Welcome to Creation Truths!

New Definition of Evolution?
Read the Original Article here

Talk.origin's 'Definition of Evolution'

As per usual, their comments are in bold and quotes and my responses are in normal text.

"Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term."

So the people don’t know what evolution is and the scientists don’t know what evolution is. Sounds to me like nobody knows what evolution is. Let us look at it through logical terms:

1. Either the people or the scientists know what evolution is;
2. The people do not know what evolution is;
3. The scientists do not know what evolution is;

Therefore no one knows what evolution is.

While this statement may seem reasonable on the surface, it is actually a prime example of inherent illogical circularity. If no one knows what evolution is (a problem complexified by a lack of agreement on the mechanism by which evolution proceeds) then the reader need proceed no farther with this article since it has determined to violate itself by defining evolution.

"When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution."

On what basis does this author presume to make this jump of logic? The reason why there is no universal deffinition of evolution is directly caused because no one knows by what mechanism or another it proceeds. This indicates that no deffinition of evolution can be constructed until the method and mechanics of one of the theorys or another is "proven" to be right. The fact that biology is in chaos on this particular point is that there is no single difinitive and water-tight argument for biological evolution it be made.

Actually, this comment reveals the a priori materialist commitment of the evolutionist, proponent or scientist. The author is effectively saying: "even though we have absolutely no idea how the evolutionary mechanism works, we should never doubt that it happens." That sounds real open-minded. Or alternately so open-minded that the brain has completely fallen out.

"And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?"

Since evolution is only a phenomena which has happened in the past, I have long wondered if biologists are simply ignorant or intentionally deceptive. To actually observe evolution would mean that biologists have observed the change of one kind of animal to another (e.g. a dog into a cat or some such).

The belief that a development of a non-resistant bacteria to a resistant bacteria is some kind of proof for evolution which then can be assumed or infered into kinds of animals is one of the worst cases of deliberate misleading and self-deception. The evolutionary community was driven there because they had no direct evidence for their theory. That some people weren't suckered into believing it is their problem.

Also, George G. Simpson stated in no uncertain terms that saying that humans and chimps had a common ancestor is merely "pussyfooting." He stated: "In fact, that early ancestor would certianly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." --G.G Simpson, "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science, 131:966-969

"One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"

Let us look at this more closely, shall we? If, as Futuyma states in the first sentence, evolution is merely change (as many state it to be) then evolution is meaningless and can tell us nothing. This is merely a blanket statement to include all change under the term evolution so that they can silence any objections to evolution theory. In logic, however, if something describes everything then it means nothing. If everything can be applied to a statement then it defines everything and therefore nothing. We can show this this way:

A statement like "evolution is merely change" is inherently false:
1. Everything changes over time;
2. A statement which describes everything also describes nothing;
3. Evolution by the current deffinition is changes over time;
4. Therefore evolution describes everything;
Therefore evolution describes nothing.

Futuyma is, however, correct in saying “Biological evolution... embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types)...”

Informed creationists do not deny the fact of animal and plant adaptation; it fits neatly within the creation model (and we thought of it first anyway). However, you can breed dogs till the sun goes out, you are simply never going to get a sheep. Nor are you ever going to get a sheep and a dog to sucessfully produce offspring. There are genetic barriers preventing such things from occuring.

I would also like to point out that Futuyma is guilty of equivocation—changing the definition of a term in the middle of an argument—something that evolutionists do on a regular basis. The beginning of his quote states that evolution is “change.” That defining everything, it is not necessary to narrow the definition (if a term defines everything there is no need to clarify as any clarification is already contained within the scope of everything). But Futuyma does. He starts with the term “evolution” and defines it as “change.” Then he suddenly changes it. Notice in the second sentence that it has suddenly become “Biological evolution,” the defintion of such also has become “inhereted genetic characterists through a population.” He has equivocated “evolution” with “biological evolution.” Sure, biological evolution is a major part of their evolution theory, but Futuyma has conveniently skipped over Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar and Planetary, Informational, Organic, and Macro evolution (all of which must be established first and also of which there isn’t a shred of evidence).

As if that weren’t insulting enough, he performs another amazing equivocation in the end of the paragraph.

Futuyma says: “...to the sucessive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

The first time he equivocated “evolution” and “change” to “biological evolution” and “inhereted genetic change in populations” which is adaptation (also called micro-evolution). Adaptation does happen, but within genetic limits. Now, however, Futuyma is equating “change within kind and genetic limits” with “change that produced bees, bananas, palm trees, cats, and humans from a single common ancestor,” which has never been (and cannot be) observed and therefore outside the realm of real science.

"It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation.

In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

Oh, ok, now evolution means heritable changes in a population over many generations. Note again the equivocation going on. This is none of the above definitions of evolution, not even adaptation (adaptation is the inheritence of genetic characteristics and is true). This is merely heritable change. This is Lamarckism and easily destroyed by quoting back to the facinating experiments of August Friedrich Leopold Weismann. He was a german scientist who conducted an experiment in which he cut off the tails of 901 mice in 19 sucessive generations to see if the acquired characteristic of loss of tail would affect the later generations as Lamarckism states it must. In the 19th generation, the tails were just as long as the original generation.

"This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution."

This is interesting. First evolution is “merely change” and now there are some changes that aren’t evolution? I’m confused, sir. This defies not only the original definition of evolution in this article but also defies any kind of logic (expect for fairy tale logic, in whch people fly, animals talk, and frogs change to princes).

"Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"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."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups)"

Ah, so it might not be accurate?

"but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is."

Oh. So even though it’s not really accurate, this is the true essence of evolution? That wouldn't stand up for a second in a single, entry-level logic class at a two-year university.

"When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.)"

So we’re back to evolution is “change” again. Besides, if I have a book and rip out a page, does that prove they both came from a paper and ink factory? No, of course not. They may have been but there are other methods of establishing their origins.

"When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor...

Pussyfooting again. [the elipses indicate interuption not exclusion]

"...they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated."

Yes, they indeed say this. That doesn’t mean they’ve seen it happen (they weren’t there) and it definately doesn’t mean they’ve observed “successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.” Biologists certainly claim this to be the case, but until they produce some real evidence, they should not say it is true, and use tax dollars to teach it to kids in school.

Also note yet another equivocation. This statement the article makes harkens back to the original introduction at the top when the author askes an unanswered question "What to biologists mean when they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps had a common ancestor." This is hardly an answer. If they mean "successive herited change in the two seperated populations since they became isolated" by observation of Human/chimp common ancestor then they are either being deliberitly misleading or they are fundementally misunderstanding the basic concepts of science, which is observation and documentation coupled with repetition of experiment. Since they have never observed humans and chimps evolve from a common ancestor nor has this been documented in history this is an assumption based upon their materialisticly biased world-view. Scientists have never been able to show how, in what order, or found a mechanism to produce this, nor shown this to be the case in experimentation they have literally no evidence for it.

"Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different."

One would and could expect every definition of evolution to be different. After all, “Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. ...and also ...confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term.” (see top of this page)

"For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science."

Why? This isn’t what evolutionists believe? Evolution is a process by which life today developed over gradual changes from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which were single-celled creatures which came from a soup of swirling chemicals which came as a result of the rocks being rained on for millions of years which came from a gigantic explosion in which nothing blew up.

"Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi,"

Talk about straining at a needle and swallowing a camel.

"but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition."

4.5 billion years seems pretty gradual to me.

"More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes."

A process is change. Your definition of evolution is “change.” Technically then, everything is evolution. Breathing is evolution (the air in your lungs has changed, hasn’t it? It’s another inhale and exhale, changing your lungs from what they were a millisecond before). That is a 100% useless statement.

"For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution?"

Of course not. First of all, this is compared to the 1700s when people were several inches shorter than now. There is much indication that ancient man was taller, stronger, and smarter than now, at least compared to the technology we have now compared to the technology they had. Secondly, this is an example of increased technology and medicinal developments.

"Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution?"

Of course not, especially since the peppered moth example was proven to be a fraud several years ago. But even if it were real it still wouldn't be proof of evolution, it would simply be another example of minute adaptation.

"This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong."

If there is no God, please explain what “wrong” is. Or what “right” is. Explain how you can trust a brain which is the development of chemicals over time through chance advantage and/or mutation. How do you know that you even said that, or that you even exist, if there is no God? What if your brain got a few chemicals the wrong way (not that there would be a wrong in your thinking, of course). How do you know that your thoughts are right? How can you trust your senses? How can you trust reason or logic? Logic was either created or decoded by humans. How do you know that they decoded it properly? We have already established that something which describes everything describes nothing. Following that, we can continue with this logical string:

The true (and honest) evolutionist must accept:

1. There is no God;
2. Therefore there are no absolutes;

Therefore everything is relative.

We will deal with “everything is relative” first.

1. Either everything is relative or it is not;
2. The statement is an absolute, falsifying itself;

Therefore there are absolutes.

We can follow this logical reasoning to a conclusion:

1. There are absolutes;
2. Evolutionists must accept relativism;

Therefore evolution is false.

1. Either the universe was created or it created itself;
2. Evolution is false, therefore the universe did not create itself;

Therefore the universe was created.

1. If the universe was created, there is a creator;
2. There are major flaws with other religions (man seeks god and religion therefore is subject to relativism aka “I have found one way to god”);

Therefore the God of the Bible exists and created the universe and set absolutes for man to follow and has said that Jesus is the only way to Him (if there were other ways, God would have mentioned them).

"Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective."

What perspective exactly no expert is sure because they have yet to define evolution because they are confused about the definition.

"When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate."

This would depend upon which one of the definitions you have been equivocating you are meaning here. If evoluion is change, who can argue with that? But it’s also useless because it means and defines nothing. It gives us no useful information. If you mean acquired genetic changes passed down through generations, then who can argue with that? But if you mean inheritance of aquired characteristics then you have not studied science. And if you mean by evolution that the birds, the bananas, and the fruit bat, not to mention the grass and the ant all have a common ancestor, then we as creationists must take issue, since this has not ever been demonstrated.

"It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution."

You yourself have committed 15 equivocations and inconsistancies within your own statements. Whether this was intentional or unintentional will not guessed, but it is illogical and incorrect and inconsistant nontheless.

"This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about."

A common argument among evolutionists, but ultimately an excuse. Also, in the beginning of this article it was stated in no uncertain terms that the general public and the scientists were unsure of the definition of evolution and by relation not even sure of what evolution is and also by relation how to identify it. Now the author says that creationists don’t understand what it is about. That pretty much rules out everybody. And now here this author is telling us what it is. The height of unreasonable circularity!

We, as readers, then have three choices. 1) we can conclude that since this author states the historical fact that there is no unity in the sciences about how to define evolution that this very author's deffinition cannot be trusted and has been falsified by his own factual statements, 2) we can conclude that the author is incorrect regarding the disagreement on evolution's deffintion in the sciences, thus calling his academic research abilities and the small extent of his knowledge of the history of science in to question, making the reader all the more hesitant to accept the proposed deffinition, or 3) simply dismiss all objections, reasonable or otherwise, conclude that he is right, and continue down the path of self-ignorance. Any way one goes, it is bad for the author and the proposed definition of evolution.

"This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant."

Equivocation again. He started with evolution and now has redefined the term to evolutionary biology. As a person studying to become an academic, this author wishes people would remain consistant.

"This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious!"

Oh no, one can believe in evolution and be religious. What you can’t be is an evolutionist and true christian. And there are several factors which show that chirstianity is not a “religion” in the traditional sense at all, anyway.

"But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!"

Equivocation again. This jumps back to one of the earlier equivocational definitions.

"Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science."

That’s perfectly acceptable. After all, even the scientists don’t know what it is or means (see top of page). If you don’t know, we can’t expect to. This is yet another equivocation, the author just equivocated evolution as being the same thing as science--and they are not. Equivocation is the worst of all academic crimes. One begins to wonder if they do it purposefully...

"We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest."

Agreed. Most evolutionists are fairly honest people with fundemental misunderstandings about the difference between science and evolution, that’s all.

"On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science."

We do. Science is the numerous observation and documentation of systems in the present. Evolution occurs outside of this (adaptation not being evolution and also being within the realm of science).

"Reading a textbook would help."

Given that they're filled with incorrect and uncorrected information, this wouldn’t be the greatest idea.

Clearly this was a really good go at defining evolution. Yet again we find numerous (17) instances of equivocation or self-contradiction that any content it attempts to pass on becomes a logical bottomless pit and circular jumble. This does, however, give creationists much encouragement. If none of the other definitions of evolution work and they need to redefine it to this, they’re in much worse straits than we could have hoped.

2004 is shaping up to be a great time to be a creationist.

Written by Adam Ross