Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

I think we would need to differentiate between the simplistic "definition" of Evolution, and what we really want to teach. After all, Darwin didn't say [just] Evolution, he said Evolutoin by means of Natural Selection. What we want to teach is the answer to the question, how the things we see came to be. And in science class, the answer to that is The Modern Synthesis of Evolution, which is based on a well established and growing body of work.

sidebar, While I am certainly a proponent of scientific methodology re evolution, I also can't help but wonder how the also basic idea of entropy fits, ok what I mean is that it seems we tend to think of evolution if terms of "betterment" whereas it might also lead us down the path of entropic chaos. Disregard if this is a nobrainer question.

Ros:
Yes, I am familiar with professor Ernst Mayr's material, as well as his colleague, Edward Wilson at Harvard.
Also, I am familiar with the writings of Michael Ruse in Canada, and Richard Dawkins in England.

All four of these "evolution scientists" are subscribers to "neo-darwinism" - more of that later in this thread.

I have also read the published works of Sir Julian Huxley, George Gaylord Simpson, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J. B. S. Haldane, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Sewall Wright, and Glen L. Jepsen et al. - these authors were the promoters of "evolutionary synthesis" for almost half a century, along with Ernst Mayr - more of this later in the thread.

I dont tthink well find such an animal rosborne. The Mayr one recognizes the limitations of specificity in thaat , if you mention allele frequency, we miss the concept of allele migration on the genome and the roles of the regulators in tthe non coding section of DNA. So, whenever we come up with specific, we arent specific enough. eO wILSONS def is equally simple
'any change in the genetic complement of a population of organisms."
Its mechanism-free, doesnt get all directionally focused, and isolates the germ of the idea of evolution.

One of tthe problems of the Creationists is that . like the value of pi in Alabama, is extreme fundamentalism masquerading as science. Even Behe in His "Darwrins Black Box" is dangerously close to full fledged Creationist dogma, even though he admits that the earth IS old and that the eartths environment had changed cataclysmically at least 20 times. (5 of which were super cataclysms)

Bilbliophile,

I am going to take you to task for your use the term "evolution scientist". It is misleading. You make it sound like there are two different types of scientists.

I will continue to remind you that evolution is accepted as fact by the scientific community. Look at any scientific professional organization from AAS, to APS to NASA. The scientific community almost universally supports evolution as science including for such issues as education, and choices for research

You will find a very few exceptions of people who have science degrees who reject evolution.

It is a fact that 99% of life scientists accept evolution. These are the scientists who have studied, understand the field and are now do the impressive work on gene therapy, DNA decoding and developing new medicine etc. With their current advances, you will find it hard to argue that the acceptance of evolution by scientists has hurt their innovative, open-minded and ingenius advance of knowledge and invention.

So you should just use the word "scientist" (or biologist) unless you want to distinguish between the scientists who are specifically studying evolution from the rest of us who accept evolution as fact.

I have found that most scientists have an open, curious and questioning minds.

I accept evolution as fact (like most scientists) for two reasons. First, I have seen the evidence and, although it it ouside of my field of expertise, it is convincing.

Second, I understand the scientific process and I know how scientific debate work. The scientific process has been very effective because it allows for vigorous debate. It makes descisions only after the community agrees that there is overwhelming evidence. This has happed in the case of evolution.

I believe that science has done its job. I don't believe the scientists who specialize in the life sciences are conspiring to decieve Americans.

This has been accepted based on overwhelming evidence -- not just by "life scientists"-- but by scientists at large.

Further to the previous definitions given in The Merriam Webster Dictionary, 10th Edition, I'd like to take a look at the next dictionary definitions...

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989 has the following definitions:

noun, evolution

1. the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.
2. gradual development.

Q1. Does anyone object to these two definitions for Evolution?
Q2. Do you accept these definitions as commensurate with your understanding of the word?

I would appreciate as many comments on this post as possible. Thanks.

As has been pointed out, the definitions are extremely limiting.

You say you have read the books, and you can quote the names as easily as I can, but so far, you have not said anything which indicates that you understand the material in those book. And I fail to see the value in quoting various dictionary definitions of Evolution and asking if we agree with them. We already know that the subject of evolution is not as simple as a definition, so where are you going with this?

No offense Bib, but can you post something which actually adds to our knowledge in this debate and leads to a point, or are you going to continue to promise future content while playing the part of the sage who can only ask open ended questions?

Quote, "No offense Bib, but can you post something which actually adds to our knowledge in this debate and leads to a point, or are you going to continue to promise future content while playing the part of the sage who can only ask open ended questions?" Rosborne has finally caught on. LOL

7 pages without getting to a point, could it be that bib is trying to set some sort of record?

Ros: LOL - some things never change :wink:

Be patient...

8 pages...

Does ANYONE disagree with the dictionary definitions?

If yes, then post your understanding of what evolution is.

Get to the point already.

Page 8 and still nada. How many of you are waiting around for the "climax?"

Probably got some creationist page waiting to refute everyone after he thinks the trap's needing to be sprung.

Thing is, why the need to trap us unless the site only refutes a strawman?

edgar, Creationist and refute in the same sentence makes sense, but all other meanings seems like so much religious' bs.

Hey bib, suppose we agreed to your definitions, what would your next contribution to this thread be?

when tthis gets somewhere, i hope someone will PM me . Im gonna go and see whether Gus has any threads.