|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Given your history you don't get a warning.
3 days and you can try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Johnson's definition says ToE is an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have created itself without any assitance from a Divine Creator. There is no difference between Johnson and your blue box definition. What are we arguing about? See Message 55 where I highlight the differences between my definition and Johnson's. A quick pointer: ToE does not, indeed cannot come even close to, explaining how nature may have created itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As Laplace may have famously said 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' The principle of parsimony, or Occam's razor.
There are many valid definitions on what the theory actually is. True, but then what are the common elements, and what can be discarded as unnecessary for defining how evolution operates -- and why?
(feel free to add any ... both evolutionist and creationist) I think we can all agree for instance that "from an inorganic form" is unnecessary as that is covered by abiogenesis and it only deals with one point in time, while evolution would apply to the whole continuous spectrum of life. I think we can also say that items like "increased complexity" and "greater information" need to have a method to measure them in order for the relative differences to be compared. I also do not see why increases are necessary either -- in some cases a simpler solution is better. Genetic definitions are problematic for applying to fossil evidence, so there it is easier to talk about hereditary traits -- the physical similarities and the subtle changes to the parts of the fossils over time. It seems to me that speciation is a critical element of the theory -- a newly made barrier that divides a population into two or more daughter populations -- and while the two (or more) daughter populations do have different frequencies of alleles from each other and from their parent population, changing frequencies doesn't imply that speciation is necessary. Without speciation there would only be one species on earth - cyanobacteria. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Razd
(feel free to add any ... both evolutionist and creationist) I would just make it a point to clarify that in the phrase you offered,
increased complexity, complexity is not the opposite of simplicity but ,rather, theopposite of independent. We can reword it then as increased interdependence and gain the understanding that increased complexity naturally follows when systems of atoms {simplistic WRT organic life} whose bonds {attributable to the electromagnetic force alone} become molecules which in turn follow these same bonding rules to become organic {carbon bearing} and up the chain of interdependence to become amino acids,proteins etc... Just my 2 cents worth to see if the idea is actually understood by others here. "We patronize animals for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth." - Henry Beston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I suppose you could define the synthetic theory like this site does:
quote: But that doesn't really define anything, it's saying how the theory is derived but not what it is. It also lists:
quote: And you would need to put all these together. Your other link has similar problems:
Or this one:
quote: And when I look at the next page from that one I get:
quote: This is the common frequency of alleles definition, heavy on genetics, light on natural selection, and mute on speciation (or even the question of what a species is). 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We can reword it then as increased interdependence and gain the understanding that increased complexity naturally follows when systems of atoms {simplistic WRT organic life} whose bonds {attributable to the electromagnetic force alone} become molecules which in turn follow these same bonding rules to become organic {carbon bearing} and up the chain of interdependence to become amino acids,proteins etc... I would still need a way to measure it to compare individuals and species, and I would also argue that in some cases a return to a less interdependent molecule\whatever cannot be ruled out, especially if it takes less resources and energy to facilitate survival. If evolution can go either way, then this is not a necessary element. Another thing I found on a following page from one of Modulous' links was: http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm
quote: Maybe this can help us define what is necessary in the 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are unread and completely ignorant. This lie does not answer my question. I asked you to quote just one "scholar" who defines the theory of evolution as "natural selection".
Johnson is a recognized scholar. This lie does not answer my question, which is why does he not give the definition of evolution which you attribute to "scholars".
A change in gene frequencies is the geneticist definition of evolution. It is not the only valid definition of evolution. This unsupported statement does not answer my question, which is whether you can give me an example of evolution without a change in allele frequencies.
Evolution is inferred; it cannot be observed in real time because it is too slow. What happens in the molecular universe is not falsifiable as one must take the word of the scientist on it, whether an Evolutionist or Creationist. Evolution is not observable. This makes it much like Creationism: we do not get to see exactly when God creates by special creation. Like evolution, special creation is inferred after the fact. But this isn't true, is it? You're just reciting the standard creationist lie about the impossibility of knowing about the past. On the other hand, it does incidentally provide a sort of answer to my question. I wrote "Evolution is observed as well as inferred, surely you know that?" And apparently you don't.
Now that I know you are unread and ignorant I will not be reading anymore of your messages. Ah yes, creationism. Declare victory, then run away as fast as your fwightened ickle legs will carry you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But that doesn't really define anything, it's saying how the theory is derived but not what it is. It all comes down to expectations. Different horses for different courses. Any theory can be 'defined' in a number of different fashions. The theory of evolution can be defined as an amalgam of many theories of biological change - or it can be defined by listing the main theories or even by briefly explaining the ins and outs of each of the hypotheses. We would run into the same issue if we tried to define many scientific theories, I'd wager. You'll need to define the level of granularity you want. The easiest way of course would be through a minimum and maximum wordcount but that would be imprecise. You've made it clear that you want it succinct, and that you want the primary mechanisms listed and to that end, there are several wordings having been put forward that do the job marvellously.
This is the common frequency of alleles definition, heavy on genetics, light on natural selection, and mute on speciation (or even the question of what a species is). The listed description is not a definition of 'The theory of evolution' it is a definition of 'evolution'. The two are different like gravity and relativity are different. You mentioned earlier you think speciation is important - but species is an entirely arbitrary term, so I don't think speciation is important. After all - different biologists investigate the world using different definitions of 'species'. Still - the site does go into it here.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is the common frequency of alleles definition, heavy on genetics, light on natural selection, and mute on speciation (or even the question of what a species is). Speciation is one of the things that the theory of evolution explains, it's not part of the explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RAZD writes: This is the common frequency of alleles definition, heavy on genetics, light on natural selection, and mute on speciation (or even the question of what a species is). RAZD, in your O.P., you're asking about the definition of the Theory of Evolution. The comment you've just made there is about a definition of biological evolution. That definition is not (and isn't meant to be) a definition of the Theory. I like the quote you're referring to as a one sentence definition of biological evolution. It was this:
quote: So, I'll make an attempt to include it in a one sentence definition of the Modern Theory! The Modern Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the sum total of genetically inherited changes in the individuals who are members of a population's gene pool by the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift. It's clumsy, because it includes the definition of biological evolution inside it, so the brief version could be this: The Modern ToE is the explanation of biological evolution by the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift. Any good? (Probably not, but it's nice and brief!).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is the common frequency of alleles definition, heavy on genetics, light on natural selection, and mute on speciation (or even the question of what a species is). Speciation is one of the things that the theory of evolution explains, it's not part of the explanation. How does 'change in frequency of alleles in populations' explain speciation without introducing additional elements? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The listed description is not a definition of 'The theory of evolution' it is a definition of 'evolution'. The two are different like gravity and relativity are different. You mentioned earlier you think speciation is important - but species is an entirely arbitrary term, so I don't think speciation is important. After all - different biologists investigate the world using different definitions of 'species'. That is one of the problems with evolution -- the word is used to mean different things. What evolution is does need to be part of the theory for how evolution occurs, and how it occurs needs more than just what it is. It's not so much that speciation needs to be included, but that the theory can explain speciation - especially where it involves separation of parent populations into different daughter populations.
Still - the site does go into it here. Yes, and it also says
quote: Thus the dissimilar environments become necessary for this kind (adaptive radiation) of speciation (also known as non-arbitrary speciation). And
quote: So different environments are also required for this kind (successive) speciation (also known as arbitrary speciation as the divisions are relatively arbitrary). We also see environment\ecology as the driving difference between stasis and non-stasis evolution in punk-eek:
quote: This of course is where phenotype (the appearance of an organism resulting from the interaction of the genotype and the environment) comes into the picture.
Any theory can be 'defined' in a number of different fashions. The theory of evolution can be defined as an amalgam of many theories of biological change - or it can be defined by listing the main theories or even by briefly explaining the ins and outs of each of the hypotheses. Yes, this would be similar to the "standard model" in physics, an amalgam of theories that are picked up as they prove useful and dropped as they are invalidated. I have trouble with calling this a theory, as such an amalgam cannot be falsified - it just morphs as the member theories move in and out - without, of course, every single supporting theory being invalidated. So maybe we should say there is a "standard model" of evolution, rather than an overall theory. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
First, to be a "general" theory of evolution it has to be applicable to studies that cover the range of evidence in the science of biological evolution, from the small changes within breeding populations (beak changes in Galapagos Finches) to the large changes over time seen in the fossil record (the development of new features). This latter portion makes a genetic definition difficult, as the features fossilized are due to (genetic and other) epigenetic factors. Hereditary traits can be observed and tracked without knowing the epigenetic basis.
Second, evolution is not a "productive" process, rather it is a "feedback response" process, an endless "do while" loop under changing ecological conditions (where the only escape from the loop is individual death and species extinction). A simplistic "program" for the feedback process would be something like:(1) Take Population {A} with m existing inheritable Note "n" and "p" would represent the total organisms not the number of allele variations. The number of alleles would be represented by m, m' and m*. You could get more detailed about tracking allele frequencies and the number of times each organism breeds (and whether the offspring inherited which alleles), but this should give the basic idea of the feedback mechanism. The response part of the mechanism is whether the organisms survive to breed, and this depends on the relative changes in ecological factors (predator prey relations, nutrition & disease factors, environmental change factors, etcetera). Thoughts? 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
quote: All of you are here speaking about ToE - Theory of evolution. Do you speaking about it generally, or what ToE do you have on your mind? There are many ToE: 1) Darwinism2) Lamarckism 3) Nomogenesis - evolution governed by law 3) Orthogenesis 4) Idealistic morhphology 5) John Davison's Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis 6) Cosmic Ancestry etc... All of them are theories of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Enjoy!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024