|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6060 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Isn't this the thread about "Definition of Evolution" not the thread about "Proving the Theory of Evolution"? Seriously, threads have topic titles for a reason. Thank you, your input is wonderful. From xuraun:
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" Is this acceptable? Please no more extra twists to supplicate your religious beliefs/.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" Is this acceptable? Yes - it is acceptable. There are other acceptable definitions such as 'Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time'. Futuyuma wonderfully put it like this 'Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual...The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.' Curtis and Barnes' "Biology" gives us "evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."" Larry Moran has collated these quotes in this rather famous article - and he has recently expanded on this article at his blog. In which he tackles some of the issues that have arisen in this thread:
quote: He also warns us of confusing the scientific term of biological evolution with the modern vernacular definition. The latter is of little interest to us here! He concludes with
quote: To be honest - I think that should conclude things nicely, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Is it your position that Biologists, Evolutionary Geneticists, and Paleontologists accept the theory of Evolution on nothing more than religious faith?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xaruan Junior Member (Idle past 6082 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
You summed it up nicely.
I'm going to repost the same quotes, because no one should overlook them. quote: Edited by Xaruan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Aren't you a moderator? No.
Why are you OT? I'm responding to your post.
And why are you presenting your opinion as fact? I present the facts as facts because they are facts. When I write "There are also people who "contest" the Holocaust, the Big Bang, the round earth, heliocentrism, and the fact that the law says that you have to pay income tax" --- those are what we call "facts". As in true things that, y'know, correspond with reality.
By which I take it that you mean that your fantasy that I am a moderator corroborates your fantasies about the moderators. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. I've borrowed some of this for Message 117
The blog is good reading too.
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" Is this acceptable? Yes - it is acceptable. There are other acceptable definitions such as 'Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time'. Works for me. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
I think I've spent enough time reading creationist works to answer these:
Rrhain writes:
Firstly, the genome doesn't know what a kind is. Just as evolutionists will point out that creatures do not know to evolve. Rather, it is just something that occurs due to physical laws. But what is a "kind" and how does the genome know that it isn't allowed to evolve beyond that limit? Now, because the laws of the universe (as read by creationists) prohibit information increasing without intelligence (more information) instructing it to do so, evolution is limited to the information it began with after creation. So, whatever the original created organisms were, evolution can only modify (i.e. make worse) those organisms. A 'kind' simply refers to all those organisms that are commonly descended from this perfect created kind.
Rrhain writes:
I don't know, and I don't think any creationist knows either. But just because we don't know, it doesn't mean the term 'kind' is meaningless or that 'evolution did it'. Is a "fox" part of the "dog" kind? What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6060 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Sounds good. Case closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
RAZD wrote:
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" Is this acceptable? Yes - it is acceptable. There are other acceptable definitions such as 'Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time'. Works for me. My own short definition of "this evolution thing" is simply: A population's success in fixing beneficial alleles. This definition goes a critical step beyond saying only that evolution is a "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations." First Law : Second Law :: change in genetic traits : fixation of beneficial alleles ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm forced to disagree with your inclusion of beneficial HM.
Evolution happens through things like drift without any "benefit" being involved. Evolution may also happen that eventually leads to the extinction of a species. In fact, very often but only some of the time because of the evolution, more often because of too rapid environmental change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But you could say that fixing of new alleles in a population is an important step. Most (surviving) mutations in populations are in recessive genes and this makes their spread within a population easier.
However, once fixed in a population they are still subject to variation in number within the population, so they are still subject to evolution as the change in alleles from generation to generation. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
But the evo-devo people say evolution can happen even without the inheritance of genetic traits. I'd like you to clear up quite what you mean by this. Do you mean that they recognise that epigenetic factors such as methylation exist? The fact that there can be heritable traits outside of simply the primary sequence of DNA hardly means that 'evo-devo' people in any way discount the importance of genetics. Are you saying that epigenetic factors like DNA methylation are not heritable, there is considerable research showing they can be? I have to agree with the other opinions questioning your focus on the beneficial nature of alleles being important for evolution, for the success of any particular species perhaps but not for the process of evolution. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK:
But the evo-devo people say evolution can happen even without the inheritance of genetic traits.
I'd like you to clear up quite what you mean by this. The same criticism can be leveled at another evo-devo-ist, Simon Conway Morris, who, in his "Life's Solution/Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe," says:
quote:Is there any doubt who he has in mind for this barb? Then you ask:
Do you mean that they recognise that epigenetic factors such as methylation exist?
I don't see evo-devo-ists talking about methylation or introns or other factors relavant to evolution. But what if they did? Even those are members of a genetic complex that must be heritable or otherwise lost in a population ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Nosy wrote:
Evolution happens through things like drift without any "benefit" being involved.
I agree that selection is not the only way that alleles get fixed. Drift will fixed them, too. And whatever is beneficial will likely play its role when selective pressures arise. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have read Mary Jane West-Eberhard's entire "Developmental Plasticity and Evolution" (2003). She is a leading evo-devo-ist, and she argues for the role of "homoplasy" as an alternative to homology (genetic inheritance) for explaining evolution. Yes. We know about convergent evolution. But that is not the same as saying that "evolution can happen even without the inheritance of genetic traits".
The same criticism can be leveled at another evo-devo-ist, Simon Conway Morris ... He's a paleontologist.
Is there any doubt who he has in mind for this barb? No, but there might be considerable confusion as to what this has to do about "evolution without the inheritance of genetic traits".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024