What is evolution?

Please bear with me, everyone specially the managerial folks here; I am an alien with the present forum software.I wanted to introduce a new topic in the board where the present thread is located, but I got shunted to this (below) location and the thread got closed after one reply from a moderator.

quote:

---

Title of new topic: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory

​

http://EvC Forum: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory -->EvC Forum: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory

​

Message 1 of 2
05-15-2008 06:15 PM

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There must be adherents of the evolution theory who are recognized by fellow evolution theory adherents to be most knowledgeable about the evolution theory.
Do we have a society of such knowledgeable people?

​

If not, shouldn't they organize themselves into a society?

​

So that they can issue a consensual statement on what is the theory of evolution, accompanied with a copious glossary of terms.

​

And this society should have a committee to answer all questions about what is the evolution theory and what is not.

​

In this manner people who are not adherents of evolution theory can get to know officially what the theory is all about and get their doubts cleared up by this society of recognized authorities.

​

And people who are adherents of the theory can also see whether they have the correct notions of the theory of evolution.

​

Will that spell the end of discussion forums or debates about the theory of evolution?

​

Not at all, because there will still be innumerable points which adherents of evolution theory can still discuss among themselves and with non-adherents of the theory.

​

Yrreg
  —Yrreg

---

Let me see what will happen here with my present posting of this message, so that I can get on with contributing my opinions on what is evolution.As I said at the start, I am an alien with the present forum software; I read the rules but there are no instructions on how to operate here in terms of where to post what and how to use the mechanics of the software as regards for example the choice of inactive yes no, or the the time zone, or the dB codes, whatever (I just use what I have learned elsewhere like with the vBulletin software).Okay, let's see what's going to happen now with me -- a suspension of 24 hours?But I like the policy of the owners and managers here, they don't have a quota like to fill up every week as in some forums where I had been to, like the IIDB where when I was there and even today most probably they must have at least a quota of banning twenty posters a week, even some of the most sensible and most well-behaved registered members of long history duration.Yrreg

About the fact of evolution as distinct from the theory of evolution, a fact is a singular concrete observable event in time and in place.Do we have any people who have observed a singular concrete event which can be called a fact of evolution?Most certainly if the pros and cons of the theory of evolution can agree on what or which singular concrete event observable by everyone makes up a fact of evolution, then the pros might not complaint a lot against the cons for not getting the theory of evolution correctly.Yrreg

Thanks, doc, for your list of scientific associations.Please read my post again, all I am asking is for a singular concrete event which both pros and cons of the evolution theory can accept as a fact of evolution.

quote:

---

About the fact of evolution as distinct from the theory of evolution, a fact is a singular concrete observable event in time and in place.

​

Do we have any people who have observed a singular concrete event which can be called a fact of evolution?

​

Most certainly if the pros and cons of the theory of evolution can agree on what or which singular concrete event observable by everyone makes up a fact of evolution, then the pros might not complain a lot against the cons for not getting the theory of evolution correctly.
  —Yrreg

---

Yrreg

Granting though not conceding that science doesn't involve proof, nonetheless it does involve evidence and other ways and means acceptable to every party in a discussion for arriving at as much certainty as everyone finds satisfactory for drawing conclusions that meet and overcome the skepticism of everyone in the discussion.In the matter of the theory of evolution, therefore prior to everything else, we want to establish first at least one and then another one and then still another one... a fact of evolution.But first again, what is a fact as opposed to a non-fact?I submit that a fact is a singular concrete event that is observable by everyone.And next I also submit in agreement with Dr Adequate that evolution in the theory of evolution has to do with the fact of a process of change, or in one word, change.Shall we give our attention then to what is a fact in re theory of evolution and also to the fact that evolution is a fact of change?You see people who come to a discussion must first be in agreement on concepts and terms; refusal to come to this first step for any productively successful discussion, i.e., satisfactory to all parties in the discussion, is a hint to observers that though it is most convenient to the discussants not to come to agreement as regards concepts and terms, it is altogether of no productive ends at all, and people will just leave the discussants to themselves to waste their time, but not to waste the time of observers.Yrreg

Thanks, coyote, for connecting with me.This thread is entitled "what is evolution?" The author however is not precisely correct in his choice of a title, because he is after the wrong ideas about the theory of evolution from the opponents of the theory.The correct title should be misconceptions of the theory of evolution; then he should start right away with his definition of terms and his own statement of what he knows to be the theory of evolution.And from that point onward proceed to state what he knows to be misconceptions from opponents of the theory, and clear up their minds in accordance with what he knows to be the correct ideas about the theory of evolution.Why? Because in accordance with the rules of clear logical exposition as I can gather them from stock knowledge, if you want to set something straight you start with what you know to be straight, then point out what you notice to be wrong in how others think about its being straight but to you it's not straight; and how? of course by comparison with what you know to be straight.Allow me to give a concrete illustration from another area of human quests, since all human quests follow the same productive procedure if we would be clear-minded instead of proceeding without any ideas of exactly what we want to arrive at. Anyway, since the title as it stands is "What is evolution?" And the author wants to read about the misconceptions of opponents to the theory of evolution, it is incumbent upon people of good will and honest curiosity to help both proponents as opponents of the theory to draw up a list of terms which are crucial to the resolution of their controversy, like as I would presume your good self and myself, yours truly, are interested in.I look up your page and found this definition of fact: My own definition of fact is the following (which I have already stated above): So, if we would collaborate, then our definition of fact should be the following: I did not find any definition in your referred to page on what is change. Can you please proffer a definition of change?I understand that you are a proponent and exponent of the theory of evolution, so it should be to the advancement of your proposition and exposition of this theory to establish the definitions of terms that you will use time and again in your discourse; so also the author of this thread, subbie, can avail himself of your list of definitions in order to formulate his own idea of the theory, by which he will judge that the opponents of the theory are not getting the theory correctly -- which accounts for their irrelevant if nothing else opposition to the theory.To everyone else, it is not too late to salvage this thread, please spend some time and trouble to contribute your definitions to what is a fact and what is change, in re theory of evolution.I am sure that when we get a mutually acceptable list of definitions of terms, then the whole controversy will clear up: we will know what proponents are talking about and what opponents are mistakenly in opposition to, or they are correct in their ideas about the theory of evolution but they have reasons to reject it.Yrreg

quote:

---

Let's see if I've got this straight. IAmJoseph, a man who communicates, or rather fails to communicate, in a private language invented by himself which no-one else in the whole world understands ... is complaining about jargon?
  —Dr Adequate

---

See? are we now convinced that however we want to presume and assume that everyone has the same ideas about the terms used in writing about evolution theory, nonetheless for the sake of being ascertained and not to waste time later on in squabbling about jargon, it is incumbent upon honest and sincere discussants to first set the terms straight?Anyway, I have already said that for me fact in re evolution theory is a singular concrete event that is observable by anyone, now I will propose the definition of change as the following:

If no one takes exceptions to my definition of change, then I will next just briefly mention the kinds of change I know in science, and see whether it is also acceptable to everyone.When everyone has accepted or does not care to object to my definitions of fact and change, then I will state my own definition of what is the theory of evolution which I will invite people to examine whether it is the correct one as understood by the prominent proponents of the theory of evolution.Yrreg

Well, if they don't care to know what we are about here in re evolution the pro and the con aspects of the theory, that is their privilege.I am not going to be inhibited from voicing out my own opinions of what I think is the correct idea of evolution theory as I know from my reading in the net.But you know what, if you can dig out from the learned prominent proponents of evolution theory a good glossary of terms which include what is fact and what is change and what is random and what is non-random, then I will award you with the Yrregian award of distinguished connoisseur of the theory of evolution, notwithstanding that owing to your anonymity here in this forum I am at a loss to ascertain what publications you have put in peer review periodicals.Addressing people like myself, what do you think of my definitions of fact and change, here again I will reproduce them below:

And by the way, for posters here who are conversant with writings in peer review magazines, suppose you tell us in a hundred words or less what is evolution, as to do justice to the learned authors of peer review writings on theory of evolution?Yrreg

That is all very good, Larni, and Coyote, and IamJoseph.Now, let us all work together to establish some peer review glossary of in re evolution theory that will make the task of peer review exponents of the theory more accessible to private investigators like yours truly -- seeing that they are so busy debating among themselves and very conveniently but indolently not taking the care that is an intelligent course of action to establish their concepts and terms, so that they can discourse intelligently instead of debating endlessly.So I said that a fact is a singular concrete event observable by anyone, and a change is an event of transformation undergone by anything whereby it becomes different from what it was before.What is the fact of evolution then? Why, nothing else than that it is a change in an organism which in turn, namely, the change, is a singular concrete event observable by anyone.Now as a private investigator I am going to find out what exactly is the change in an organism that makes the organism different from what it was before, which is supposed to be the fact of evolution.Then I will examine whether there are enough singular concrete events of the change in an organism, namely, several instances of such changes in organisms, so that the several turn out to be many as to merit the description of innumerable, as to deserve a theory of evolution.In the meanwhile I will leave you gentlemen, Larni and Coyote and IamJoseph, to your citations of peer review articles when you have nothing from your own thinking that is of any insight from your own faculty of intelligence whereby you might be 'citable' in peer review publications.Yrreg