Then you haven't heard of niche construction, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution? — StreetlightX

That's interesting, but the wiki article says it's not part of standard evolution.

How far can you stretch technology to be part of evolution? Would creating organisms from scratch still be evolution? Would self-replicating machines be biological?

If we came across a planet terraformed by aliens where they engineered all the life for that world, would we consider that intelligent design or evolution?

Sure, human activity including technological activity could be a mechanism of evolution. Why not? Artificial selection is.

Sure, human activity including technological activity could be a mechanism of evolution. Why not? Artificial selection is. — Baden

Because humans will be able to do things that nature cannot without us, such as bringing extinct species back to life, or splicing in genes between vastly different organisms, like corn and fish.

So? Nature probably couldn't have made a Chihuahua without us either.

I don't care to answer any of these counterfactuals unless you provide a reason, in principle, why these can't be considered part of evolution. Otherwise we'll be here all day. Let's discuss reasons not an endless variety of hypotheticals.

So? Nature probably couldn't have made a chihuahua without us either. — Baden

Right, I didn't think artificial selection was evolution, precisely because dogs would not evolve without human interference.

I don't care to answer any of these counterfactuals unless you provide a reason, in principle, why these can't be considered part of evolution. Otherwise we'll be here all day. Let's discuss reasons not hypotheticals. — StreetlightX

My understanding is that biological evolution is considered a natural, mindless process driven by several mechanisms such as natural selection, in which genes are selected for based on their fitness in a given environment and passed on to succeeding generations, leading to changes over time.

It's one mechanism. Don't get hung up on the "natural" idea.

Animals and plants create tons of things that would not exist in their absence. The atmosphere creates hundreds of things that would not exist in its absence.

I guess bird nests are unnatural, coral reefs are unnatural, and everything that atmosphere permits is also unnatural.

I believe the natural/unnatural distinction can be useful and may work in certain contexts when discussing certain topics. Evolution is not one of them: the human ability to rearrange and form matter in useful ways is probably one of our primary evolutionary advantages.

It's one mechanism. Don't get hung up on the "natural" idea. — Baden

In a sense, twinkies are natural. They're made of matter, not some spiritual substance. But OTOH, they would not exist without sophisticated technology. There is no route for nature to take independent of intelligent design, save pure chance, to produce twinkies.

As such, we say that twinkies are artificial.

"Artificial selection is an artificial mechanism by which evolution can occur."

Rational Wiki

I guess bird nests are unnatural, coral reefs are unnatural, and everything that atmosphere permits is also unnatural. — Chany

To an extent, sure. There is a continuum from natural to artifical, where you have beaver dams on one side and concrete jungles on another, and you can argue that they're the same thing, but the equivalent of a beaver damn or bird's nest can be created by water and wind, but concrete cannot.

Artificial selection is an artificial mechanism by which evolution can occur." — Baden

Agreed, but it is considered an artificial mechanism. If biological evolution is just biological change over time regardless of what causes it, then okay, human technology can be part of that.

Although, I have to wonder if bringing species back from extinction is actually evolution under that definition?

Animals building nests or sleeping in caves has nothing to do with what I'm saying. — TheMadFool

It does. They're external protections which an animal uses to overcome its biological limitations. Just like medicine.

Anyway the term natural selection is sufficient for me to get my point across which is that humans are interfering with natural selection by preventing deaths of people with genetically transmitted illnesses through the use of modern medicine. Isn't this interfering with the natural selection process - some of us should've died out long ago.

...

e.g. if a polar bear had a mutation that made it furless it would most certainly perish in its subzero temperature habitat.

If you don't include making use of external protections like nests and caves as being elements of natural selection then sure, it interferes with natural selection - like building a fire, as without such a fire we are much like the furless polar bear.

But as far as I'm aware, the notion of natural selection doesn't just apply to static biological features, but also to the animal's ability to navigate and make use of the things in the world - which can include building nests, making fires, and manufacturing medicine.

And I wonder, do you find a difference between using medicine to kill germs and using spears to kill wolfs?

Although, I have to wonder if bringing species back from extinction is actually evolution under that definition? — Marchesk

It would just depend on whether changes were made to the genes in the process. If cats die out and we bring them back as they were, they wouldn't have evolved.

It would just depend on whether changes were made to the genes in the process. If cats die out and we bring them back as they were, they haven't evolved. — Baden

So the Jurassic Park scenario where frog DNA is used to fill in the gaps in dino DNA found in embalmed insects would be evolution, because those dinosaurs would be different from the actual ones that walked the Earth pre-extinction?

Evolution is nothing but a process of change, wherein the unit of change is a developmental system (see: http://paulgriffiths.representinggenes.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/publications/B1_9.pdf). The mechanisms of that change are entirely open, as is the scope of that change. This is particularly the case insofar as we are dealing with a question of science, that is, empirical questions. Science doesn't get to decide, in advance, what is and is not part of evolution - least you give up any pretension of empiricism and lapse into full blown dogmatism.

t would just depend on whether changes were made to the genes in the process. If cats die out and we bring them back as they were, they wouldn't have evolved. — Baden

Your position is that any change to the genes of an organism is evolution, full stop, no exceptions.

See SX's post above.

his is particularly the case insofar as we are dealing with a question of science, that is, empirical questions. Science doesn't get to decide, in advance, what is and is not part of evolution - least you give up any pretension of empiricism and lapse into full blown dogmatism. — StreetlightX

But an important part of science is categorization, and an attempt to "carve nature at the joints", or at least make useful distinctions.

So sure, technological changes to DNA is evolution in the broad sense. I'm questioning whether it's biological evolution in the scientific sense of how life diversified on Earth from the earliest life form.

I might as well add that it's heritable change obviously in biological evolution.

I might as well add that it's heritable change obviously. — Baden

So cosmic radiation modifying genes is only evolution if it gets passed down, same with anything we do.

Cancer and the like is not evolution. Evolution results in heritable changes in a gene pool.

So sure, technological changes to DNA is evolution in the broad sense. I'm questioning whether it's biological evolution in the scientific sense of how life diversified on Earth from the earliest life form. — Marchesk

And what makes you think 'the scientific sense' of evolution is so narrowly defined? What empirical fact would sanction such an artificial definition other than pure prejudice?

And what makes you think 'the scientific sense' of evolution is so narrowly defined? What empirical fact would sanction such an artificial definition other than pure prejudice? — StreetlightX

Just everything I've heard and read about evolution. Biologists get to say what's biological evolution and what's not. I could be wrong or ignorant. Maybe biologists agree with you? I didn't think they did, but again, I could be wrong about that.

If you're objecting on philosophical grounds about use of terminology amongst the general public, that's fine, but philosophers can't tell scientists how to define their fields.

The term "biological" might be misleading you. It refers to the what not the how.

The term "biological" might be misleading you. It refers to the what not the how. — Baden

Are we just having a philosophical discussion over terms, or are we going by how the biologists use such words?

Not to an extent. Why and how is there a continuum? Natural and unnatural are mutually exclusive categories. You are either natural or unnatural. Why should I believe otherwise, beyond just as a way of talking about separating human activity from nonhuman activity (a separation that does not actually exist)?

Why are beavers altering their environment to suit their needs natural while humans altering their environment to suit their needs unnatural? Humans produce much more complex results and mix their materials in much more novel ways, but the core principle is the same. The beaver just uses one medium to alter its environment and is more simple than a concrete dam. However, the human is much smarter than the beaver and uses its intelligence to create a vastly more complex dam.

Scientists use the term to distinguish the evolution of organisms from other stuff. That's the 'what'. The 'how' is up for grabs as has already been explained.

As I've indicated, my objection is purely empirical: my point is that by defining evolution as narrowly as you do, its you who is 'telling scientists how to define their fields'. The point is precisely to leave that definition open and not narrowly constrained to artificial philosophical debates over 'nature', 'culture', 'technology' and so on.