Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Hello AZPaul3 - Not so much to rant and rail against, but something against which to debate.In the Science discipline a Theory is a hypothesis for which an experiment - or method of falsification - can be devised and applied repeatedly and consistently. If the experiment fails to falsify the hypothesis, then you have demonstrated that the hypothesis holds true in that set of circumstances/conditions. If Theory fails to hold true under any one set of conditions/circumstances, then the theory is either mis-constructed, or simply false.In my experience, Evolution as a hypothesis does not rise to the level of Theory due to its un-testability. I'm interested in an observable experiment that can be applied to any of Evolution's key principles. If one is out there then I am all ears.Incidentally, one expert (Mr. Mayr) defining Evolution many times in many ways is a nullification of rather than an endorsement of Evolution as a coherent hypothesis.

If you want to have a conversation about science, you need to understand the meaning if scientific terms. Learn what a Theory actually is. Or crawl back under your rock.

Helo Theodoric - How do you define theory?

Hello Tanypteryx - Evolution is not so complex that we can't address some of its key principles in detail. For example: The mutation into a superior, more complex, or wholly different life form that manages to exist and procreate and evolve further. Do we understand this process well enough to define it, is re-creatable, or at least observable?

How about you tell us how you define it as you are using it incorrectly. If you tell us what you think it is we can correct you.Hypothesis, theory, law - Google Docs

Evolution does not aspire to superior, higher level life form. Humans are not the highest level of evolution. There is no apex of evolution.

Actually, that is the definition of an hypothesis. And you are erroneously using the nonscientific, common usage, meaning of theory: as a wildass guess.A scientific theory consists of all the supporting evidence. A scientific theory is everything we know about the subject. This is the normal understanding across all scientific disciplines. Well, I don't have any knowledge of your experience, but you appear to be unaware of the the incredible amount of supporting evidence that evolution accounts for the diversity of life we see on this planet today. The supporting evidence comes from many different scientific fields and fills university libraries and museums around the globe.You also seem to be unaware that millions of scientists around the globe test many aspects of evolution on a daily basis and they also write millions of papers every years detailing their observations. Well then, you'll be glad to hear that any good recent evolutionary biology textbook should document numerous experiments. One I can highly recommend is: Evolution, Third Edition by Carl T. Bergstrom and Lee Alan Dugatkin, W. W. Norton & Company; Third edition (July 1, 2023). It's a shame you haven't read any Ernst Mayr. If you had you would see that considering all the different modes of reproduction and selection, you might expect modes and patterns of evolution to differ also. So a broad definition of evolution is, flawed reproduction (mutations) leads to descent with modification and differential selection removes some less fit individuals from the population, but the specific details of evolution can very greatly for different taxa.If you are looking for one simple rule for all of evolution, then it is descent with modification.

Bad start.Theory is the umbrella term used to house all the documented evidence for the various operations of a proven studied process. A hypothesis is something totally different. Hypothesis is but a guess yet to be tested. Evolution is philosophically way beyond the hypothesis point. It is held by the preponderance of the evidence. That means the evidence is too overwhelming for the conclusion to be wrong. Not having studied the subject I’m thinking you are yet unaware of just how much proof of evolution the world holds. If you are trying to say that “evolution is not science so it’s not proven so it's not real” then I’m afraid that discussion was settled decades ago. That side lost, big time.Also, your view of ‘replication’ in science is way off-base. Science does not require physical replication of long-ago historical events but only replication (consensus) of a study’s conclusions. Lots of different guys looking at the the same old rocks and drawing the same conclusions. The combination of physical evidence from the lab and the consensus that the old historical non-reproducible data is interpreted properly is all the evidence necessary for a scientific theory.Evolution has risen to be one of the most evidenced theories ever devised by man. If you want to discuss the various processes and what the evidence shows then fine, ask away. If you want to claim our understanding is wrong and The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is bogus, then there is nothing to discuss. You already lost. That's because you don't understand the history behind those ever improving definitions.You do not seem to have the knowledge to understand science or evolution. How can you debate when so unarmed? Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject?

Why do you think evolution is untestable? Can you think of any experiment that didn't validate descent with modification and natural selection?
​ If anything that can be explained in different ways has been nullified then everything is nullified. Or to put it another way, when something isn't understood the first time it is frequently helpful to try a different approach. Oops, I just nullified everything, didn't I.--Percy

How specifically do you define superior in a biological sense. Can you give an example? We are talking about reproduction here, parent and offspring.More complex in what sense? Can you give an example? We are talking about reproduction here, parent and offspring. I have no idea what you are saying here. Can you provide any example of any parent ever giving birth to to a wholly different life form, ever, in the history of this planet?

Theories must be substantiated with tested and verified data. If descent with modification is the simple rule, how is this rule substantiated? Has this process been observed and recorded? Can this process be re-created? Alternately, what data confirms this process?I have seen a great deal of supporting data for this Evolution process, all of it pictures and explanations, and none of it the type of hard, repeatable data demanded by the Scientific Method.

Hey, can I use this in my signature? Please?

Yes we understand genetics and pretty much all it's processes. We can see the genes, know what they do, what happens when a gene breaks and how/why such can mutate.We know this so well we know, with certainty, how the individual molecules and atoms behave in the process your DNA uses to replicate. Every bond, every atom.You have heard of genetically modified foods. Genetic alteration of genes in stem cells implanted to control disease.Yes, we know this stuff.

"Overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is what I hear quite often. And if there is such a preponderance then there must be at least one clear, demonstrative example that even the most ignorant of laymen can understand. Do you know of such an example?And a roomful of scientists nodding their heads in unison does not make something factual. Especially if they are all in pursuit of the same goal. That's what makes the Scientific Method so critical - If you are drawing conclusions from a pile of data you must now prove those conclusions with repeatable testing. Otherwise you are simply advancing an explanation.

Genetically modified corn is still corn. Just forced through the process of natural selection. No evolution here.