Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 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
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 7 of 74 (453969)
02-04-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
01-23-2008 3:40 PM


quote:
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
This definition is a little problematic, because evolution and natural selection are not completely linked concepts. Natural selection typically refers to the difference in survival capacity between phenotypes (or, outward characteristics). Sexual selection, one possible alternative method of evolution, refers to the difference in reproductive success between phenotypes. Additionally, mutation and other random and quasi-random factors can cause evolutionary changes. Intermixing of once-separated populations can also alter the genomes of the net generation.
So, evolution is, as the simplest and most commonly used definition states, "descent with modification." Natural selection is one (probably the most common) mechanism by which evolution can occur.

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 8 by tesla, posted 02-04-2008 10:55 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 25 of 74 (454179)
02-05-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by tesla
02-05-2008 6:00 PM


Re: ill "try"
From Tesla:
quote:
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.
"Biological evolution" does not miss any truths, Tesla. Maybe people trying to study it miss it, but evolution is the product of the forces of the universe that work on it, so there is no possible way it could miss it.
Organicmachination said this:
quote:
Your argument about the different types of evolution is misplaced. Simply because the word evolution means multiple things depending on the context it is used in, for example: the evolution of heat in an exothermic reaction, the evolution of language, and evolution in a biological sense, it does not mean that biological evolution is inaccurate. It is perfectly accurate. We just use the term "evolution" to describe it because it has to do with change.
That's very good stuff, Tesla. In biology, "evolution" is defined as "descent with modification." Therefore, when you say stars and the Earth evolve, you can't be talking about the same process because there is no descent (i.e. no offspring). Minerals cannot evolve because they do not give rise to new minerals: aragonite doesn't build up slowly through geological processes that eventually transform it into ulexite. Therefore, there is no real "modification": there is just the initial production, followed by possible breakdown and production of something different.
If you want to include all of these ideas under one definition, your only real recourse is to say it means "change" (as has been asserted ad nauseum by Catholic Scientist) or, to be even more specific, "change over time." You may even want to add "cumulative" in there, because, as in my mineral example, cyclical changes don't really change anything.
So: "cumulative change over time"
On a more general note, I don't think it's appropriate for a creationist to define evolution, anyway. This is a debate. And, in debates, you don't really get to dictate your opponents' arguments to them.
Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 6:00 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 8:14 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 65 of 74 (454438)
02-06-2008 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by tesla
02-06-2008 10:45 PM


Re: ill "try"
Rahvin's right, Tesla: you don't make any sense. I'd tell you to edit your posts--you know, use punctuation and capital letters--but that would just make it easier to read the nonsense, and wouldn't cause this stuff to be sensical.
Anyway, even if there were different "types" of evolution, they would all be considered, at most, factors contributing to an overall process, and only the overall process would be accurately called "evolution."
Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar. See: I edit mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 10:45 PM tesla has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024