Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Because the accused must be punished or freed, and grievances must be addressed, legal/judicial proceedings must come to a decision in a relatively immediate period of time; thus the lower standard of "reasonable doubt". This is a demonstrably imperfect standard, but it is by far the best we have for settling these matters.The key principle of evolution being debated here merits no such immediacy for resolution. There is no perpetrator, no aggrieved, the yes/no validity of it has no bearing on what we do today or will do tomorrow, thus there is no urgency to settle the matter and we have the luxury of demanding the "show me " standard of doubt.I have looked at your evidence and much like it. True, I have not taken the time to attend college courses to understand all of the details, but the overall gist is pretty clear. The thing is the evidence could also point to any number of other manufactured theories tailored to fall in line with the limited evidence.And, of course, if the evidence is genuine, it all falls right in line with Creation.

I suppose it's a matter of not being able to take on every battle.You are correct in your implication that I have not personally observed the seed-to-harvest cycle of an apple, nor do I fully understand the mechanisms involved, but I do accept the explanation I am given. You might say it's taken on faith.There are many other things for which I would like to see more concluding proof, but life is short and battles must best selected carefully. Gotta have time to step back and smell the roses once in a while.

The conclusion-premise consideration is precisely the point. Between the Evolution Theory and the Fossil Ancestry, which is the premise and which is the conclusion? It could be either-or for both; they both have the same demonstrable proof deficit.You are correct in saying that I want to see the process demonstrated. The fact that we don't know how to do that does not mean we default to accepting the certainty of the process - quite the opposite, in reality.

In response to the thoughtful remarks from Dr Jack, Taq, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx, AZPaul3, Omnivorous, Tangle, kjsimons, and Percy.The repetition of comments (on both sides ) in this string has been noted several times, and there has been too much distraction from the important topic. So it will help to rein in the racket and tighten things up by going back to the original topic: The Standard Definition of Evolution.Turns out there a quite a few out there, and, near as I can determine, the overall concurrence between them can be summed up thusly:Evolution (ToE) is:
• Descent with modification, from minor changes within a species population, to the proliferation of many species from a common ancestor.
• Random modifications, but influenced by environment through natural selection.Outside the scope of Evolutionism:
• Identification of the baseline ancestor(s).
• The origin of life.Seems to be somewhat in dispute:
• Is there a single common ancestor, or multiple?My comments on evolution have been derided as irrational, medieval, f------ b---s---, etc., yet in the same derisive entries there is admission that within ToE there is tentativeness, underdetermination, not enough information, sparse fossil record,…This indicates a not-so-negligible uncertainty, particularly when coupled with some of the things that evolutionism seems to spend very little, if any time addressing:
1. Why is man so exponentially beyond all the other’s in the survival-of-the-fittest department?
2. How do features like eyeballs develop, if the process is random and imperceptibly gradual, and the eyeball requires many systems to function? How do the in-between mutations make it through natural selection? (yes, this is a repeated point, but it was not answered to any satisfaction)
3. (& many other examples like the two above)
4. Why can’t the original ancestor(s) be identified?
5. Did life as we understand it spring forth from minerals/stardust, or did it come from something else.If so much is known about DNA, and if there is so much confidence in declaring direct descendance between the fossils of ancient creatures up through Man, then there should be some pretty good theories on all of the above, along with general concurrence among evolutionists.I suspect it is difficult to put together a compelling explanation for most of these without refencing some kind of directed intervention. The original ancestor item, in particular, emphasizes ToE’s lack of completeness-resolution.Finally, I did take some time to look at nested hierarchies. These are virtually identical to the product offerings of a diversified manufacturer of, say, power tools-appliances-outdoor equipment. Products are broken down into categories and sub-categories with each category/sub-category sharing functional and component commonalities, with as much component and function sharing across the product population as possible, partly for efficiency but mostly because if you come up with a good feature you want to apply and re-use it as much as possible.Much like a Creator would do with life here on Earth! 4 limbs, not 1, 3, or 5, is ideal, 2 eyes to perceive depth, 2 ears to determine direction, et al., and one with a super brain to subdue and have dominion over all the others in maintaining an ordered Creation. (and, yes, this is repeated but it bears repeating)Have fun with it folks!

Wow, no kidding, after all this, the “truth of evolution”. The Bible is the word of God, and God’s word is Truth, therefore the Bible is Truth. And this is probably the most common answer to “What is the Bible?” – “The Bible is Truth.”So now is proclaimed the evolutionist’s ability to look beyond what is demonstrably known, beyond the tentativeness, beyond the uncertainty, beyond science, into that pure, unwavering belief, known as faith, to declare evolution truth.And comparing today’s Christians to the Inquisition is absurd and evokes desperation. Even those who loathe Christians know this. If you met someone in a dark alley, if you had someone pull up behind you when your car is broken down by the side of the road, if you wronged someone and then found yourself hoping for forgiveness, you’d be very glad to find out that someone is a Bible-following Christian.

An evolutionist is someone who accepts or buys into ToE. I know that you and others here prefer a term like “evolutionary biologist”, which might be quite apt for those on this thread, but the vast majority of ToE adherents are not evolutionary biologists, and may, in fact, have very little technical background. So the term “evolutionist” is intended to cover the full tent of ToE adherents. If there’s a better term I’m happy to use it.Following, evolutionism is, of course, the acceptance or buying into of ToE.

The quote cited supports creation, however unwittingly. An artistic Creator, in demonstrating beauty and order, would create diverse creatures that share certain functions that would very well show varying degrees of complexity in those functions, based on their role and place/order in Creation. A crustacean’s eye does not need the same functionality as that of a human, or an eagle, or a bat.Creation defines hierarchy, at the top of which is Man.

That Man is at the top of the heap should be obvious, but if it needs discussion it merits its own forum.
The eyeball has been mentioned several times, but never explained, just “possilbly’s” and “could haves”. Darwin’s quote above is the most comprehensive, but even he simply references features of rudimentary and complex eye structures and then notes “I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class”. In other words, ToE/natural selection is truth, so the eyeball has inarguably come about by some evolutionary process, asserted without direct evidence or demonstration. This is a near-perfect illustration of a worldview, i.e., ToE is ultimate truth so everything ultimately conforms to ToE, no proof needed. In other words, ToE is exalted in faith.And this faith explains the how the in-betweens make it through natural selection – ToE is truth, no need to quibble about details.Yes, seriously, about the common ancestor. If we are so knowledgeable of DNA and nested hierarchies, then we should be able to interpret a line(s) down to the bottom of the hierarchy, and we should have a pretty clear picture of what comprised this creature.

At this risk of spinning this discussion out of control, I’ll point out that the term atheist can be something of an abstraction, since it refers to disbelief in a god or some supreme being, and the terms god and supreme being can be stretched to mean something as intangible as a set of moral ideals, to something as concrete as a worship of money, power, any number of vices, but also work, exercise, meditation, hobbies, and yes, natural science. Thinking about it right now, I would say atheism is being practiced whenever belief in God is held ultimately secondary to man’s knowledge and laws. I’m sure there will be disagreement, but not so sure it’s worth much more breath.Why and how evolution conflicts with Biblical Creation is quite simple: The Bible teaches God’s Creation of Man, and evolution teaches that man’s existence is happenstance, a more or less random result of descendance from a long line of more primitive creatures.The problem with evolution is one of consistency, perhaps sin of omission if that’s not too harsh. We have a relatively miniscule set of fossils, we have extensive DNA studies that we can throw into the mix, and we can draw some conclusions regarding the similarities between the fossils, then present the data as supporting common ancestry. For the sake of argument we can call this all well and good.
But from there we hypothesize that every living thing on earth evolved from some common, simple, primitive ancestor, a hypothesis for which we have no hard evidence, just extended supposition based on the fossil hypothesis above. That’s why we look at the human eye and assume it is evolved from some simple lens over many millennia. This is accepted as face-value truth; it’s not a matter of whether it’s possible for this to happen, it’s a matter of figuring out how it happened.So we can teach schoolkids about fossils, their similarities, and DNA, and call that science, but then we jump into teaching them that everything came to be through evolution and we can call that science, but we are clearly jumping into the natural science worldview and teaching the faith of evolution. This is the inconsistent application of the notion of science. And the sin of omission is that we don’t bother to make that clear to the school-kiddies.Finally, I’m not clear regarding ordinance going stupid and “creationists constantly doing it to themselves”. Do you have an example?

CREATIONIST vs. EV-------ISTSincerely surprised by the somber scoldings and indignant reactions to “ev-------ist”. Seems like an awfully sensitive group given the diatribes, derisiveness, insults, pejoratives, “slurs”, condescension, patronization, and obscenities thrown this way.Nationalist, socialist, secularist, defeatist, passivist, activist, nihilist, Biblist, narcissicist, et al., and, of course, Creationist, all refer to one’s beliefs rather than their profession. Personally, I would say ev-------ist falls right in there with no negative connotations, but, as I pointed out, I understand there is discomfort with that word so I noted that I can use another, more acceptable word if one exists.

CREATIONIST vs. EV-------IST Part 2There are multiple entries for “evolutionist” (and “evolutionism”) in the Oxford English Dictionary, the Mirriam Webster Dictionary, and dictionary.com. None of the entries indicate slur, insult, disparagement, or negative connotation. OED also notes that the term was first used in ~1830.

Okay, Percy, you got it. Though the eyeball evolution should come over to Faith and Belief with me. Maybe all of evolution, but certainly the eyeball evolution.The initial “Definition of Evolution” subject was sincere, primarily with regard to the common ancestor at the bottom of the tree, the beginning of life/abiogenesis, and the concept of random, non-directed mutation. Through all of this discussion I've gained a better understanding of evolutionary biologists' concurrence on these subjects.As I’m sure you’ve gathered my contention is that evolutionary biology, at some point, wanders out of science and into the world of faith. I’m interested in what governs that faith, and also whether there is any room at all in ToE-Abiogenesis-Big Bang, among their adherents, for a supreme being/deity. On to Faith and Belief.I’d like to once again stress my respect for those whose engage in sincere scientific pursuits, regardless of whether or not I agree with their conclusions. Thank you for the lively back-and-forth in this Forum.