Changes

The '''definition of evolution''' has three aspects: hereditary changes, appearance of new species, and a theory explaining both of these. Currently there are several [[theories of evolution]] so a precise definition of evolution is impossible.  It should be noted that most definitions of evolution make no claims as to the existence or non-existence of a god, though evolution is often inaccurately equated with [[atheism]].  

The '''definition of evolution''' has three aspects: hereditary changes, appearance of new species, and a theory explaining both of these. Currently there are several [[theories of evolution]] so a precise definition of evolution is impossible.  It should be noted that most definitions of evolution make no claims as to the existence or non-existence of a god, though evolution is often associated with [[atheism]].  

Several different meanings have been and still are used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]], and this is itself part of the controversy over the general [[theory of evolution]].

Several different meanings have been and still are used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]], and this is itself part of the controversy over the general [[theory of evolution]]. Partisans on all sides of the dispute have accused other parties of tricking people by exploiting differences in the meaning of the word "evolution". [[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings,<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref> while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.  The term evolution is most commonly used to describe [[Darwin]]ian evolution by means of natural selection.

Partisans on all sides of the dispute have accused other parties of tricking people by exploiting differences in the meaning of the word "evolution".

[[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.

==Definition of Evolution as Change Over Time==

==Definition of Evolution as Change Over Time==

== Etymology==

== Etymology==

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling''<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.</ref>, and refers to any gradual change.  But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling'',<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.]</ref> and refers to any gradual change.  But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

=== Universal ===

=== Universal ===

Instead, it is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Instead, it is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref Name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding [[prokaryotes]], protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "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".<ref name="TO" />

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding [[prokaryotes]], protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "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".<ref name="TO" />

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this definition with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>.

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this definition with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref> "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution.<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>

It is primarily this definition of evolution that creationists believe is a invalid concept.

It is primarily this definition of evolution that creationists believe is a invalid concept.

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref>  This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref>  This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

The gene frequency definition is an example of [[microevolution]] (meaning below the level of the species), but not [[macroevolution]](above the level of the species){{fact}}<!-- Is this really the distinction between micro- and macro-?  And is a change of gene frequency really equal to micro-? --> &mdash;a distinction which is important to some anti-evolutionists.

The gene frequency definition is an example of [[microevolution]] (meaning below the level of the species), but not [[macroevolution]](above the level of the species){{fact}}<!-- Is this really the distinction between micro- and macro-?  And is a change of gene frequency really equal to micro-? --> &mdash;a distinction which is important to some anti-evolutionists. Macroevolution can be seen as the multiple instances of microevolution that have added up in a population, producing a new species. This is also known as speciation. Speciation has been observed multiple times in scientific experiments, but this is not proof of evolution. Speciation is the development of a new species from an existing population, whereas evolution is the change in gene frequency in a population over time.

=== Increasing genetic information ===

=== Increasing genetic information ===

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God, but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned.  Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." <ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God, but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned.  Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.".<ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>

They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn. </ref>

They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn.</ref>

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion.<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref>  Some evolutionists have also said this.  [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion.  He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion&ndash;a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint&ndash;and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it&ndash;the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<br /><br />...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion.<ref>[https://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref>  Some evolutionists have also said this.  [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion.  He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion&ndash;a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint&ndash;and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it&ndash;the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<br /><br />...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

== Science or history ==

== Science or history ==

They further argue that scientists are unable to apply the [[scientific method]] to past events such as evolution, as those events are no longer available for observation, measurement, and testing.

They further argue that scientists are unable to apply the [[scientific method]] to past events such as evolution, as those events are no longer available for observation, measurement, and testing.

[[Richard Dawkins]] seemed to acknowledge that evolution is unobserved history when he said that "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."<ref>Dawkins, Richard, [http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/dawkins_print.html Interview with Bill Moyers], 3rd December 2004.<!-- probably: it's actually listed as "12.03.04", which could be 12th March, in theory. --></ref>

[[Richard Dawkins]] seemed to acknowledge that evolution is unobserved history when he said that "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."<ref>Dawkins, Richard, [https://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/dawkins_print.html Interview with Bill Moyers], 3rd December 2004.<!-- probably: it's actually listed as "12.03.04", which could be 12th March, in theory. --></ref>

== Use of different definitions ==

== Use of different definitions ==