Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

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.

Biblical creation conflicts with cosmology and geology, too.Your questions about the definition of evolution has evolved into a discussion about the evidence for evolution, and you have creationist criticisms of that evidence, which is fine. Religious objections to evolution belong more in the Faith and Belief forum.--Percy

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.

Evolutionism - Wikipedia--Percy

quote:

---

The problem with evolution is one of consistency, perhaps sin of omission if that’s not too harsh

---

One of the problems with creationists is the falsehoods that they spout. Like that one.

quote:

---

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.

---

There is a major omission there - the findings of taxonomy. And another - biogeographic distribution of life (the latter especially important to Wallace who independently arrived at much the same conclusions as Darwin). Genetic evidence was not available I. The §9th Century, and the fossil record was perhaps the least important of the three strands of evidence. Although our continued discovery of transitional fossils - as Darwin predicted would happen - continues to provide strong evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

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.

---

It’s NOT just based on the fossil evidence at all - all the evidence above supports it. There is hard evidence - the absence of any evidence of separate creations is itself significant.

quote:

---

That’s why we look at the human eye and assume it is evolved from some simple lens over many millennia.

---

No we don’t. If you’d paid attention to the examples you’d know ow that the lens is one of the later parts to arrive - and it took more than millennia. It’s been investigated and no show-stopping problems have been found. We don’t throw out theories supported by large amounts of solid evidence just because there might be problems.

quote:

---

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.

---

I think you mean “clearly teaching science forbidden by my idols”.Because that’s what it comes down to. Men tell you that God wrote Genesis, although the book itself makes no such claim. They tell you that the creation stories must be assumed to be literal fact (except for the embarrassing bits like the sun moon and stars only being lights attached to the solid sky) - even though the stories are obvious myths and don’t fit well together. And you treat that as unquestionable fact for some reason. Why?

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.

quote:

---

Already did with the example of the matching independent phylogenies. I also did the same with the correlation between the observed mutation bias for transition and transversion substitutions and the observed differences between the human and chimp genomes.

---

Your conclusions are false though. And you are abusing science for your own agenda.We determined that there is correlation, we can agree on that. Your claim that common ancestry is the cause of that correlation beyond any doubt, is just your claim. You failed again and again to scientifically show your method of determining this level of doubt in your claim. The p-values you use, apply to wether there is correlation or not. It does not say anything about the cause of the correlation.Though I don't expect you to understand this subtle difference, as you have proven to be clueless on this time and time again.

quote:

---

No we don’t. If you’d paid attention to the examples you’d know ow that the lens is one of the later parts to arrive - and it took more than millennia. It’s been investigated and no show-stopping problems have been found. We don’t throw out theories supported by large amounts of solid evidence just because there might be problems.

---

What would you consider to be a show-stopping problem? Because I know you already made up your mind. And any problem, you would just brush off and claim that there is mountains of evidence. And this evidence boils down to the same narrative that it is an accumulation of small changes over a long period of time.Narratives are not evidence. Not to me. If it is to you, then your idea of good science is flawed. Common ancestry of seperate species is not backed by real science. It's only wishful thinking.

No you didn’t. Your arrogant bluster failed then and it will fail again.

quote:

---

What name do you give to people that accept gravitational theory?

---

We have Newtonians and general relativists.Evolution of early life into countless of seperate species is not a fact at all. It is only in your evolutionist pitty minds.

quote:

---

What would you consider to be a show-stopping problem?

---

If it could be shown that there was no biologically plausible sequence of changes in the development of the eye. The existence of functioning intermediates is rather a blow to any hope of that. Of course it would require in depth work, but we know the necessity of that. Ever since we found that another supposed barrier - the evolution of the mammalian jaw wasn’t a barrier at all.

quote:

---

And this evidence boils down to the same narrative that it is an accumulation of small changes over a long period of time.

---

Complete rubbish. I listed the three major lines of evidence in the post you are replying to.

Percy:

---

Evolutionist is a made up term derogatorily used as a slur by creationists.

---

Do you have any proof for this claim?In any evolution creation debate, it's just logical to call the two sides evolutionists and creationists. It does not matter who first came up with it. I would come up with it and any logically thinking person would come up with it.You complaining about this, just shows how ignorant you are and how you are against logic and objectivity. You make your subjective feelings of it as being slur and derogative, more important than the debate itself.

quote:

---

No you didn’t. Your arrogant bluster failed then and it will fail again.

---

What are you referring to exactly? I didn't do what?

quote:

---

The existence of functioning intermediates is rather a blow to any hope of that.

---

There are many millions of species on Earth, with many variations of eyes. Which one do you call intermediates?

quote:

---

What are you referring to exactly? I didn't do what?
​

---

If you read the message I replied to it should be obvious.

quote:

---

There are many millions of species on Earth, with many variations of eyes. Which one do you call intermediates?

---

Examples would be pit eyes as found in planaria or the eye of the nautilus. They show that the full assemblage of the human eyeball is not necessary for a functional eye of some sort.