Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Definition for the Theory of Evolution
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 151 of 216 (414021)
08-02-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
08-01-2007 4:02 PM


Natural Selection is the only answer
RAZD is seeking a consensus on the definition of the modern theory of evolution.
And this is the only thing that this topic is about (as you knew).
The synthetic theory of evolution, also known as the modern synthesis, arose around the 1920's when the population geneticists demonstrated that Darwin's formulation of evolution as natural selection upon a varied population with imperfect reproduction was precisely what emerged from their genetic models. This brought together the then separate theories of genetics and evolution into a single theory now called the modern synthesis.
Except for your dating (1920s; when in fact according to Mayr it occurred in the 1930s and 40s) Percy has stated a historical and scientific fact.
The biological synthesis has decided that natural selection is the main mechanism causing evolution. All other mechanisms are auxilliary. I had plainly stated this fact up-thread in response to RAZDs error laden posts listing NS as merely one causal factor.
It is not a matter of opinion: The Theory of how Evolution happens is by natural selection - period. Thousands of books in the 20th century have been written supporting this claim.
EDIT: Darwin titled his book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection."
That is the only correct definition of said phrase. I will not embarrass RAZD by posting his messages that list NS as just another concept on a list thereby giving the impression that NS is ordinary and equal to the other things on his list - SHEESH!
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 08-01-2007 4:02 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2007 1:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 08-02-2007 2:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2007 3:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 152 of 216 (414042)
08-02-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object
08-02-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Natural Selection is the only answer
It is not a matter of opinion: The Theory of how Evolution happens is by natural selection - period. Thousands of books in the 20th century have been written supporting this claim.
EDIT: Darwin titled his book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection."
As you point out, Darwin's Theory of how Evolution happens is by natural selection. We call this Darwinism.
Another Theory of how Evolution happens is by mutation. We call this mutationism or Mendelism.
The two theories were brought together, "synthesised", a few decades later to form the earliest concept of the Modern Synthesis. Since this, other theories of evolution have been synthesised into the Modern Synthesis.
You do open the way to discuss a genuine debate in biology: what is the prime mover of evolution. I am fairly sure you are right to suggest that selectionism is the favourite today, but there are many that still argue that there are some phenomenon where mutation or drift are the more dominant explanatory concepts.
As you should be able to tell, the title of Darwin's book is only partially relevant in discussing the Modern Synthesis, and that the modern synthesis definitely includes other mechanisms which are essential to the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-02-2007 12:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 153 of 216 (414052)
08-02-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object
08-02-2007 12:09 PM


Natural Selection is NOT the TOPIC
I will not embarrass RAZD by posting his messages that list NS as just another concept on a list thereby giving the impression that NS is ordinary and equal to the other things on his list - SHEESH!
Except you won't embarrass me, just yourself ... Again.
As noted already the modern synthesis theory included mutation as a supply of variation for natural selection to operate on. Without this there would be no real evolution -- no formation of new species.
But that is not all, for evolution is a response mechanism -- it responds to the environment and interspecies pressures. Natural selection without change in the environment OR change in interspecies pressures would produce stasis.
Mutation provides opportunities for selection to operate.
Ecological changes provide opportunities for selection in different directions.
Finally, providing a list does not imply that all items on the list are necessarily of equal value-- that is another logical fallacy for your thinking -- just that they are of SOME value to the entire process (SHEESH indeed).
Now, seeing as Natural Selection IS included in the current running definition of the theory of evolution here, unless you have something else to add to the theory statement that it is missing ... any further discussion of this is off-topic. If you want to pursue it follow Modulus' suggestion and start a new thread.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-02-2007 12:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 216 (414238)
08-03-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object
08-02-2007 12:09 PM


It is not a matter of opinion:
Oh, look, you said something true!
You should have quit while you were ahead, but no ...
The theory of evolution includes the laws of genetics, because without the laws of genetics it is not possible to explain evolution, which is, by definition, what the theory of evolution does.
This is not a matter of opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-02-2007 12:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 155 of 216 (414240)
08-03-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by MartinV
08-01-2007 3:05 PM


Explaining The Bleedin' Obvious
I don't see reason why Theory of Evolution (ToE) is reffered as the modern synthesis.
Because it's a synthesis, and because it's modern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by MartinV, posted 08-01-2007 3:05 PM MartinV has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 08-03-2007 5:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 156 of 216 (414277)
08-03-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dr Adequate
08-03-2007 3:16 PM


Adding another element?
Because it's a synthesis, and because it's modern.
One of the elements not included in the original synthesis, and which is now coming to be seen as of some real importance (especially for speciation or rapid change) is the evo-devo area and the effect of environment\hormones on the development and heterochrony of individuals and species. While this may not be necessary in all conditions it does apply to some specific ones (like human neoteny).
Thus the process of development of the individual organisms to sexual maturity can also be critical to the evolutionary process in determining features that are then subject to selection. With this in mind differential development is also an evolutionary factor:
The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
This is getting cumbersome.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : reworded for clarity
Edited by RAZD, : again
Edited by RAZD, : tweaked again

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2007 3:16 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 08-04-2007 7:37 AM RAZD has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 157 of 216 (414443)
08-04-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
08-03-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Adding another element?
RAZD writes:
This is getting cumbersome.
Predictable right at the outset. Brevity and precision are opposites, and consensus developed by committee generate the worst possible outcomes as people earnestly work toward incorporating everyone's ideas. But it's a great learning exercise as one often discovers that the topic about which one thought there could be little disagreement among competent individuals actually includes a wide diversity of opinion.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 08-03-2007 5:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2007 9:14 AM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 158 of 216 (414452)
08-04-2007 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
08-04-2007 7:37 AM


Re: Adding another element?
Predictable right at the outset. Brevity and precision are opposites, ...
True, but we now have a sort of hierarchy of brevity vs precision:
(1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.
(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.
(3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
(4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:
  • theories on how change is enabled
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
  • theories on how changes made within each generation are selected
    ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate)
    ... etc
Now it may be interesting to flesh out #4 with the lists of theories from natural selection to genetic drift to punk-eek to runaway sexual selection ... etc.
But it's a great learning exercise as one often discovers that the topic about which one thought there could be little disagreement among competent individuals actually includes a wide diversity of opinion.
It also demonstrates that evolution is more complicated than many people realize -- especially those with a poor education in evolution, who think that a couple of simple mental "tricks" will disprove it or for those (like MartinV) that think one solution fits all cases.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : second quote & comment
Edited by RAZD, : (3) slight mod
Edited by RAZD, : tweaked again
Edited by RAZD, : format

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 08-04-2007 7:37 AM Percy has not replied

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6029 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 159 of 216 (416601)
08-16-2007 11:03 PM


definition of evolution
My problem with accepting a definition as broad as: change over time or something akin to that is that it doesn't reflect the true colossal nature of the theory.
To set up a hypothetical situation:
Evolutionist: Evolution is change in species over time.
Me (creationist): I agree
Evolutionist: See you are stu... wait, sheeewhat!?
It can't be argued that evolution by that definition isn't true. However, where is the line drawn? 5000 years, 20,000 years? If it was drawn out by observation then it would be by best estimates shortly defined.
Why then the need to bandy words or debate semantics where an advantage for Camp Evolution would be gained by keeping the desired brevity of definition? To keep the ignorant in the dark? Just wondering.

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by DrJones*, posted 08-16-2007 11:15 PM Ihategod has replied
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2007 9:46 AM Ihategod has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 160 of 216 (416603)
08-16-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Ihategod
08-16-2007 11:03 PM


Re: definition of evolution
However, where is the line drawn?
Evolution has been taking place since life arose.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Ihategod, posted 08-16-2007 11:03 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:11 AM DrJones* has replied

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6029 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 161 of 216 (416610)
08-17-2007 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by DrJones*
08-16-2007 11:15 PM


Re: definition of evolution
"Evolution has been taking place since life arose."
Nice wording. What about when life was created by a creator and "evolution" is just a variation within a kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by DrJones*, posted 08-16-2007 11:15 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by DrJones*, posted 08-17-2007 12:37 AM Ihategod has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 162 of 216 (416612)
08-17-2007 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:11 AM


Re: definition of evolution
What about when life was created by a creator
What about it? Evolution is not about How we get life just what happens afterwards.
"evolution" is just a variation within a kind.
Please do what no other creationist has done and define "kind" in a biologically usefull manner.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:11 AM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:39 AM DrJones* has replied

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6029 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 163 of 216 (416622)
08-17-2007 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by DrJones*
08-17-2007 12:37 AM


Re: definition of evolution
I don't know what "biologically useful" means, and why it isn't useful to identify birds as things in the sky, and fish as things in the sea, and animals as things on the land and humans as the fallen masters of this world.
Quantifying it anymore seems a waste of time. I am ready to change my opinion if you can supply me with a reason to believe the Linnean model is "biologically useful."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by DrJones*, posted 08-17-2007 12:37 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Doddy, posted 08-17-2007 1:51 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 165 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2007 2:03 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 166 by DrJones*, posted 08-17-2007 2:05 AM Ihategod has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 164 of 216 (416626)
08-17-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 1:39 AM


Re: definition of evolution
Vashgun writes:
I don't know what "biologically useful" means, and why it isn't useful to identify birds as things in the sky, and fish as things in the sea, and animals as things on the land and humans as the fallen masters of this world.
Because birds aren't always in the sky (emus, kiwis etc), animals aren't always on land (fish, for example, are animals) and how does anyone determine that humans are 'fallen masters'?
Vashgun writes:
Quantifying it anymore seems a waste of time. I am ready to change my opinion if you can supply me with a reason to believe the Linnean model is "biologically useful."
Well, with the above examples, we determine what things are by characteristics that only they have. Humans can go under water, but we don't become fish when we do. So, identifying things by habitat isn't wise, as you don't know whether that species is 'just visiting'.
So, you define birds as vertebrates with feathers, animals as mobile multicellular organisms and so on. You don't identify a human by whether they are a 'fallen master'. Instead, the way you determine that something is a human is if it looks and acts like what you call a human - a thinly-furred, bipedal and intelligent ape (it's more complicated than that, actually, at least for a specific genus, like 'human').

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:39 AM Ihategod has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 165 of 216 (416629)
08-17-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 1:39 AM


Re: definition of evolution
I don't know what "biologically useful" means...
Here is a list of the different ways that "kind" has been defined by creos:
Genera as kinds
''Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind.'' (Gish, 1978, p 35.)
Families as kinds
''Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind.'' (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271/)
Suborders as kinds
this website does what creationists very rarely do, and provides a list of "kinds". The general rule seems to be that a kind is the next taxonomic level up from family, i.e. a suborder or infraorder, although this is not completely systematic (mammal-like reptiles --- therapsids --- are lumped into one "kind", although they consistute an order). The same creationist excludes humans from the Catarrhini while lumping together oppossums, numbats, bandicoots, and the marsuipial tiger. (http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/showmammals.php?kindNumb...)
Orders as kinds
''Some organisms seem to have more available diversity in their baramins than do others. Orchids and beetles each have thousands of named species''. (Creationism and Baraminology Research News: Stasis of the Baramin, Purpose, and Inheritance Mechanisms)
Superorders as kinds
''Among the reptiles the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds.'' (Duane Gish: ''Evolution: The Fossils Say No!'')
Phyla as kinds
''There are over seven thousand species of segmented worms, the worm kind.'' (http://www.creationmoments.org/radio/transcript.php?t=850)
From Problems of a different "kind" (Science forums, Is It Science?)
Should you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you head on over to that forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:39 AM Ihategod 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