|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, in my own study and reading, "that all life evolved from a common ancestor", is not the theory, but a rather the inescapable conclusion of ALL the observations that the Theory of Evolution describes, about 150 years of observations. Seems a bit strong of a claim, to me. There's some weird shit out there... And have we even found it all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Well, you may be correct. I should have said "that all life evolved from a common ancestor or a group of common ancestors , is not the theory, but a rather the inescapable conclusion of ALL the observations that the Theory of Evolution describes, about 150 years of observations. Do you think the ToE describes observations that show something different? Not right now, no. I just don't think it is conclusive that ALL life has a common ancestor. I would agree that, currently, we do not have data or observations telling us otherwise, but we might have some candidates or there might be something different out there that we haven't found yet. For example, they found some really weird microbes in a cave:
quote: Are you confident those microbes have a common ancestor with us?
That's the truth! I have seen Damselflies that mimic butterflies and tiny parasitoid wasps that look like little robotic machines. I could spend days telling you about all of them. Go on
And have we even found it all? Not even close. We've described most of the stuff bigger than a boot, but probably not more than 10% of the total species (my personal estimate). We have done well with vertebrates, but most of the life on this planet is invertebrates. Earth is the cradle of invertebrates. They make up 33 of the 34 phyla. Sure, and most of that stuff obviously shares a common ancestor. I was thinking about something novel that doesn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Precisely the problem! There are multiple definitions and when examined they often refer to different types of "evolution". Biology IS fuzzy...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are you retarded?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's not a very nice thing to say. Mmhmm, I suppose you were only pretending to be retarded:
quote: So yeah: FOR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The theory of evolution can be used in applied biology. Yes, of course, but the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor has no use in applied biology. No, that's not true. It does have use. But, to give you an inch, it isn't necessarily required in all of applied biology. And that's because, as I said, that applied biology is basically just really complex chemistry. It is on a more micro-scale that where the process described in Theory of Evolution operates - which is on phenotypes and at a more macro-scale. Make sense? ABE: Also see: Message 558 Granted, but ToE is used to conclude that all life evolved from a common ancestor. The two theories have virtually become synonymous; the mentality is, if ToE is true, then so is the theory all life evolved from a common ancestor - which is what Dobzhansky was on about. Not quite right - they are not "synonymous", Common decent comes from the ToE being applied to the empirical data that we've uncovered. Without the additional data, the ToE does not get to Common Decent all on its own. The ToE would work just as well with, say, all life coming from two common ancestors, or even more. Edited by New Cat's Eye, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Common descent has been part of the theory of evolution from the beginning. Sure, but think about it: Where do babies come from? They come from parents, who came from parents, who came from parent, who came from parents. All animals come from a previous generation, so if there are more diversity of species today than there were in the past, then it follows that the species today came from, albeit very gradually over many many generations, the species of the past. No animals just magically pop into existence one day...
Darwin in "Origin of Species" drew the inference that all life had descended from one or a few common ancestors and expressed his opinion that it was only one. Or a few... that's the point I'm making: It doesn't have to be one universal common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Or a few... that's the point I'm making: It doesn't have to be one universal common ancestor. As I said Darwin said a few or only one and made it clear in the book that he thought it was only one. Sure, but it doesn't have to be. Look, the topic is defining evolution. And the "definition" that I'm responding to is that evolution is synonymous with common decent. That's not true.
OK, so it doesn't have to be one universal common ancestor but that is certainly the prevailing view today, in Darwin's day, and Darwin's preferred option. Right, being synonymous with common decent is not a valid definition of evolution. As I've said, common decent is a conclusion derived from applying the ToE to the data that we have available. Back in the day, it started as a hypothesis - but it still wasn't synonymous with evolution. See Message 558. Here, review all my messages in this thread.
No animals just magically pop into existence one day...
Except apparently the first living thing(s). No, not "one day". And there was not just one first living thing. Being "alive" is not a binary condition...
They couldn't have had a living ancestor. They could have had a semi-living ancestor
Now we are moving into a discussion of Abiogenesis Yeah, and it gets a little bit circular - but in regards to defining evolution and defining life, one way is to define life as that which is capable of evolving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
People want to preserve their breeds, they don't want more change. That should be telling you one of the many reasons why purebreeds are a bad model: Nature doesn't have wants like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
es you did, all in the immune system, which is very likely to be a special case for some reason, You don't know the reason, but you're confident that it is "very likely".
Perhaps we are at a point in the deterioration of all living things that mutations have overtaken built in alleles. Or, ya know - you're wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You shouldn't call yourself names...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024