What's the best definition of evolution?

[borrofburi]

Lot's of preamble, feel free to jump to merely answering the title question.

Another thread about a question asked by my intelligent creationist debating partner, I ask these in sepaate threads because I believe they are issues deserving addressing. I don't need help in the debate I am having, I will win because I win debates, I ask these questions because I find the answers I have for the specific questions asked aren't as great or readily accessible as I would like them to be.

Anyway, here's what happened:
[something up here about beneficial mutations propogating while detrimental ones usually die off]
That is one of the premises that the Theory of Natural Selection is based upon, but it can not be proven either. It's a conjecture. Do you wish to challenge me to disprove the actual premises of the Theory of Natural Selection then? Look them up and write them in a concise way and I'll consider the challenge.


Ignoring his phrasing, this "debate" started with him proposing "proof" of intelligent design, followed by me (and others) saying he was wrong. Now he seems interested in turning the debate to evolution so he can say it's wrong. That's fine, I can address that, the question then becomes:

What's the best most accurate, far reaching, correct definition of the theory of evolution? I've seen a number, but they all tend to have flaws in my opinion.

Also, this falls in line nicely with what's-his-name's idea of an internal help-wiki for us to pool data and resources.

 

[IrBubble]

Change in allele frequencies over time I guess.

 

[theatheistguy]

Change in allele frequencies over time I guess.

Close. Change in population allele frequencies over time OR Change in allele frequencies over time within a population.

 

[borrofburi]

This is why I think he uses the prhase "theory of natural selection": he has no problem with change in population allele frequencies over time, but rather the proposed mechanism of that.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is why I think he uses the prhase "theory of natural selection": he has no problem with change in population allele frequencies over time, but rather the proposed mechanism of that.

Which is odd, since the evolution of antibiotic-resistant diseases is a pretty well-known and commonly applied application of natural selection.

 

[borrofburi]

Which is odd, since the evolution of antibiotic-resistant diseases is a pretty well-known and commonly applied application of natural selection.

Indeed he does. He has this to say:
"No, it seems to show that adaptive changes occur, that there is a process that we might call evolution. It does not prove that this is dependent upon unbiased random mutations."
He seems to be of the "guided evolution" variety, I am dealing with that in its own right (i.e. natural selection IS the bias so whether the mutations are random or not isn't relevant, the bias mechanism he seeks is natural selection).



HOWEVER, let us change the topic of the thread then, we've found a great definition for evolution, how about we come up with a great definition for the mechanism of evolution: natural selection.

 

[Squawk]

[something up here about beneficial mutations propogating while detrimental ones usually die off]
That is one of the premises that the Theory of Natural Selection is based upon, but it can not be proven either. It's a conjecture. Do you wish to challenge me to disprove the actual premises of the Theory of Natural Selection then? Look them up and write them in a concise way and I'll consider the challenge.

He's barking nicely up the wrong tree here, natural selection is probably the most intuitive and easy to model part of evolutionary theory. All we are dealing with is the probability of a given member of a populations probability of passing on its genes compared with the average member of the population. If a given member has a better probability of passing on its genes then those genes are more likely to be passed on. It is that simple. What you can't do, neccessarily, is infer which attributes are going to increase fitness. That is part of the reason why eugenics is deplorable, and may well be where he is going, so beware.

What's the best most accurate, far reaching, correct definition of the theory of evolution? I've seen a number, but they all tend to have flaws in my opinion.

You need to be very careful when defining terms. In this very post you have a contradiction with the thread title. The thread title asks for a definition of evolution, your post asks for a definition of the theory of evolution.

Evolution itself is simply change over time, by degree.

Biological evolution could be defined as the change in frequency of gene variation in a population from generation to generation. It is simply a name given to an observation, that frequencies of different versions of genes (allels) change over generations.

The theory of evolution cannot really be defined in such terms, the best I can come up with is that the theory of evolution is an umbrella term for all aspects of biology dealing with evolution, encompassing all research in the area. By definition it is not a fixed entity, adapting and expanding with the addition of new knowledge.

My suspicion is that where you suggest you need a definition for the theory of evolution what you actually require is a definition for darwinian evolution, or more accurately neo-darwinian evolution and neo-darwinism.

I would define neo-darwinian evolution, in simple terms, proposes that the diversity of life on earth is the result of descent with modification via mutation and natural selection. The neo part refers to the inclusion of genetics into darwins original ideas.

Also, this falls in line nicely with what's-his-name's idea of an internal help-wiki for us to pool data and resources.

If you mean what I think you mean here, try talkorigins