Ok, after talking with some evolutionist friends of mine and reading other blogs, I have come up with a project that I need your input on. Debates get off track and accomplish nothing when both sides are arguing against different subjects. As we have engaged in discussions and debates on this blog on the theory of evolution, so lets define what the theory of evolution is. Email me at coville(at)gmail(dot)com with your definition.
Once I get some responses I will put togther a definistion to post here and then we can discuss what is and what is not part of the theory. I hope veryone takes this seriously please. This will give us a better platform to further the discussion in a civil and proper way. I hop ealso that everyone that reads this participates, and let your friends know about this project so they can participate.
This isn’t much of a project, scientists have (for a long time) been discussing evolution and what it is, and aren’t hiding any definitions or explanations.
Check out Larry Moran’s What is Evolution? for a brief summary.
Or you can read Douglas Futuyma’s textbook Evolution, Stephen Jay Gould’s comprehensive The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or Ernst Mayr’s brief What Evolution Is.
By: Dan on June 6, 2009
at 1:08 am
Hi, I was wondering if you’d be willing to tell me what you think about this:
http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/evolutionists-ignorance-about-intelligent-design/
It’s about common misconceptions evolutionists make about Intelligent Design.
By: krissmith777 on June 9, 2009
at 9:40 am
Dan, great link and I will read that. And I am sure that some scientists have defined evolution, but my questions was how do you define it? If you want to stand by a particular definition, which one do you subscribe to?
Krissmith777, I agree with a lot of what that article has to say. So many debates are stalemates because both sides are arguing different subjects because they fail to define the subject of the debate. I can not say that I stand by each point the author of that post makes, I would have to examine it more to do that, but over all I would say it is well done.
By: mcoville on June 9, 2009
at 10:16 am
Okay, which do I subscribe to? With the exception of changing a word here or there (semantically), I like the one arrived at by this group of biologists the best:
The key elements however usually refer to observations that (a) populations evolve, not individuals; (b) evolution is constrained by ancestral forms; (c) the further back in time one goes the greater the degree of change observed in geological eras, generally speaking; (d) evolution of life on earth as a whole (‘macroevolution’) is related to the splitting of populations; and (e), related to (c) and (d), nested heirarchies of common ancestors and grouped clades formed therein can be reconstructed.
It’s kind of difficult to get all of that into one definition.
By: Dan on June 9, 2009
at 10:41 am
Thanx Dan for your comment. I will be having a follow up post coming soon where we can discuss the definition.
You did a good job of putting at lot into one definition.
By: mcoville on June 11, 2009
at 8:35 am
No problem. Upon reflection of my previous comment though, I might make some changes (I’m not satisfied with my earlier comment!). From Moran’s post on ‘What is Evolution?,’ there are this definitions:
“In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”
That nicely emphases the population aspect of evolution, but of only one population at a time. When people speak of evolution as an entity unto itself, they usually refer to the change over time of ALL life on Earth (I think) – i.e., all populations, known and unknown. That’s what I was trying to get at with my items ‘c’ thru ‘e’.
… which fits rather nicely with the longish definition I blockquoted in my previous comment.
You’re right, this is an interesting exercise, even if it’s been done by others before. I look forward to your forthcoming post on the matter.
By: Dan on June 11, 2009
at 9:40 am
If I understand correctly, and I’m sure I don’t, I saw a film called “A Flock of Dodos.” Here’s the I.D. argument:
A guy holds up a picture of a mountain range and says that nature made it.
The same guy holds up a picture of Mt. Rushmore.
From there, it descends into chaos. See, a designer made Mt. Rushmore. Now, you might be a naive babe in the woods who doesn’t live in the Real World and you’d say, well, Mt. Rushmore had a human designer. And technically, you’d be right. Gutzon Borglum did design it, and he was a human. But, my dear naive friend, you’d be met with “It had a DESIGNER.” Then, you’d say again, “Yeah. A human designer.” Only to be met with “It had a DESIGNER.” Repeat ad infinitum. Check it out. It’s a good movie.
By: zunedita373 on June 18, 2009
at 4:01 am