Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 205 (546924)
02-15-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Arphy
02-14-2010 10:36 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
I don't tend to reply to your posts ...
I guess that realizing that you're hopelessly outclassed is the first step.
How is this a contrast with my comment?
Because according to your definition of evolution, mosquitoes did not evolve resistance to DDT. Because according to your definition, the word "evolution" does not actually refer to what the mosquitoes did.
Let me quote your own "daffynition" (as RAZD would call it):
The voices in Arphy's head writes:
"evolution is a change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation which has allowed them to diversify from a unicelluar organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record."
Now, that is not what happened when mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT. They did not "diversify from a unicellular organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record". They just evolved.
---
And I still want to ask --- WHY? WHY? WHY? What do you think you have to gain by refusing to speak the English language? It's just words, it doesn't affect the facts. What do you have to gain from denying that "evolution" means evolution except for the undying contempt of everyone who is moderately well-educated?
It really does seem that you're being hopelessly wrong just for the sake of it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 10:36 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 1:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 107 of 205 (546925)
02-15-2010 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by hooah212002
02-14-2010 10:54 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
I'd say it isn't just laypeople who think like this. Or are you suggesting that evolution is never discussed on this forum? Because I don't think I can ever remember a discussion where someone was debating whether or not a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation occurs. So even here on this forum by the word evolution is being used incorrectly according to your definition. Hang, even the title of this site implies that evolution is something more than just a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation. The word is used consistently to mean something bigger than what your definition suggests. Your definitions are only used when you get into debates about the definition of the word evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by hooah212002, posted 02-14-2010 10:54 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by hooah212002, posted 02-15-2010 12:59 AM Arphy has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 108 of 205 (546926)
02-15-2010 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Arphy
02-15-2010 12:47 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
"My" definition? The definition of a word does not rest on my shoulders. It is not up to me to provide a definition. So it would also go to show that I also do not get to make up my own definitons of words. You don't either.
See, I know what the word evolution means and implies. Not from what people who fear the term tell me it means, but what it actually means: from people who understand it and accept it as something that happens.
I was replying to your postulation that we should tailor the definition of words to that of what "everyday folk" think they mean....or what you think they think they mean.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 12:47 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 109 of 205 (546927)
02-15-2010 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Arphy
02-14-2010 11:49 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Just to be clear, I still think that you are misrepresenting RAZD's statement.
RAZD writes:
Someone who understands evolution, has investigated it and the evidence for it in an open-minded skeptical manner, and found that it is a valid concept for explaining the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil and genetic record.
Arphy writes:
So in your definition of an evolutionist (i.e. someone who believes in evolution) it is vital that that person believes in secular natural history.
Do you see the word "secular" in RAZD's statement? I don't. A theistic evolutionist for instance, can still believe in evolution, as defined by biologists.
"Someone who understands evolution, has investigated it and the evidence for it in an open-minded skeptical manner"
I feel I have done so if you maintain that evolution means "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation".
Really? Really really? Because most of your posts on this forum come give the impression of your having learned about evolution primarily from creationist websites.
How much have you really studied evolution? How many non-creationist books have you read on the subject? Are you sure you really understand what it is you are arguing against? Is it evolution? Or is it common ancestry?
Yes, I believe that it is valid in explaining much of the diversity of the world around us, and the fossil and genetic record. So am I a evolutionist? If you feel that I am being pedantic and maybe it would read better as "the diversity of ALL Life" this is equivalent to saying that you believe that purely naturalistic processes achieved the diversity of life as we know it. Which presumably means that you subscribe to secular natural history.
Well perhaps the problem is that you don't disagree with evolution at all. You only seem to disagree with the extent of common ancestry.
If this is the case, perhaps you might be better off arguing against common ancestry rather than wasting your effort on redefining something that you agree with so that you can claim to disagree with it.
Come on admit it, being an evolutionist (a believer in evolution)means that you believe that all know organisms diversified from a/(or many) unicellular organism(s). Yet this concept is strangly absent from the definition of evolution.
Come on admit it, being a Christian (a believer in Christ) means that you believe in the existence of a soul. Yet this concept is strangely absent from the definition of Christ.*
Do you see what I'm getting at? The ideas that stem from acceptance of a phenomenon do not define that phenomenon.
The ideas that stem from our understanding of evolution do not define what evolution actually is.
{at Berkeley.edu...} there is an article called 15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS. Which doesn't actually concern itself so much with evidence that the frequency of hereditary traits change, but rather it spends time in defending secular natural history. According to your definition surely they are way off topic. In fact basically all of the links under the section "What is the evidence for evolution?" are all more concerned with defending natural history as opposed to defending that changes in hereditary traits occur. Why is this?
That simply isn't true.
At Berkeley.edu, we find the article "15 Evolutionary Gems". The first five, as you note, are to do with the fossil record, but the next five are all about living populations;
quote:
6 Natural selection in speciation
7 Natural selection in lizards
8 A case of co-evolution
9 Differential dispersal in wild birds
10 Selective survival in wild guppies
It is really a non-point in the first place though. Of course natural history is used to support evolution; that's because everything we observe in natural history supports evolution. Both concepts are mutually supportive.
You also seem to have missed the point here; evidence for evolution is not a definition of evolution. When Berkeley give a definition of evolution, they write;
quote:
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 evidence for a phenomenon cannot be part of the definition of that phenomenon. That would clearly be fallacious.
So don't come at me with the "scientists strictly only think of evolution as a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" line. Evolution concerns itself with something much wider than that.
The fact of evolution has obvious consequences for our understanding of natural history. Are you suggesting that we ignore them? Evolution tells us a great deal about biology, but that doesn't make such knowledge part of the definition of evolution. It's that simple.
Mutate and Survive
*AbE; I notice, looking back on the thread after first posting this, that hooah and Dr Adequate used the same device of taking your words and re-applying them. The fact that all three of of us are pointing out the same flaw in your reasoning, in the same way, is telling. We are consistently telling you the same thing here.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 11:49 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 1:51 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 110 of 205 (546928)
02-15-2010 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Adequate
02-15-2010 12:36 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
I guess that realizing that you're hopelessly outclassed is the first step.
hehe whatever, keep dreaming.
They did not "diversify from a unicellular organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record".
umm, yes they did, according to secular science. They are part of the process of diversification from a unicellular organism, and resistance to DDT is part of this diversification.
As to the question, WHY? It is because the definition is deceptive. It draws people in because nobody is going to argue with the completely obvious statement that a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation occurs in nature. Once people have accepted this people are then taught to accept secular natural history as fact because after all if evolution in terms of a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" is correct then obviously the creationists are wrong and secular natural history is correct. ????C'mon how logical is that!! Not very!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 12:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Granny Magda, posted 02-15-2010 1:32 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 7:24 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 111 of 205 (546929)
02-15-2010 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Arphy
02-15-2010 1:16 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Couldn't resist this;
...nobody is going to argue with the completely obvious statement that a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation occurs in nature.
Oh really?! You have too much faith in the reasonableness and sanity of your fellow creationists-at-arms my friend. Allow me to present the legendary Ray Martinez;
Cold Foreign Object writes:
Some of you may or may not know that I am writing a rather lengthy paper refuting the Theory of Evolution. All is going extremely well. The reason it is taking me much longer than I anticipated is the fact that it took me a year just to learn how to write. But another reason of delay is that during my research I have literally stumbled upon the most devasting evidence and accompanying argument that will destroy the Theory of Evolution. I had the classic: Eureka! I-Have- Found-It moment. It altered the entire vision and structure of my then existing paper. I had to "start over" so to speak and place this new and original evidence at the center as to which the "new" paper now revolves around.
I also want to report that my view has changed concerning microevolution. Before, like most Creationists, I robotically accepted the fact of microevolution. Now that I have personally researched the claim I have come to the unavoidable conclusion that microevolution is a fallacy at best, maybe even a misunderstanding among Creationists, but no such thing as microevolution has occurred on this planet or in nature.
Make no mistake, IF microevolution has occurred then Creationism is falsified. There is no way around it. But the facts and evidence will show that microevolution has not occurred: Creationism is true.
I am very glad to have been delivered from the burden of microevolution. I hated the fact that I and Ken Ham and AiG shared a common belief. Now Ham and AiG and all the other Young Earth Fundamentalist morons share their microevolution beliefs with the Darwinists.
EvC Forum: Progress Report & Microevolution
Classic insanity there. I particularly like the bit about learning to write. Mockery aside though, he is a creationist and he does deny the kind of change you are talking about.
Creationism; never underestimate the crazy.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Extra crazy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 1:16 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 112 of 205 (546930)
02-15-2010 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Granny Magda
02-15-2010 1:12 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Do you see the word "secular" in RAZD's statement? I don't. A theistic evolutionist for instance, can still believe in evolution, as defined by biologists.
Great. And a YEC can still believe in evolution, as defined by biologists ("change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation"). Anyway, where did this theistic evolutionist get his belief in natural history? From secular science. He certainly didn't get it from the bible.
evidence for evolution is not a definition of evolution
Exactly. But are you trying to say that the purpose for all this "evidence for evolution" is to show that a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" occurs, then isn't this a bit of overkill to support something that is basically self evident. I would say all that "evidence" is used to try and support common ancestry and not evolution. It seems that these two terms have been confused by evolutionists. Even the aim of teaching about natural selection is not about getting people to accept evolution in terms of a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" but rather for students to reject creationism and accept universal common ancestry. Evolution and universal Common ancestry are not mutally supportive, everything is geared towards accepting universal Common ancestry.
The fact of evolution has obvious consequences for our understanding of natural history.
If you mean that The fact of "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" has obvious consequences for our understanding of secular natural history. then i would say that that is just plain wrong. How is a multi billion year old earth with unicellular organisms slowly becoming humans, etc, the ONLY logical outcome of the statement that a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" occurs in nature. It isn't, plain and simply.
The intro for the article 15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS shows what the real foundation is: "Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years. They get
on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation" (my emphasis).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Granny Magda, posted 02-15-2010 1:12 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Granny Magda, posted 02-15-2010 2:31 AM Arphy has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 113 of 205 (546932)
02-15-2010 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Arphy
02-15-2010 1:51 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Great. And a YEC can still believe in evolution, as defined by biologists
Interesting point. I suppose that a YEC could believe it to an extent, but that would leave him with a lot of explaining to do...
Anyway, where did this theistic evolutionist get his belief in natural history? From secular science.
You say that as though there were some other kind of science.
He certainly didn't get it from the bible.
Thankfully not. Why on Earth would you want to get your beliefs about biology from the Bible? That would be a bit mental.
Exactly. But are you trying to say that the purpose for all this "evidence for evolution" is to show that a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" occurs, then isn't this a bit of overkill to support something that is basically self evident.
Well it's plainly not self-evident. i refer you to the post above, with a denial of micro-evolution.
Honestly, I have seen the confusion this causes. You are immersed in the creationist apologetics. To you, the distinction between limited variation within kinds and universal common ancestry may seem obvious, but for many this is not the case. I have spoken with people who claimed to disbelieve evolution, yet, when I suggested that evolution had been observed (and described the kind of evolution you are talking about), they were simply baffled. They had no idea of the distinction. They had no idea that changes at such small levels were even possible. When it came right down to it, what they really meant by "evolution" was common ancestry with apes; that was their real objection all along, but their religious leaders had told them that it was evolution they were supposed to disbelieve. They were being mislead by a false definition of evolution.
Even the aim of teaching about natural selection is not about getting people to accept evolution in terms of a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" but rather for students to reject creationism and accept universal common ancestry. Evolution and universal Common ancestry are not mutally supportive, everything is geared towards accepting universal Common ancestry.
If I may be so bold, I suspect that the only reason you perceive this is because common ancestry happens to be the thing you are in disagreement with.
If you mean that The fact of "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" has obvious consequences for our understanding of secular natural history. then i would say that that is just plain wrong. How is a multi billion year old earth with unicellular organisms slowly becoming humans, etc, the ONLY logical outcome of the statement that a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" occurs in nature. It isn't, plain and simply.
It is however, the only implication of REALITY. Every observed biological fact is compatible with this notion. The Earth simply is billions of years old and the evidence for this has absolutely nothing to do with heritable variation, as you well know.
The intro for the article 15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS shows what the real foundation is: "Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years. They get
on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation"
Yes, most scientists tend to take it for granted that they know what they are talking about. How disgusting.
Mutate and Survive

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 1:51 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 3:54 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 114 of 205 (546935)
02-15-2010 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Granny Magda
02-15-2010 2:31 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
with a denial of micro-evolution
where? please explain.
They were being mislead by a false definition of evolution.
And who's fault was that? I would say creationists aren't the only one's to blame.
If I may be so bold, I suspect that the only reason you perceive this is because common ancestry happens to be the thing you are in disagreement with.
Yes, it is universal common ancestry that i have a problem with. But the problem is that when the term evolution is used, whether by creationists or evolutionists, universal common ancestry is implied even though the definition "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" does not suggest this in any way. And it is this unspoken implication which I suggest should be spoken otherwise the definition becomes deceptive.
It is however, the only implication of REALITY
or so you believe, but anyhoo, my point remains that there is nothing in the phrase "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" that implies universal common ancestry.
Yes, most scientists tend to take it for granted that they know what they are talking about. How disgusting.
Hey, I felt i made a good point in the last paragraph, seems you have completely missed it .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Granny Magda, posted 02-15-2010 2:31 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 7:55 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 129 by Granny Magda, posted 02-15-2010 10:50 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 205 (546938)
02-15-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Arphy
02-15-2010 1:16 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
umm, yes they did, according to secular science. They are part of the process of diversification from a unicellular organism, and resistance to DDT is part of this diversification.
Way to quote out of context. But everyone reading this thread can read this thread, and they know that the sentence I wrote before: "They did not "diversify from a unicellular organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record"." was "Now, that is not what happened when mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT."
And I'm right.
What went through your head when you decided to do that. Were you really thinking: "BWAHAHAHA, now I'm going to deceive Dr A as to what he meant"?
Well, you didn't.
As to the question, WHY? It is because the definition is deceptive. It draws people in because nobody is going to argue with the completely obvious statement that a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation occurs in nature. Once people have accepted this people are then taught to accept secular natural history as fact because after all if evolution in terms of a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" is correct then obviously the creationists are wrong and secular natural history is correct. ????C'mon how logical is that!! Not very!!!
Buy, my dear Arphy, it is you and your fellow creationists who are trying to conflate the fact that evolution occurs with all the facts about evolution. You just did it again, when you took my statement about mosquitoes and distorted it. The only person being "deceptive" on this issue is you. If you object to this deception, then STOP PRACTICING IT.
For the rest of your paranoid fantasy, I should urge you to look at reality for half a second. Ask any evolutionist on this forum why they say that "secular natural history is correct", and not one of them, I will wager my own life against a jelly donut, will say: "because a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation occurs in nature".
I'm fairly sure that no-one in the whole world ever has been fooled into accepting "secular natural history" because of dishonest creationist attempts to conflate these two concepts. But if you are genuinely afraid that some day this might happen, then the solution is in your hands. STOP DOING IT. It is we, the evolutionists, who have been insisting again and again that these are two different things. It is you, the creationists, who insist that the word "evolution" should be redefined so that it means both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 1:16 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 205 (546939)
02-15-2010 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Arphy
02-15-2010 3:54 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Yes, it is universal common ancestry that i have a problem with. But the problem is that when the term evolution is used, whether by creationists or evolutionists, universal common ancestry is implied ...
Not to anyone who has read the definition provided by scientists. Only to people who have been tricked by creationist obfuscation.
... the definition "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" does not suggest this in any way.
No, it doesn't.
Hey, you said something that was true!
And it is this unspoken implication which I suggest should be spoken otherwise the definition becomes deceptive.
And there you go talking about "deception" again. Well, who the heck has been deceived?
You yourself are not deceived. Despite your tireless, tiresome attempts to conflate evolution with "secular natural history", you know perfectly well that statements such as "Mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT" are not in fact an endorsement of the whole of "secular natural history". You haven't even managed to fool yourself. And yet you go about wringing your hands with your concern that conflating the two concepts might fool somebody. Not me, not you, not anyone we know. But someone.
Well, if that's such a big worry for you, then STOP DOING IT. Say along with me, with the other evolutionists, and with the biology textbooks, that all "evolution" means is heritable change to a lineage, and that acknowledging the fact that evolution as properly defined takes place is a different thing from acknowledging the whole of "secular natural history". Shout it from the rooftops. If you are genuinely concerned that conflation of the two concepts deceives people, then you should join us evolutionists in telling everyone that these are in fact two different ideas. This is one thing that we should be able to agree on wholeheartedly. But instead you complain that it is "deceptive" to conflate the two concepts, and you insist that the word "evolution" should be redefined so that it conflates them by definition.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 3:54 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 117 of 205 (546943)
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


To My Fellow Evolutionists
I think I understand why Arphy is so hot on this, and Granny Magda has picked up on it, too. Arphy thinks evolutionists are guilty of a deception, a bait and switch. He thinks we're telling people that evolution is just changing allele frequencies over time so that they'll think, "Oh, that's all evolution is? Then I have no problem with it." The deception is that by implication all life is related, and we're hiding that fact. Arphy thinks we're convincing people that evolution is true under false pretenses.
What I don't understand is why evolutionists are so hot on excluding common descent from the definition of evolution. I, personally, prefer to include common descent as additional detail after first providing a very brief definition of evolution, but I'd be perfectly happy with a thoughtful definition that included it.
Word definitions are funny things. They aren't designed, they just happen. Word definitions come from usage, not the other way around. All languages are fluid.
But formal areas of study such as English, history, and science try to escape this ad hoc and fluid approach, preferring to develop formal definitions that are less vulnerable to changing usage. This is the case when biologists define evolution, and it just makes sense to most biologists that common descent not be included in that definition. In many definitions mutation and natural selection aren't mentioned, either.
It is a big mistake to seek consistency between formal and popular definitions, which is what Arphy trying to do. Within biology evolution is a term with a formal definition, while evolutionist is a term that emerged from the very public creation/evolution controversy. One is a formal definition, the other is not. Those expecting consistency between the definitions of these two words are not being reasonable and in any event are bound to be disappointed. Inconsistency in non-formal definitions is the rule, and examples abound in the English language, and I'm sure in all other languages, too, except maybe Esperanto.
The length of the definition has a big influence on what gets included. In this thread we seem to be focusing mostly on single sentence definitions. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on evolution says:
Wikipedia on evolution writes:
In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.
That's a pretty good one sentence definition. But the definition continues for three more sentences. Descent with modification is mentioned in the second sentence, and common descent in the fourth.
Evolution is both a simple concept and a very complex area of study. If you want to capture the essence in a short definition then there's a great deal you're going to leave out. As the definition gets longer you'll bring in more and more of the details.
But I guess my main point is that whatever is wrong with most creationist definitions of evolution, I don't think inclusion of common descent is wrong. It might be more detailed than many prefer in a short definition, but wrong? I don't think so.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by lyx2no, posted 02-15-2010 8:41 AM Percy has replied
 Message 119 by Wounded King, posted 02-15-2010 8:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 10:08 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 10:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2010 10:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 130 by Arphy, posted 02-16-2010 3:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 118 of 205 (546946)
02-15-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


Are You Talkin' to Me?
What I don't understand is why evolutionists are so hot on excluding common descent from the definition of evolution.
Is this not a conflation of evolution and ToE? Where the ToE say that evolution, caused by X pathways, is enough to explain biological, natural history as we understand it, we certainly can't have "evolution" defind using a part (common decent) of natural history as we understand it. That begs the question.
Edited by lyx2no, : Add Travis Bickle's accent to subhead.

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 9:03 AM lyx2no has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 119 of 205 (546948)
02-15-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
Hi Percy,
I agree with alot of what you say but when you talk about the wikipedia definition you seem to be doing the same thing Arphy did previously, you are extending the definition to cover the subsequent sentences which are in fact talking about what the definition means rather than themselves being part of the definition.
I think Dr. A is wrong to place the blame for the conflation of evolutionary theory with the natural history of evolution of life on earth as something that creationists have done. Most people without a biological background will think of evolution in terms of the evolutionary history of life on earth, I would suggest that is the concept that is most commonly tied to the term 'evolution' in the general populace.
Having said that the fact that the distinct concepts of evolution are clearly conflated by many people is neither evidence of an 'evolutionist' conspiracy to pull off a bait and switch nor of a creationist conspiracy to redefine the meaning of evolution to fit their own purposes.
This doesn't mean that creationists don't often try and do this, the OP gives a number of clear examples, but simply wanting evolution to mean the evolutionary history of life on earth doesn't seem to be a case of this to me.
The problem here is that people are taking 2 distinct definitions which can both be credibly used for different conceptions of 'evolution' and trying to insist that they are either mutually exclusive or should be rolled into one. The real answer is to be precise in what you say so that there is no ambiguity what definition is appropriate. In many cases the context should be sufficient for this.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 9:54 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 120 of 205 (546949)
02-15-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by lyx2no
02-15-2010 8:41 AM


Re: Are You Talking to Me?
Hi Lyx2no,
No, I wasn't thinking of you. In fact I had no one in particular in mind at all. I have to follow a lot of threads, and most times all I remember is a general sense of the discussion and not specifically who said what.
In response to your objection I would say that you're trying to argue that language is more precise than it actually is, and that there are clear and unambiguous lines of demarcation between evolution and the theory of evolution.
Would that language could be so precise, even if we are talking about the world of formal definitions within science. In the end, and especially at levels of increasing precision, we can only talk about which definitions we prefer or which we dislike. We can't talk about which definitions are right and which are wrong, though naturally inside we feel that a definition we dislike is wrong.
I think the greater danger lies in telling someone who includes common descent in their definition of evolution that they're wrong. We're talking to people who are inconceivably ignorant of science and who in many circumstances have been the target of a great deal of misinformation. Make your distinctions too fine and you're going to lose them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by lyx2no, posted 02-15-2010 8:41 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 02-15-2010 10:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 1:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024