Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the Theory of Evolution?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 64 of 93 (813557)
06-28-2017 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2017 3:02 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
I would suggest that a brief summary is not a formal definition, nor is it intended as one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2017 3:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Pressie, posted 06-29-2017 6:15 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 67 of 93 (813605)
06-29-2017 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by CRR
06-29-2017 7:54 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's non-Definition
It's not described as a definition. It doesn't look like a formal definition. In fact it looks like a summary of the current content which is what it is described as.
And surely the whole point of asking for a definition is to ask for a formal definition. Which that is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 7:54 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 8:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 93 (813608)
06-29-2017 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by CRR
06-29-2017 8:15 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's non-Definition
I don't see why a formal definition would do better than the summary for Coyne's purpose (in fact it would probably be worse). Nor do I think that pointing out the fact that Coyne explicitly says he is summarising the theory rather than offering a definition can be considered "clutching at straws".
Perhaps you should consider why you are so desperate to call Coyne's summary a definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 8:15 AM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 73 of 93 (813636)
06-29-2017 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Taq
06-29-2017 11:21 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's non-Definition
I disagree. I think that this definition is pretty good:
The body of knowledge relating to the process of biological evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 06-29-2017 11:21 AM Taq has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 79 of 93 (813795)
06-30-2017 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Phat
06-30-2017 2:57 PM


Re: Equating the ToE with Atheism
I would respond with the following point - which I've made before.
All that death and suffering happened, independently of whether evolution is true.
Humans have only existed a (relatively) short time on this planet, independently of whether evolution is true.
Obviously, evolution isn't the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 06-30-2017 2:57 PM Phat has 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