Evolution

Not to be confused with "Evilution".

Description

While the term is used in various ways, in this context "evolution" refers to change of inherited traits among reproductive populations over generations, which is summarily defined as "descent with [inherent genetic] modification" as coined by Charles Darwin. It is a natural phenomenon that encompasses the diversity of all life. One of the driving mechanisms behind this process is "natural selection".

File:Tree of life.jpg

You cannot escape your own heritage.

The theory of evolution (ToE) is the scientific model that explains how and why biological evolution occurs, as well as explaining the unity and diversity of life (not its origins) by concluding that every known species extant or extinct, is the result of evolution through common descent (and a few other processes such as "horizontal gene transfer" and "endosymbiosis.") As a result of the overwhelming evidence in favor of the theory, it represents the consensus of the scientists in the field of biology and science in general, thereby making it one of the strongest and well-supported theories in science. The theory of evolution is the very backbone of modern biology and understanding evolution has become a fundamental aspect in that particular field of science.

Understanding evolution (especially how it works) isn't easy. In order to adequately understand evolution, you need to have a basic understanding of many different things, including cellular biology, genetics, anatomy, geology, palaeontology, taxonomy, and more. It is a very complex subject and passing biology classes in college requires following many lessons on evolution, depending on what schools you are talking about. Many notable scientists throughout history have devoted their entire careers to this very subject, and many still do. Despite this, there are quite a few people who dismiss the entire scientific paradigm by asserting that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact" (among other asinine statements), as if they know better than every expert anywhere ever. The bulk of this category consists mainly of scientifically illiterate morons.

Something Not Worth Anyone's Attention

MrID on Evolution (MrID):

By using the science of the new Intelligent Design, or <id> for short, <id> has through its "Biological Interrelation," (BiTs) shown that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) had been using the following assumptions/presuppositions or scientific conclusions as basis for ToE:

1. Life is probably not intelligently designed (not intellen) since all species might have been following purely natural processes alone. If life is not intelligently designed (intellen), so are all species and their origins and behaviors with respect to time, surroundings and conditions;
2. All processes that deal with living organisms are not following intelligent principles;
3. All Xs that deal with living organisms are not categorized as "intelligently designed (intellen) X". Thus, all biological living organisms and their structures and anatomical parts are all categorized as simply natural Xs (naturen). - from MrIntelligentDesign

Correction (gdc member):

Setting aside the fact that "BiTs" is only valid in the mind of our friend, not taken seriously by any scientist anywhere, ever, and that these three "assumptions/presuppositions" are all the same thing, this is all wrong since the theory of evolution doesn't make any of these assumption/presupposition, nor ever needed to.

For one thing, evolution can occur as a result of intelligent intervention. Never heard of artificial selection before? The dog in your house and the banana that you eat are all "intelligently evolved." Of course, most life isn't subject to artificial selection. In this regard, natural selection, genetic drift, and other mechanisms that don't involve any intelligence are fully capable of accounting for the diversity of life that we observe and there is no scientific evidence that any biological processes are being controlled and / or the result of any intelligence. And a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.

None of these are assumptions nor presuppositions, they are supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. For clarification, while the theory of evolution doesn't conclude that intelligence is involved, that doesn't mean the conclusion is that no intelligence was involved. This is a subtle, but huge distinction and a misconception that needs to be addressed over and over again.

Many people, most people in fact, believe that any natural process, even the ones that are seemingly random and not guided by any intelligence, are being controlled by an all powerful, intelligent entity. For those people, everything that the theory of evolution concludes is in some way the result of a master plan, indicative of a higher power. Thus, evolution doesn't refute intelligence in general, only specific forms of it like "special creation." All of this shows that our friend here is talking out of his ass.

Clarification (MrID):

Because of space limitation, MrID did not include here some explanations but, for fair science, let us clarify (for Correction as posted by member of GDC) and add some info for thought:

1. Yes, ToE must first clarify the real meaning and explanation of the topic of "intelligence" in science, as seen in reality. Does ToE follow the 71 researched definitions of "intelligence" or follow the correct definition from the new Intelligent Design <id>? Which? If ToE will follow the 71 definitions, then, ToE is wrong in the topic of "intelligence," but if ToE follows the new <id>, then ToE must be dropped/uprooted in science and be replaced by Biological Interrelation (BiTs);
2. If "intelligence" is used in science per <id>, then, science will be forced to accept the fact that life also is intelligently designed (intellen), so is the cell, so is DNA, so are all structures/parts of a living organism, thus evolution (ToE) must be dropped since ToE uses natural selection and ToE never uses intelligence. It must be "interrelation" by using Intelligent Selection (one major mechanism of BiTs);
3. If "intelligence" is used in science per <id>, then an Intelligent Agent (IA) is already predicted, which means if this IA had used "intelligence" in the origin of life (biogenesis), it is imperative or predicted that this same IA will also use "intelligence" in the diversities of all living organisms - thus, BiTs must replace ToE. - from MrIntelligentDesign

Correcting the "Clarification" (gdc member):

Because of some limitation, the clarification failed to address anything that was previously said in the correction, nor does it clarify anything at all. It only made more unwarranted assertions.

1. No, ToE doesn't need to follow any arbitrary demands of a wannabe scientist who cannot coherently describe his definition of the word "intelligence". What definition is he talking about? Nobody knowns and our friend gave no reason why anyone should give a damn about it. Also, our friend asserted that if ToE fails in one regard, his versions of intelligent design must be right. This is a logical fallacy called the argument form ignorance. If one explanation is wrong, another explanation doesn't automatically become right. And to make it worse, ToE isn't wrong and our friend doesn't have any explanation to compete with it.
2. Non sequitur. Scientists obviously use their intelligence, duh. That doesn't mean they need to accept that life is the product of intelligent design, not evolution through common ancestry. And once again, ToE does use intelligence sometimes, e.g. artificial selection.
3. Another non sequitur, two in fact. (1) Just because scientists use their intellect, that doesn't mean any intelligent agent was responsible for the origin of life and (2) nor does it mean that any intelligent agent was responsible for the diversification of all life. By the same reasoning, any intelligent potamologist must conclude that the path every river takes must've been planned by a river course committee, instead of just being the result of the topography and gravity. And every time a team of forensics stumble upon a dead body, the only cause of death they can conclude is a homicide. That is some faulty reasoning, to put it mildly. Also "biogenesis" is the formation of new life from already existing life, i.e. reproduction. It obviously cannot describe the origin of life. That is abiogenesis, the formation of life from non-life.

Clarification 2 (for Correction 1 & 2) (MrID)

1. (From Correction 1): If evolution (ToE) can occur as a result of intelligent intervention like artificial selection, then, ToE is directly pointing to an Intervener, or Agent of Originator or Agent for Effect. If there is an Agent/Intervener who could probably design life and change its course, then, by simple logic, ToE points to a direction of guided evolution (ToE). When ToE is guided, then, the Agent/Intervener who/which guides all living organisms will never use Natural Selection as one main mechanisms for ToE. Natural Selection is not and too different from Intelligent Selection (for Biological Interrelation, BiTs), thus, ToE is wrong and messing the explanation of reality in biology.

2. (From Correction 1 & 2): ToE's supporters are using the term "intelligence". But there are 71 researched definitions of "intelligence" as being messed and used by ToE-guided ideas and the new Intelligent Design <id> had nailed the definition of "intelligence", which definitions of intelligence (1/72 probability) ToE uses?

3. (From Correction 2): The reason why ToE is wrong because ToE fails to categorically and specifically classify all processes and all objects (Xs) of topics that the living organisms are dealing with especially in the topic of "process" and "anything, X" like population, cell, anatomical members or structures of living organisms. Once our science know how to separate all Xs between intelligently designed X (intellen) and non-intelligently designed X (naturen), then, from that result, science can concludes if all living organisms are really evolving (ToE) or interrelating (BiTs) with respect to time, place, condition of all living organisms. The result too will affect the course of changes of species and origins of species. Thus, by default, if ToE cannot provide a complete/exact explanation of reality in biological world while BiTs can, by default, ToE is wrong and BiTs is the only actual explanation of reality. In analogy, Newton's Physics is different from Einstein's Physics, so is ToE and BiTs - they are too different. ToE is incomplete in science and in reality while BiTs has set and complete explanations (but could be refined and developed) in both science and in reality.

4. (From Correction 2): It is true that all scientists use "intelligence" but as noted earlier, what do they mean when they say "intelligence"? Is it "problem-solution" or "problem-solution-solution"? And while those scientists dismiss "intelligence" in ToE (assume intelligence = 0), why they must still use "intelligence" when they talk/discuss about ToE? In science and in math, once a variable or constant, say m is dismissed as 0 (m = 0), that assumption must be used in all science and all calculations. But why ToE supporters and scientists, when faced with the topic of m are trying to change its value at will when they had already set that m = 0? Thus, ToE has no set of rules in science, which means, ToE has no set of basis of explanation and no basis for falsification, thus, ToE is wrong since ToE doesn't uses scientific method way of conducting real science.

5. (From Correction 2): BiTs acknowledges through its science book (Biology of the New Intelligent Design <id>), as discussed, that by using the flow of the river or earthquake or tsunamis or sandstorm or typhoon etc (and not life and living organisms) as objects for study, the mechanism for them is Natural Selection, that will lead to evolution (ToE). Which means, both evolution (ToE) and Natural Selection are fit for geological phenomena (Geology) since in Geology, especially, for example, the flow of the river, that phenomenon is both random and non-random. Non-random because you have an actual location of river; random because you don't know how gravity will form the flow of the river. But in biological world, in where life is the main goal of all living organisms, in biological world, all living organisms follow the mechanism of Intelligent Selection and life always follows a non-random approach , thus, directed or guided, either through a set of program or through set of limits on their cells/DNAs. Once a living organisms  passed its limits for life, that individual or population will surely die. Thus, ToE is not for Biology. ToE is best for Geology and has nothing to do with Biology. BiTs is solely for biology.