Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,044 Year: 5,301/9,624 Month: 326/323 Week: 170/160 Day: 6/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution by Definition
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 8 of 74 (453972)
02-04-2008 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
02-04-2008 10:18 PM


ill "try"
ill try to define this elusive creature evolution:
evolution: the biological changes in living things.
it seems a nice basic definition. so i feel it is true. since even plants evolve. but there is more to the story, and further definitions needs to be sought.
so hmm. what can cause these biological changes?
environmental changes.
choice in mateing.
choice in habits.
mutations.
disease/microbes (or whatever i mean by that lol i think you know.)
all living things are subject to these things, and over time all things adapt and change by these things.
but wait..doesn't non living things evolve? doesn't the stars have an evolution?
would it be wrong then to say that since stars change in timely manners based on environmental changes, that it could be considered evolution?
so then lets see:
evolution: the changes in the universe of all things in it, by way of adaption, based on the conditions that it exists.
aha..now this would seem to encompass it in totality, but then..how can we further define it without writing a book? many things evolve by different methods, because thew conditions are so variable!
what a strange and wonderful universe!
i must admit, i cannot further define evolution. it is beyond my ability.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2008 10:18 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 02-05-2008 1:04 AM tesla has replied
 Message 10 by Trixie, posted 02-05-2008 6:14 AM tesla has not replied
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 10:11 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 11 of 74 (454039)
02-05-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
02-05-2008 1:04 AM


Re: ill "try"
i thought the question was, what is the TRUE definition of evolution.
do stars evolve?
has the earth evolved?
man has evolved?
the ocean currents have evolved?
the universe has evolved?
if it evolves..isn't it evolution?
evolution then would encompass more than the biological sense in a "true" definition.
a digression based on this observation:
the same elements that make up the earth and universe are present in the make up of biological things, and the same forces (strong force etc) are holding together these elements in biological things, as it holds things together in non biological things.
the term "alive" is applied only to the biological things, because of the complexity of the environments that the elements exist in.
ie: if you take biological ,material and examine its base composition, what is found? carbon..i dunno the rest. carbon based i do know.
now, the arrangement of the carbons and other elements work together in a complex fashion, therefore, it is "alive"
under this observation, the laws that apply to non living things, apply to living things. but must be scrutinized by individual environments (conditions).
so to say evolution of biological things is the most common understanding of the word evolution not a lie, but that a true definition of evolution would be attributed to things that "evolve"
Edited by tesla, : the=then
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 02-05-2008 1:04 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 02-06-2008 9:57 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 13 of 74 (454041)
02-05-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2008 10:11 AM


Re: ill "try"
you are quoting points that led to a conclusion, when it is the conclusion that is relevant to debate.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 10:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 10:33 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 15 of 74 (454127)
02-05-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2008 10:33 AM


Re: ill "try"
If I show that your premises are false, then so is your conclusion.
That's how debating works.
it does for a sophist. i am not a sophist. i debate for the truth.
if you are debating points that lead to a conclusion that made the points irrelevant, you have redefined the object of the debate.
ie: a cup is a cup value 4
2+2=4.
a sophist says its ceramic not a cup.
ceramic is value 3.
2+2=3 (false)
so then ceramic has to be defined before you can go back to the initial item of scrutiny, "cup".
in this case, i had already came to conclusion that my earlier argument was irrelevant by conclusion in mind of the object (evolution).

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 5:29 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 17 of 74 (454135)
02-05-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2008 5:29 PM


Re: ill "try"
evolution= change
OK. ill go along with that. but it needs more definition.
change where? change how ?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 5:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 5:52 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 19 of 74 (454145)
02-05-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2008 5:52 PM


Re: ill "try"
biological evolution misses some truths because it fails to observe other evolutions that could be affecting the biological evolutions.
to be blunt: their overlooking variables.
the body is composed of the very elements of the universe, and subject to its laws. the evolutionary stages of all these things, play its role in the evolution of biological things.
therefore, to observe biological evolution, it should be under the direction of all things that may be causing the changes, and then consider potentials of an items capability to evolve, within the given environments to understand what happened in the evolution of the biological item of scrutiny.(this should include salts,carbons, etc.)
if the term evolution does not only apply to biological things, then there should be another term to further define which evolution is being studied.
in my opinion of course.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 5:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Zucadragon, posted 02-05-2008 6:22 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 21 by nator, posted 02-05-2008 6:22 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2008 8:04 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 22 of 74 (454164)
02-05-2008 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
01-23-2008 3:40 PM


I want to start this topic in order to discuss what specifically is meant by the term, evolution.
Does evolution have a narrow definition or a broad definition?
quote from topic post.
my logic:
hmm good question. since the species being studied is biological, and biological beings and agents are affected by both the evolution of elements (literal salts, carbons, minerals etc.) and by the evolution of the biological components based on these elements, and the environment of both the elements of the base, and the environment of land and forces of nature, and also possibly being affected in mood or temperament by the rotation of the solar system and gravitational fields, the term biological evolution is both broadly, and narrowly used to define the same process, but being used generically on studies involving specific forms of evolution as it is relevant to living things.
conclusion: evolution is a misused word, and different area's of study need better defined definitions.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 01-23-2008 3:40 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 7:38 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 24 of 74 (454178)
02-05-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 7:38 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
ok, i read this, but dont fully understand, but think ive grasped some of the basics.
for clarification:
Each successive level of organization has properties that the previous level lacks. These properties are called "Emergent Properties". For example, cells are the smallest unit that can carry out all the necessary functions of life, while organelles, molecules and atoms cannot by themselves do so. An organism is motile, can respond to stimuli, while the levels below it can't (with little exception).
this comment say's to me: because elements do not change beside's by natural process's relevant to that element, and does not evolve by way of direction of DNA, it is considered an emergent property.
true or false?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 7:38 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:11 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 27 of 74 (454183)
02-05-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
02-05-2008 8:04 PM


Re: ill "try"
the poster is just trying to clarify the use of the word.
for instance: one person can be talking about the cell evolution, while another poster talking about the evolution as it is relative to genus only.
there both related. both relative. but because a clearer definition of which evolution was the point of argument, there is confusion.
for instance, when i said lucy could either become ape or man, i was looking at the evolutionary probabilities given environment, adaptive abilities, and the power of choice. i said :evolution.
teen4christ then starts talking about evolution of DNA.
both relevant, but the term evolution was used generically.
im saying that DNA evolution is as relevant as you can see of it. and that evolution on the grand scale, only can take into account what it knows or does not know definitily. and since you cannot get DNA from lucy to compare, the DNA of current apes and humans can be misleading.
but when your both throwing around the same term, but talking about a different scale of the biological evolution, there can be confusion.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2008 8:04 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 28 of 74 (454185)
02-05-2008 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:11 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
cool. then i can only ask, how does the natural evolutions of the emergent properties, affect decisions of DNA and mitochondrial activity?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:11 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:21 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 30 of 74 (454188)
02-05-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:21 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
ill agree with that.
but also, because of how salt , vitamins, and other emergent properties react, what the entity eats can affect the behavior on a cellular level, and follow up the chain.
which means : say that a flower migrates to a new area via a bird.
the flower is an outsider to the natural order of its new placement. the flower produces a stimulation in things that eat it. the stimulation prompts the creatures to eat more of it. but it acts as an acid to a salt or vitamin that was natural to the creatures development, and with a lack of the salt, DNA makes changes to compensate.
your thoughts of the potentials of emergent properties to affect DNA activity?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:21 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:30 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 32 of 74 (454194)
02-05-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:30 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
But a chance change in the DNA
id like to debate this if able.
if i took two exactly same strands of DNA, would it react exactly the same way to introduction into its environment? in identical environments?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:30 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:38 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 34 of 74 (454197)
02-05-2008 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:38 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
then the direction is absolute decisions made by the DNA directed by the mitochondria, is it not?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:38 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:44 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 36 of 74 (454235)
02-06-2008 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:44 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
then DNA is decisive. we only need to know what prompts it to come to a conclusion.
have there been any tests done on how elements behave may be a trigger in the DNA's actions? (chemistry i suppose, im just wanting to pursue that the atom is probably the first cause for action in DNA, and it just trickles down as we have observed.)
(oh, and the house is still standing. power back up too, but i gotta work tomorrow so ill check this probably after work)

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:44 PM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Trixie, posted 02-06-2008 3:31 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 39 of 74 (454282)
02-06-2008 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Trixie
02-06-2008 3:31 AM


Re: Emergent Properties
You have to stop thinking of deoxyribonucleic acid as an entity with control over it's own destiny. It's just an unusual chemical.
when you expose wood to fire, it burns. its a decisive outcome given the condition.
perhaps its better to stop looking at human biology as an all powerful intelligent being, and realize our bodies are a very complicated unusual chemical.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Trixie, posted 02-06-2008 3:31 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Trixie, posted 02-06-2008 9:25 AM tesla has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024