|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Have you just totally given up on having your posts make any sort of sense?
Well, no, not "just totally." Where did you pick up the Valley Girl speak in Dundee, Scotland?
You were moaning about Conway-Morris 'grinding an ID axe', I was simply pointing out that he was not neccessarily any more ID than any theistic evolutionist and certainly not a proponent of ID as it would be generally be understood on this site, i.e. the position espoused by Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Will Dembski and promoted by the Discovery Institute. I likened this to describing a theistic evolutionist as a creationist, since the believe in a creator, which would still be quite distinct from the common usage of creationist on this site either in the young earth or old earth context.
I liken the Discovery Institute to a Christian organization out to discover nothing but evidence of God and His glory.
Are you actually going to address any of the points I made or just keep dodging and whining?
Ah, what was your point again? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Then you don't have adaptation per se, you have exaptation, which is Gould's way of explaining how previously fixed alleles that were once neutral, or even deleterious, become usefully adaptive. And exaptation would still be a part of evolution, and it can be critical for speciation as well, so provision for this would need to be included in the general definition.
You are looking for a more generalized definition, I suppose. That would be the purpose of the thread. Are you then happy with:
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"
as a generalized definition? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Are you then happy with:
After kicking a few tires, I think I'm ready to buy your yellow jalopy, RAZD."Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" as a generalized definition? Good thread. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
NJ writes: Well, to be fair, science as a general rule of thumb must base its fledgling theories with observation, testing of hypotheses, and repeating the processes. Neither of those fit the criteria for the theory of evolution. Darwinian macroevolution has never been directly observed, to which you might reply, it takes years and years to accumulate enough minor gradations. Its like trying to watch fingernails grow! But the thing is, fossils are snapshots in history. And in the same way you might not be able to see one's fingernails or hair grow, directly, you can still see clear evidence of it from those snapshots. The fossil record is inept in answering these questions because we do not see any clear examples of transitional forms. Indeed, this has long been the problem for evolutionists. But the argument is brought up so much now or days against evolution that it is not as widely admitted as it was in the past. The second tier is with the fact that evolution cannot be duplicated in a lab. For instance, the Dros[o]phila Melanogaster, which is your average fruit fly. Numerous scientists have bombarded these fruit flies with X-ray radiation, among other techniques, in order to mutate them. Well, it worked remarkably well. They were able to produce offspring with eyes missing and wings growing out of their heads. But I suppose the point is, no bionic fruit fly was ever the bi-product of these experiments. (No dragonflies, houseflies, horseflies, butterflies, were ever bioengineered-- just fruit flies and lots of them). Of those that actually survived essentially produced monstrosities with horrible deformities that certainly would have eliminated them in the wild. Natural selection works against the typical evolutionary model because it does not further the advancement of mutations, but rather, tends to weed out any aberrations. The Drosophila has been no exception to the rule. Even more damning, the fruit fly is molecularly very simple in relation to that of a human. What is worse, their lifespan is not even a thousandth to that of the average human lifespan. What does this mean? Essentially, it means that the fruit fly has the physical ability to evolve more readily than that of a human being. The fruit fly is relatively simple with a genome, composed of four pairs of chromosomes, of about 13,000 genes. Aside from this, they breed at a much quicker rate. So, then, surely in 80 to 90 years of experimentation, their generations would be into the hundreds of thousands. Compare that figure to humans. In 80 or 90 years, how many generations have come out of your immediate family? Most likely, about three generations, and maybe four in that amount of time. If ever there were a prime candidate for proving macroevolution, the Drosophilia would be it, and yet, nothing even comparable has ever been established. Lastly, they cannot repeat the results of the experiment because they cannot simulate it in the lab to begin with. Therefore, I scarcely see how dissenting objections to evolution should be viewed with such scathing anger. (Not you, but in general) For how ever misguided you'd like to say creationists are, they have some very reasonable objections to the theory. Having said that, they have to respond to some very reasonable postulates presented by evolutionists until a solid consensus can't be found in some appreciable way. This is the Post of the Month. Extremely well written and fluid (keeps moving). While very few posts are perfect (as is seen in the fact that NJ concedes microevolution, which we know is false) this post is still excellent, especially the part where it says that the geological fossil record is not admitted to not support ToE as it was in the past - so true. Evolutionists (ordinary ones) simply lie; published scholarship has always admitted that the fossil record shows no signs of the reason for being evidence (species transitioning). Hats off to NJ. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Do you agree that the definition of evolution is: "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" It does not matter what any given person thinks (subjective) the definition to be, what matters is how scholarship (objective) defines said word. Your definition is a variant of the genetic definition. 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. The latter was led by Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley. While Mayr agrees that the genetic definition is important he rejects it to represent the meaning of evolution. 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. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
You do realise there is a perfectly good POTM - September 2007 in existence entirely for this sort of thing. Why repost NJ's entire post in the thread it is already in instead of in the POTM thread where it will get wider exposure?
TTFN, AW Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Ah, what was your point again? Wouldn't it be easier just to reread the posts you totally failed to address rather than getting to repeat myself over and over? I'll give you the condensed version...
I totally agree with your analysis of the DI so I don't see why you want to tar a perfectly reputable scientist with the same brush.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Cold Foriegn Object writes: This is the Post of the Month. Extremely well written and fluid (keeps moving). bluegenes writes:
nemesis writes:
Aside from this, they [Drosophila Melanogaster] breed at a much quicker rate. So, then, surely in 80 to 90 years of experimentation, their generations would be into the hundreds of thousands. Compare that figure to humans. In 80 or 90 years, how many generations have come out of your immediate family? Most likely, about three generations, and maybe four in that amount of time. Drosophila Melanogaster has an average generation gap of just under two weeks, meaning about thirty generations in a year, thus meaning about 3000 generations in a century. 3000 does not equal hundreds of thousands. Were you particularly impressed by nemesis's in depth knowledge of fruit fly experiments, or by his astonishing grasp of mathematics? Or was it, perhaps, his eloquent demonstration of the point that some creationists are in complete denial about the fossil record, combined with his astute ability to misunderstand a topic?
RAZD writes: "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" That's fine as a general definition, and couldn't get more economical. If we were going to get more wordy, then I quite like the Futuyuma definition that Modulous posted earlier:
quote: Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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: Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms 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. Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.157
[Ray: where is your second quote mark?] First off, Mayr is known for populational thinking and not the synthesis of Mendelian genetics into Darwinian science. I originally said that Mayr said that the genetic aspect of evolution IS IMPORTANT, but it is not the primary definition; therefore, your use of Mayr is a quote mine: Ernst Mayr, writing critically in the context of the way evolution is presented and explained in literature: "....the principles of genetics must be thoroughly explained....[however]....most treatments of evolution are written in a reductionist manner in which all evolutionary phenomena are reduced to the level of the gene. An attempt is then made to explain the higher-level evolutionary process by 'upward' reasoning. This approach invariably fails. Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies.' The two most important units in evolution are the individual, the principal object of selection, and the population...." ''(What Evolution Is,'' 2001:XIV). I hope you choose to respond in a timely fashion (as you normally do) because I would really like to settle this issue. Ray PS: I may have to serve a short suspension soon. RM Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
You do realise there is a perfectly good Thread POTM - September 2007 in existence entirely for this sort of thing. Why repost NJ's entire post in the thread it is already in instead of in the POTM thread where it will get wider exposure? Yeah, I knew but I forgot. I apologize. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
While very few posts are perfect (as is seen in the fact that NJ concedes microevolution, which we know is false) Where by "we", you can't even include your fellow-creationists.
this post is still excellent, especially the part where it says that the geological fossil record is not admitted to not support ToE as it was in the past - so true. It is true that creationists don't admit that the fossil record does not support the ToE --- however, they did not do so in the past.
Evolutionists (ordinary ones) simply lie; published scholarship has always admitted that the fossil record shows no signs of the reason for being evidence (species transitioning). Perhaps you could quote one evolutionist telling this lie. Or perhaps this is some crazy fantasy that you've made up in your head? And perhaps you could tell us who you think produces published scholarship about the fossil record if not evolutionists, and why pointing out the bleedin' obvious constitutes an "admission"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Right where I left it (after concept). I meant for the material quoted from page 157.
He is known for both. Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia 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.
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?
Mods msg #122 says nothing about Mayr. You are saying that Larry Moran says that Mayr is inconsistent - no?
The Gene Centrist Objection Ernst Mayr wrote an entire book on the subject of this little essay. SNIP... 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? IF it is Larry Moran who says Mayr is inconsistent then this is a circular piece of data on your part. 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. The evidence I have already posted, quoting Mayr, says the genetic explanation is important but it is not the definition of evolution. The quote goes on to say that evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies, and it tells us why. Look, I am not obligated to do your work, I do not have to read any article, RAZD, by telling me to read some blog, absent a clear chronology as to who said what and when they said it is called literature bluffing. You really need to support your assertion that Mayr is inconsistent. Mayr is not inconsistent: he acknowledged the importance of genetical explanation but said evolution is not defined at said level. 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. Ray
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024