory unfalsifiable? Right - we shouldn't help. That's why I was correcting the incorrect statements in Ray's description of the ToE. Is there anything incorrect about what I wrote? Not true at all. The definition for aardvark is quite good. Also - a definition of the theory of evolution which simply describes the history of the science and what it seeks to explain, is perfectly good.

Ah - so what you are saying is that you weren't addressing what I was talking about then? I didn't say 'maybe some pixies' I said 'no help from pixies is explicitly necessary'. There is an observation which can falsify that statement. One thing for sure - we shouldn't obfuscate the theory of evolution for the benefit of creationists! I don't see how my definition can prevent or inhibit a creationist lying or obfuscating. All I did was correct the incorrect portions of Ray's definition with correct portions - helping to avoid misrepresentation of the theory not aiding in it! Obviously it wasn't a complete definition of the ToE, including all the mechanisms, evidences and mathematics. It still was not incorrect and I'm having a problem understanding what the problem you are having is.If a creationist wanted to view the theory of evolution as a theory about biology which dose not require a divine creator to work...what is the problem with that?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

In the sense of combustion engines and pixies which are not excluded so much as 'not required'. Ultimately they get cut away due to parsimony but we were talking about how a theory relates to a concept of a divine creator, so it kind of needs to get mentioned. I don't think that is true by the way. The concept of horizontal gene transfer was never specifically excluded from ToE, and a good job too! Perhaps you can start a new thread on it if you want to discuss that further. If you do start a new thread perhaps you could quote this as my position: If I described the whole of evolutionary theory, over 10,000 pages including supporting evidence and the like, and ended my treatise by saying 'pixies and combustion engines and God are not needed, but we cannot absolutely rule any of them out' does that make it unfalsifiable? To me it makes the theory tentative - flexible and able to update in light of new evidence. We're having that problem again. There are many valid definitions on what the theory actually is. You are trying to say 'what mechanisms the theory proposes and the general framework of the theory' I suppose. That's fine and dandy and I have put that forward a number of times.However, if in Ray's opinion the most important way to describe a theory is how it relates to a divine creator that's fine. I simply wanted him to understand the correct way the divine creator hypothesis should stand with regards to evolution. As Laplace may have famously said 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' That is all I said.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

See Message 55 where I highlight the differences between my definition and Johnson's. A quick pointer: ToE does not, indeed cannot come even close to, explaining how nature may have created itself.

It all comes down to expectations. Different horses for different courses. Any theory can be 'defined' in a number of different fashions. The theory of evolution can be defined as an amalgam of many theories of biological change - or it can be defined by listing the main theories or even by briefly explaining the ins and outs of each of the hypotheses. We would run into the same issue if we tried to define many scientific theories, I'd wager. You'll need to define the level of granularity you want. The easiest way of course would be through a minimum and maximum wordcount but that would be imprecise.You've made it clear that you want it succinct, and that you want the primary mechanisms listed and to that end, there are several wordings having been put forward that do the job marvellously. The listed description is not a definition of 'The theory of evolution' it is a definition of 'evolution'. The two are different like gravity and relativity are different. You mentioned earlier you think speciation is important - but species is an entirely arbitrary term, so I don't think speciation is important. After all - different biologists investigate the world using different definitions of 'species'.Still - the site does go into it here.

quote:

---

Over time, the populations genetically diverge enough so that they can no longer reproduce with each other. At this point, they have become separate species and usually continue to diverge in subsequent generations. In intermediate stages, the two newly or about to be separated species may be able to interbreed and produce children, but most of them are likely to be sterile.

---

It is not a constant - it is a theory. However, it is universally applicable, and not just to biological life. That is why it can be generalised so easily.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Of what? There is a specific theory of biological evolution, which obviously only discusses biological evolution. However, there is a more general wording which can be applied to any population of entities with imperfect transmission of hereditary units. An example that we can point to on this are virtual populations existing in a computer's memory. We can also look to language and culture as things which exist in populations and that change over time - but they are a little esoteric.There isn't much more I can say to a two word response, I'm afraid.

computer hiccup - apologies for the double post.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Whether life exists elsewhere in the universe is not relevant to defining the theory of evolution. If it does exist elsewhere, and it evolves, the theory of evolution can either explain it or it can't.

As you point out, Darwin's Theory of how Evolution happens is by natural selection. We call this Darwinism.Another Theory of how Evolution happens is by mutation. We call this mutationism or Mendelism.The two theories were brought together, "synthesised", a few decades later to form the earliest concept of the Modern Synthesis. Since this, other theories of evolution have been synthesised into the Modern Synthesis.You do open the way to discuss a genuine debate in biology: what is the prime mover of evolution. I am fairly sure you are right to suggest that selectionism is the favourite today, but there are many that still argue that there are some phenomenon where mutation or drift are the more dominant explanatory concepts.As you should be able to tell, the title of Darwin's book is only partially relevant in discussing the Modern Synthesis, and that the modern synthesis definitely includes other mechanisms which are essential to the theory.