What is evolution?

I have a list of definitions of terms as they are used in science on the following page (scroll down):DefinitionsThe definition of "fact" is:

​

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become recognized as a fact.

Official statements from authorities of evolution?No such thing. What we do have is "peer-reviewed journals" where everyone fights it out. The best ideas win.

quote:

---

...there is also much jargon in the ToE religion

​

...it has to prove that speech is more than 6000 years old - no excuses available anymore

​

...but all religions compete, including ToE, which has become absolutely talibanic.

---

The theory of evolution is not a religion. Claiming it is does not make it so. And the only folks who do make this claim appear to be fundamentalists with a very narrow view of religion.Speech no more than 6,000 years old? Are you espousing a young earth view, or what? If so, you are choosing to ignore a world of evidence in favor of a narrow view of scripture disputed even by most of the world's Christians.And again the claim that the theory of evolution is a religion. Have you no pride, nor shame, that you can post such obvious nonsense?The theory of evolution is a science, one of many characterized by adherence to the scientific method (sci·ence, pronounced sahy-uhns):

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.

---

Sorry, not so. In science there is evidence and theory. Neither of these is analogous to what you have in religion, scripture, divine revelation, and dogma. That is why there is so much emphasis on faith in religion; there is no good evidence for many or most claims, so things must be taken on faith.

quote:

---

The demand for a name older than 6000 as a confirmation, is hardly a religious factor. We have no history per se of modern humans before this date. A name does not even require writings - it can be recalled same as a folksong or a recipe. It is going to look very strange that speech emergence only alligns with religion, but not science: and you ask me if I'm shamed? If its not akin to a religion, why do you accept it so freely, when no evidence exists!

---

No history of modern humans before 6,000 years ago? False. I have excavated a number of archaeological sites older than that date, and found quite a lot of "history." Many of my colleagues have excavated far older sites. What about the famous cave paintings, some of which are far older than 6,000 years?And how do you know speech emerged with religion at 6,000 years? There really is no evidence for that. Folks now believe speech as we know it emerged somewhat over 50,000 years ago. (I feel it is far older, but I am not an expert in that field.) The origin of religion is more difficult to pin down, but there is behavior among Neanderthals that might have been religious (ritual burial of the dead). And that too is far older than 6,000 years.I think you are speaking from belief rather than knowledge. On another site I post to I use the following as a tagline: Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Good advice here as well.

quote:

---

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.

---

You are coming into the world of science, it is up to you to learn enough about that world to be able to communicate. That includes learning the terms, and just how they are used.Many of the terms used in science are specialized, while some of the common terms are used in ways that are different from the ways a layman might use them.I have a lot of terms defined on this page. You might brush up on how these terms are used.You might pay particular attention to "theory" as well as "fact" in those definitions.

You missed the point of my post.Science has pretty good definitions for all of these terms. Students learn them, implicitly or explicitly, during their undergrad and grad years, both from professors and from technical journals and texts.We don't need to redefine these terms with every newbie that comes along. It is up to you to learn the terms as used in the various fields of science, and if you want to be understood you need to use those terms correctly.You have a lot of studying ahead of you.

Unless you are submitting this to a peer reviewed journal you are wasting your time.Science and scientists aren't much impressed by folks on internet chat rooms "redefining" what they do. Nor are they going to change their use of terms to accommodate those posting on internet chat rooms.

quote:

---

In fact, there is no evidence of history per se prior to 6000, and all alledged evidences are based on flimsy premises.

---

Are you claiming that there is no evidence for anything older than 6,000 years? Or just "history" -- whatever that is?If it is the former, you are arguing from a narrow interpretation of scripture not even shared by most Christians, and certainly refuted by scientific evidence.Try this article for some good background into radiometric dating: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens