|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Reasonable comments, caffeine. Thank you. I don't think any definition will satisfy everyone. I was trying to give a concise definition, including only what was necessary, excluding the non-essential.
I think it can allow for multiple independent life forms having originated abiotically but only one, which could have been a chimera, became the ancestor for all living things today. I believe the prevailing opinion today. It also doesn't exclude change, in fact a great deal of change would have been necessary to produce all of today's life forms from LUCA. But it does leave room for a discussion about whether all change is evolution. I included abiogenesis specifically to exclude the position that life was created and evolved from there. Kerkut explicitly included it and I think Coyne also included it by his reference to a "self replicating molecule". It might not exclude everyone in the ID movement, I think at least some would accept an abiotic origin of the first life and most seem to accept evolution over millions of years.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I think the term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Huxley after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and formulated the Law of Biogenesis. At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CRR writes: I think the term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Huxley after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and formulated the Law of Biogenesis. At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution. Which even if true would be totally irrelevant to how the terms are used today. Stop trying to play childish carny con games here or at least try to find some we have not been laughing at for decades. Your definition has nothing to do with how the term is used or to Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I think the term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Huxley after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and formulated the Law of Biogenesis. At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution. Let's examine what you think for any disconnect from reality. The theory of evolution was formulated primarily by Darwin who wrote extensively on the Origin of Species (even titling his work as such) at a time when neither the mechanism for inheritable variation nor the origin of life was known. In short, the theory of evolution was entirely independent of abiogenesis from the very beginning. In the context of arguments about evolution vs. Creationism that there may be a need or logical reason to raise the two in a discussion because Genesis itself covers the origin of life as well as the species. No question that the topic is relevant, but abiogenesis has not proceeded much beyond hypothesis. Panspermia as an alternative to abiogenesis would fill the spot for a suggested origin of life equally well. Finally, how can your critique the theory of evolution by imposing your own definition? Wouldn't you just be critiquing some other theory that you made up? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution. "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." --- Darwin, letter to Hooker, 1871.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
After reading previous discussion and having a good think on the subject I think the best definition of evolution overall is a slight modification of Kerkut’s; Why would you not base your definition on the way it is defined by scientists working in the science of evolution? Is that not the only technical basis for a technical scientific definition -- to use it the way it is actually used in the actual science? There are of course other uses of the word, but the one applicable to the science of evolution is the one used by the evolutionary scientists -- any other definition would just sow confusion and talking at cross purposes. Unless that is your intent.
Evolution is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself arose naturally from an inorganic form. The key elements of this are abiogenesis and ascent from a last universal common ancestor (LUCA). The theory of common descent is a prediction of the theory of evolution. As a (sub) theory it makes the prediction that all life can be explained by descent from a common ancestor. Falsifying this (sub) theory would not falsify the theory of evolution, just common descent. We know evolution occurs, we don't know if there was only one source population. The "last universal common ancestor (LUCA)" is likewise a prediction of the (sub) theory of common descent. Curiously neither the (sub) theory of common descent in specific nor the theory of evolution in general make any predictions about the origin of life, as they take life as a given and are only concerned with what happens between first life and now.
The definition from population genetics; a change in allele frequency in a population over time; is unsatisfactory because it focusses on only a part of the whole scope of evolution. Possibly because population genetics is a sub-science within the science of evolution? I find it unsatisfactory for use with fossils, as genetic material is notoriously difficult to find ... but the bones do tell the effects of genetics in the way they are expressed in the phenotype, and thus in the bones and their fossil record. Those bones can and do show patterns of hereditary traits when the genetics are unknown. That definition also does not include any reference to driving conditions for evolution, not just natural selection, but the effects of the changing ecological matrix that enmeshes all living species. The evolution of one species affects the species it interacts with, generating evolutionary responses in return. These are the reasons I use "hereditary traits" instead of alleles, and why I added "in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats" to the definition for (micro) evolution.
Now I know that some people will object to including abiogenesis in the definition but I think it is an essential part of the thinking of most evolutionary biologists and inseparable from evolution. Possibly, just possibly, because the way the science of evolution does not include the study of abiogenesis, leaving that to the science of abiogenesis. Just like they don't include the study of physics nor the study of chemistry. It's kind of like saying that you can't study the bible without studying how written language and stories originated. Enjoyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
I define evolution in three words, not 90.
"OP stated "I ask that all definitions be less than 90 words in total. Keep it short, clear, and to the point. No justifications, no rationales, no references. Don’t go look it up then write what you read in your own words. Just post your concise opinion. Note that for reference, this paragraph, including these last sentences, contains 90 words as counted by Microsoft Word. I have added a little extra BS just to get this close to the exact value so we will have an easy reference. Three more words."" Luck and Chance All evolution comes down to luck and chance, magical beneficial mutations. My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE". Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design. The Lord created science and all things. Laws did not create themselves. Nothing happened by chance and accident.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE" Nobody cares what your definition is. Scientists get to define the terms they use, not preachers who are 180 anti-science.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE" Aw, sweet. I found a picture of evolution.
See evolution IS real. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
hbd writes: Aw, sweet. I found a picture of evolution. And, just as in reality, the House wins.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Davidjay writes: My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE" Almost. Try CHANCE and SELECTION. Then you'd at least be in the right ball park.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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Luck and Chance All evolution comes down to luck and chance, magical beneficial mutations. My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE" Why do you bother to drool out this stupid lie to an audience of people all of whom know that you're lying? Whom do you hope to deceive?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Thanks for the pic, HEREbedragons.
But lets narrow down the words even further and be more precise. ONE WORD LUCK for luck and chance are basically the same. Lucky mutations, and lucky selections. Keep rolling the dice, evolutionists hoping in true faith for a better outcome to your theory and sadly to your lives.But theres still time to push away from the table before you are absolutely broke. Evolution can be summed up in one word .. LUCK. Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design. The Lord created science and all things. Laws did not create themselves. Nothing happened by chance and accident.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why do you keep telling this lie? Whom do you hope to deceive?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024