Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 3:24 PM
427 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Faith, frako, JonF, PaulK, Porosity, xongsmith (8 members, 419 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,900 Year: 27,506/21,208 Month: 1,419/1,714 Week: 262/365 Day: 31/73 Hour: 3/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   How do you define the Theory of Evolution?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 61 of 93 (813554)
06-28-2017 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by dwise1
06-28-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
No, I said what I meant. I want him to quote the preceding sentence --- the one that came immediately before the bit he quoted.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2017 11:24 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2017 2:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 62 of 93 (813555)
06-28-2017 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2017 2:46 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
Agreed. We need to know the context of that quote to be able to understand what he's really saying. That's what I was going for in asking for a proper citation, but being given the preceding text would also work.

If CRR had picked that quote up from a quote-mine as I suspect, he won't be able to fulfill your request.

ABE:
It seems that every time I've heard Jerry Coyne mentioned it has been by a creationists who's quoting him as saying something against evolution. So I looked him up on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne.

Coyne turns out to be a outspoken critic of creationists in all their disguises, such as "intelligent design". Looks like yet another case of creationists misquoting a scientist in order to make it appear that he's on their side, like what they kept trying to do with S.J. Gould.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2017 2:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2017 3:02 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 86 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 6:17 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 63 of 93 (813556)
06-28-2017 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by dwise1
06-28-2017 2:54 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
Coyne wrote "In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence:"

So I guess he is indeed using a narrower definition than most biologists would.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2017 2:54 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2017 3:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 64 of 93 (813557)
06-28-2017 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2017 3:02 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
I would suggest that a brief summary is not a formal definition, nor is it intended as one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2017 3:02 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Pressie, posted 06-29-2017 6:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1833
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


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 yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 66 of 93 (813604)
06-29-2017 7:54 AM


Jerry Coyne's Definition
Why Evolution is True
Jerry Coyne
Chapter 1 - What is Evolution? p3
quote:
In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a selfreplicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

Looks like a definition to me.

I have read the whole book; and I have read several other books by noted evolutionists.


Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2017 7:59 AM CRR has responded
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2017 8:26 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 06-29-2017 11:23 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 67 of 93 (813605)
06-29-2017 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by CRR
06-29-2017 7:54 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's non-Definition
It's not described as a definition. It doesn't look like a formal definition. In fact it looks like a summary of the current content which is what it is described as.

And surely the whole point of asking for a definition is to ask for a formal definition. Which that is not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 7:54 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 8:15 AM PaulK has responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 68 of 93 (813606)
06-29-2017 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
06-29-2017 7:59 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's non-Definition
So he wrote a whole book about why evolution is true and never defined the theory of evolution?
You're clutching at straws.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2017 7:59 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2017 8:24 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 06-29-2017 11:21 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 69 of 93 (813608)
06-29-2017 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by CRR
06-29-2017 8:15 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's non-Definition
I don't see why a formal definition would do better than the summary for Coyne's purpose (in fact it would probably be worse). Nor do I think that pointing out the fact that Coyne explicitly says he is summarising the theory rather than offering a definition can be considered "clutching at straws".

Perhaps you should consider why you are so desperate to call Coyne's summary a definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 8:15 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 70 of 93 (813609)
06-29-2017 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by CRR
06-29-2017 7:54 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
quote:
In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a selfreplicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

Looks like a definition to me.

If that is a definition, then what does the theory so defined predict and how can it be tested?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 7:54 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 71 of 93 (813631)
06-29-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by CRR
06-29-2017 8:15 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's non-Definition
CRR writes:

So he wrote a whole book about why evolution is true and never defined the theory of evolution?

The entire book is a part of the definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 8:15 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2017 11:29 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 72 of 93 (813632)
06-29-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by CRR
06-29-2017 7:54 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
CRR writes:

Looks like a definition to me.

And yet you will twist yourself into logical pretzels in order to not understand it.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 7:54 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 73 of 93 (813636)
06-29-2017 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Taq
06-29-2017 11:21 AM


Re: Jerry Coyne's non-Definition
I disagree. I think that this definition is pretty good:

The body of knowledge relating to the process of biological evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 06-29-2017 11:21 AM Taq has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 74 of 93 (813710)
06-30-2017 3:57 AM


Your Definitions
OK so you don't like my definitions, what's your's?
Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 06-30-2017 1:25 PM CRR has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 75 of 93 (813717)
06-30-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by CRR
06-30-2017 3:57 AM


Re: Your Definitions
OK so you don't like my definitions, what's your's?

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

where:

quote:
Anagenesis, also known as "phyletic transformation", and in contrast to cladogenesis, is the process in which a species, gradually accumulating change, eventually becomes sufficiently distinct from its ancestral form that it may be labeled a new species (a new form). When this is deemed to occur, no branching or splitting off of new taxa in the lineage is shown in a phylogenetic tree. When no populations of the ancestor species remain the ancestral species can then be considered as being extinct.

Anagenesis is the accumulated effects of the process of evolution within a population over multiple generations.

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

and where:

quote:
Cladogenesis is an evolutionary splitting event where a parent species splits into two distinct species, forming a clade.[1]

This event usually occurs when a few organisms end up in new, often distant areas or when environmental changes cause several extinctions, opening up ecological niches for the survivors. The events that cause these species to originally separate from each other over distant areas may still allow both of the species to have equal chances of surviving, reproducing, and even evolving to better suit their environments while still being two distinct species.[2]

To determine whether a speciation event is cladogenesis, researchers may use simulation, evidence from fossils, molecular evidence from the DNA of different living species, or modelling. It has however been questioned whether the distinction between cladogenesis and anagenesis is necessary at all in evolutionary theory.[3]


Cladogenesis is anagenesis in two (or more) populations that become sufficiently reproductively isolated that they evolve independently of one another.

And example from the fossil record is Pelycodus:

quote:

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


The depth in feet on the left side show relative age, with the oldest fossils at the bottom. The overall trend lines clearly show anagenesis occurring over time, and the split in the populations at the top clearly shows cladogenesis occurring as the two populations diverge from one another. They diverge further after this, becoming classified as new genera, not just new species.

The pattern seen in this fossil record is explained by anagenesis and cladogenesis, thus it supports the Theory of Evolution given above.

The Theory of Evolution predicts that similar patterns will be seen for other species, and the theory is tested by every new find, of a new living species, of a new fossil, and of a new genome record.

The Theory of Evolution predicts that every fossil species found will have an older ancestral species nearby, both in time and in geographic location. This is tested by placing fossils within the temporal spacial matrix where they are found, and comparing them by homologies and shared derived traits with nearby fossils of similar structure. This gets into the science of paleontology as well as evolution.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CRR, posted 06-30-2017 3:57 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Tangle, posted 06-30-2017 7:34 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017