ZouPrime

This is a short pseudo rant/nitpick. Feel free to comment.

Evolution is sometimes presented as a Fact and a Theory, the fact being the observation that the frequency of allele do changes over time, and the theory being that natural selection/genetic drift/similar mechanisms are responsible for the fact previously mentionned.

I've always found this whole concept lacking. For me, Evolution is a Fact, a Theory and also a Process.

Natural selection, genetic drift, and other similar mechanisms are, in truth, processes. They are completely independant of the actual media or context they are working in. In other words, it is accidental that natural selection is mainly studied in the biological context: as a process, it can be applied in many other situations. The popular examples are computer simulations and their practical applications: they don't rely at all on the characteristic of life: they are simply the mathematical result of what happen when you put imperfect self-replicating entities in a limited ressource environment, and life happens to follow these characteristics.

I know the distinction seems trivial, but it is definitively not. If more creationists were able to understand the actual evolution processes without having to refer to the biological implications of these processes (and thus the entire emotional baggage attached to the their creation myth), they would probably be convinced much more quickly. The reason being that it is very hard to argue against a mathematical process, while real-life observations can always be critized more easily. They can always say that scientists are dishonest or mistaken, but algebra is algebra, and 1+1=2 is true whatever the context. Mathematics are just more credible in the end.

So, IMHO, evolution should be describe as:
1) A FACT, being that the frequency of alleles in a population change over time.
2) A PROCESS, being the combinaison of natural selection, genetic drift, and other similar mechanisms happening between imperfect self-replicating entities in a limited ressources environment.
3) A THEORY, being that the process identified in 2) is in fact responsible for the fact identified in 1)

Maybe it's the computer scientist in me who is talking, but I feel it's a much better way of presenting the ToE.

Plognark

While I agree with your take on it, this is, unfortuantely, probably not all that effective. People are generally put off by math.

The only sort of person I can imagine this having some clout with is the engineering crowd, which seems to have an above average density of ID proponents. They may be one of the only groups comfortable enough with math, in general, to listen to such an approach. :huh:

Peez

I also see "evolution" as a fact, theory, and process. However, my definitions are somewhat different:

Process: Evolution is an inheritable change from one generation to the next in characteristics of individuals in a population.

Fact: Living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors.

Theory: The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Higher-level patterns of evolution are also included here.

These are simplified, but capture the essence of how I see things. It is important to understand that, no matter the semantics, there are a number of distinct concepts involved in "evolution."

Peez

Martin B

I wonder how much value we get out of atomizing it into "fact", "process", and "theory", though. Evidently, the process is a fact along with the historical fact and together they form a theory with great explanatory power. I think something is lost when we try to differentiate these points as opposed to demonstrating their unity, IMHO.

Sorry if I sound nitpicky. To be sure, I agree with all of you, but not sure of the value of these statements.

ZouPrime

The main advantage is that you can theorically study evolution without even mentioning biology. Creationist don't attack the ToE because they don't agree with the process (the vast majority of them don't even understand it, or are not even aware of its existence): they attack it because the implication of the ToE in biology goes against their religious belief. If we can make them understand the ToE without attacking at the same time their religious belief, they may be more inclined to accept it.

But reading back my OP, I agree that the distinction is far fetched and not terribly interesting for the vast majority of people. But still... if one day I end up writing a book on the ToE, I'll try to present it without ever mentionning biology.

JAKOB

The danish popular science auther Tor Nørretranders has already written one version of that book, comes only in Danish "Verden vokser- tilfældighedens historie", poorly translated: "The universe is growing- the story of randomness". There is no math in that book, but it presents sort of your view I think...

travc

The notion of "process" is a good one. Any system that meets the base assumptions will necissarially (according to simple logic) evolve, regardless of the material it is instansiated out of.

However, biological evolution via variation and natural selection + drift is better described as a "model" IMO. For the purposes of science, wether you beielve it is "really a fact" is irrelevent, it is a damn powerful predicive model, and therefore good science (and useful).

Peez

Hi Martin B

I would not consider distinguishing among these concepts to be "atomizing" anything. The history of evolution and the mechanisms that drive it are completely different concepts. Again and again I have seen people get confused precisely because they fail to recognize the important differences described above.

Peez