|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Pretty much.
I always like change in allele frequency over time. ABE: Welcome to EvC, by the way. Hope you stay and have a great time. Edited by Larni, : Welcome mat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray pix1
Is this succinct? Yes, but ... you can have evolution without resulting in new species, natural selection operates on the phenotype rather than the genotype, genetic composition is not always expressed in the phenotype and ... so I would have said:
quote: Not quite so succinct ... Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
olivortex Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
c. the formation of nested hierarchies that result in the pattern of historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. This point is more and more discussed and i'm glad it is, because it's one more way of observing and explaining evolution. Edited by olivortex, : lost letters! fu...rry keyboard Edited by olivortex, : wow, i'm tired.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Evolution is observable change(s) in all living systems limited to the observed time frame. Should be changed to "over time". Good scientific procedure requires that a process be reproducible and observable. However, in this case, the concept of "Evolution" generally extends well beyond the boundaries of good science.
Mechanisms should not be classified within evolution. The reason being that science is incomplete,(or wrong, as we say in the normal world) and that including mechanisms is a recipe for disaster for the definition. Take Darwin for example. Good thing he didn't insist that orchard workers kids would have longer arms as part of his definition. It should be acknowledged that theoretical science is separate from theological musings, and should not be coupled within a standard of a definition. This should read that "It should be acknowledged that theoretical science can be heavily biased by theological musings,and therefore should not be coupled within a standard of a definition." I burst out laughing when I read at "Talkorigins" that most of the confusion over definition is because scientists are illiterate. (In so many words.) I happen to know that scientists are MOST often, very good and practiced at explaining things in lay language, so clearly the problem is not that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I always like change in allele frequency over time. I think that's probably the shoddiest definition of evolution that gets kicked around; it is incomplete, it does not uniquely define evolution, it explains nothing and it completely fails to capture the grandeur of evolutionary theory. It is incomplete because it does not make any mention of the mechanisms of evolution, or the historical reconstruction of evolution. It does not uniquely define evolution because anything that changed allele frequency would be included - be it an utter randomly fluctuation or the subtle machinations of His Noodly Appendage. It explains nothing because it does not include the reasons why allele frequencies change or the ways in which this produces change. And, as a result of these failings, it completely fails to capture the grandeur of evolutionary theory; mentioning nothing of the overarching view of life it gives, the breadth of its explanatory power or the depth of evidence for this explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray -Sky-
Should be changed to "over time". Good scientific procedure requires that a process be reproducible and observable. However, in this case, the concept of "Evolution" generally extends well beyond the boundaries of good science. The problem is that "evolution" is a term used for several processes, one of which is biological. The "definition" by Ihategod is missing the aspect of heredity, and without heredity biological evolution would not work. It also is missing where evolution occurs. The definition I prefer is Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. I prefer generations to "over time" as this is a more appropriate measure for the time involved for any species. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I guess if you put it that way I should not have used it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
I think that's probably the shoddiest definition of evolution [snip]..completely fails to capture the grandeur of evolutionary theory.[snip]...fails to capture the grandeur of evolutionary theory; mentioning nothing of the overarching view of life it gives, the breadth of its explanatory power or the depth of evidence for this explanation. This post exemplifies the spiritual/religious component of Scientific "ism". It's as easy to imagine this commentary coming from a pulpit as it is from a classroom lectern. Edited by -Sky-, : Added commentary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
This post exemplifies the spiritual/religious component of Scientific "ism". It's as easy to imagine this commentary coming from a pulpit as it is from a classroom lectern. That's rather off-topic for this thread, perhaps you'd like to take it up here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
For me the grandeur is in the process itself and not upon the way it's described. I actually like describing evolution as changes in a population's allele distribution over time, though I think it's important to add its causes: mutation, allele remixing and natural selection. I also like Darwin's original formulation: descent with modification and natural selection.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I agree that the grandeur is in the process, not the description; but if we're to try and define evolution should we not describe the important parts of that process? That it is important to add the causes is rather my point.
And I agree that Darwin's formulation of descent with modification and natural selection is a good starting point for a definition. Certainly I think any definition that omitted them is lacking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Should be changed to "over time". Good scientific procedure requires that a process be reproducible and observable. However, in this case, the concept of "Evolution" generally extends well beyond the boundaries of good science. Have you ever noticed how scientists disagree with you completely about what is or is not good science? Have you ever pondered why it is that scientists disagree with you about science? Something for you to think about, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
C'mon I've seen a few other definitions posted by you that put this latest, okay, definition to shame. But, let me at least offer a slight (possibly better) variation on your theme.
RAZD writes: Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. and then altered to:
quote: It still seems to me though, that a few items are missing (like selection forces). {ABE}Upon review, it seems an over-generalization to say that among all of the changes going on contributing to a species' evolution (like epistasis), that only heritable traits or hereditary traits are the ones "that matter" enough to be in the definition. Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given. Edited by CosmicChimp, : fixed for clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It still seems to me though, that a few items are missing (like selection forces). If we are talking about the term "evolution" as used in the phrase "Evolution by means of natural selection" then RAZD's definition would be perfectly adequate. No? The two are distinct concepts and I think it is worth defining each in it's own terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Ah, yes that is true Straggler. Evolution as fact or Evolution as theory, two concepts.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024