|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
When creationists state that macroevolution does not occur, what are they saying does not occur? Actually I did concede that the Peppered Moth could be an example of macroevolution (without speciation), using Durston's definition, but that it has not been confirmed as such. Speciation could be a micro or a macroevolutionary change depending on what caused it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
CRR writes: When creationists state that macroevolution does not occur, what are they saying does not occur?Actually I did concede that the Peppered Moth could be an example of macroevolution (without speciation), using Durston's definition, but that it has not been confirmed as such. Speciation could be a micro or a macroevolutionary change depending on what caused it. Totally silly. Both varieties of Peppered moth freely interbreed. There is no process of macroevolution, it's purely a way of describing when an accumulation of evolutionary changes have resulted in non-interbreeding populations. It's irrelevant what caused it. The word macroevolution could be dumped without changing anything in biology - and in my opinion should be.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
But the real question is how do you define the WORD (biological) evolution as opposed the THEORY of Evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
It's easy. Biological refers to life.
It's a fact that the first forms of living (hard to define) organisms changed from something like forms of prokaryotes, to the variety of different forms of life we see today. That's the fact. The theory of evolution (ToE) tries to explain the mechanisms involved in those changes. The hows. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Pressie writes:
No, that's a theory or hypothesis.
It's a fact that the first forms of living (hard to define) organisms changed from something like forms of prokaryotes, to the variety of different forms of life we see today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Just as you have admitted there is not one scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution, neither is there one scientific definition of Macroevolution. You don't get to define it either. But there is -- as I showed -- broad consensus within the biological scientific community on these meanings.
So it seems that in the debate about evolution none of these major terms are precisely defined; Theory of Evolution Microevolution Macroevolution Evolution Species And yet every living thing on earth has a unique species name, and there is broad consensus within the biological scientific community on their meanings. The differences, such as they are, are in the details. For instance species encompasses a breeding population -- any organism that can't breed with that population cannot be part of that species -- and the disagreement is whether interbreeding between two populations cannot happen due to genetic changes or whether it just does not occur because of behavior differences: a distinction without a functional difference.
quote: The BSC is fairly well accepted as a means to define species, and what you will likely find in most college textbooks on evolution.
Kind While creationists can't agree on what a "kind" encompasses. The better one's imho are those that use cladistics and nested hierarchies, which means accepting evolution and biological species ...
Macroevolution is ...
Wikipedia goes on to say:
quote: Again macroevolution is anagenesis and cladogenesis, evolution over a longer time scale than evolution within a species. So again there is broad consensus within the biological scientific community on these meanings.
Just as you have admitted there is not one scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution, neither is there one scientific definition of Macroevolution. You don't get to define it either. But I do get to use the scientific terminology definitions and I get to present them with my own words showing that I understand and accept those scientific usages. What do you suppose "evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, ..." means? When and how do new genera evolve? Enjoy Edited by Admin, : Fix URL dBCode.by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
CRR writes: Nope. It's a fact. The oldest fossilised forms of life (as we know it) are prokaryoytes. Fact.
No, that's a theory or hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The fact that it takes reduction of genetic diversity for evolution to occur at all, meaning to get a new population with new characteristics, is not recognized in the ToE. People just go on and on dementedly talking about how microevolution just seques into macroevolution without a hitch, without recognizing that to get a new species requires the loss of all competing alleles. You keep theorizing about how more genetic diversity can be produced so that macroevolution can occur, but
1) this is NOT the ToE which thinks there's no stopping point at all, and 2) you couldn't get enough useful change in thousands of years to begin to suggest a transition from micro to macro. All mutations do is replace an allele in a given gene, so all you can EVER get is a new version of the trait governed by that particular gene -- and in most cases you don't even get that. What you get is at best a neutral mutation that doesn't change the phenotype, and at worst, of course, destruction of the gene itself. In any case mutations will never get you past the genomic parameters of the Kind. The ToE has been proved wrong in so many ways it's astonishing to see how it just goes on limping along as if nothing had ever happened. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Completely false. The role of natural selection in fixing alleles is a central part of evolutionary theory.
quote: It's not just theory it is fact.
quote: It's the standard theory of evolution as described - for instance in Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker quote: That is your assumption and it completely ignores the actual biology. The interactions between genes and their products, gene duplication and the role of regulatory sequences for a start. And what on earth are these "genomic parameters of the Kind" that mutation can't get past ? When we can't even show that "Kinds" meaningfully exist it seems rather odd to be talking about their "genomic parameters" (if that even means anything)
quote: You don't get to be believed by making silly rants full of falsehoods or by abusing those who try to talk sense to you. In fact nothing of import has happened to disprove evolution - creationism is just bad religious apologetics rightfully rejected by science - and anyone who cares about the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The fact that it takes reduction of genetic diversity for evolution to occur at all, ... Not a fact, nor a theory nor a scientific hypothesis, but your personal opinion, falsified by polyploidy speciation:
quote: This is objective empirical evidence that genetic diversity is increased and the result is new species by evolution: mutation and selection and survival and reproduction. You lose, and this should be the end of this ridiculous claim. It won't though, because you will deny the evidence ...
The ToE has been proved wrong in so many ways it's astonishing to see how it just goes on limping along as if nothing had ever happened This too is false. But then you don't really know what the ToE says, because you have a perverted creationist version in your head. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Polyploidy sounds like anything but beneficial to an organism. The fact that it can't interbreed with nonpolyploids is sure evidence that it has nothing to do with speciation but only genetic dysfunction. It's absurd for anyone to think for half a second that it could be the solution to the inevitable loss of genetic diversity by evolutionary processes. Oh and it IS inevitable. I've pro
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Besides, if macroevolution is impossible with one genome, how could it become possible with two of the same?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Polyploidy sounds like anything but beneficial to an organism. ... And I predicted you would deny reality ... again. If it survives and breeds it is not detrimental. There are many cases of this happening. That is the only test necessary.
... The fact that it can't interbreed with nonpolyploids is sure evidence that it has nothing to do with speciation but only genetic dysfunction. ... If it survives and breeds it is not dysfunctional. It does. That is the only test necessary. Curiously the fact it can't interbreed with the parent population means it meets the Biological definition of speciation. You don't get to decide what is and what is not speciation, because that is the purview of actual educated scientists that know what they are talking about.
... It's absurd for anyone to think for half a second that it could be the solution to the inevitable loss of genetic diversity by evolutionary processes. ... It's insane that you continue to deny reality and refuse to learn when you are wrong.
... Oh and it IS inevitable. I've probed it logically dozens of times, but it ought to be provable easily enough by observation and DNA testing of a series of daughter populations. Only in your bubble fantasy world Faith, heck you could probably "prove" that rocks don't exist ....
Message 807: Besides, if macroevolution is impossible with one genome, how could it become possible with two of the same? This is the logic you use to disprove the ToE: pure self-delusion. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: The fact that it takes reduction of genetic diversity for evolution to occur at all, meaning to get a new population with new characteristics, is not recognized in the ToE. The ToE does recognized that a newly created beneficial allele will replace the less fit allele. It also recognizes that mutations occur in every generation, and that those new mutations increase genetic diversity.
People just go on and on dementedly talking about how microevolution just seques into macroevolution without a hitch, without recognizing that to get a new species requires the loss of all competing alleles. You forgot about the addition of new alleles that replaced the old alleles. When you repeat this process over and over you get macroevolution, as I have already shown you in a previous post.
this is NOT the ToE which thinks there's no stopping point at all, and Until you show that mutations stop occurring then you must admit that it doesn't stop.
you couldn't get enough useful change in thousands of years to begin to suggest a transition from micro to macro. All mutations do is replace an allele in a given gene, so all you can EVER get is a new version of the trait governed by that particular gene -- and in most cases you don't even get that. What you get is at best a neutral mutation that doesn't change the phenotype, and at worst, of course, destruction of the gene itself. In any case mutations will never get you past the genomic parameters of the Kind. Multiple rounds of replacing alleles is exactly what macroevolution is, and it is responsible for the differences seen between the human and chimp genomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Besides, if macroevolution is impossible with one genome, how could it become possible with two of the same? If the changes needed for macroevolution could not happen, then how is it possible for huamans and chimps to survive with 40 million differences between their genomes? If mutations can't change genomes enough to produce macroevolution, then neither can a designer.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024