Re-Theory of Evolution

Thanks ICANT Let me rephrase: I don't think what you claimed occurs. We've had threads on cosmological "evolution" and on abiogenesis. More threads are about biological evolution because that is what the is involved in biological evolution. The statement struck me along the lines of "three red cars went through an intersection, then two blue cars had an accident: why are we talking about blue cars when we are talking about accidents when there are red cars as well?" Only for the 10% that don't agree with evolution ... but again most of this "problem" is of it's own making: the "kitchen sink" definition of evolution is not promoted by scientists but by creationists. They keep repeating falsehoods like "goo to you" and "molecule to man" evolution (implying teleology is involved and that mankind is the purpose of evolution).Whether people agree with science is immaterial: what is material is whether the science has the facts right. But it is creationists that are doing all the conflating of one with the other. The real question though, is why is this not cleared up the moment anyone asks about any other kind of evolution and the biologists/evolutionists tell you they are only talking about biological evolution. Why doesn't the misperception just go away?Biological evolution involves biological processes, and these do not, can not apply to stars.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Wrong. The theory of biological evolution is only the most prominent of the theories of evolution. As such it claims the "Theory of Evolution" as being its own. The context of the discussion is important - If you're talking biology, then ToE means ToBiologicalE. I, however, see no reason the default meaning of "Theory of Evolution" must be that of biological evolution.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Thanks RAZD, So why can't it be refered to as what it is? The Theory of Biological Evolution.End of problem.God Bless,

ToBE, or not ToBE, that is the question.It is always better to be more concise and explicit in what you mean.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Moose,I will now share something I found while I was on my time out. The University of Michigan cover all these things in a lecture continuing a three lecture series on biological, or organic, evolution.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

In http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?Where Admin gave my deserved time out he said:

quote:

---

When you return, if you'd like to continue participating in this thread then you're just going to have to accept that the creation/evolution debate is about the theory that Darwin introduced in his book.

---

I had 24 hours I could not post so I thought I would read a little and while doing so I found the Orgin of Species. When I got to the conclusions I was a little supprised to find: It seems Darwin included the origin of life in his evolutionary process.
It was Creator breathed into one or more forms.So Darwin's theory of biological evolution included the orgin of life.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

And science has moved on since Darwin's time.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

If it is so simple why is there so much controversy over the word evolution?

---

There isn't.Just because you're playing a semantic game doesn't mean there is any controversy.It's just you playing a game.Go to PubMed. Do a search for any article regarding evolution. Please tell us how many references to the origin of the universe you find.Note: There are articles regarding the origin of the universe to be found on PubMed. Some of them even use the term "evolution." The task for you is to determine how many of them connect to biology.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

So why can't it be refered to as what it is? The Theory of Biological Evolution.

​

End of problem.

---

Because there is no problem. When we're talking biology, everybody understands that the term "evolution" refers to biological evolution, not stellar evolution.Note, both chemistry and biology use the term "nucleus." But somehow, nobody ever confuses the "nucleus" of the atom with the "nucleus" of the cell. When we talk about a "nuclear" weapon, we don't worry about teratogenic weapons. We all know we're talking about the atomic nucleus, not the cellular nucleus.Your complaint that there is some confusion about the term "evolution" is nothing more than a semantic game.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Ahem! You left out the part where the course was actually on Global Change and the "three lecture series" was just that. Three lectures of a semester long class entitled Global Change 1: Physical processes. Here is the intro page for the class:

quote:

---

Every day, millions of human and natural activities are altering the planet on which we live. Over the past century, through our ever-increasing population and mastery of technology, we have been changing the global environment at a pace unknown to natural history.

​

The University of Michigan's Global Change Program offers an interdisciplinary three semester introductory course sequence that investigates the causes and potential impacts of global change using a combination of traditional lecture-based and modern web-based teaching methodologies. The courses can be taken alone or in conjunction with companion courses toward completion of the Global Change Minor.

​

This semester course deals with issues relating to the physical, chemical and biological cycles contributing to Global Change. Students apply learned knowledge by using discussions and Stella systems modeling software to investigate the dynamics of natural systems.

---

The reason why they worded the paragraph you quoted the way they did was to tie biological evolution in to the theme of global change.Was this supposed to prove something? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of URL in quote box, to restore page width to normal.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

No. It seems that Darwin added some personal opinion to the conclusion of his book.Funny how you ignore all of the evidence that Darwin provided in his works (and that the thousands upon thousands of scientists have provided since), but you latch on to one little bit of personal opinion that has absolutely no evidence attached to it as if it proves something other than that Darwin had an opinion.Darwin's (or anyone else's) views on how the original form(s) of life came to be are not a part of the ToE. They were not a part of it 150 years ago and they are not a part of it now.Even if/when we discover just how life started, the only relevance it would have for the ToE is that first organism(s) and it's structures and the evolution of it's descendants. Period. How it got there has zero relevance to the ToE. Period.Maybe you guys are so confused because of the name of the book The Origin of Species? The title is not referencing in any way, shape or form the origin of the first life, but how new species originate(d).I propose that we should follow your lead and hold a seance to get permission from Darwin to change the name of his book so we won't confuse anybody anymore.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

OK now that I have responded to the last couple of posts by you I have to get this out of my system.I think it is a bit rich that creationists have spent years, all by themselves, trying to conflate abiogenesis with evolution in order to make it seem like one has to be an atheist to accept it and equivocating on the terminology used in science in order to confuse others and now one of their ranks comes along and tries to blame scientists for causing all the confusion by naming a theory.ICANT, the only reason people get confused about what evolution is when others are speaking about evolution is because they don't actually know what evolution is. They think it means everything from the Big Bang up until now (amongst many other strawmen) because of the creationist literature out there that tells them it is such. Not because of what scientists call the theory.Now, my opinion (and it is just my opinion) is that you guys lump it all together in your minds, but you only really attack the biological evolution part of it (at least in the schools and the most vociferously on message boards such as this) because it is what makes the Christian public most uncomfortable. Many, if not most, of them can live with an old Earth and even an old universe as part of their God's creation, but they cannot live with not being specially created in their God's image as the Bible says. The beginning of Genesis can be interpreted as billions of years (or not, depending), but the special creation of Adam and Eve makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and special inside so the idea of the evolution of man from "lower" forms of life makes you all kinds of queasy and so it is much easier to attack.And if you get the Christian public to fall in line against the science behind evolution it is easier to get them to fall in line against the science behind the Big Bang and cosmology, the science behind geology, the science behind everything which contradicts the Bible.If you confuse the issue by equivocating terms, telling half-truths (or outright lies) and creating ridiculous strawmen, then it is easier to get people to believe what you want them to believe.Get over it. When speaking about the Evolution vs. Creation debate, evolution refers to biological evolution as evidenced in the Theory of Evolution. It will prefaced with something else (like "stellar" or "chemical") or be used in a sentence with a defining clause (like "of nation-states" or "of trade unions") if that is what the discussion is about.If you actually knew what the Theory of Evolution was all about, then you wouldn't have this problem. Don't blame the scientists for your own confusion.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Maybe you don't but every damn scientist in the world, in the biological sciences or otherwise, takes this meaning - and if the public at large don't, then it is the fault of poor popular science, creationists, and you it seems...Just walk into an astronomy/astrophysics department and ask what courses they offer on evolution, or the theory of evolution. They will politely direct you to the biological sciences department with a slight rolling of their eyes. Then you mention, but surely stars evolve? And they will roll their eyes still further and reply, oh, so you want a course on "stellar evolution"... lecture hall B, 10am.Repeat this with the geology departemnt, with equivalent results.Why are you trying to confuse this VERY simple, TRIVIAL matter???

As has already been mentioned in this thread, it can almost always be argued that things could have better names than the ones they actually have. Whether words and phrases like evolution, biological evolution, and theory of evolution are the best terms, they're the ones in use, they have clear and unambiguous definitions, and so they're the ones we're going to use.Also, it is the common practice in almost all discussion, both oral and written, to shorten terms once the context is clear. For example, once it has been established you're talking about the United States of America, you only say America from then on. In the same way, once it is clear you're talking about biological evolution, you'll only say evolution from then on. The need for shorter terms to speed communication is the whole reason why words like "this" and "that" exist. Demanding that people not shorten when it is done everywhere by everyone all the time is ridiculous, and board administration will not support this.Lastly, realize that while confusion based upon the use of abbreviated terminology and synonyms is something that should be very easily resolved, that it hasn't so far hints at something more fundamental than mere issues of terminology.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It can be called that, and that is strictly accurate, but usually unneccessary. If you you are on a forum that regularly discusses biological evolution more than any other kind of evolution, and if you are in a section of that forum with the title "EvC Forum/All Forums/Science Forums/Biological Forums", then, using just a little bit of intelligence, you would realise that no-one needs to type "biological" when referring to the Biological Theory of Evolution, because it's already understood in the context.Even off this site, as the theory of biological evolution is the best known theory of evolution, it is usually referred to with the word biological omitted and understood, and adjectives are included to describe other lesser known theories of evolution.That's a fact of modern English, which is what we speak on this site, ICANT, in case you hadn't noticed.