The Definition for the Theory of Evolution

Definition 1 The first is a general overview of evolution, and the latter is a specific overview (ie, natural history). Neither is a definition of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a collection of mechanisms that describe how hereditary change in species over time happens.

Now that is a description of the theory, perhaps even an overview of the theory. You start your definition with a fact, and then go on to describe one factor which can cause the fact. I don't think it is possible to 'define' a theory. However it is possible to define the term 'The Theory of Evolution'. A definition should really be able to be tacked on to the prefix 'The theory of evolution is...'.As to the question, 'what are these mechanisms that the theory describes?' we might turn to something like your description. We know that there are several mechanisms, selection being the one you focussed on and of course there is hereditary variation, neutral drift and epigenetics etc.My concise statement tells you what the theory of evolution is, not what the mechanisms are, not how they operate or how they cause change...just a definition of The theory of EvolutionEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hehehe, a discussion on definitions getting bogged down by the meaning of words? Yes - if we were going to describe the theory of evolution that is currently accepted by a consensus of those that study it - but such a thing is difficult to do concisely. If we are to give it a name it would probably be 'The Synthetic Theory of Evolution'. It is a synthesis of a number of theories, such as Darwinism and Mendelian genetics as well as more modern theories stemming from our understanding of genetics. I suppose you could define the synthetic theory like this site does:

quote:

---

Synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian selection into a modern theory of evolutionary change.

---

Or this one:

quote:

---

[The Synthetic Theory is] essentially a combination of Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection, Gregor Mendel's basic understanding of genetic inheritance, along with evolutionary theories developed since the early 20th century by population geneticists and more recently by molecular biologists

---

Trying to include all of the mechanisms into the definition will fall foul of the original parameter by being necessarily verbose. Probably the size of a book or more likely several hundred books - just see how wordy Gould got in his 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory'

Quite the contrary, I don't think it is possible, not without losing the concise edge. If I am going to describe the theory of evolution I would say it includes natural selection, hereditary variation, neutral drift and epigenetics to name a few but I would be more keen to draw a line between the phenomenon and the theory that explains the phenomenon.What is the theory of evolution? It is the theory that explains the phenomenon of evolution. It is a body of knowledge of hypotheses and theories that, when combined help explain all the ways we know how population changes can occur under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are present in life and so the theory can help explain the evolution of biological life. Some examples of these sub-theories include the process of natural selection acting on hereditary variations, neutral genetic drift, recombination of recessive and dominant traits and so on and so forth.

Realising that this might be going down the route of pedantic semantics, but you've just described in more detail one item on RAZD's list: natural selection.

The first big hurdle is to try and convince creationists that they don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. We shouldn't word it so that they do have a problem with it just to fit their misconceptions. Creationists agree that (at least most of) the mechanisms proposed in the ToE can lead to genetic changes in a population.The disagreement is twofold: How much change the theory of evolution can explain (it can explain micro but not macro according to the creationists) and how much change has occurred on earth (only micro and not macro).Either way, there is little true quarrel from creationists about the theory - most think that common ancestry is the theory of evolution and we should take pains to steer them from that misconception. It is only when we agree on consistent terms that we can have a meaningful debate.

No, but there is a consistent description of it that does not need to refer to Darwinism. If you wish to discuss the theory of evolution you would have to talk about a synthesis of various biological theories. If you want to know what those theories are you can start naming them. Darwinism, Mendelian genetics, gene drift. I can tailor the description quite easily depending on how much information you want.You could spend hundreds of books describing all the parts of the Theory of Evolution, as I said earlier, and this is hardly a failing. And you then go on to say that Biology is harder to describe than physics!!! Sure, its easy to say 'the Universe exploded from nothing and gravity is a force of attraction'. I can do that for biology just as easily. Then, as with biology we then hear talk about further complications such as the expansion of time and space, how gravity is warping of the fabric of space and time caused by masses, masses being energy.And soon enough - your head will explode. It can easily (and is often) discarded as mumbo jumbo.You seem to think that the scientific community does a good job on getting the theory of relativity across to the public, despite the fact that almost everybody doesn't even have the first clue about it. Most people don't even realize that gravity, relativity and the big bang are part and parcel of relativity!The end result is that some people don't know these things because they don't care to. Others don't listen to these things because they choose to believe strawmen so they don't have to accept the disturbing conclusions.In the end, it is not the scientific community that has to present the theory to the public - there job is doing science not teaching it (though given the academia side of it, some scientists do both or even just teach it). The information is out there for anybody who actually wants the information - it took me about 12 months to get decently acquainted with the theory with only a casual amount of time exploring it. I found the sources engaging and interesting but most people just don't care.

Well that does get done - but that isn't what the theory of evolution deals in since it deals with changes to populations not changes within individual genomes. Sure - there is some cross over and genetics has an understanding of mutation 'hot spots' where the probability of an uncorrected copying error will occur.

Right - like how the biological community talks about peppered moths without 'jargon' and then talk about dinosaurs and birds and mammals and all of natural history without resorting to jargon.However - you ask the random person what relativity is and he might say 'nothing can travel faster than light' or 'e=mc²' and that's about it. Ask them about evolution and they'll talk about dinosaurs and birds, they might throw in natural selection and/or 'survival of the fittest'. The public don't really care, and get their information from popular culture, not scientists.The more complex the subject, the more distorted it has to get to be understood by a passively observing Joe Public. I'm more of a physicist than biologist, and I have to call baloney on this: it is one of those snobbish things physicists say. It's like how physicists get consulted in sci-fi productions, but biologists rarely do. Biology is specific subset of physics - dealing with a complex subject matter. However, biology has had its Carl Sagan - Stephen J Gould. Would it be great to have other charismatic leaders explaining the science to people? Yes, always! I don't see them in desperate 'need' of it though. And we still have PZ Myers and Dawkins, who are at least excellent writers.

And most people would rather stick pins in their eyes that hear about the difference of the fundamental particles or learn about the unification of the strong nuclear force.On the other hand...mutants? Mutations? Cool. (nearly) Everybody understands that genetic mutations can have big effects on our bodies and if that effect is good, then that mutation might become the 'norm'. Like giraffes with long necks or dinosaurs into birds.If you want to pick and choose the scales to make it look like physics has got its act together and is awesomely cool and biologists are perceived as mumbo jumbo talking boors go for it - but I reject it. Sure - physics leads to technology so it holds people interest longer (warp engines! Teleportation! Laser guns!), but biology gets a look in where it can.

Right - they have watered down the salient points and have captured the imagination of the public who then go onto misunderstand the theories to tragic levels.And so have the biologists. Evolution has massively taken hold in the public's imagination and you'd be deluded to think otherwise. As with the big bang, gravity, or the laws of motion, the public has a wonky understanding of it but that's to be expected. You assert that physics has done this great job, and I agree it has and it is a subject that makes it easier. However, I do not see evidence that biology has failed, I see the contrary. ESPECIALLY today - just look at how much press biology is getting right now - the EvC controversy is making biology a more 'sexy' subject in its own right. Except of course, there are plenty of people that go to the public. And in exactly the same way physicists complain about the way the media portrays the big bang, they complain about how the media misrepresents the theories. And then people like you like to imagine that scientists have the power to control the media. I've never heard Dawkins insult those who are not fully cognisant of biological theories. It certainly would hamper his book writing since basically all of his books are explaining evolution to those who aren't completely up to scratch with the ideas. Have you read any Dawkins? Or are you basing this on what his critics say about his recent controversial book? I find Dawkins to be an excellently patient explainer of ideas that I had previously been ignorant of, and at no point did he prefix anything with 'If you don't know anything about this chapter before reading it you are stupid'. Sounds like a good excuse for me to include this video then. It's Dawkins giving a lecture on neo-darwinism (so is thus on topic - ZING!). If this is the last on the topic then we'll let watchers of the video judge Dawkins on this (I haven't had time to watch it all, but I look forward to it).

How about we reword your statement to be more inline with scientific thought:

quote:

---

an explanatory framework attempting to explain how populations of biological organisms may have changed with the passing of generations with no assistance from a Divine Creator explicitly necessary.

---

The Theory of Evolution is not an interpretation of data. That would be Natural History which is an interpretation of data that uses the explanatory framework that is the ToE. That is why that is cut out. It does not describe nature producing itself: It is only concerned about biology and nature existed a hell of a lot longer than life has so that is why that is cut out. Finally the ToE does not require the absence of a Divine Creator, it works equally well in a universe with or without one.

If you agree with my wording - great. I consider it different from your wording in several important ways. I point them out in my post. It really doesn't. Sure - one has had to examine data and draw conclusions from that data (that's called testing your theory) it is still a collection of proposed mechanisms. If you think that is the point of ToE - then you've gone horribly wrong. A theory is used to explain something. The theory of evolution is used to explain evolution. Evolution is change in population over time. We can use the theory to explain change from one generation to the next, or use it to explain much larger changes - say over the history of life on earth.If you think otherwise it is no wonder you have such hostility towards it.

I don't know what that is, sorry. Easily. Just about any book on the theory of evolution. The best I've ever found is that the theory of evolution was the first working non-supernatural account for biological change and the origin of our species. A concept which shocked the world because the origin of man was the last bastion of the Abrahamic God, especially as it came at a time which the age of the earth started being calculated far in excess of Biblical accounts.That isn't the point of the ToE, its a social consequence of it was when combined with facts from paleontology and geology (and later, genetics) in a Young Earth Christian society. I think I adequately described that in Message 55 -

quote:

---

an explanatory framework attempting to explain how populations of biological organisms may have changed with the passing of generations with no assistance from a Divine Creator explicitly necessary.

---

God is not necessary for the science to work, that does not mean that God does not get involved - just that he isn't needed to get involved. This is the same of course as any modern scientific theory. God is just as 'banished' from the Germ theory or relativity etc etc.

Feel free to append anything you want that is not required by evolution. You could even use natural things like 'a combustion engine'. Of course it just describes what a scientific theory of evolution should do. Most of which I agree with, still Ray was talking about what the Theory means to him, so I tried to correct some of the incorrect statements whilst keeping it in his paradigm.