(October 30, 2017 at 1:53 pm)Mathilda Wrote:(October 30, 2017 at 1:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: Thank you for the perfect example of conflating (a fallacy) the word 'evolution'. You state that "the mechanisms in evolution are well understood"--a reference to definition #2 and then go on and cite support all having to do with #1.
It's perfectly reasoned to believe all these things, but attempting to oversell our knowledge produces nothing but long, unproductive arguments. #2 and #3 are not well understood and for obvious reasons are hard to study.
For Reference, the word can be used in at least three senses. The reason you need to keep track of which meaning is being used, is because there is proof and universal agreement on #1. There is less on #2 and even less on #3.
1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification")
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change")
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history")
I am referring to the theory of evolution and Darwinian evolution. The theory accounts for all three of your utterly arbitrarily limited definitions. Your definitions are useless except to allow you to magic up ways to make it look like you are refuting what I am saying.
It only looks like I am overselling the knowledge we have if you yourself are ignorant. But it's easier to say no one knows than to do the research and learn what we do know. You are staying deliberately ignorant so you can believe your fantasy.
Being precise and defining our terms is an extremely important part of any dialog.
A simple thought experiment. If Andy believes that our current dog breeds evolved from domesticated wolf ancestors, does Andy believe in evolution? I think it is clear he does.
But, does he believe that simplicity begat complexity through natural selection acting on random mutations? Does he believe in common ancestry of all living things? We don't know. So, it is very obvious that belief of one aspect of evolution does not entail belief in all of them.
Regarding your last paragraph, tell me, is the science settled on the following?
a. How complex organs/traits evolved without any survival benefit until they were complete (please give examples of partially formed non-functioning abilities found in nature today)
b. How are biological networks to have evolved?
c. Why doesn't DNA support the "tree of life"?
d. Why there is a glaring lack of fossil records/intermediate forms.
e. Junk (non-coding) DNA, originally thought of as the leftovers of mutations/transcription errors, yet we continue to discover purposes for it.
f. Why natural selection is not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient...yet we have them.
I realize there is a theory for every one of these items. My point is, they are not settled, we have no examples, and certainly cannot replicate them in a lab. They remain best guesses.
So, if you wish to believe in all three definitions of evolution, it is because you believe in naturalism not because the science is compelling. A theist can decide that they will accept whatever science becomes settled--but as of now, that is not #2 and #3 meanings of the word 'evolution'.
