What is evolution?

In another thread, ICANT wrote Probably the number one biggest complaint most of us have about creos is that they in fact don't know what the ToE says, and usually end up arguing against a misunderstanding, rather than the real thing. I assume everyone would agree with me that it's counterproductive to argue against evolution based on what it doesn't say.I would like give you creos an opportunity to prove that you in fact do know both "what evolution is" and "what is being preached as evolution."Tell us.I'm not asking you to provide any evidence for or against any theory. I'm not asking you to argue for or against it. In fact, I'd rather you not argue against it in this thread. I just want you to describe what you think the ToE says. Moreover, if you think you understand evolution (macro, micro or otherwise) but think that it contradicts with what the ToE says, please describe that conflict.I would much prefer that you cite a source for your understanding. I'd also much prefer that you cite a scientific source for your understanding. If you can only find creationist sites that support your understanding of what the ToE is, you might seriously want to consider that your understanding is flawed.In any event, please tell me what you think the ToE is.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'm guessing there will be a great deal of work to be done on the basics before we get anywhere near discussing details.My impression has been that things are more likely to get off topic the more different folks there are tossing their two cents worth in. I guess my suggestion for this thread would be perhaps for the science types to avoid piling on and trying to limit it to one or two people discussing each different proposed description. I don't think it will be necessary to impose any particular restrictions on the thread. If science types support their points with outside resources, I suspect that will in effect keep it from getting too crowded.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Yes, I too realize that the OP was ambiguous.I chose the words I did because I was prompted to begin this thread by ICANT's statements, so don't read too much of my intention from the particular choice of words. However, I do think Percy is much closer to what I was looking for than was ICANT.While it might be of some small interest to hear people's descriptions of what individuals have told them that the ToE means, it's considerably more important to learn what creos think scientists are talking about when they talk about the ToE.It's been quite clear to me for a long time, and it's vividly illustrated in this thread already, that when creos attack the science behind the ToE, they are usually talking about a great number of things that have nothing to do with the ToE. More specifically, they seem to want to lump together any scientific discipline that they believe undermines their religious ideas.What's not clear, and probably can't be answered in this thread, is to what extent this conflation of multiple ideas is unintentional ignorance or a willful attempt to mislead. Or in other words, as a professor once told me, the question is whether they are "knaves or fools."For purposes of this thread, I want to know what creos think that scientists who are doing work in the field of biology are talking about when they say the ToE. I would also consider acceptable a description from someone doing work in the philosophy of science. This is the reason, in particular, why I would like a citation to a source to establish that in fact someone with some level of authority supports the description that creos are laying out.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

As I said in the OP:

quote:

---

I would like give you creos an opportunity to prove that you in fact do know both "what evolution is" and "what is being preached as evolution."

---

I then clarified that, for purposes of "what is being preached," I'm looking for what

quote:

---

scientists who are doing work in the field of biology are talking about when they say the ToE. I would also consider acceptable a description from someone doing work in the philosophy of science.

---

Thus, for purposes of this thread, that's who you would have to produce to show how the ToE is "being preached."

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

You may be satisfied with why we have to wait millions of years to witness transit evidences of speciation, in 'open' form and pervasively, when a process is said to be 'on-going', but my maths rejects it.

---

Speciation has been observed, in real time, in both the laboratory and real world setting. We don't have to wait millions of years to witness "transit evidences of speciation," if I correctly suss your meaning. I'm not particularly confident in this assumption, but that's as close as I can get to anything remotely intelligible and related to the preceding conversation in this thread.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Its very much like a religion, much of the foundation is one of 'belief'; there is no proof in science for ex nehilo, or a complexity emerging from random, nor a process w/o a causation factor. These are akin to religious premises.

---

Well, perhaps there's no "proof in science of ex nehilo [sic]" because science makes no claim of creation ex nihilo, and science doesn't involve proof.There's plenty of evidence of "complexity emerging from random." It's pointless to try to describe this to you since you have more than amply illustrated in this thread that you simply don't understand the claims of the ToE, so you wouldn't understand the evidence in support of it.What you have done quite nicely is demonstrate how deeply (at least some) creos misunderstand the ToE. Thank you for that.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat