GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only
Instead of arguing this issue on a logical basis, you continue to nit pick these definitions which don’t support your argument anyway. I must assume that this is because you simply don’t have any logical arguments left to refute those that I have made. You continue to accuse me of misrepresentation, but you are the one that is misrepresenting the whole basis of this argument and the definitions as well.
I'll note at the start that you are still misrepresenting the evidence. When an encyclopedia or article on evolution is cited, you don't search for where they say what you want to say and claim that is part of the definition - you look for the definition ("evolution is ...") statement and stop when they start discussing the application of that to the evidence.
You are the one who is searching through a source to find where they say what you want it to say, not me. To my recollection, in only one case was the information I presented separated from the main definition and there was a valid reason for doing so which I will point out when it comes up. On the other hand, you are searching through the definition to cherry pick the part that agrees with you. A clarification or explanation which immediately follows the first sentence IS part of the definition. A clarification which is necessary to understand the meaning of a short-hand slogan, IS part of the definition. A definition does not have to be one sentence.
As I’ve pointed out many times, change in species over time is simply an observation which is a part of the theory. The theory itself is a statement of what is trying to be proven by the observations. Defining the change as responsible for all the diversity of life on earth is NOT an “application” of the definition to the evidence. Quite the reverse, evidence such as “change in species over time” is applied to test the theory, that it IS responsible for all the diversity of life on earth. You don’t necessarily look for “evolution is..” statement because you don’t know if they are defining the process or the theory. What you look for is “the theory of evolution” or “theory of evolution states . ” or “according to the theory of evolution . ” or . is known as the theory of evolution” or “the theory of evolution explains . ”. If these are absent, you look for what it states is the RESULT of the process since then they would be talking about the theory, not the process itself. This debate is to define what the theory of evolution is, not the processes which are part of the theory or by which the theory is realized.
The place to “stop” is at the end of the paragraph or section labeled as the definition or explanation. This is particularly true of references on the web. If you are looking up a definition for evolution and it presents you with a paragraph which it says is the definition for evolution, you are misrepresenting the definition by simply cherry picking the first sentence. You are attempting to define evolution with a cute slogan, but it takes more than that to make it clear what it is we are actually talking about.
Likewise when a dictionary definition is used and there is an entry for "biol." then that is the entry to use (they are talking about the biology definition not the general definition).
I find it almost humorous and completely hypocritical of you to point this out when you have been the one attempting all along to apply the general definition of evolution to biology when it suits you (change in “something” over time), but when the general definition disagrees with your argument (ie lower to more complex states), than you want to exclude it! You can’t have it both ways. Evolution is evolution. All generic overriding definitions apply. Biology is just a more specialized case of the general term. You cannot stop at the general term as you have been attempting to do with CISOT. You must be more specific for biology.
Despite the fact that there were only 2 or 3 definitions which even provided the general term, making little difference anyway, there is another reason which makes using the general term a perfectly valid thing to do. 16% of the definitions used the term “evolution” or “evolutionary” within the definition of evolution. For example “the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms”. Since the use of the word evolution within the definition would be reason to invalidate the definition because of circular reasoning, we can only conclude that they are using the “general” definition of evolution within the body of the main definition. These definitions are therefore validating the use of the general definition. It would then be reasonable for us to look up the general definition and substitute it’s meaning into the definition. The definition would then become “the sequence of events involved in the development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms leading to different and more advanced Kinds”.
(ABC) - Development of new features, complexity, speciation, responsibility for all the diversity of life or a common ancestor is included in the definition. This qualifies the type of change involved as molecules to man evolution since change in species over time is vague, confusing and requires explanation.
How is a species NOT changed by the development of a new feature? How is a species NOT changed by becoming a new species? How is a species NOT changed by a change in complexity? No, Development of new features IS change in species over time, Speciation IS change in species over time, Complexity IS change in species over time. You lump these together with other elements to misrepresent the definition given and misrepresent your results. This kind of misrepresentation falsifies your accounting before you begin.
You just don’t get it. However, after 70 posts I find that very hard to believe. I have stated my position too many times to count and yet you simply ignore it. You could not have even read my last post since I spent considerable time explaining this and yet you continue this deception after it has been pointed out. You are the one that has misrepresented the results with this deception. The question is whether the definition states ONLY “change in species over time” or if instead it qualifies that change with other characteristics or features. I’ll repeat. We are not looking for something that is “not change over time”, we are looking for something that is in ADDITION to change over time.
It is completely appropriate to lump those characteristics together because they all mean basically the same thing and they are in direct contrast to ONLY change over time. You have lumped all the different kinds of “change” together to misrepresent your results by calling everything change over time but it’s ok for you to do it? How hypocritical!
Who has ever said that evolution did not involve change in species over time? I certainly have not! It was recognized long before Darwin that species change over time. How then, can that be called the “theory of evolution”? How is a species NOT changed by the development of a new feature? Who said it was NOT changed? The answer is in the very quote you have cited, but apparently failed to read. I think I know how you have been able to respond so quickly now. You simply ignore most of what I have written (or don’t read it at all) and just see the things that you want to see. This is the same thing you are doing with the definitions.
The “development of a new feature” specifies the TYPE of change involved. This is regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it still qualifies the TYPE of change. We all know that species change over time. But what kind of change is it? Suppose the theory of evolution stated that all species develop horns over time. How does defining it as “change in species over time” explain that theory? You could argue “how is species NOT changed by developing horns?” But the theory doesn’t state any change, it specifically says species develop horns. It is a logical fallacy to equate the two. In the same way, the theory of evolution states that this change is one that is responsible for all the diversity of life or the development of new features etc., not just any change.
For someone that accuses everyone else of logical fallacies, you go right ahead and commit one of the most egregious without a bat of an eye. The development of a new feature implies change has occurred, but change does not imply that it will result in the development of a new feature. If the kind of change you are talking about is the kind that is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today than why not say so? What are you afraid of? Lack of evidence perhaps? Or maybe unwillingness to admit the deceitful equivocation of definitions?
This kind of misrepresentation falsifies your accounting before you begin. I stand by my latest analysis which remains completely valid. Nothing you have presented contradicts it in any way. You have introduced misrepresentations of the definitions intended solely to inflate your position rather than staying true to the intent of the authors. The following errors below completely invalidate your analysis:
- Cherry picking from the full definitions and even from the discussions following in completely different paragraphs to misrepresent the intent of the authors.
- Selecting definitions of evolutionary processes when the theory of evolution is clearly stated from the same source.
- Separating factors that belong together to minimize their impact
- Taking terms out of context to misrepresent their meaning
- Utilizing the general definition of the word “evolution” to construct your own definition (used no where in science) but disallowing its use when it disagrees with you.
- Utilizing “discussions” to dispute definitions that don’t agree with yours but disallowing the use of discussions to clarify definitions which you believe agrees with your misrepresentations.
- Categorizing all the definitions as ONLY “change in species over time” when they clearly contain additional elements (which are part of my definition) that you have ignored.
I will clarify those misrepresentations further if I have not already addressed each one. It makes absolutely no sense to repeat and refute all the individual definitions again as most fall into the categories above. Even your interpretation of the parts that you THINK are the definition is flawed. I will point a couple of these out as examples and also respond to some of your other comments and then summarize at the end.
(D) - Change in species over time, including change in frequency of alleles and descent with modification and other variations (although these are not equivalent) is the ONLY part of the definition with no other explanation that includes ABC or F.
These are equivalent, as I have pointed out and used them several times to make just that point.
Just because you say they are equivalent doesn’t make them so. We are talking about a definition for the theory of evolution which can stand on it’s own. Do you really think that some stranger reading your definition (change in species over time) for the first time is going to know what YOU personally REALLY mean by it? In fact, that is exactly what you and other evolutionists are hoping for. Someone reading that definition will be deluded into thinking that any change they might see is evolution, so evolution must be a fact, when in reality it is a complete deception.
And yet you still go and add back other parts into your evaluation that ARE part of the discussion and not the definition. That is misrepresenting what is the definition in those discussions. You do this again here even when it has already been pointed out as false misrepresentation of the definitions involved.
And who are you to say what is a false misrepresentation (who has proposed the mother of all false misrepresentations)? Just because you think it is a misrepresentation because it doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean it is.
Let's cut to the chase: the disagreement is over whether "change in species over time" is a complete definition of the scientific theory.
You’ve just now come to that conclusion? You’ve not read the more than dozens of times that I have stated that “change in species over time” is insufficient by itself? If you’ve come to this conclusion than why is that you don’t logically refute this notion? Could it be that it’s not defensible?
(R) = "change in species over time" (and variations previously noted) OR
(X) = something else is said and "change in species over time" is NOT included at all in the definition
Again, you could not have even read my last post since I dispelled this misrepresentation numerous times. The argument isn’t whether “change in species over time” (or your invalid interpretation of something you think means JUST change in species over time) is part of the definition or not. No one is arguing that “change in species over time” does not occur. It is certainly implied in every definition. The argument is whether it is the ONLY thing that appears. If there are other elements present (those that are part of the correct definition that I have proposed) that qualify the type of change, then it cannot be counted as ONLY “change in species over time” and therefore you are wrong in these designations. This immediately disqualifies the bulk of your analysis since it is a misrepresentation of the entire argument.
EVOLUTION [Lexicon]
Process that has led to the appearance and transformation of living species on earth.
Appearance of living species would be the descent of living species from (no longer living) ancestors. Transformation of living species would be change from those ancestors.
No. How deceitful! You cherry pick what you want out of the definition, then ignore the explanation so you can misinterpret what’s left. This single sentence is clearly saying that evolution is a process that has “led to the appearance” (Abiogenesis) of life on earth and then the subsequent transformation into all the diversity we see today. The subsequent sentence (which is part of the definition) makes this clear - “The first living beings .
appeared 3.8 billion years ago. Since then, life forms have diversified and adapted to their environments. All living species today have, therefore, the same origin.” That’s why all of it is the definition, so people that want to deceive do not take it out of context. Only you could interpret it another way simply to inflate your position.
(5) Berkely U
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
The Explanation:
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
It kind of amazes me that you repeat this misrepresentation after it has already been uncovered in previous posts and repeated as evidence of such on your part.
It kind of amazes me that you consider it a misrepresentation. It has not been “uncovered” since it was never “covered” in the first place. What HAS been uncovered is your attempts to misrepresent what the definitions mean. I believe this may be the only instance that I referred to earlier where I included something that was not immediately adjacent to the main definition. However, there is good reason. How can the “central idea of biological evolution” not be an equivalent definition? You have repeatedly implied that the central idea of biological evolution is “change is species over time” (because no source defines it this way), but when a reference uses this same technique, you want to ignore it.
The fact of the matter is that the “central idea of biological evolution . ” is equivalent to “Biological evolution, simply put, is the idea (theory) that all life on earth shares a common ancestor”. They go on to say that “descent with modification” is a “process”. Therefore, the first sentence of the definition is defining a process. The theory of evolution itself, which is what this debate is about, is stated in the explanation. The section labeled explanation is explaining the definition, not evolution or the details of the processes involved, and is therefore part of the definition.
Note the selective picking of elements that fit your preconceived notion of what the definition is rather than looking for what the article says is the definition: this is blatant misrepresentation of the definition here.
This is laughable. You accuse me of cherry picking but you leave out what you don’t like from the paragraph which is clearly labeled “The Definition”! Again, how hypocritical! Also, there was no selective picking of elements on my part. I could have just as well included “just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother” or other parts, but clearly indicated that I was leaving them out ( . ) simply to save space because they added nothing.
This definition contains concepts (micro and macro evolution) that obviously need further explanation. The part that follows is the explanation of the definition and is therefore part of the definition. If a word within a definition is being explained, it is valid to substitute that explanation into the definition and it remains valid. The ONLY reason I can fathom that you would want to EXCLUDE explanations and clarifications of the definitions is because you want to be deceptive as to the definition’s meaning. You don’t agree so you want to leave them out. This is true misrepresentation and out right deceit. Notice that the explanation clearly states that evolution “is NOT simply a matter of change over time”.
(6) Modern Biology, Its Conceptual Foundations” by Elof Axel Carlson
evolution: a theory of complexity in the organization of life from the origins of life to the present with the premise that all life is related by common descent to the first forms of life on earth. 6, 229, 257, 260, 264, 267, 319
Looking at these (briefly), p 6 is the introduction and it discusses the difference between fact and theory, p 229 is the start of Section V: Evolution, and it discusses some of the historical theories, p 257 discusses "recapitulation" and the study of heredity in germ-cells, p 260 discusses the random probability distribution of mutations and a tendency for statis in stable environments, change in unstable environments, p 264 discusses 3 competing theories of evolution, p 267 says evolution is an application of basic scientific processes, and p319 involves a study of the changes in hemoglobin between humans and other apes. In none of those references is the descent from a single common ancestor at the origins of life necessary to the discussion of evolution.
Unbelievable! You just scolded me for referring to an “explanation” but hypocritically when the definition doesn’t fit what you want, you attempt to discredit it by using explanations separated by many pages and entirely different sections of the whole book. However, if the definition IS supposedly what you want, then explanations of the definition immediately following are invalidated.
(7) Barnes and Noble Thesaurus of Biology
evolution: the process by which more complex forms of life have arisen from simpler forms over millions of years (see geological time scale p226 and natural selection).
This is still change in species over time. The change from simpler to more complex is still change. Millions of years is also only the time span for the evolution of Homo sapiens from Homo habilis, not that significant in the total evolutionary picture.
I point this one out as an example of how blatant your misrepresentation of these definitions are, particularly after I have spent literally paragraphs in my last post explaining this deception. It does not matter whether you happen to interpret it as ONLY “change in species over time”. The definition does not say this. It makes it very clear that the TYPE of change is one in which complex forms of life have arisen from simpler ones over millions of years. “Change in species over time” does NOT specify the type of change. This definition agrees with the definition I have proposed, not yours.
Also, 4.5 billion years IS “millions of years”. It does not say it’s only the span of time between homo sapiens and homo habilis. The explanation indicates it is the span of time since life first appeared on earth (all the geological periods).
(9) U of Michigan - The university of Michigan teaches that Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: 1) Organisms have changed over time 2) All organisms are derived from common ancestors 3) Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time and 4) The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection(ABC) (F)
This one gets a little long ... and I've left out some parts.
This is a discussion of Darwin's theory of evolution and not the modern science one. Furthermore, the summary section would list the elements that are critical to it, and that summary is all about "change in species over time" ...
But that is not all: the previous lesson in the series has the current scientific definitions:
Both of those definitions of biological evolution involve "change in species over time" and that is what the University of Michigan really teaches as the definitions of evolution. You completely ignore the definitions listed for evolution and go on until you can find something - anything - that meets your false misconception of what the definition should be. This is not the way honest research is done.
I was going to pass this one up until you made an accusation regarding the “honesty” of my research. I left some of your response out for brevity. I did exactly what you did except perhaps with more relevancy. This debate is to determine a statement of the “Theory of evolution”, not the “process” and that’s what I searched the web for. Your more current definitions are invalid because they are NOT talking about the theory of evolution which is what this debate is about. When did Darwin’s theory become invalid? It may have been propped up or added to by mechanisms which supposedly can produce the results theorized by Darwin but that does not change the theory. I simply stated a source which defined the “Theory”. You are the one which has gone on and produced literally pages of text searching to find something - anything - that meets your false misconception of what the definition of the theory should be. That is not the way honest research is done. Find references which define the theory of evolution, not modern processes which support the theory and have no relevance to this discussion.
Just to emphasize the point further, here is a quote from “The book of Life”, 1993 by various authors - “The theory of evolution by natural selection has not changed at all in its basic principles since it was formulated by Charles Darwin in 1859. Indeed, some of the best evidence is still based on the kinds of field observations which he had made over the previous thirty years before he published his famous book.” There are many other sources which point this out, at least one other I reference later.
16) The Compact Oxford English Dictionary
1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.
This doesn't really describe what is going on or what the process is. Is it change in species over time or something else? We can't really tell from this (too concise?).
It’s perfectly clear, but you don’t want to admit it. It says evolution is responsible for the development of different “KINDS” of organisms, not just any change.
They also list a number of other links for comparison. So I also looked up "evolve" with this result:
And "speciation" ...
And "Darwinism" ...
And "develop" ...
Wonderful! If the definition doesn’t say what you want it to, let’s look up some irrelevant terms to boost your argument.
I don't see anything in this that is NOT change in species over time.
As previously stated, ALL definitions involve change over time. They’d better or else all life on earth could not have supposedly developed from nothing. That they involve change is irrelevant. What’s important is that it specifies the type of change - that which is responsible for the development of different “KINDS” of organisms. Therefore, this definition cannot be counted for stating ONLY change in species over time.
(18) Wiktionary
1. (general) A gradual process of development, formation, or growth, esp. one leading to a more advanced or complex form.
2. (biology) The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.
Do I need to say it? You even omitted where it said "(general)" in your misrepresentation of the definition. Do you really think this is valid?
Do you really think it’s not? Really, it makes little difference one way or the other since the definitions still report overwhelmingly in my favor. However on principal, yes, it is absolutely valid. As I said previously, I find it very hypocritical of you to use the general definition of evolution (change in “something” over time), and apply it to biology to come up with “Change in species over time” but exclude the general definition when it doesn’t appear to work in your favor. NONE of the definitions define evolution as “Change in species over time”. You are interpreting what they say based on the general definition of evolution to come to this conclusion. The biological definition is a more specific example of the general case with qualifiers added to specify the type of change. This in no way invalidates the general definition.
It is a logical fallacy to deny that the general definition does not apply. Is an automobile accident an example of “change in cars over time”? Of course it is. But you cannot describe accidents as ONLY “change in cars over time” since you could also be describing change in car designs or rusting of cars over long periods. You need a more specific definition to tell you what type of change you are referring to. Plus, I’ve shown that the general definition is used and validated within other definitions.
(21) Ultralingua Online Dictionaryhttp://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms; theory of evolution n. A scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals(ABC)
and I find the definition for "theory of evolution" rather lacking.-- where is the rest of what we know of life, the much more numerous species that are not just plants and animals?
I also do not get hung up over the use of "origins" here, seeing as they are talking about the origins of individual species of plants and animals (and not the origins of life).
An event that is A beginning, not THE beginning, and attributable to one's ancestry. Speciation is A beginning of a species.
First, this debate is specifically about the “theory of evolution”, not the process or whatever, so this definition is certainly applicable. While we have discovered life that may be hard to classify, the term “plants and animals” has generally and historically been accepted to include ALL life.
In regards to “origins”, how do you know that “they are talking about the origins of individual species of plants and animals (and not the origins of life)”? On the contrary, they ARE talking about the origins of ALL life. Your argument reminds me of the panspermia theory. You can’t explain how life evolved here, so let’s push the argument out to somewhere else . but that doesn’t explain how life evolved “somewhere else”.
Darwin was not proposing his theory to explain the beginning of a particular “species”, like a variety of finch. Everyone already knew that this happens as could plainly be seen by domestic breeding. His theory was meant to explain how ALL life (ALL species) evolved. He clearly stated this on numerous occasions and postulated about the first “prototype” life from which all others are derived. This is all part of his theory which is stated in the definition. If you look at the beginning of a particular species, you must ask yourself what the species was prior to that, and then prior to that and again until inevitably you get to the “origin” of the first species. This is clearly part of the “sequence of events involved” in the origin of species.
(24) Websters 1913 Unabridged Dictionary
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=ev.... (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.(ABC)
Again, what part of this is NOT change in species over time?
Well, first of all, it’s the “history of steps”. Taken to its logical conclusion, the definitions which list this feature are telling us in no uncertain terms that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today. Second, the change is “gradual”. Gradual is defined as changing, or developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees. As we’ve seen, sources which are not attempting to be as concise as dictionaries generally expand this to be millions of years. However, all the other evidence taken together is overwhelming enough that we don’t need to debate what they mean by “gradual”. The point, however, is that it is still a qualifier of the change, not just any change.
(26) AllWords Online Dictionaryhttp://www.allwords.com/index.php3. biol. The cumulative changes in the characteristics of living organisms or populations of organisms from generation to generation, resulting in the development of new types of organism over long periods of time.(ABC) (F)
What do they mean by "long periods of time"? A couple of days is a "long period of time" for the evolution of bacteria. A better description would be "over many generations" as that would take into account the different life spans of different species. There is nothing here that is NOT change in species over time.
While this definition is similar to many that I have already pointed out, I’ll highlight this one to be clear since some of the terms used may not be as specific but nevertheless you continue to use the same fallacious arguments. Bacteria do not evolve at all, so your statement regarding days being a “long period of time” for them is not only irrelevant but is a logical fallacy. While I agree that long periods of time can be interpreted differently in various contexts, it is almost always interpreted as millions/billions of years in regards to evolution. This is due to the fact that we do not observe creatures changing into different kinds except in the fallacious interpretation of the fossil record which is considered to span billions of years. Why do you suppose evolutionists were surprised to find finch beaks changing observably in less than hundreds of years?
The fact this involves change in species over time is completely and totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that it qualifies the type of change as one which results “in the development of new types of organisms over long periods of time”. Of course, “type” is synonymous with “kind”. Therefore this definition cannot be counted as one which specifies ONLY change in species over time.
(29)(a) Dictionary by Labor Law Talk
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/biological%20evolutionEvolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.
The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.
As the theory of evolution by natural selection has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism.
Scientific theory
Currently, the modern synthesis is by scientific consensus the best theory of the evolution of species. This is the synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Mendel's theory of the gene made possible by population genetics. This theory conceives of evolution as any change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool. In the modern synthesis, change may be caused by a number of different mechanisms, such as natural selection or genetic drift. The genetic isolation of two populations, which allows their gene pools to diverge, results in speciation.
The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects:
1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage.
3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.
"Often used" does not mean "always used", nor is Darwin's ("this theory") necessarily the same as the modern scientific theory of evolution (see UMich, #9, above). You are also taking elements from the discussion of the application of the theory to the evidence. The scientific definition is clearly delineated by the first paragraph break.
This definition supports my contention in almost every aspect, so you are climbing the wrong tree here. I have stated endlessly that the “word” evolution can mean many things. When you come across one that talks about it’s meaning as the “theory of evolution”, that’s the one you take since that is what this discussion is about. Use of the term “often used” simply recognizes the fact that it can be used different ways in other disciplines, as a process, or as a general term and does not negate its meaning as the “theory of evolution”. The first paragraph clearly states it is referring to a “process”. The second paragraph is clearly the correct statement of the “theory of evolution”.
In addition, it says that this theory (the second paragraph which corresponds almost identically with my definition) is universally accepted in the scientific community.
Therefore, you ought to be using the definition accepted by scientists, not your personally made up slogan of “change in species over time”.
Lest you think that the “synthesis” has discarded the basic theory, the article goes on to describe that it still includes the basic tenants of my definition, namely, descent of all organisms from a single ancestor (which of course is supposed to have happened billions of years ago) and the origin of “novel” (completely new) traits as being a requirement.
(29)(b) Dictionary by Labor Law Talk
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Evolutionary_biologyEvolutionary biology is a subfield of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time, i.e. their evolution. One who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist, or less frequently evolutionist .
NOT listed in the list of disciplines is abiogenesis. This is also change in species over time: speciation and descent with modification.
Grasping at more straws . This one will need to be removed. This source has already defined the theory of evolution previously. The definition of the science of evolutionary biology is completely irrelevant. And why should abiogenesis necessarily appear in a list of disciplines? I don’t want to get into a debate about whether abiogenesis is a “discipline” or not. However, it is a theory which can be studied by any number of “disciplines”. Stanley Miller was a “biologist” and so was Pasteur.
(29)(c) Evolution
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/evolutionquote:
1. evolution - a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"
Antonyms: degeneration, devolution - the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality
Synonyms: development
2. evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
Synonyms: phylogeny, phylogenesis
I’m also eliminating this one. This is simply a repeat of the Word-net definition (14). On this very same page it list the definition of the theory of evolution that we’ve already discussed from this source and which is the topic of this debate. While it still supports my definition, it is clear that they are using the “noun” as a definition of the process, not the theory which is defined just below it. The article needs to be taken as a whole. If we are going to cherry pick every mention of evolution from a single source, than as I’ve said previously, I’d challenge you to find ANY comprehensive source which does not mention that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today or any of the other basic tenants of my definition.
(32) Dinosauria Onlinehttp://www.dinosauria.com/dml/diction.htm#Eevolution v. changes in the character states of organisms, species, and clades through time (D)
Agreed again.
Actually, I’ve changed my mind about this one. Since it refers to changes in “character states” of clades (“a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor.”), it is implying that evolution includes the change of organisms since the first prototype (billions of years ago) resulting in all the diversity we see today and therefore is clearly indicating that it is more than just ANY change. As I pointed out previously, this would be treated in a similar way to definitions which include statements regarding the “sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organism” or “changes throughout time” since this sequence logically takes you back to the origin of life or implies all the time since life has been on the earth.
I happen to have Encarta Encyclopedia, 1997:
Evolution, in biology, the complex of processes by which living organisms originated on earth and have been diversified and modified through sustained changes in form and function. The earliest known fossil organisms are single-celled forms resembling modern bacteria; they date from about 3.4 billion years ago. Evolution has resulted in successive radiations of new types of organisms, many of which have become extinct, but some of which have developed into the present fauna and flora of the world. Extinction and diversification continue today.
This clears up the apparent reference to abiogenesis from your quote and shows they are talking about the diversification of species after the first known life form from the fossil record.
This clears up nothing of the sort. The definition clearly spells out that they are including how living organisms “originated on earth” (abiogenesis). Nowhere does it specifically exclude it after that statement.
(46) Ernst Mayr, “What Evolution is”: Evolution - The gradual process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life. (ABC) (F)
[Various quotes/references from the book]
This is still change in species over time. Mayr also obviously believes that the evidence for this happening since the origin of life is overwhelming, but this doesn't make that part of the definition of evolution - that is just the application of the theory to the evidence. He doesn't say that long periods of time are a necessary part of the theory, just that they are part of the evidence for evolution.
The referenced quote IS the definition of evolution used by Mayr. That’s what a glossary is - a definition of terms used. You have referenced them as well. I find it amazingly hypocritical of you to go back through various widely separated sections of this book in an attempt to explain what he meant by this definition when you THINK it agrees with you, but you want to exclude from consideration sentences immediately following the first sentence in a complete definition when it doesn’t agree with you! If you are opening up the full discussion of evolution as a tool to “interpret” the definition, then you have done yourself in. EVERY complete discussion on evolution will include the various concepts I have pointed out such as millions/billions of years, all life evolving from a single common ancestor, responsibility for all the diversity of life and even abiogenesis (as Mayr’s book does). The definitions either stand on their own or they don’t. You can’t selectively and deceptively use explanations only when it suits you.
In any case, Mayr specifies that evolution has been occurring since the origin of life (supposedly billions of years ago), clearly implying that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today. Therefore, this is NOT simply any “change in species over time”.
I do find it interesting that you chose to quote his diatribe regarding how evolution is a “fact”. “That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that it has become irrational to call it a theory” Mayr says. How deluded! This is exactly the confusion and equivocation of terms that I have talked about and how prominent evolutionists have touted evolution as being a “fact”. Many scientists on the other hand have trouble raising evolution even to the level of a hypothesis. Karl Popper, arguably the greatest science philosopher of all time said the following regarding evolution “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme” - a valid reason why some of the “metaphysical” (religious) definitions of evolution should apply.
(47) Kerkut: “General Theory of Evolution” (GTE) - The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. (ABC) (F)
and again I can't verify this at this time. The fact that this is presented as a "GTE" rather than a normal "theory of evolution" leaves me unimpressed that his has to be included in the list until I can see what he is talking about.
I’d be happy to remove definitions from evaluation if you have provided evidence that it doesn’t belong. However, to decide you’re not going to include it because you don’t like what it says and can’t verify it, is not acceptable. The “GTE” is what this debate is about. The majority of definitions you have produced don’t even mention the “theory of evolution”. By that line of reasoning, they should all be tossed. And actually, I think they should.
(48) Biology, Campbell, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Addison-Wesley, 1993: Evolution - All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today. (ABC) (F)
Another blank at the library. Note that "from its earliest beginnings" applies to a 6000 year creation as much as it does to a 3.5 billion year expanse of life. This is just change in species over time, change that can be applied "from its earliest beginnings" but those beginnings are not defined.
Come on! You know as well as I do that since this is a definition for evolution that they are talking about 3.5 billion years. This would definitely go under the column of millions/billions of years even though it is implied instead of stated directly. If not, you are again being hypocritical. If you are discounting the age because it applies equally to the creationist’s timeframe, than why isn’t CISOT itself discounted since it applies equally to the creationist’s position as well?
This is change in species over time, plus some undefined "higher" versus "lower" direction. What is "higher"?
This is laughable. “Change in species over time” - what is this except some undefined change! What kind of change? No one reading this definition would understand what you mean. I’ve stated many times that you are proposing a completely nebulous, confusing and ambiguous definition which could mean almost anything and yet you express consternation over a completely clear term of “higher”. Any reader would understand that in this context higher means more advanced, more complex, more developed, and any scientist would understand that it means greater genetic information content. They even provided an example of what higher is. My goodness!
(51) - Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 2nd edition, Marshal Cavendish Corporation, 1996,2004
Evolution is genetic change that takes place over time within a group of organisms.
Evolution can be discussed either in terms of the development of a species as it adapts to its surrounding environment over successive generations (microevolution) or
according to the theory that life on Earth has gradually developed from simple to complex organisms over a four-billion-year history (macroevolution).
Change in species over time. Covers both microevolution and macroevolution.
Wrong. First, it is ridiculous to consider ANY genetic change to be evolution and they are incorrect to include it as part of the definition. A few other sources do this as well and of course that is what this debate is about. How can the many groups of organisms (people) in this county that have a myriad of genetic diseases be considered evolution? If that’s evolution, I don’t want it! Or, a less damaging example is simply groups of people born with blue or brown eyes. Genetics is the way in which the design of an organism is passed on to it’s offspring, defects and all. It’s good observable and operational science, but it is not the theory of evolution.
As noted earlier, the theory of evolution by natural selection
has not changed at all in its basic principles since it was formulated by Charles Darwin in 1859. Once Evolutionists discovered a new genetic mechanism that they think could account for evolutionary changes, they started calling this evolution. However, this is only an evolutionary mechanism by their “definition” since there is zero real operational scientific evidence that genetic change can create macro evolutionary changes.
What they have defined is a genetic “mechanism” or process, NOT the theory of evolution which has not fundamentally changed and is what this debate is about. Notice that they associate micro evolution with adaptation (which I have stated is what CISOT really is) and then define the “theory” as almost EXACTLY what I have said is the real statement of the theory of evolution, calling it macro-evolution. This should answer your question about how I define macro-evolution.
This definition confirms that “micro-evolution” is simply adaptation and “macro-evolution” is Darwin’s theory of evolution - 2 very different things. Equating the two without any scientific evidence under the umbrella of “any genetic change” is the deceit that I have repeatedly pointed out.
Genetic change is the cause of adaptation, but NOT evolution. The definition of the THEORY is what we are looking for and this source supports my contention nicely.
(52) [REMOVED]- Encyclopedia of Evolution, vol 1, Oxford University Press, 2002
Applied to biology, evolution describes genetic changes that occur in organisms over time. It is distinct from maturational changes that occur during development or in organisms that have metamorphosis. In some contexts - most conspicuously when discussing "human evolution" - the term often acquires an implicit sense of progress such that later forms are assumed to be more complex and sophisticated than their primitive ancestors. In other contexts, "evolution" connotes a sense of adaptation, such that evolved forms are better suited to coping with the demands of the environment.
I’m going to have to eliminate this one. “Applied to biology, evolution describes genetic changes that occur in organisms over time” is not a definition. Evolution also describes how all life evolved on earth. The fact is that most reference books don’t define evolution at all, they just discuss it. If we are going to pick things out of discussions, then as I’ve said repeatedly, EVERY textbook that describes evolution in detail, will talk about how it is the source of all the diversity of life we see today. In addition, they will almost always talk about abiogenesis. We are also looking for a statement of the theory of evolution, not a “definition” of the word evolution or the processes involved.
(52) - Concise Encyclopedia of Biology, (seem to be missing publisher and date)
Evolutionary theory: a theory founded in particular by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), that the variety of living forms on the Earth is the result of a lengthy and complicated process known as evolution, and that this process still continues today. In the course of evolution, the numerous and various modern living forms descended from a few primitive forms with a low level of organisation. The E.t. is now accepted by all serious scientists
Synthetic theory of evolution: A modern theory of evolution incorporating Darwin's theory of selection, Mendelian genetics, and genetics at the molecular level. Five mechanisms are assumed to operate .
Selection primarily ensures that phylogenetic evolution results in more appropriate adaptations of the organism to the environment. In contrast, the other four mechanisms occur more or less accidentally and are nondirectional with respect to the form and function of the organism. Both microevolution (differentiation and divergence up to the status of species) and macroevolution (formation of larger and more comprehensive taxa, e.g. at and above the rank of genus) are ultimately due to the operation of these five factors within populations.
These 5 mechanisms add up to change in species over time. Note the emphasis on nondirectional changes, and the fact that the only mechanism that provides any kind of direction only "results in more appropriate adaptations of the organism to the environment" - there is no "progress" or "higher" or "more complex" just more "appropriate" adaptation. This also means that these concepts are not required parts of the theory of evolution.
Talk about cherry picking! This source clearly defines the theory of evolution in the first paragraph. Since you don’t like what it says, you search through the discussion to cherry pick what you want. How hypocritical, since you falsely accuse me of doing the same thing.
You are confusing various concepts and terms here. From the first paragraph, this source clearly defines the theory of evolution (which again is what this debate is about) as being responsible for all the “modern” diversity of life we see today over the history of the earth beginning with a few “primitive” forms (kinds) with a “Low” level of organization (information). Since he is contrasting “low level of organization” and “primitive” with “modern” the clear implication is that modern means “higher” and more complex.
In addition, it very clearly and refreshingly differentiates the “theory of evolution” stated above (and again what this debate is about), with the “process known as evolution”. The definition uses the term “evolution” referring to the “process” within the definition of the theory. In other words, you can use the word “evolution” as referring to the process of evolution or as a statement of the theory. Several other sources made this clear as well. The theory is not a factual observation but talks about the theoretical RESULTS of the processes involved and again agrees with my definition. Not only that, it states that this evolutionary theory is TODAY accepted by all serious scientists.
Therefore, you ought to be using the definition accepted by scientists, not your personally made up slogan of “change in species over time”.
Regarding synthetic theory, this source does not really define it. It comments on the fact that it involves 5 mechanisms (processes) that are “assumed” to operate. Meaning, of course, that they are only assumed (presupposition) to produce evolutionary results without any real scientific evidence of doing so. I’ve not repeated the descriptions of the 5 mechanisms to save space.
Regardless, when I have I ever said that evolutionary mechanisms are directional? What’s the “direction” of a mutation? If it has ANY direction it is “down”. Creationists know that there is no upward direction to these processes. Random directionless processes produce nothing but random directionless results. The evolutionists are the ones that have been fooled into thinking that they can produce higher order. In contrast to the processes or mechanisms, the “theory” of evolution dictates that over time that the “appropriate” adaptations produce higher complexity and information. How else could all the variety of life today be produced from primordial soup? Therefore, changes which do not produce higher complexity (in “synthetic” terms meaning greater genetic information content) is NOT evolution, it is simply an example of the wonderful ability of the created kinds to adapt to their environment.
It also comments that both micro and macro evolution are due to these 5 factors. Of course, all scientists, both creationists and evolutionists alike, agree that they contribute to adaptation (micro evolution). However, there is no real world operational scientific evidence to suggest that they can produce macro evolutionary changes (real evolution). The only evidence for that is a false and manufactured interpretation of the fossil record.
Therefore, to only mention micro evolution (change in species over time) in the definition is where the disagreement lies because you are deceptively hiding the fact that you also mean macro evolution. If micro and macro evolution were the same thing, than why are there 2 different terms? Since this reference also discusses macro evolution, at least it makes it clear that evolution is responsible for the “larger and more comprehensive” set of organisms and therefore different “kinds” which agrees with my definition not yours.
Since you’ve taken the opportunity to add some definitions, I’ll include a few extra as well.
(53) “Life before man”, Zdenek V. Spinar, American Heritage Press, 1972
“Evolution - The process by which living things develop from simpler, generalized forms to the more complex and specialized, each generation being better fitted to survive and propagate in the particular niche of the environment it occupies. When the environment changes, the too highly specialized types are unable to adapt and so become extinct.”
This is the entire entry from the glossary. Notice the movement from simple
Anglagard and I can tackle another debate- the one about "proofs" against the Flood.
™ Version 4.2
