(May 2, 2018 at 2:27 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 2:20 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: That is the broadest possible definition, similar to defining thinking as neurological state change. But a narrower definition is more useful.  

When definition is used for rhetorical argument rather than to help guide an edifying experience, it is well to tailor the scope of the definition to the actual argument at hand.

Anom, what definition would you use if someone asked you to define evolution?  Without spending paragraphs outlining every specific, "changes in allele frequency over time" is a pretty darn good starting point.  And changes in allele frequency + time = speciation.  if that were the definition that was popularized, I think we'd be in a hell of a lot better position than half the country thinking evolution means "your granddad was a monkey" or some shit like that.  "Changes in allele frequency over time" isn't incorrect, and it's not misleading.

Change in allele frequency over time does not clearly mean speciation if the population does not separate and environmental condition remains little changed. Even if allele changes mean descendants a million years hence can’t breed with ancestors a million years age, the above stated condition suggest phenotypically the populations would remain more or less static, and there never were simultaneously two non-interbreeding populations that can be considered separate species.

Again, broading th definition of a process to include everything that utilized the most basic mechanism underlying the process makes the process a superfluous concept.

Okay...so what definition would you use? And as I've repeatedly said, that definition isn't supposed to be a detailed explanation of everything in the theory. It's just a good starting point that isn't inaccurate or plagued by creationist/popular media bullshit.

(May 2, 2018 at 2:27 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 2:20 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: That is the broadest possible definition, similar to defining thinking as neurological state change. But a narrower definition is more useful.  

When definition is used for rhetorical argument rather than to help guide an edifying experience, it is well to tailor the scope of the definition to the actual argument at hand.

Anom, what definition would you use if someone asked you to define evolution?  Without spending paragraphs outlining every specific, "changes in allele frequency over time" is a pretty darn good starting point.  And changes in allele frequency + time = speciation.  if that were the definition that was popularized, I think we'd be in a hell of a lot better position than half the country thinking evolution means "your granddad was a monkey" or some shit like that.  "Changes in allele frequency over time" isn't incorrect, and it's not misleading.

I think some mention of how natural selection works to bring in the feedback which actually enable future generations of organisms to better fit their environments over time would be nice.

(May 2, 2018 at 2:42 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 2:27 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Anom, what definition would you use if someone asked you to define evolution?  Without spending paragraphs outlining every specific, "changes in allele frequency over time" is a pretty darn good starting point.  And changes in allele frequency + time = speciation.  if that were the definition that was popularized, I think we'd be in a hell of a lot better position than half the country thinking evolution means "your granddad was a monkey" or some shit like that.  "Changes in allele frequency over time" isn't incorrect, and it's not misleading.

I think some mention of how natural selection works to bring in the feedback which actually enable future generations of organisms to better fit their environments over time would be nice.

So, changes in allele frequency over time as driven by natural selection?  Phenotypic differences and heritable traits are driven by alleles. I'm still just waiting for someone to actually propose a different definition - I'd be happy to use it if it was concise and accurate and better than the one I mentioned.

(May 2, 2018 at 1:48 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 1:34 am)ignoramus Wrote: EG: why would I go to a religious forum? What to gain? Knowledge? Disdain?

I go on a fundie forums to debate... I love debate, and I'm not afraid to approach them on their turf.

Me too. What forum would you suggest? Most are pretty awful in term of functionality. It is a tribute to Tibs that AF is so superior.

(May 2, 2018 at 2:44 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 2:42 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I think some mention of how natural selection works to bring in the feedback which actually enable future generations of organisms to better fit their environments over time would be nice.

So, changes in allele frequency over time as driven by natural selection?  Phenotypic differences and heritable traits are driven by alleles.

Yeah, it helps to clarify that it isn't through any action taken by an individual organism which changes his own morphology, but just the advantage to the future generations of the lucky individual with the positive natural mutation whose offspring will inherit the that random change.

(May 2, 2018 at 2:49 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 2:44 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: So, changes in allele frequency over time as driven by natural selection?  Phenotypic differences and heritable traits are driven by alleles.

Yeah, it helps to clarify that it isn't through any action taken by an individual organism which changes his own morphology, but just the advantage to the future generations of the lucky individual with the positive natural mutation whose offspring will inherit the that random change.

How about "Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time, as directed by natural selection."  That's still a pretty concise, neat sentence.

(May 2, 2018 at 2:40 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Okay...so what definition would you use?  And as I've repeatedly said, that definition isn't supposed to be a detailed explanation of everything in the theory.  It's just a good starting point that isn't inaccurate or plagued by creationist/popular media bullshit.

But that's just it FAF the definition your working from is perfect for the creationist . That way they can play games and not have to accept the full implications of what evolution is . They can just cut it off at a point that's ideologically convenient ."oh i'll accept X can change but that does not mean humans are related to non humans etc etc "

(May 2, 2018 at 2:53 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 2:40 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Okay...so what definition would you use?  And as I've repeatedly said, that definition isn't supposed to be a detailed explanation of everything in the theory.  It's just a good starting point that isn't inaccurate or plagued by creationist/popular media bullshit.

But that's just it FAF the definition your working from is perfect for the creationist . That way they can play games and not have to accept the full implications of what evolution is . They can just cut it off at a point that's ideologically convenient ."oh i'll accept X can change but that does not mean humans are related to non humans etc etc "

Sure, but it doesn't mean they're right.  No matter how detailed an explanation or definition you create (hah), creationists will always just deny it.  That's not the fault of a concise definition that creationists will attack it. You could link to a 50 page article defining every facet of evolution and they'd still just say "nah!"

The bible proves exactly why evolution is impossible.

Have a good day.