Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 556 of 936 (807225)
05-01-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by CRR
05-01-2017 6:32 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
CRR writes:
Perhaps part of the problem is that there is a difference between the definition word Evolution as used in Biology and the definition of the Theory of Evolution.
Yes, there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution.
Evolution is what happens. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how it happens.
If there was another explanation - say special creation - that wouldn't change the fact that it does happen. But of course, special creation doesn't explain anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by CRR, posted 05-01-2017 6:32 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 557 of 936 (807244)
05-01-2017 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by CRR
05-01-2017 6:18 AM


Re: Where are we now?
CRR writes:
You're not wrong about that, Dredge. The theory of evolution does include the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) unless the person you're talking to doesn't want that.
You don't seem to understand the relationship between historical contingencies and theory. Let's use gravity as an example. The theory of gravity explains the orbit of Mercury. However, the theory of gravity does not require the existence of Mercury in order to be correct. In the same way, the theory of evolution does not require a universal common ancestor. If there were multiple origins of life, and life evolved from those multiple ancestors, then that would be the theory. However, the theory does explain how the evidence points to a universal common ancestor with the evidence we do have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by CRR, posted 05-01-2017 6:18 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2017 8:50 PM Taq has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 558 of 936 (807260)
05-01-2017 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by CRR
05-01-2017 6:18 AM


Re: Where are we now?
I was under the impression that ToE included the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor
You're not wrong about that, Dredge. The theory of evolution does include the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) unless the person you're talking to doesn't want that.
And that makes sense: If I don't want to theorize that all life evolved from a common ancestor, then I don't have to.
That theory is itself a conclusion of the application of the ToE based on the available data. But the ToE, as its own theory, doesn't have to include it. It certainly doesn't rule it out.
The data we have can be explained by all life having a common ancestor. It is fair to say that all life does have a common ancestor, with the implied caveat "as far as we know".
That doesn't mean we cannot find some life that has a different ancestor, or that there definitely isn't some out there somewhere, it just means that it hasn't been proven scientifically yet.
So people may or may not use the ToE to theorize about LUCA, it is up to them as you said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by CRR, posted 05-01-2017 6:18 AM CRR has not replied

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


(1)
Message 559 of 936 (807261)
05-01-2017 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Taq
05-01-2017 5:37 PM


Theory and Facts
You don't seem to understand the relationship between historical contingencies and theory. Let's use gravity as an example. The theory of gravity explains the orbit of Mercury. However, the theory of gravity does not require the existence of Mercury in order to be correct. In the same way, the theory of evolution does not require a universal common ancestor. If there were multiple origins of life, and life evolved from those multiple ancestors, then that would be the theory. However, the theory does explain how the evidence points to a universal common ancestor with the evidence we do have.
I'd change your wording a little:
If there were multiple origins of life and life evolved from those multiple ancestors then the theory of evolution would remain absolutely unchanged. The contingent fact would be that life managed to arise multiple times separately and each line evolved from there. Just as we could have a solar system with no mercury or 3 close in planets like mercury. The theory of gravity (general relativity or newton's) would be absolutely the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Taq, posted 05-01-2017 5:37 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 560 of 936 (807288)
05-02-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 543 by CRR
05-01-2017 6:18 AM


Re: Where are we now?
Thanks for that CCR. Wow, this is such a convoluted subject - you don't who or what to believe! When someone mentions "the theory of evolution" or "evolution" you really need to get them to explain exactly what they mean. It seems to me that there are least three theories of evolution!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by CRR, posted 05-01-2017 6:18 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Tangle, posted 05-02-2017 4:12 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 578 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2017 10:01 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 561 of 936 (807289)
05-02-2017 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 544 by CRR
05-01-2017 6:32 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
According to Wiki, for example, ToE is "the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits". This sounds like microevolution to me.
Then there is LUCA - macro.
Then there is Darwin's ToE - macro.
Then there is the general theory of evoultion, which is macro.
How can a sane discussion proceed about "evolution" or "the theory of evoltion" if you can't be sure what the hell the other person is referring to? Fair dinkum! No wonder the clarifying terms, micro' and macro-evolution were introduced.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by CRR, posted 05-01-2017 6:32 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2017 2:52 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 563 by CRR, posted 05-02-2017 3:28 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 577 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2017 9:59 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 579 by Taq, posted 05-02-2017 10:49 AM Dredge has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 562 of 936 (807295)
05-02-2017 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Dredge
05-02-2017 2:17 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
Maybe for a sane discussion you should start by getting the definitions right and listen to corrections if you don't ?
The theory of evolution is quite a large body of knowledge, but universal common descent strictly speaking is a tiny and largely insignificant detail. If you equate the one with the other then naturally you will get confused. The more so if you insist on sticking to the error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Dredge, posted 05-02-2017 2:17 AM Dredge has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 563 of 936 (807296)
05-02-2017 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Dredge
05-02-2017 2:17 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
And that's why we can have definitions ranging from
@Pressie 377
After all of this, I gathered that the word evolution means change over time.
to
@CRR 87
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.
and they are all correct in some sense and all wrong in some sense. Hence the confusion.
I think it suits some people to leave it that way then they can say "Behold the Peppered Moth! That is an example of evolution. Hence we have proved that humans evolved from apes which evolved from LUCA."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Dredge, posted 05-02-2017 2:17 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2017 3:34 AM CRR has replied
 Message 569 by Pressie, posted 05-02-2017 4:44 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 576 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2017 9:55 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 581 by Taq, posted 05-02-2017 10:59 AM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 564 of 936 (807298)
05-02-2017 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by CRR
05-02-2017 3:28 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
You mean that it suits creationists because then creationists can falsely accuse their opponents of saying:
"Behold the Peppered Moth! That is an example of evolution. Hence we have proved that humans evolved from apes which evolved from LUCA."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by CRR, posted 05-02-2017 3:28 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by CRR, posted 05-02-2017 3:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 565 of 936 (807300)
05-02-2017 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by PaulK
05-02-2017 3:34 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
So, PaulK, where's your definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2017 3:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2017 3:47 AM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 566 of 936 (807301)
05-02-2017 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by CRR
05-02-2017 3:40 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
For evolution itself - which has to refer to what happens - and understanding that we are talking about biology I would define it as the process by which populations (of biological organisms) change over time.
Now can you show someone ACTUALLY arguing that any instance of small-scale evolution occurring actually proves universal common ancestry ? Or even the evolution of humans from earlier ape species ? Or is it just the usual creationist smear routine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by CRR, posted 05-02-2017 3:40 AM CRR has not replied

  
KyleConno
Junior Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 04-28-2017


Message 567 of 936 (807303)
05-02-2017 4:08 AM


Evolution: The process of development of organisms.
Theory of Evolution: The study that explains Evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 575 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2017 9:49 AM KyleConno has not replied

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


(1)
Message 568 of 936 (807304)
05-02-2017 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by Dredge
05-02-2017 1:55 AM


Re: Where are we now?
Dredge writes:
Thanks for that CCR. Wow, this is such a convoluted subject
This reminds me of Trump suddenly noticing that the job of being a President is quite tough and not like his day job. Ignorance is indeed bliss.
Yes biology is a convoluted, complex subject that we're only just really getting to grips with. But if you chose to study it properly instead of reading the lies about it from your creationist web sites you'd find the basics quite simple to grasp.
you don't who or what to believe! When someone mentions "the theory of evolution" or "evolution" you really need to get them to explain exactly what they mean. It seems to me that there are least three theories of evolution!
There is only one theory of evolution, but there are several ways of describing it from the simple
"change in a population over time"
to the technical
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
to the descriptive
"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."
All these definitions - and all the others - are differening ways of descibing the same thing. It's a pity you prefer to spend your time deliberately finding ways to misunderstand - you might have better arguments against something you can't accept for purely dogmatic reasons if you started by trying to understand what the subject is rather than making it up.
If you continue to argue from ignorance like you are doing now, you can't hope to change anyone's mind about anything and you make yourelf look silly. At least argue the real facts instead of your 'alternative' facts.

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 560 by Dredge, posted 05-02-2017 1:55 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 569 of 936 (807306)
05-02-2017 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by CRR
05-02-2017 3:28 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
CRR, please don't spread falsehoods about me. I don't appreciate that.
CRR writes:
@Pressie 377 After all of this, I gathered that the word evolution means change over time.
Yes, the word evolution does mean change over time. Like Table Mountain getting lower over the centuries as the top is eroded.
Evolutionary theory is biological and describes the mechanisms involved changing life over time.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by CRR, posted 05-02-2017 3:28 AM CRR has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 570 of 936 (807307)
05-02-2017 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by Dredge
04-30-2017 12:35 AM


Re: If Not, What?
Maybe Dredge can provide a better answer than "subjective".
Dredge writes:
In order for all life to have evolved from a common ancestor, mutations must produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA...
Hey, Dredge, how do you quantify the information stored in the DNA? How do you know whether genetic information increases or decreases without a way of measuring it? Could you provide the units to measure the amount of genetic information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Dredge, posted 04-30-2017 12:35 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by Dredge, posted 05-02-2017 6:20 AM Pressie has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024