Why should i believe evolution when biologists cannot define anything?
Species, evolution, theory of evolution, heritability, fitness, organism, subspecies, selection, gene, population, traits.
These are all things that biologists seem to be either not able to define, cannot agree on a definition, or has not been tried to define. I will tell you what i mean.
Species has many definitions, and none are agreed upon. So if your theory of evolution demands a theory of species, how can it have concencus?
What is heritability? If one does not have an idea of species, then where are genes inherited from?
Sometimes evolution is defined as: "change in allele frequencies in a population across generations" How much change? what kind of populations? what is the definition of an allele which is not ambiguous or agreed on? Could all of life be the population? if so how do we show that the allele frequency actually does change and that we just havent checked eneough organisms yet?
What are traits? is hemochirality a trait? did that evolve? Is my trait that my farts make a sound evolved? how exactly and why did fart sound evolve?
what is fitness? "A simple way to think of fitness is as the number of offspring an individual leaves in the next generation. Suppose, for example, that in a species of annual plant, only 1 of every 1000 seeds survives to reproductive age, and that those that survive produce an average of 3000 seeds. The average fitness of that type of individual is 0.001 × 3000 = 3." - evolution, Futuyma. How does this make sense? its an arbitrary cutoff that says evolution stops acting at 2 generations. you might aswell say that the fitness of an organism depend on the next 3,4,500 generations of its offspring.
This central evolution textbook taught at universities all around, also claims all traits are evolved, which is itself contested within biology. So where do i go for the actual theory exactly? Where is the full, no gaps, no simplifications Evolution^(TM)? If i wanted to know what black holes really are, physicists would point me towards the state of the art, inspired by stephen hawking papers. I can find no such real papers in biology that people have concencus around. T
It seems like all the Biologists agree that evolution is real, and that the theory of evolution explains it. Yet it does not seem like there is widespread agreement about 1) what is the form of evolution proper? and 2) what is the theory of evolution actually in its details?
How can one have a science, where every fundamental concept is vague and not agreed upon? it makes the science itself vague, uncertain, unspecific. And i cant believe that.
In conclusion, either evolution is stripped of some of its linguistic power, and we fuel it only by statistics and quantitative data and form a new theory. Or we throw it all away.
Prove me wrong please.