Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the Theory of Evolution?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 31 of 93 (812153)
06-15-2017 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
06-12-2017 4:27 AM


The mechanisms involved in the changes from the first living (which in itself is a fuzzy concept to define) organisms; forms of Prokaryotes, to the variety of forms of life we observe today.
But, then, I'm not a Biologist by any means; so I'll leave it all up to the specialists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 4:27 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by CRR, posted 06-21-2017 8:07 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 46 of 93 (812997)
06-22-2017 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by CRR
06-21-2017 10:10 AM


Re: Evolution: The WORD vs the THEORY
CRR writes:
...Darwin took a whole book to discuss his theory and ague his case but many people (e.g. Kerkut, Coyne, Gould, Weintraub) have given definitions of one paragraph or less....
I had a look at what your first source (in the brackets) actually wrote. He never defined the ToE. What he defined were the 'Special Theory of Evolution' and also the 'General Theory of Evolution'. Didn't even bother to check the rest of your sources after you not telling the truth about what your first source actually wrote.
From what Kerkut wrote in 1960.
Kerkut writes:
There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.
His book is free to download. http://webmindset.net/...9/implications-of-the-evolution.pdf. He didn't define the ToE.
And also remember that the book was published in 1960; years before any organism's DNA was fully sequenced (1977) and the first organism's RNA could only fully be sequenced years after that.
Edited by Pressie, : Double "be" in last sentence.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by CRR, posted 06-21-2017 10:10 AM CRR has not replied

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


(1)
Message 47 of 93 (812998)
06-22-2017 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by CRR
06-21-2017 8:03 AM


Re: Theory of Evolution
CRR writes:
...Note Darwin says "into a few forms or into one"...
And that was waaaaay before the oldest fossils ever, in the forms of Pokaryotes in rocks in SA, WA and Greenland were discovered.
His general deductions were normally spot-on, even though he did make quite a few mistakes in the finer details. Darwin and other contemporaries were brilliant with the limited information they had available.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CRR, posted 06-21-2017 8:03 AM CRR has not replied

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


Message 51 of 93 (813402)
06-27-2017 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by CRR
06-27-2017 7:41 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
And ignore Kerkut's working definitions? Why?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by CRR, posted 06-27-2017 7:41 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by CRR, posted 06-27-2017 9:44 PM Pressie has replied

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


Message 55 of 93 (813492)
06-28-2017 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by CRR
06-27-2017 9:44 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
No, I'm asking you why you prefer the definition of one person over the definitions of the others. Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by CRR, posted 06-27-2017 9:44 PM CRR has not replied

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


Message 56 of 93 (813493)
06-28-2017 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by CRR
06-27-2017 9:44 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
Duplicate post
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by CRR, posted 06-27-2017 9:44 PM CRR has not replied

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


Message 65 of 93 (813599)
06-29-2017 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
06-28-2017 3:05 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
So, after all of this my deduction is that CRR used a quote from a book he has never read himself. Creationist quote- mining. Not really shocking.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2017 3:05 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 88 of 93 (814081)
07-04-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by CRR
07-04-2017 6:22 AM


Re: Evolutionary Lineages rather than species?
Ah, CRR, so no fixed boundaries between 'kinds'. You're getting to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 6:22 AM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024