92 posts on the “Definition of evolution”…
Wow…
This would be reasonable in an earth only a few thousands of years old. But of course on that perspective, hundreds of millions of years becomes the “forever” that your narrative forbids.
Can everybody agree on this? As a non-specialist, merely thinking of common descent through gradual modifications is enough to capture the broad scope of evolution, is it not? You highlight the importance of having precise boundaries for it, Jon, but is such precision really necessary? We could point out many problems in a similar way about heliocentrism and get bogged down in whether or not astronomers today should consider themselves “heliocentrists”, since it is not a true view of the universe. But isn’t it enough to know that an earth moving around the sun is closer to a true picture of reality than vice versa? In the same way aren’t most here (even among specialists) going to be happy if common descent (by whatever combinations of mechanisms) is recognized as closer to physically descriptive truth than separate, recent, de-novo creations?
1 Like
Hi Mervin-
gradual could be a problem… The term gradual would need a definition…
1 Like
I believe he was suspended for exactly this kind of annoying tendency to condescendingly nitpick everyone. It’s not like said user had BioLogos’ blessing to be a jerk.
4 Likes
Why?
In fact I probably could have left the word out entirely if it really bothered anyone. “Common descent” alone probably captures things most broadly. How it all happened, or how fast can be happily argued over by all interested parties.
1 Like
A thread on the definition of “day” in Genesis would probably win a post count competition any day though.
234
346
2 Likes
On any 24 hour day?
4 Likes
Probably… but then it’s surprising that an idea that is “scientific fact” has controversies in how it’s best defined…
Wouldn’t you say so?
He did get a few “likes” for it, though. 
1 Like
Is it surprising to me that people who lean toward ID have problems with how the term evolution is defined? No. Is it surprising to me that professional scientists have problems with a simplified definition you might find in an intro textbook? No.
4 Likes
In the macro/micro discussion, which we’ve learned are terms used in a relatively small number of legitimate academic papers, I am always curious where one draws a line. It seems a bit simplistic on one side to argue that there is no distinction, but the other side emphasizes the distinction but to an extreme level. The different between the two in the latter case is whatever it needs to be to reject ‘macroevolution.’
I see. It sounds really sciencey but that’s not really that rigorous and a bit strawmanish. Is losing limbs, hair and other feature while gaining a few other a gain or loss of statistical information as it would have been as cetaceans document as they transition from land dwelling mammals.
Anyways, my interest lies in phylogenies like this one:
I always wonder how far one allows ‘micro’ changes to go and where one draws the line for that which is ‘impossible.’ Like can all of these birds be ‘microevolution?’
But maybe let’s expand it a bit and can anyone say when ‘micro’ clearly stops:
5 Likes
It’s not so much a matter of how fast… as opposed to the size of the steps taken in evolution… and whether the change is continuous…
An alternate understanding is punctuated equilibrium… With relatively abrupt or saltational speciation.
I think Ashwin was using an ancient form of humor called “Satire.”
1 Like
How difficult would it be to give a good definition in textbooks?
Surely it’s not such an abstract and I’ll defined concept that the task is impossible?
Why blame people who lean towards ID, they don’t write the textbooks.
All of which can be bickered over (and perhaps even definitively answered) by knowledgeable parties, but need not continuously restrict what can be broadly construed as “evolution” to lay conversations. – any more than our personal convictions over specific denominational doctrines need restrict what can fall within the broad category known as “religion”.
My satire meter must be on the fritz this morning!
I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s not a “good” definition – simply that it’s inadequate, especially the more you get into the subject. I’d think that would be true of most subjects, especially large and complex ones. Simply reading a definition will only get you so far without immersing yourself in it.
I thought we agreed on this thread that “descent with modification” and “genetic change over time” are good definitions. Word-smithing is not “controversy” in my book.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that an inadequate definition is not good?
Evolutionary science is far more than the meaning of the word evolution… It’s unfortunate that this word is very difficult to pin down . It leads to conversations where people use it differently and talk across each other.
An agreed upon definition would help communication.
Yes they would… But then that’s a theory… Evolution is just a word…
I am sure people will find a lot to nitpick about theories of evolution…
I seem to have bumped into people on a very tense day…
That is the nature of language. Almost any word with semantic content can be used differently in different contexts by different speakers.
4 Likes