As to the usefulness of distinguishing between natural and artificial, consider SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. If SETI detects a non-terrestrial signal broadcasting primes, they will know it's of alien origin. It makes no difference if someone points out that aliens are a natural part of the cosmos. Obliterating that distinction for SETI is of no help to them whatsoever, since they're trying to distinguish intelligent signals from radiation given off by other sources.

Similarly, it's not helpful to collapse the distinction between biological evolution and other meanings of the term.

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.

It's not possible to make a world where only what is good can be chosen because in such a world there is no freedom. — Cavacava

There is no freedom to do what, though? No freedom over what I choose to eat for lunch, or whom I hang out with today, or no freedom to bludgeon someone over the head?

Must all freedom get lumped together, such that terrible evils can't be prohibited, while other freedoms can be permitted?

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?

What would that world look like, if it were up to you? Would you prevent "all manner of evil," or only certain kinds of evil? What abilities would you grant and deny the creatures living there in order to achieve that end? How do you define evil in the first place? — aletheist

Let's say it's an Earth-like planet, and I was introducing humans to it, but I got to modify the potential human beings as I saw fit before doing so. And let's say one of the things I could do is change their genes so that sociopaths couldn't be born into that world.

I would do so, and moreover, I would increase the genes responsible for feeling empathy and experiencing love.

In that sense, I would act in a way to constrain their free will from behaving in a manner that is without consideration for others. But that's only as a start.

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.

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)?

'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.

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.

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.

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 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 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?

Suppose that G had no choice, he had to create evil to justify his creation, to create the best possible world, even though we may question how it can be the best. — Cavacava

Say you were granted the power to create your own world of your choosing (just another planet). Would you grant the creatures living there the ability to freely will all manner of evil?

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.

How could someone have genuine free will to love, while having no genuine free will in any other respect? — aletheist

I didn't say we couldn't have free will in other aspects, just not free will to do terrible things like murder. But I don't think that love has much to do with free will.

However, that's a different discussion.

Really? It seems obvious to me that love, hate, or indifference is always a choice that we make. — aletheist

It's not a choice I make.

Jesus taught that we should choose to love everyone - even our enemies. — aletheist

He did, and it's noble and all, but I don't see how it works in the real world. I'm very suspicious of anyone who claims to love everyone.

is a mistake to treat love as merely an emotion that comes and goes; in fact, it is an explicit commandment: — aletheist

I don't know how you can choose to love anyone. You either do your you don't. It can be a process, but it's not something you can force. Sure, I can act as if I love someone, out of duty, or because I think society requires it, or because my religion demands it, but that doesn't mean I actually love them.

I don't see how you can divorce love and hate from feeling. Imaging telling a loved one that you brought them a gift because it was your duty.

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.

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?

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.

Is love possible without free will? If not, could the possibility of love perhaps be a good that far outweighs the cost of permitting evil and suffering? — aletheist

Is love a freely willed choice, though? Do you get to choose who you love, who you hate, and who you're indifferent too? I have my doubts.

Let's say it is necessitated by having free will. Does that mean free will to do anything, or just free will to love?

I certainly don't love everyone, but I also don't commit terrible crimes against anyone, although surely my character would be improved by having more empathy. I'm not seeing that my free will to love needs the ability to murder to exist.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Because 99% would add in other things like tax dodging, queue-jumping, petty theft, flaming, driving without due care and attention, fracking, dropping litter, and so on. — unenlightened

But presumably God or a super AI would be able to draw the line such that we meaningfully had free will while not permitting the worst evils?

That is what we wish the world could be like. We want to be free, but we don't want people to be free to kill or enslave us, nor do we expect ourselves to be free to do those things (hopefully).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Could we define "free will"? — Chany

In context of the FWD, that would be libertarian free will. Lucifer, Adam & Eve, Ted Bundy, etc could have done otherwise.

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?

To the degree that the unit of evolution is a developmental system, then yes, there is nothing in principle that would rule out technology from being part of the process of evolution. — StreetlightX

Evolution could be stellar, it could be social, it could be sports, it could be evolution of the smartphone, and it can be biological.

What's not useful is collapsing all those into one meaning.

Evolution is defined by heritable changes in the gene pool from generation to generation. Doesn't matter how they get there. Genes come and go. That's it. — Baden

I don't think that's true when it's the result of technological means, but if I'm wrong, then human activity would be considered a mechanism of evolution. I've never seen that stated.

Ok, thanks for joining. — StreetlightX

Sure, do biologists consider technology to be a mechanism in human evolution?

That 'if' just means you want to be the omnipotent dictator. — unenlightened

Why would it need to be me? I'm guessing 99% of the world would rather genocide never occurred again.

Cite a reason, in principle, why it isn't. The onus is on you here. Your disbelief means nothing.. — StreetlightX

Your belief means nothing.

Yes I disagree. The Nature/culture divide is bad philosophy spliced onto perfectly indifference science. — StreetlightX

So technology is considered part of evolution. That's a new one on me.

I don't think collapsing such distinctions is useful. Yeah, we're all part of the cosmos. No, that doesn't help when distinguishing between human technological activity and biology.