Moose (The phrase from my "signature") writes:
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
The above was by attempt at a concise but most general definition of what is evolution. It is also my stating of the difference between the
fact of evolution and the
theory of evolution.
Fact - Changes in the environment.
Theory - Caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. For the further discussion I will substitute the term "sub-environments" for the "components"
My position is that evolution is the grand sum of everything that has happened since the origin of the universe, the universe being the all-encompassing environment. The universe can be broken down into sub-environments, sub-sub-environments, etc., each with their own patterns of evolution. These subdivisions continue to the subatomic scale.
Now, the "real world" is generally (always?) the sum of "gray areas", and any dividing point discussed is probably going to be an arbitrary choice. My view is that the universe consists of an infinite number of smaller environments.
That said, now we will discuss some groupings of environments, namely your types of evolution. I have taken the liberty of restructuring and reordering them a bit, but I haven't changed any of your wordings.
Eclipse writes:
1a) Big bang - Infinitesimal region that spun around really fast and then broke apart.
1b) Cosmic Evolution - The origin of time space and matter from the big bang.
2) Chemical Evolution - The origin of more complex elements that came from the hydrogen produced by the big bang.
3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution- the origin of stars and planets form dust clouds.
Evolution types 1-3 are what are grouped in the "Big Bang and Cosmology" forum here at .
1a, the big bang, is the starting point of it all, from a geometric point (zero dimensional). I really don't like your description, but the only alternative I'm going to offer is the previous sentence. Unless you wish to dispute that sentence, I don't think we need to discuss the big bang further. I have no qualifications to do such, and there are plenty of topics elsewhere, which cover the gory details.
1b-3, I would lump under "Cosmic Evolution". Offhand, I have no great objections to your definitions except that #2 does have a massive error. The transmutations of elements are not chemical reactions. The origin of the heavier elements is that of nuclear evolution, or more specifically, fusion. Not that nuclear fission and chemical reactions might not also be happening.
There is one special sub-environment of #3 that you don't really touch on. That is the evolution of the planet Earth. This is geology, which is my area of formal education.
Geology, of course, is covered in the "Geology and the Great Flood" forum. In the history of , there has been a fair amount of administrative discussion of having the "Great Flood" portion of that title included. The reality is that the Noahic flood is a theme that can, should, and does get covered in several of the forums. In the context of , my preferred title for the forum would be "Geological Evolution".
Eclipse writes:
4) Organic Evolution - Life from non-living things.
Flat out a bad name, with a satisfactory description. I could accept "Inorganic to Organic Evolution". This theme is covered in the "Origin of Life" forum. I have more to say on this, but it will wait until a later message.
Eclipse writes:
5) Microevolution - The variations that occur within the kinds such as dogs and wolves having a common ancestor.
6) Macroevolution - One kind animal changes into another like an ameba slowly becoming an elephant.
I also might well have more to say on this later, but for right now I will accept these definitions. These themes are covered in the "Biological Evolution" forum. Originally that forum was titled just "Evolution", but it was changed to try to keep the non-biological evolutions out of the discussions.
I don't really want to bring issues in from other topics, but I feel the need to cover one thing here. You probably have noticed that many forum members get testy (if not all out cranky) when the term "theory of evolution" is used to include things outside of biology. To them, the "theory of evolution" and the "theory of biological evolution" are synonymous. While this may be most reasonable in the context of biology discussions, I personally like to put the modifiers in front of the "evolution", if I am getting into such a specific area. To me, there are many theories of evolution, which isn't to say that there isn't one main "theory of biological evolution".
Closing comments for this message. To again brush on material from other topics, my impression is that your conflicts with the various "evolutions" seem to be confined to #6, Macroevolution. It may or may not be relevant to this topic, but I'm wondering about your general position in the "evolutionist-creationist" spectrum. The content of message 1, to me, hints that you are NOT a young Earth creationist (YEC).
For the record, file me under "old Earth agnostic evolutionist".
Moose
I created the above message on 5/10/05. I wasn't totally happy with it, and had hopes of doing some further tweeks to the content. Alas, I had a hard time getting back to it, so I'll post it as it was created 10 days ago. You are certainly also welcome to take all the time you want. - Moose
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
™ Version 4.2