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

I didn't come up with that definition of evolution. It's one I've absorbed. If I'm wrong, I'll change my mind on this. But it has to be accepted scientific terminology, not philosophical preference.

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. I don't see that plastic is remotely natural, even though it's made up of natural elements. I also don't think that splicing fish genes into plants is natural either, or something that biological organisms do.

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' .

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

I don't think that's accurate. Mechanisms are an important part of science. Darwin needed to give an account for how evolution happened in order for it to become accepted science, not just note that species changed over time.

We could go on like this forever. If you find any evidence to suggest anything I've said is inaccurate or misrepresents the scientific view, let me know.

(I didn't btw claim mechanisms aren't an important part of science or anything remotely close to that. I was talking about the adjective 'biological' in the phrase 'biological evolution' - just like before).

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?

(I didn't btw claim mechanisms aren't an important part of science or anything remotely close to that). — Baden

So what you're saying is that biological evolution is defined as heritable changes over time, full stop?

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

Because biology is the study of organisms, not technology or society.

I was talking about the adjective 'biological' in the phrase 'biological evolution' - just like before — Baden

Philosophical thought experiment. Aliens at some point came down and messed with hominid DNA leading to homo sapiens.

Upon discovering this, would biologists consider that evolution, or some form of intelligent design? Or is it completely useless to be able to make such a distinction in science?

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?

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.

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

I don't think it is, thus the debates over intelligent design.

That being said, I don't think there is any evidence for intelligent design on Earth, just that it's possible somewhere, and we might do it ourselves one day.

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

You want me to define life for you? Can't you look it up? Is it enough to note that biology isn't geology, even though both are natural sciences? Human beings find it extremely useful to distinguish life from non-life, although both are made up of the same physical stuff.

But you can argue it's all the same, if you want. That it's all just a dance of atoms. I won't find it useful, and neither will science, but okay.

'Intelligent design' is a religiously inspired pseudoscience. It doesn't figure in the debate raised in the OP. If conscious agents cause changes in a gene pool (which are passed on) they are causing evolution.

'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

Generally speaking, yes it is, but we can't rule out the possibility that aliens can intelligently design life forms, just as we have been artificially selecting for, and recently, editing the genes of various species. It's nonsense when it comes to life on Earth (regarding aliens or gods), but not as a possibility.

If conscious agents cause changes in the gene pool, which are passed on, they are causing evolution. — Baden

Agreed in the broad sense. I doubt it's strictly the biological definition, though.

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. Or maybe you can, whatever, if you can't state your point after this I see no reason to continue this discussion.

I doubt it's strictly the biological definition, though — Marchesk

Ok, but you still haven't presented any evidence backing up your thoughts and doubts. I at least quoted "Rational Wiki". As I said, if you can find a definition of biological evolution from a reliable scientific source that excludes artificial processes as causative, I would love to see it.

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

This is clearly a strawman. "gufflefloomps" and "flufflehoomps" aren't English words, but "natural", "artificial", "biological", and "technological" are.

Ok, and with respect to evolution, their significance (as distinctions) is....???? What difference do these differences make with respect to evolution? If that isn't stated that he might as well be talking about gufflefloomps and flufflehoomps. And it's not enough to groundlessly - and tautologically - declare that their significance for evolution is that only one side of whatever distinction is significant in evolution and the other is not. The question is why and how.

Ok, and with respect to evolution, their significance is....???? — StreetlightX

I don't know what you mean by significance, but the relevance seems to just be a matter of terminology. Marchesk's claim is that we don't (and wouldn't) use the term "evolution" to refer to genetic engineering (for example), which is just like claiming that we don't (and wouldn't) use the term "mammal" to refer to some given cold-blooded animal. Asking for the significance of these claims (or, asking "what empirical fact would sanction such an artificial definition other than pure prejudice") doesn't really make much sense.

You can argue that we do (or would) use the term(s) in this way, but that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing.

Well 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'). But why? What do these distinctions mean with respect to evolution? What motivates these claims? If this is just a dispute over terminology, then why say that these distinctions are needed to make evolution 'meaningful' - as was M's original claim in his opening post? That's what I'm asking.

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

Well, to be accurate, evolution has different definitions. In the most broadest sense, it just means change over time, and can apply to anything that changes. But in the context of life, evolution has a more strict scientific definition, and that's the one I'm concerned with.

But why? What do these distinctions mean with respect to evolution? What motivates these claims? — StreetlightX

For me, I think it's very important to be clear on what a scientific field is and what it is not, and to not conflate that with other terminology. That doesn't help scientific discourse among the public at all, and it only leads to endless disputes like this one, which looks like a philosophical disagreement over how words should be used.

It's common enough in philosophy or religion or politics to import desired meanings into a scientific field, which can have bad consequences, or at the very least, muddy knowledge.

So this particular disagreement could easily take place in the context of GMO foods, and whether it's moral to do such a thing, where "natural" is considered good, and "unnatural" is considered bad, by some at least. Which would muddy the real issue, which is whether genetically modifying food might have undesirable side effects in a way that artificial or natural selection prevent, possibly. Or something along those lines.

And yet, it is an interesting discussion in it's own right. Where do we draw the line on natural and artificial (or cultural)?

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

I think it is an over-simplification to assume those who don't wear seat-belts, or those who make evolutionary-disadvantageous mistakes, are "stupid".

Evolution progresses in a relatively blind manner. What works survives and what doesn't is eventually eliminated most of the time. But it's not a clean and perfect formula. An otherwise healthy and fit organism can accidentally break a bone and die a few days later. A very intelligent organism may nevertheless have an lapse of perceptive judgement and fall to their death from up high.

Accidents are very real phenomena that are largely independent from any genetic fitness. There is no genetic code for forgetting to put on your seat belt - forgetting to put on your seat belt doesn't necessary mean you're stupid, it means your mind was elsewhere as the mind has a limited capacity. Perhaps you were late for work. Or perhaps you were thinking about what you had for dinner yesterday. This behavior is impossible to trace back to genetic code. Genes are only part of the story - an otherwise "fit" organisms may nevertheless fail in their environment simply because of accidental contingencies. Think about those tragic stories of young people who seem to have their whole life ahead of them until they die in a freak accident.

So when you say humans are preventing natural evolution by having laws against driving without a seat-belt, this is not entirely correct as these laws are not simply in place to ensure the survival of everyone who exists. They help remind those who listen that they ought to buckle up if they want to have a better chance at surviving.

One aspect of civilization that sets humanity apart from the rest of the biological world is the inevitable development of decadence. People who ordinarily would not survive "in the wild" are able to survive, and even "thrive" in the cocoon of society due to the increase in freedom. It is interesting to think, though, that perhaps civilization is not entirely "natural" in the sense of fitting-in with the rest of the world. Civilization, in many respects, sticks out like a sore thumb when compared to the rest of existence.

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

I've had some time to think this over. What seems clear to me is the following:

Dams, nests, webs, cities, and genetic engineering are not evolution in the biological sense. They are the byproducts of evolution. Dams aren't alive and don't pass their genes on to succeeding generations. Neither does concrete. As such, technology is not evolution, nor is the use of it.

BUT, evolution can and does act on the result of organisms modifying their environment. So we humans could use CRISPR to modify the germ line of an embryo, allow it to mature and be born, and then that person could have children and pass those modified genes on. That's not evolution. HOWEVER, evolution can act on the genetic modifications we made.

I'm rather certain that evolutionary science does not include genetic engineering as biological mechanism. It's technology, and technology (and culture) are not considered aspects of biological evolution by scientists.

At least I've never seen that claim, until today.

The 'strict definition' of Darwin? Or the 'strict definition' of Susan Oyama? Or the 'strict definition' of Mary Jane West-Eberhard? Or the 'strict definition' of Massimo Pigliucci? Or the 'strict definition' of Jablonka and Lamb? or the 'strict definition' of Andreas Wagner? The modern synthesis? The extended synthesis? What? Don't just say 'oh just stuff I've absorbed from here and there'. The so-called 'strict definition' you keep referring to is, as far as I can tell, a completely made up object.

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.

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

To be clear, do you think there are strict separation between fields of science? Particularly the life and hard sciences, such that what physicists study is not what biologists study, even though at times there can be overlap, since life lives in physical environments.

I've never ever heard a single biologists say that genetic engineering was part of biological evolution, but maybe they have?

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?

I think the relevant question is whether or not taking medicine or weaving webs to aid survival counts as "natural selection". Would you not say that spiders which weave webs are better suited to their environment than those that don't (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it makes it easier for them to catch prey)? And so those that weave webs survive to reproduce - passing on the genes that give them this ability - and those that don't die out? Or what about having a disposition to avoid colourful (mostly poisonous) plants?

I'd answer in the affirmative to both. So is there a difference between these situations and having the intelligence to make and take medicine?

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. It's true that webs and damns and even concrete impact evolution, since the environment is being modified.

It's similar to noting that a cosmic ray isn't evolution, even if it flips a gene that gets passed on. Neither was the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, but evolution worked on the resulting life forms that were fit enough to survive the changes in the environment.

What's the point of this question? Evolution doesn't abide by the banal disciplinary borders of institutional study. If you want to say: 'evolution is obviously biological because that's what biologists study', then you have the whole thing back to front. Anyway dude, I'm done here. When you can say, with a perfectly straight face that "Dams, nests, webs, cities, and genetic engineering are not evolution" - as though this sentence was even sensical to begin with - well, I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't have the terms of evolutionary science down well enough for this discussion to be productive.

I'll simply request, by way of being constructive, that you take a read of the paper I cited on page 3. It explicitly lays out how evolution has nothing to do with - and actively subverts - the pseudo distinction between nature and culture.

Webs are byproduct of evolution, not the life forms that evolve. But we're playing rather loose with terms in this thread. — Marchesk

Well, I agree that webs don't evolve (as webs don't reproduce). But I think the analogous question to the OP's is "does using webs to aid survival prevent natural selection?". I'd answer "no". In fact, webs are the naturally selected trait. So with that in mind, does making medicine to aid survival prevent natural selection? Or is the ability to make medicine a naturally selected trait?