Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 691 of 936 (810188)
05-25-2017 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 690 by CRR
05-24-2017 11:52 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
quote:
[edit] I see in Message 545 that you say "No one disagrees that LUCA is part of evolutionary theory.", yet there are others in this thread who clearly do not agree with that.
I think you are confusing the definition with the theory. LUCA is a small part of the theory, but it is not a part of the definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 11:52 PM CRR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 692 of 936 (810189)
05-25-2017 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 690 by CRR
05-24-2017 11:52 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
CRR writes:
Precisely the problem! There are multiple definitions and when examined they often refer to different types of "evolution"
I'm sure that you as an English speaker are aware that a word can have several meanings, the particular one being obvious in context. No reasonable person confuses the evolution of galaxies when discussing biology.
All the biological definitions are the same - just different ways of saying them, some simple, some technical. There's nothing more to add.
Common descent is a conclusion/requirement of the ToE and no-one is denying LUCA in some form.
You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding some simple ideas for reasons of your own.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 11:52 PM CRR has not replied

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


Message 693 of 936 (810194)
05-25-2017 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 685 by CRR
05-24-2017 6:47 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
Obviously the word itself has a range of meanings depending on the context. Such as;
Evolution of the universe
Evolution of the motor car
Evolution in population genetics
As shorthand for the Theory of Evolution
Microevolution
Macroevolution
And also as a shorthand for the Science of Evolution as a field of study.
Evolution is often referred to as "Biological Evolution" when people are distinguishing it from the other types, and the theory is often referred to as ToE to distinguish it from the process of evolution:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
Within biology the only one that seems to have a reasonably precise definition is within population genetics where it means "a change in allele frequency in a population over time". As Endor notes this is close to, but not quite the same as, microevolution. However it does not correspond to evolution used as shorthand for the Theory of Evolution. As a result the word can be ambiguous and interpreted differently by different people.
My problem with the "allele definition" is first, that it is difficult to apply to fossils, and second, that it doesn't refer to selection. Thus my definition has been developed on this forum to include these in as concise a manner as possible. Many here have had input to it and critiqued it (peer review?), so it has been modified along the way to get to this version.
see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for more, especially Message 157
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 6:47 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by CRR, posted 05-25-2017 8:29 PM RAZD has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 694 of 936 (810204)
05-25-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 690 by CRR
05-24-2017 11:52 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
CRR writes:
So you have actually confirmed the problem. There are multiple definitions.
They all say the same thing, so I don't understand what your problem is.
For instance evolution of galaxies requires no change in allele frequencies.
Did you read the entire definition?
""In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
It clearly defines what biological evolution is and differentiates it from changes in other systems.
I see in Message 545 that you say "No one disagrees that LUCA is part of evolutionary theory.", yet there are others in this thread who clearly do not agree with that.
Yet another misrepresentation of our position. What we are saying is that the theory does not require a universal common ancestor. However, since the evidence does point to a universal common ancestor then it is part of the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 11:52 PM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2017 10:53 AM Taq has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 695 of 936 (810205)
05-25-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 694 by Taq
05-25-2017 10:46 AM


LUCA
What we are saying is that the theory does not require a universal common ancestor. However, since the evidence does point to a universal common ancestor then it is part of the theory.
Well, actually I don't agree. The theory is the description (model) of how populations evolve. It demands nothing about what has or will happen. The facts at hand say that there was a LUCA but the theory makes no comment on that. It just suggests how changes will occur from a LUCA or from multiple ancestors separately arising.
The fact is the evolution of life on earth (not the model of how it happened) seems to have a very early LUCA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Taq, posted 05-25-2017 10:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 697 by Taq, posted 05-25-2017 11:45 AM NosyNed has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 696 of 936 (810208)
05-25-2017 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 690 by CRR
05-24-2017 11:52 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
Precisely the problem! There are multiple definitions and when examined they often refer to different types of "evolution".
Biology IS fuzzy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 11:52 PM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Dredge, posted 05-25-2017 11:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 697 of 936 (810212)
05-25-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by NosyNed
05-25-2017 10:53 AM


Re: LUCA
NosyNed writes:
Well, actually I don't agree. The theory is the description (model) of how populations evolve. It demands nothing about what has or will happen. The facts at hand say that there was a LUCA but the theory makes no comment on that. It just suggests how changes will occur from a LUCA or from multiple ancestors separately arising.
The fact is the evolution of life on earth (not the model of how it happened) seems to have a very early LUCA.
I suspect that we are saying the same thing.
To put it another way, if there were multiple origins of life then the theory would change to reflect that reality while still proposing the same mechanisms of change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2017 10:53 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2017 11:57 AM Taq has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 698 of 936 (810213)
05-25-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 697 by Taq
05-25-2017 11:45 AM


Theory (not life's history)
To put it another way, if there were multiple origins of life then the theory would change to reflect that reality while still proposing the same mechanisms of change.
Nope. I still disagree.
How would the theory change?
Remember Darwin noted life progressing from one or more sources. It makes no difference to the model of how life evolves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Taq, posted 05-25-2017 11:45 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by Taq, posted 05-25-2017 12:24 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 699 of 936 (810215)
05-25-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by NosyNed
05-25-2017 11:57 AM


Re: Theory (not life's history)
NosyNed writes:
How would the theory change?
It would change from a theory using a universal common ancestor to a theory with multiple common ancestors.
As you said, the theory is a model of reality so the theory changes to fit what we learn about reality. The theory that Darwin first proposed was ambiguous to the number of common ancestors, but that theory changed as we discovered more about biological realities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2017 11:57 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 700 of 936 (810216)
05-25-2017 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by CRR
05-24-2017 7:37 AM


Re: Pelycodus
Even with artificial insemination I have read that a Chihuahua mother will spontaneously abort. However they are considered the same species.
Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species ...
It's curiously contingent, isn't it? Suppose we found Great Danes and Chihuahuas in the wild, and no other breeds of dog to make them into a ring species. Then we would certainly consider them different species, as they would be by any conceivable definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 7:37 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by jar, posted 05-25-2017 4:38 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 703 by CRR, posted 05-25-2017 8:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 701 of 936 (810217)
05-25-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 700 by Dr Adequate
05-25-2017 2:05 PM


A dog by any other breed is still a mutt.
Convention often overrides consistency.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2017 2:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 702 of 936 (810228)
05-25-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 693 by RAZD
05-25-2017 6:44 AM


Re: the word Evolution?
That's a good reply.
You apparently distinguish between evolution as used for (i)the science of evolution, (ii)the process of evolution, and (iii) the theory of evolution. Is that right?
E,g. I study the science of evolution, I have observed the process of evolution, and believe (or accept) the theory of evolution to be true. (Note. I don't accept the definition that says belief is in the absence or despite the evidence. You can believe based on the evidence.)
Unfortunately that can also be phrased as; I study evolution(i), I have observed evolution(ii), and believe evolution(iii) to be true; which can lead to equivocation.
Your definition then refers only to (ii) the process of evolution leaving (i) and (ii) undefined. I think (i) is pretty straightforward but I'd like to see your definition of (iii).
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
a) By "changes in the composition of hereditary traits" are you referring to mutations that produce new variations in the phenotype by new variations in the genome?
b) Neutral theory suggests much of the change in composition and frequency is due to genetic drift rather than being in response to anything? Do you want to cover that? Possibly not; there comes a point in interests of brevity minor points should be omitted from the definition and discussed in accompanying material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2017 6:44 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2017 9:42 PM CRR has replied
 Message 705 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2017 10:47 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 708 by Taq, posted 05-26-2017 12:43 AM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 703 of 936 (810229)
05-25-2017 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 700 by Dr Adequate
05-25-2017 2:05 PM


Re: Pelycodus
You're right. I have in other places made that point myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2017 2:05 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 704 of 936 (810231)
05-25-2017 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by CRR
05-25-2017 8:29 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
You apparently distinguish between evolution as used for (i)the science of evolution, (ii)the process of evolution, and (iii) the theory of evolution. Is that right?
Correct.
Your definition then refers only to (ii) the process of evolution leaving (i) and (ii) undefined. I think (i) is pretty straightforward but I'd like to see your definition of (iii).
I posted a rather complete rundown of microevolution and how it becomes macroevolution (as defined by evolution science) in Message 157 on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?, where I express the theory as
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
You'll have to read that post to see what anagenesis and cladogenesis are.
a) By "changes in the composition of hereditary traits" are you referring to mutations that produce new variations in the phenotype by new variations in the genome?
Both. Selection is mostly on the phenotype, but some occurs on the genotype.
b) Neutral theory suggests much of the change in composition and frequency is due to genetic drift rather than being in response to anything? Do you want to cover that? Possibly not; there comes a point in interests of brevity minor points should be omitted from the definition and discussed in accompanying material.
Indeed, and this is pared down from an earlier version because it was getting unwieldy. Genetic drift is important to explain some results, especially when a stochastic event causes a bottleneck or where a founding population moving into a new ecology is small.
All neutral mutations are reserved by chance, perhaps tacked onto a beneficial gene and taken for a ride (or a deleterious one and lost) until another mutation turns the combination beneficial.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by CRR, posted 05-25-2017 8:29 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by CRR, posted 05-26-2017 2:08 AM RAZD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 705 of 936 (810232)
05-25-2017 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by CRR
05-25-2017 8:29 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
Unfortunately that can also be phrased as; I study evolution(i), I have observed evolution(ii), and believe evolution(iii) to be true; which can lead to equivocation.
Equivocations are not all that difficult to clear up in a conversation. If two folks recognize that they are not talking about the same thing, the honest thing to do is to stop equivocating and decide what the discussion is actually about.
Confusion regarding the relationship between the evolution of galaxies and the evolution involving the change in alleles in a population of wolves is generally not honest discussion.
On the other hand, confusion when using evolution to talk about the change in frequency of alleles in a herd of sheep, and using evolution to talk about speciation of herd animals over 1000s of generations may indeed be honest. But such confusion is easily resolved if the parties having the discussion actually mean to actually discuss.
After all, we've known that words sometimes have two meanings at least since 1971 or so.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by CRR, posted 05-25-2017 8:29 PM CRR 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