Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

Sorry to barge in here like this. But I just skimmed through 4 pages of what i thought was somewhat off topic ranting. Why did nobody seem to take any notice of what modulous wrote. Would it have shortened the thread too much? Did it sound like he was being the fun police and stop you from a good rant. If people haven't read it yet, please read modulous' post 5.Now to add my bit, this is more of a reply to the OP. When you (RAZD) say that a good definition of evolution is "evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation." then this may be all well and good but to be fair there's not too many people interested in arguing about this. What people do have a problem with is the question of origins. Your definition above makes no mention of this. So what do we call the belief that living things began as simple organisms but these diversified to the extent that we now also have very complex organisms? What should we call it? What is this secret word that everybody seems to pretend doesn't exist? Although I have heard it defined a few times by evolutionists no less as the "General theory of Evolution". Is this appropriate or must the world continue to walk in darkness as to what this word that describes this belief is? Or is it ok to just say "evolution" and depending on the context of a person's argument realise the sense in which it was meant and continue on the conversation instead of detouring into the one of the all time favourite arguments that evolutionists use, namely that those "creationists don't even have a clue as to what evolution means" and then pull out the "evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" card. And bingo the creationist is shown to be completly ignorant of the debate. Yah!
Meanwhile the creationist is left sitting wondering if the evolutionist even wants to get into a debate about origins or whether they are actually more interested in playing word games.There we go. Added a bit of a rant myself, except I think it was hopefully a bit closer to dealing with the OP.Arphy

Hi MagdaGenerally a good post. Just want to pick up on a few things though.Let's have a closer look at the quote taken: Guess you probably don't have too much of a problem with this part and it is the second half that you don't quite agree with: And I agree that in a sense evolution as such does not teach this. However, Is this not the goal of evolution? i.e. that everything that we learn about evolution is used in the explanation of universal common ancestry. Or in other words, the idea of universal common ancestry is fully accepted by most of the scientific world, or seen as a fact, so all that remains is the question of how. And the study of evolution fills in those missing details. So in an evolutionary worldview the effect is that evolution and universal common ancestry cannot be seperated. The above quote shows this. The first half shows what evolution is and the second half shows the purpose for studying evolution.

Hi guys.
Let's clarify a few things. Maybe that would have read better as: Is it not the goal of the study of evolution to provide a logical and consistent way as to how this happened in natural history?So yes, I sit on the fence a bit with the definition that started this conversation. Because in one sense, it doesn't give a reasonable definition of what evolution involves, but in another sense it gives a definition of the purpose of what the science of evolution does in our society. I think that the definition should be understood in this latter sense.
Maybe it could be rephrased like this
"Evolution is the biological mechanism which allows us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record (according to a secular interpretation of the fossil record)"
I think this is a reasonable definition of the function of evolution in secular science, and therefore I think both definitions are valid: and

But the thing is it may not have to but according to secular natural history overall IT DID! What??? now i'm confused. Are you saying that evolution does NOT "help us to understand (or perhaps, make sense of) the natural history of living things as found today and in the the fossil record". Wasn't quite ready for that comment. Not sure what to do with that. Please explain.

Hi RAZDI really don't see much difference in the definitions: and You suggest that an increase in complexity has not necessarily occured with the majority of life and therefore a definition which puts too much emphasis on this is wrong. Yet I think that an increase in complexity is the defining feature of secular natural history, therefore I think it is valid to mention it, especially as stasis and loss of complexity are more of byproducts of trying to understand the rise of complexity. Because otherwise evolution is seen as more a "sorting mechanism" rather than a "creative mechanism".so tell me, why do think berkley felt it necessary to include the sentence "Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." in their definition? Because according to you this shouldn't be part of the definition of what evolution is . So why add it? Is this any different from what me or your creationist source did? If not, then don't complain. If it is, how so?Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.

Hi RAZDAllow me to take a slightly different take on the issue.What is your definition of an evolutionist?Is it someone who believes in "descent with modification" or "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation."? Then this in turn means that every creationist I know of is also an evolutionist, including myself. Now if I walked up to someone on the street and told them I was an evolutionist, what would they assume (I don't think it matters whether they are an athiest, christian, muslim, etc.)? They probably wouldn't think "this guy believes in the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation". But rather they would think something along the lines of that I believe that over many generations bacteria turned into humans, for example. You say that "science defines the terms in science" and yet I would also say that society defines the terms in society.
The word "gay" technically means happy (or at least it used to), but if you go round saying "I'm feeling gay" or "I am a gay person" people will automatically think that you are trying to say that you are homosexual. In a similar way the word evolution does not mean what it technically means when used in society in general. Therefore I think it is inadequate to call evolution simply a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" because it is quite different from what the ordinary lay person understands by the word evolution. So I think that it is time that evolutionists got over that fact and started using it the way it is used by the population in general. Possibly come up with another term for a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation". Of course this will probably never happen because otherwise the evolutionist can no longer say "Ah, look you believe in evolution (change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation) therefore it is logical that you also believe that over many generations bacteria turned into humans". They may not define this as a rise in complexity or they may not define it at all but the implication is there that to believe in evolution (change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation) necessitates a belief in universal common ancestry.

As I think I have said right from the start, I realise there are problems with the creationist definition that you used (by the way, where is it from?). But my point was that it brings up a relavant point. That the evolutionist definition of evolution is inadequate in explaining the actual use of the word in our society.
You seem to suggest that only "ignorant, misinformed or undereducated people" would think that an evolutionist is "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." OH wait, THat was YOUR definition of an evolutionist!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. Yet you are also saying that natural history is something completly seperate from evolution.
Because if an evolutionist is someone who believes in evolution and evolution is defined as "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" then strictly speaking I am an evolutionist. But this clashes with your definition of an evolutionist. So either your definition of evolution is wrong (or inadequate) or your definition of a evolutionist is wrong. I would say your definition of evolution is inadequate. And I never said it was, neither is truth. However, what words mean are decided by public opinion no matter how much you try to convince the public that they should adopt your definition. Take the word "gay" again. You could start campaigns asking people to start using the word "gay" as meaning "happy", but basically I think you would be told to get over it, the word has a new meaning and you will just have to live with that. You may despise people for being so inconsiderate and uneducated, etc, but that would just show that you are a very sad person. Just get over it and use the word in the same sense that the "uneducated masses" use it. Because otherwise you will just get into more arguments about definitions every time you talk about the subject. So go on, kick and scream all you want, but just realise that your definition of evolution is different from the uneducated masses and you will just have to live with that.

Hi Dr AI don't tend to reply to your posts, but just for a bit of fun How is this a contrast with my comment? Anyway if you just said "mosquitoes evolved" then we understand this as meaning that through many generations a unicellular organism turned into a mosquitoe. To say that "Mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT" means we understand that you are talking about a particular point (or area) of the evolutionary pathway of mosquitoes. Sorry don't see how this negates anything I said. Not sure what you're trying to get at.I guess that when evolution is mentioned I see it more as the pathway from universal common ancestry to the present. organisms that are evolving (which is every organism) move along this path through a variety of mechanisms which account for the diversity we have today. So if you are "evolving" you are doing the process of "evolution", that is changing over time from a unicellular organism to what you are presently.
So when I say that is inadequate to call evolution simply a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation", I think a more adequate definition that fits in with what people understand about evolution and what it means to be an evolutionist could possibly be "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."

Hi Magda um, yes he did. Or maybe I did misunderstand him. I guess I could read it differently but that comes back to our dilemma that I fit the discription of an evolutionist. Let me explain:
"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"."...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."
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.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.Also just a note, I put "uneducated masses" in quotation marks more as a sarcastic comment, because many people who use the word evolution in the way i am describing are actually well educated and in fact I am quite sure I have seen evolutionary scientists use it in that sense as well. In fact seeing we seem to like using the berkley website after a quick look it is easy to spot the same "mistakes" you think creationists are making. Under the title for "What is the evidence for evolution?" Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution (in other words according to you what is the evidence for a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation)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? surely they should have titled it: "Evidence of a secular understanding of natural history through the process of evolution." Unless of course when they say they want to defend evolution they mean they want to defend secular natural history through naturalistic processes. maybe this should be the definition of evolution? 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.

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.

hehe whatever, keep dreaming. 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!!!

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. 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. 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).

where? please explain. And who's fault was that? I would say creationists aren't the only one's to blame. 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. 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. Hey, I felt i made a good point in the last paragraph, seems you have completely missed it .

Thanks PercyI guess this whole issue just needs to have a bit of compromise from both sides. Yes, It is possible that creationists will often over-emphasise the the common descent part of what evolution is. But then I don't agree that it should be under-emphasised by evolutionists either. Believe me, I wouldn't have a problem if the definition "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" was what everybody understood evolution to be and it is used as such. But the fact is that the word evolution is used in both professional and public language as also implying common descent. That creationists will focus on this part is natural because this is where the most disagreement occurs.
As wikipedia shows and i believe other sources show this as well, that there is no distinction made between "we are now talking about evolution" and "we are now talking about common descent". In the minds of the public and really most people these two ideas are inextricably linked. In most people's minds when you mention one of these words you also implie the other, unless stated otherwise.
If scientists want to maintain a formal definition of evolution then so be it (although as the definitions in razd's post 128 shows, I don't think that most scientist see the two things as completly seperate). But I don't think that it is something that should be complained about that the generally public is using it in a different sense. Especially when writers on the internet or in books or whatever are writing to the layperson they should be writing in a way that people understand. I do not think that it is right to pull up a creationist or evolutionist writer writing to laypeople who uses the word evolution in the way it is understood by the public.