Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-27-2017 8:39 AM
362 online now:
CRR, Heathen, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 358 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,712 Year: 19,318/21,208 Month: 2,077/3,111 Week: 298/574 Day: 12/82 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4243
44
4546
...
63NextFF
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
CRR
Member
Posts: 455
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 646 of 935 (807840)
05-06-2017 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 638 by Dredge
05-05-2017 6:30 AM


Re: Where are we now?
Darwinsim IS the theory of common descent. Variation, adaptation, and natural selection all were recognised before Charles Darwin. So was the Tree of Life. What Darwin did was use the former to explain the latter.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:30 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2017 2:08 AM CRR has responded
 Message 651 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2017 10:47 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 654 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 1:24 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12872
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 647 of 935 (807841)
05-06-2017 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by CRR
05-06-2017 2:03 AM


Re: Where are we now?
To clarify for Dredge, Darwinian evolution involves common descent. However the extent of that common descent is identified by evidence, not required by the theory.

Thus, universal common descent is not an important part of the theory, simply a conclusion from the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 2:03 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 3:25 AM PaulK has responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 455
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 648 of 935 (807845)
05-06-2017 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 647 by PaulK
05-06-2017 2:08 AM


Re: Where are we now?
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms. Darwin of course knew nothing of the genetic code. Since then we have discovered the genetic code and that it is universal with only minor variations. Hence most evolutionists today believe there was a universal common ancestor.

So I would say that today universal common descent IS an important part of the theory


This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2017 2:08 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 649 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2017 3:33 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 650 by Tangle, posted 05-06-2017 4:12 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 655 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 1:25 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12872
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 649 of 935 (807846)
05-06-2017 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 648 by CRR
05-06-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Where are we now?
quote:

Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms.

Because the evidence pointed that way, even in his day.

quote:

So I would say that today universal common descent IS an important part of the theory

But only because of the evidence. If the evidence pointed in a different direction - to a few rather than a single ancestral form - it would not make much difference to the theory at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 3:25 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4891
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 650 of 935 (807847)
05-06-2017 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 648 by CRR
05-06-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Where are we now?
CRR writes:

Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms.

Well yes, that's what this was all about.

He came to that picture - his hypothesis - from the evidence he'd gathered from fossils and his ideas about changes over time leading to speciation.

Darwin of course knew nothing of the genetic code. Since then we have discovered the genetic code and that it is universal with only minor variations. Hence most evolutionists today believe there was a universal common ancestor.

So I would say that today universal common descent IS an important part of the theory

Yes, Darwin's ideas were later confirmed by DNA.

And again yes, common descent (not necessarily universal) is an important part of the theory. It's actually integral to the theory - it's a result of the evolutionary process.

But so what, why are you so obsessed with it? Why do you think it helps your arguments in any way?


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 648 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 3:25 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 651 of 935 (807882)
05-06-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by CRR
05-06-2017 2:03 AM


Re: Where are we now?
Darwinsim IS the theory of common descent. Variation, adaptation, and natural selection all were recognised before Charles Darwin.

So was common descent, by some people.

But, as I have pointed out, before Darwin people didn't understand variation and natural selection. They thought of natural selection as being conservative and keeping a check on variation, not as directional and producing adaptation.

So that was one of Darwin's contributions: the development of the theory of evolution. The other was to amass a lot of evidence for the fact of evolution and for how much of a role it had played in the history of life.

Darwinism is quite a good name for the principle of common descent combined with the theory of evolution. But to say that it "IS the theory of common descent" and to actually exclude natural selection from it is silly; besides which we already have a phrase meaning common descent. It's "common descent".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 2:03 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6834
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 652 of 935 (808110)
05-08-2017 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 606 by CRR
05-04-2017 5:26 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
CRR writes:

I agree, Taq, universal common ancestry is inseparable from both Darwin's theory of evolution and the modern synthesis.

Strange that you would characterize my posts in such a manner since I said the exact opposite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by CRR, posted 05-04-2017 5:26 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6834
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 653 of 935 (808112)
05-08-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 631 by Dredge
05-05-2017 6:06 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
Dredge writes:

Mountains of pseudo-evidence, more like it.

Care to give an example?

Er, what you refer to as an "obsession with definitions" might have something to with the fact that the topic we are discussing is entitled, "How do you define the word Evolution?"

That a creationist would start a thread on the definition of evolution only further highlights the obsession that creationists have with definitions, as opposed to facts and science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:06 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:42 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6834
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 654 of 935 (808115)
05-08-2017 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 646 by CRR
05-06-2017 2:03 AM


Re: Where are we now?
CRR writes:

Darwinsim IS the theory of common descent.

False. Darwin's book was all about descent with modification as caused by natural selection. Nowhere did he claim in the original book that all life shared a universal common ancestor.

Variation, adaptation, and natural selection all were recognised before Charles Darwin.

Can you please cite an earlier work that theorized descent with modification by natural selection?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 2:03 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6834
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 655 of 935 (808117)
05-08-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 648 by CRR
05-06-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Where are we now?
CRR writes:

Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms.

Therefore, Darwinism did not include universal common descent as a required condition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 3:25 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 534
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 656 of 935 (808316)
05-10-2017 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by Taq
05-08-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Part of the problem?
Taq writes:

Care to give an example?

The fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 1:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 6:49 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 658 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 11:07 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 659 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 2:32 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18814
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 657 of 935 (808324)
05-10-2017 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:42 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
Dredge writes:

Mountains of pseudo-evidence, more like it.

Taq writes:

Care to give an example?

The fossil record.

You mean like this?

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

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.


Care to show how this is "pseudo-evidence"?

Or do you have some silly example to share?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : Dredge quote added

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 656 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:42 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 3:35 AM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6834
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 658 of 935 (808358)
05-10-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:42 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
Dredge writes:

The fossil record.

How is the fossil record "pseudo-evidence"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:42 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 5:07 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18814
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 659 of 935 (808398)
05-10-2017 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:42 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
The fossil record.

By the way, referencing the topic, I defined evolution as:

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.

The graphic in my previous post, Message 657, shows this occurring continually with each level of fossils showing a shift in the frequency of the traits for size. Here it is again:

So this is objective empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution (that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the evidence).

Can you explain why you think this is "pseudo-evidence" for evolution?

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 656 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:42 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 455
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 660 of 935 (808436)
05-10-2017 6:58 PM


A definition of Evolution
This is thread is for definitions of Evolution. You don't need to argue about whether it is a valid theory or not.

Evolution is the official personal information manager for GNOME. It combines e-mail, address book, calendar, task list and note-taking features. Its user interface and functionality is similar to Microsoft Outlook. Evolution is free software licensed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).

Edited by CRR, : General edit.


Replies to this message:
 Message 661 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 7:26 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4243
44
4546
...
63NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017