|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So Ray. Thanks for picking out one of the posts that strayed from the topic -- the definition of evolution -- for comment (I also notice that you paid no attention to the refutations of his several errors and misrepresentations). Can we get back on topic?
Do you agree that the definition of evolution is:
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" If not why. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
While Mayr agrees that the genetic definition is important he rejects it to represent the meaning of evolution. And yet Ernst Mayr "contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept" and he also defined evolution as:
quote: The genetic definition is not the only valid definition. In fact, the genetic definition was first postulated by R.A. Fisher in the early 1930s. The ensuing biological synthesis (until 1950) became divided into two camps: the geneticists and the naturalists. My personal preference is
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time. Because the naturalist can measure and document changes in hereditary traits, as Mendel did, without needing genetic analysis. But I don't see that as being significantly different from
Evolution is the change in a population's genetic traits across generations. In either case we get change that is hereditary and that is passed from one generation to the next based on relative reproductive success.
Evolution IS NOT a change in gene frequencies, it is an observation, an inference made after the fact based on variation, homologies, inheritance and fossils. Evolution is an observation (traditional understanding) the naturalist position. I suppose you think gravity is just an observation, an inference. Sorry ray, but this is not a definition either, it is just a way for you to avoid confronting the evidence. Perhaps you should read Mod's Message 122 and the links he provided. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
[Ray: where is your second quote mark?] Right where I left it (after concept).
First off, Mayr is known for populational thinking and not the synthesis of Mendelian genetics into Darwinian science. He is known for both. Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia
quote: He comes from the side of naturalist (ornithologist) and taxonomist and he had reservations about a "gene centric" view. He is also known for inconsistency. I suggested you read Mods Message 122 and follow the links: apparently you haven't done that. One of them was
Sandwalk: What Is Evolution?
quote: I suggest you read the whole article. That Mayr can give - and use - two different definitions does not mean that one or the other is more correct. In the second case he is talking about adaptive evolution -- the 'fixing' of changes in the genotype, a necessary step (imho) on the way to speciation. See Message 147 and related discussion with Hoot Mon. This doesn't happen without change in alleles and their frequency in populations. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I meant for the material quoted from page 157. You mean the part where I posted:
quote: That is the quote and the reference citation.
Who wrote the article on Mayr? Ninja Turtle, 007, Son of Sam or Britney Spears? Or did all of them have a say? The point is that Wikipedia is not a source. Are you saying he was not one of the principal architects of the modern synthesis? DO a google on it and see what names you come up with. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/...dent/Modern_Synthesis.html
quote: (FYI the indented portion is the direct quote from Mayr) Criticizing the use of wikipedia is useless if the same information is generally available and it is correct.
What essay is being referred to here? Is it this one? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html How does blog writer know that Mayr wrote said book to reply to said essay? Now you're just being confused. Note that "the blog writer" is a professor of molecular biology.
Moran is a geneticist, why wouldn't he disagree with Mayr? To say Mayr is inconsistent is merely an insult evading the fact that neither you or Moran have actually showed an inconsistency - it is asserted. No, actually it is shown by quoting Mayr from two different parts of the same book where he gives (or appears to give) two different definitions for "evolution" -- both are quoted so you can compare them yourself.
The point is that your genetic definition is not the only valid definition of evolution. I have supplied Mayr saying this specifically from the source you and possibly Moran quote mined, ignoring the text I pasted altogether. Usually, persons ignore what they cannot refute. This seems to be the case, here. I would surely appreciate a reply to my questions and points. That Mayr said that is not disputed. That he ALSO said the other definition is the point being made -- which it seems you are unable to refute and are attempting to ignore. If you don't believe this then check the book out at the library and read page 157.
Look, I am not obligated to do your work, I do not have to read any article, RAZD, ... But if you are going to argue that the quote from page 157 is not correct then you have to demonstrate it, and to do that you do need to go to the original source. You are the one claiming this is "quote mined" (ie quoted out of context) so it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that fact.
Mayr is not inconsistent: he acknowledged the importance of genetical explanation but said evolution is not defined at said level. He also says that it is. See page 157.
Message 166 Look, I just read Moran's blog page or whatever you want to call it. He has his opinions, he merely asserts. I go with Mayr because his definition makes sense. Moran is biased because he has spoken up for the genetic definition and cannot go back. For him to assert Mayr is confused without showing any confusion is cheap and unconvincing. The point is that I have a source for my view: Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr says evolution IS NOT a change in gene frequencies (2001:XV). You are just choosing the definition you prefer based on your opinion. Your cite is also from the preface rather than the actual body of the book, and so context is more difficult to evaluate. Looking in the body of the book for context you need to look at p 189 and this quote where he gives an alternate definition for evolution:
quote: Same book, but here he is talking specifically about macroevolutionary effects -- ie the evolution that leads to speciation -- rather than evolution in general. Finally, Mayr is not the only biologist that defines evolution, nor is he considered an ultimate authority, though his opinion is respected. One of the problems with the arguments from authority eh? For instance, another well recognized authority says:
quote: (quote is from the book referenced -- a common textbook used to teach evolution)
The point is that your genetic definition is not the only valid definition of evolution. But the point being discussed here is that it is a valid definition of evolution, one that is also supported by Mayr (as well as other authorities). Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : corrected page reference from 168 to 189 and expanded quoted material from that page. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No, you have said that. I know exactly who Mayr is and was. We know you are quite proficient in evolutionary theory, RAZD, but not in history of science. Mayr was not a chief architect; he was a principal player, still being quite young at the time in question. You could just admit that you were wrong, Ray. Notice I said "one of the principal architects" not chief architect -- that is your conflation to avoid the reality.
Then why use Britney Spears in the first place? Wikipedia is not a source; anyone with a computer can post anonymously, RAZD. And in this case got it 100% correct. Gosh. Wonder why?
Is Moran saying that Mayr 2001 was a reply to his blog or Talk Origin page or both or something else and how does he know? Or is it just his judgement that Mayr 2001 was a reply to something HE WROTE? I have absolutely no idea where you get this bizarre concept from Ray. Moran wrote the article and quoted Mayr in it -- so how could the book quoted in the article be written as a response to the article that quotes the book? One can conclude that reading for comprehension is not your strong suit if you make assertions like this.
What we actually have is two quotes; one from the preface and one from page 157 under the heading "Conclusions." The preface quote, being in the preface, does not in any way diminish what is said. The preface is establishing context for the entire book. The preface quote said that genetical explanation is important BUT it is not the definition of evolution. The book follows this scheme: it covers the importance of genetics (page 157) but, like the preface says, it is not the definition of evolution. Mayr supplies the definition of evolution which you have evaded two times now - good job RAZD, and very objective.
Notice that you claimed I had "quote mined" the definition on page 157 -- that means misrepresenting what was said out of context. For reference here is all of page 157:
quote: Note: when I use a quote box like this I do not need to use quote marks -- they would be redundant. Now, please point out where he contradicts evolution as "genetic change from generation to generation in populations" anywhere in that quoted material, for that is your claim when you say I quote-mined. Show me where in that material he says this is not evolution, Ray, or acknowledge that this is an accurate and correct quote of the material and there is not misrepresentations of what Mayr said on that page. Note that this is his conclusion to "Section II: How Are Evolutionary Changes and Adaptedness Explained" and are not just off the cuff remarks.
I have shown quote mine and you have evaded it like the plague. No you haven't -- you have not demonstrated that I misrepresented what he said on page 157 or taken it out of context at all: you haven't even discussed what he said on page 157 because you are avoiding it Ray. Or you don't understand what "quote mining" means.
Page 157 does not say anything about "a definition" but falls in the context of number #2 above. It says what evolution is. It is not qualified in stating what evolution is. You can call it something other than a definition if you want to Ray, but you are only fooling yourself.
Nonsense. Like I said: the preface sets the context. It's not a matter of opinion: the preface explains page 157 and so forth. You are deliberately engaged in equivocation. Speaking of equivocation: here is an example in your next quote: No Ray, what I have said is that Mayr say two contradictory things about what evolution is, and that to claim that only one or the otehr of them applies is false and misrepresents the reality: that is what you are doing.
No, Mayr has said that it is not. How much more clearer can it be? You are straight out lying to the Forum: Mayr said evolution is not a change in gene frequencies. Page 157 says nothing about definition: you and Moran have added that claim to the text. And on page 157 he says
quote: He says both, as I have pointed out, and ignoring either is to misrepresent what he says. Get it? Getting all huffy and posting one in big colored letters does not negate that he also said the other. Now I also give you this quote from near the end of the book, where he is wrapping up all the issues covered:
quote: Can you tell me where in that page he says evolution is not "genetic change from generation to generation in populations" Ray? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : spleling in end quote compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Negative. I did not say that you quote mined "the definition" on page 157 ... Yet on Message 165 you said:
I have supplied Mayr saying this specifically from the source you and possibly Moran quote mined, ... And on Message 171 you said:
I have shown quote mine and you have evaded it like the plague. Conclusion: yes you did accuse me of quote mining, and now that it has been shown that you cannot support this claim you are equivocating?
Ernst Mayr wrote an entire book on the subject of this little essay." RAZD: my question is: what essay is Moran talking about in the above quote? Do you or do you not know? My simple interpretation is that (a) "the subject of this little essay" is the definition of what evolution is, that (b) "this little essay" is the one with those words in it, and that (c) he notes that Mayr wrote a whole book on the subject (defining what evolution is) from which he proceeds to quote. If you think this is whack, then I suggest you go to the horses mouth and ask Dr. Moran -- he has his email addy on the essay. It's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, and it's irrelevant to the thread.
Where do you get the idea that it is a definition when nothing written indicates that it is a definition? This is rhetorical. In the preface Mayr specifically says genetic centrist is not the definition and something else is. From the words used, Ray: "Evolution ... consists of ... " -- with no qualification of the statement anywhere in the rest of the paragraph. Gravity between two objects consists of the the attraction between the two objects based on their mass and the distance between them (squared). Notice, Ray, that your pet quote does not mention the word definition at all, so you are guilty of conflating this word into that quote. Where do you get the idea that he says that quote involves a definition?
You have said that Mayr contradicts, but that is not true. He only "contradicts" if you ignore the Preface and arbitrarily label certain passages definitions when they are not in view of the Preface. Really Ray, your logic is faulty: if I ignore the preface there is no contradiction. You are really making a mountain out of a molehill by this ridiculous argument. The reality is that Mayr made two statements in the book that are contradictions:
Do you dispute that these two statements are contradictory? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : mary\mayr tpoy Edited by RAZD, : subtitle compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Q.
quote: Such changes are not necessarily hereditary, they can be acquired traits (muscles), so I would add hereditary. I would also use genome or genotype instead of blue-print, as that is not strictly accurate as a description of the function of DNA. And finally there is no mention of the time scale of these changes -- do they occur in individuals (no) or are they realized in descendant populations (yes)? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We can just simplify the language to:
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation Or is there something missing there from your definition? compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
oops looks like your content was deleted ... that's what happens when you insult instead of deal with the issue.
For clarity Ray, "quote mining" is taking something OUT OF CONTEXT in a manner that MISREPRESENTS its original meaning. I have not done that. You have totally FAILED to show that to be the case, so all you do now is rail, insult, dance and equivocate on your original argument. That is the truth. Mayr said two things that are contradictory. That has been shown, that is the truth. There are other places where he gives other "definitions" -- one example is:
quote: That too shows "inconsistency" in his writing. Perhaps you could document some other place where he says it is not the change in frequency of alleles? You know, back up your position with additional information? For it certainly seems that the main body of the book keeps referring to evolution as hereditary change in populations from generation to generation in one form or another. This would also be on topic for this thread - the definition of evolution. Given the topic of the book you should be able to substantiate your position by providing a quote of "what Evolution is" where it does not involve hereditary change in populations from generation to generation -- if that is really Mayr's position in the body of the book. Consider that it is possible that Mayr was saying that "evolution is not a change in gene frequencies", but that it is still "consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species", because that is more than just change in gene frequencies (which is true). Enjoy. ps -- This is what a quote mine looks like when exposed: (1) your quote in Message 172 Ernst Mayr, writing critically in the context of the way evolution is presented and explained in literature:
quote: (2) The actual text with your quoted sections in pink:
quote: You have misrepresented what he was talking about when you say
....the principles of genetics must be thoroughly explained....[however]....most treatments of evolution ... There is no "however" involved. What he says is that evolution is not just "a change in gene frequencies" as it involves other components, but he also consistently throughout the book says that evolution does not occur without a hereditary (ie genetic) component. To say otherwise is to misrepresent what he says, and to use your quotation to justify that position is to be guilty of quote-mining. Edited by RAZD, : down Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : added ps compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So we have this quote from the beginning of the book, where he is talking about evolution in general (Part I - What is Evolution)
quote: Italics in the original. So what can he mean when he says "Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies.'" (p. xiv, preface)? He could be saying that just change in gene frequencies is not enough to be evolution, but can we substantiate that from the book?
quote: Here we have an explicit statement of where he explains why "a change in gene frequencies" is not evolution, because it involves genes that are not subject to selection. It is clear from the rest of the book (and the numerous quotes I've provided from it) that Mayr considers genetic change to be an important element of evolution, and that it must be linked with phenotype selection - the "turnover of the individuals of every population from generation to generation." This is why I also prefer "hereditary traits" to "genetic traits" in the definition we have been discussing on this thread:
Or we could specify hereditary phenotypic traits ... if we need to. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : finished. Edited by RAZD, : completed compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
westernjoe in Message 8 states:
That is not the definition of evolution. The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. I would compare this with the university definitions presented in Message 107 here and with the subsequent discussion above.
quote: You will note that both of these discuss the "change in frequency of alleles within a population over generations" type of definition, but also discuss hereditary traits at a wider focus. You will also note that they teach degree courses in biological evolution, and thus we can be confident that they know what they are talking about. In Message 14 westernjoe replies
After we get that straight we can get on to the business of what constitutes "micro-evolution" and what doesn't. So let's start there...it will be fun to start from the beginning and take it nice and slow. "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes,Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 Curiously, that this is similar to the "change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation," which you originally claimed was wrong. Now can you tell me how to measure the frequency of alleles for a fossil? Note, you may want to read Message 192 above that discusses Mayr's explanation of why he thinks "a change in gene frequencies" alone is not evolution, because it involves genes that are not subject to selection. In Message 16 westernjoe adds
It seems to me you've attempted to get around the real issue by defining your theory in a very broad way, as something like "heritable changes over time." No, it is really specific by referring to hereditary traits, because this does not confuse the issue with non-effective mutations that can be counted as genetic changes while not affecting in any way the growth, development, behavior, survival or breeding of the organism. Such mutations do not affect the phenotype and thus are not subject to selection. Without selection it is not evolution. Saying that evolution is the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation is actually more precise as it is telling you what is subject to selection.
but the problem is, ToE was constructed to explain the buildup of genomes... LOL. Seeing as they did not even know what a "genome" was when Darwin formulated his theory of evolution, your comment is patently false. The theory of evolution was developed to explain the diversity of life at the time Darwin formulated it. Since then it has been used to explain the complete and full diversity of life that we now know, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory and the archeological record, from geology, physics, paleontology and the fossil record, and from chemistry and the genetic record. There is more to explain, yet the theory is still the same, it is still descent with modification. We now know that the modification is to hereditary traits via genetics, but this has only refined the original concept.
... therefore, any ole change in bodies does nothing to explain where genomes came from... Nor does the theory of evolution or the process of evolution or the SCIENCE of evolution need to explain where genomes come from. All evolution needs to explain is what exists: the diversity of life we can see around us, as well as what is known from history, archeology, the fossil record and the genetic record, etc. The theory of evolution does this by descent with modification.
that's why ToE must have a tie to changes in dna sequences. Curiously you have now fully confused yourself between the process of evolution and the theory of evolution. All the theory needs to do is explain the evidence we have for the diversity of life.
So ... define the theory of evolution. You may want to refer to the The Definition for the Theory of Evolution (if you have learned how to follow links to other threads where the different topics are already covered). In a simple form the theory of evolution can be defined as follows: the theory of evolution is that the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - coupled with the process of speciation - the division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations - is sufficient to explain the diversity of life.
I would also like to know if you believe micro and macro are accomplished via the same mechanism. Take your time....I'll be waiting...this is going to be fun. To answer that, YOU are going to have to define what YOU mean by "micro" and "macro" ... and, curiously we have a thread dedicated to that: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added later joe comment Edited by RAZD, : added end. Edited by RAZD, : added further response Edited by RAZD, : ... by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
westernjoe in Message 19 states:
I'm absolutely on-topic, as I am disputing your very premise, which is your definition of evolution.
Evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation http://www.williamjhudson.net/evolution/glossary.html "Evolution: A change in the gene pool of a population over time. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve." I note two things about this: (1) this is now the third definition you have offered, and (2) the gene pool consists of the total hereditary traits for the population - so there is no real difference between these definitions. What you are saying is that my definition - that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is wrong, because the "real" definition is that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Color me underwhelmed.
You then asked for a "mechanism" that would stop this so-called evolution from turning into macro evolution......but by doing so you are assuming that your mechanism of microevolution actually exists. You still confuse me with coyote, Message 3:
coyote writes: I have asked this question on several sites, and on multiple threads, and have never received a satisfactory answer: What mechanism prohibits the micro-evolutionary events that everyone admits occur from adding up to a macro-evolutionary event over time? In other words, what mechanism prevents evolution from going beyond "kinds" (which is not a scientific term, or even a defined term, but may serve here to represent the idea). What mechanism prohibits speciation, followed by speciation and still more speciation? It speaks volumes of your ability to read and comprehend things, when you (a) can't see that the definitions of evolution are the same, and (b) confuse the people you are replying to.
I have challenged you to show me an example and you refuse to do it. If you don't care to debate fine. If you can't even present one example of evolution, as your theory defines it, then I suppose the debate is over. So providing one example will satisfy you that I am right? Several examples have already been presented, denial of them does not make them go away. We have ring species:Greenish warblers Here we see a small difference in hereditary traits - slight difference in plumage coloration and slight difference in mating songs that leave the two varieties reproductively isolated. These differences can be tracked around the far side of the ring, and they show gradual change from one to the other, and gene flow (reproduction mixing hereditary traits in hybrid zones) between adjacent varieties. We have pelycodus:A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus Here we see the variety of hereditary traits in the "gene pool" as bands at each level, we see a general trend in their change from level to level (= time = passage of many generations), and we see a division of the parent population into two reproductively isolated daughter populations. we have foraminiferaarticle 8 The latter example shows "An intact fossil record with no missing links" and "a virtually complete evolutionary record" with "hundreds of speciation events" where "The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents." The continuous fossil record extends back past the K-T boundary, 65 million years ago. Based on your argument (I won't call it logic) you will now concede that evolution does indeed consist of the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Now you MAY be able to argue that the "genetic definition" (which is what evolutionary biologists usually call the "change in frequency of alleles in populations over generations" definition) is the better definition, but to do that, you will need to show how you have measured this change in the three examples of evolution in action shown above. I'll await your reply ...
But you must also realize that it is then wrong-headed of you to expect others to present a mechanism that will somehow stop a mechanism of which doesn't even exist. In otherwords, you've constructed a strawman of an argument It is your assertion that evolution does not exist, and you have yet to establish this as a credible statement in any way. This small detail means that the straw man is your argument. Curiously, you are claiming that the life work of millions of scientists is all smoke and mirrors, while you somehow posses an insight nobody else has. All this based on your personal assertion ... and you ask us for evidence. Interestingly, saying that something does not happen does not prevent it from happening: you can claim that the earth does not spin on it's axis, but that won't make is so. Amazingly, life will continue to live, eat, sleep, reproduce and evolve, whether you think so or not: nature is completely undeterred in any way by your opinion. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray pix1
Is this succinct? Yes, but ... you can have evolution without resulting in new species, natural selection operates on the phenotype rather than the genotype, genetic composition is not always expressed in the phenotype and ... so I would have said:
quote: Not quite so succinct ... Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray -Sky-
Should be changed to "over time". Good scientific procedure requires that a process be reproducible and observable. However, in this case, the concept of "Evolution" generally extends well beyond the boundaries of good science. The problem is that "evolution" is a term used for several processes, one of which is biological. The "definition" by Ihategod is missing the aspect of heredity, and without heredity biological evolution would not work. It also is missing where evolution occurs. The definition I prefer is Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. I prefer generations to "over time" as this is a more appropriate measure for the time involved for any species. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Evolution is the change in frequency of heritable traits within a population from generation to generation. This is a bit unsatisfactory to me, because it can just be an oscillation back and forth between existing traits, while the hereditary traits (alleles, etc) are unchanged. While technically true, to me evolution (the process) occurs when the hereditary trait changes to a new variant of existing alleles\traits\genes\whatever. This is similar to Mayr's objection to neutral traits not being evolution because they are not selected. My personal criteria for a definition of the process of evolution is that it must be applicable in the field without genetic analysis, and it must be applicable to fossils (for which genetic information is poor to non-existing), and thus I tend to a larger, more directly observable change. This process, as Straggler notes, is also the basis for the Theory of Evolution, often conflated with the process, and it is also the basis for the science of evolution, so we do have to be careful which term we mean. Darwin did not like the term because it was already used in embryology for the development of embryos evolving through different stages. Creationists also like to bring in stellar evolution and other ways the term is meant, so it is usually good measure to qualify the use with "biological evolution" when appropriate. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024