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'. — StreetlightX
You're conflating the 'what' and 'how' again. Anyway, what I've been saying is straightforward scientific orthodoxy. 'Biological' is about the 'what' not the how. — Baden
Personally, I think it's useful to make distinctions between natural and artificial, technological and biological, although there will be blurring of the lines at different points. — Marchesk
And what utility do such distinctions have when it come to evolution? In other words, what difference do these differences make, as far as evolution is concerned? — StreetlightX
I was talking about the adjective 'biological' in the phrase 'biological evolution' - just like before — Baden
Pretty much, and it can happen by 'natural' means including natural selection and lots of other stuff and various 'artificial' means. It's all equally evolution. — Baden
And an organism is? Or rather, again, don't just give me another distinction, give me the difference this difference makes. You could have said 'because biology is the study of gufflefloomps' - the question is - so what? — StreetlightX
'Intelligent design' is a religiously inspired pseudoscience. It doesn't figure in the debate raised in the OP. If conscious agents cause changes in the gene pool, which are passed on, they are causing evolution. — Baden
If conscious agents cause changes in the gene pool, which are passed on, they are causing evolution. — Baden
I doubt it's strictly the biological definition, though — Marchesk
Yes, and gufflefloomps aren't flufflehoomps - so what? What's your point? You can't just sprout off meaningless distinction after meaningless distinction in order to avoid actually saying anything. — StreetlightX
Ok, and with respect to evolution, their significance is....???? — StreetlightX
ell as far as I can tell, Marchesk wants to limit the scope of evolution to - variously - that which is 'biological' (and not 'technological'), and 'natural' (rather than what I assume is 'cultural'). — StreetlightX
But why? What do these distinctions mean with respect to evolution? What motivates these claims? — StreetlightX
Another example would be that of requiring bike helmets to be worn on motorcycles. Laws prevent stupid people who wouldn't wear helmets from necessarily dying in accidents. Laws protecting us from our own stupidity are preventing natural Human evolution. What do you think? — Javants
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. — Chany
Look, I don't think you mean any of this maliciously, and I don't expect you to know the literature inside out - I certainly don't - but I do know that this 'strict definition' you keep citing is utterly contentious and it will not do for you to simply fall back upon it time after time - especially since it exists nowhere but in your head at this point. It doesn't even have the honour of being an argument from authority - you haven't citied a single one. Just please do better than this ignorance-spreading non-definition. — StreetlightX
Dams, nests, webs, cities, and genetic engineering are not evolution in the biological sense. — Marchesk
I don't really understand this claim. What do you even mean by saying that webs are not evolution? — Michael
Webs are byproduct of evolution, not the life forms that evolve. But we're playing rather loose with terms in this thread. — Marchesk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.