I agree with the recent comment that Vashgun seems less interested in defining evolution than in arguing about it, but when Vashgun began this thread he did suggest a definition. He wanted evolution limited to describing "observable change" in "living systems" and in an "observed time frame." He also wanted the definition to include no mention of mechanisms, which I assume would be things like cell division, mutation, natural selection and so forth.
Any theory is just an attempt to represent what happens in the real world in terms of general rules. Vashgun's restrictions seem more to do with how he would like evolution defined and less to do with observations from the real world. This has forced this thread into side discussions of things like what is a religion, what is a theory, and what is science.
Working through these issues seems like it should be a prerequisite to arguing about the definition of the theory of evolution, so I think these discussions should continue in this thread, but unless someone objects strongly I'm going to change the title of this thread to "Prerequisites for Defining Evolution".
A side note: the thread is trending toward too many comments of a personal nature that don't really address the topic in any beneficial way.
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2
