Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 1:36 PM
356 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,233 Year: 23,839/21,208 Month: 1,804/2,468 Week: 313/822 Day: 39/67 Hour: 5/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4445
46
4748
...
63NextFF
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 676 of 936 (809238)
05-17-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Dredge
05-16-2017 6:23 PM


Re: Part of the problem?
Dredge writes:

Wrong (see post # 673). And you've obviously missed the irony here - your messiah, Charles Darwin, died in the nineteenth century, yet you see no problem in quoting him! The pot just called the kettle, black.

And once again, we see creationists trying to make evolution look like their religious beliefs in order to discredit it. Shows you how much respect they have for their own beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:23 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 677 of 936 (809251)
05-17-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by Dredge
05-16-2017 6:23 PM


Re: Part of the problem?
Tangle writes:

You mine-quoted a guy that died in the nineteenth century?

Wrong (see post # 673). And you've obviously missed the irony here - your messiah, Charles Darwin, died in the nineteenth century, yet you see no problem in quoting him! The pot just called the kettle, black.

Curiously in both cases we note that science has moved on since those times, so what they said in the past does not necessarily apply to evolution science today ...

... and most of the time Darwin is quoted is to correct false claims by creationists over what his work says.

Keep the one-liners coming ... LOL

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 674 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:23 PM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2017 12:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5988
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 678 of 936 (809253)
05-17-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by RAZD
05-17-2017 12:10 PM


Re: Part of the problem?
Curiously in both cases we note that science has moved on since those times, so what they said in the past does not necessarily apply to evolution science today ...

... and most of the time Darwin is quoted is to correct false claims by creationists over what his work says

Religions tend to look to founding/authority figures as the source of "truth."

They think (wrongly) that science works the same way. That's the reason for all the attacks on Darwin, and all the attention given to "Darwinism."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2017 12:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 679 of 936 (810137)
05-24-2017 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 657 by RAZD
05-10-2017 6:49 AM


Pelycodus
How much change are we talking about in "A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate"
Evolutionists generally believe that all domestic dogs are descended from wolves. Domestic dogs can range in size from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. To get comparable scales we compare on the horizontal axis log10(Weight^.667), getting weights from Wikipedia. Plotting these over the Pelycodus chart we get.

Now we can see that the change in Pelycodus is really quite small. What's more we don't know if Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus are actually different species or just varieties. We are not in a position to try hybridization between the two.

Anyway as I have said before adaptation and even speciation is not a real concern for YECs like myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 6:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 680 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2017 6:55 AM CRR has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 680 of 936 (810140)
05-24-2017 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 679 by CRR
05-24-2017 3:35 AM


Re: Pelycodus
Evolutionists generally believe that all domestic dogs are descended from wolves. Domestic dogs can range in size from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. To get comparable scales we compare on the horizontal axis log10(Weight^.667), getting weights from Wikipedia. Plotting these over the Pelycodus chart we get.

Now we can see that the change in Pelycodus is really quite small. ...

Agreed. Do you mind if I keep a copy of this? There are a couple of other threads I could use this on.

... Domestic dogs can range in size from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. ...

Indeed, but I'm also not sure that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane would breed voluntarily, even though artificial insemination would likely produce results.

... What's more we don't know if Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus are actually different species or just varieties. We are not in a position to try hybridization between the two.

We are not in a position to force hybridization on them, no, but we can observe the gap between them and assume that at that point they were not interbreeding voluntarily. I would not be surprised if genetic incompatibility had not developed at this point, as that generally takes time, if it does occur (it would also take mutations to block compatibility, as in the diversification of zebras, donkeys and horses making their hybrids sterile).

What we can also observe is that descendant fossils show increased diversion between one and the other branch.

We can also observe that anagenesis was occurring from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus jarrovii:

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.

This is also called "arbitrary speciation" because the distinction point is arbitrarily chosen and a bit subjective.

We can also observe that if we ignore one branch at a time that we see continued anagenesis. It is only when we observer both branches that we see cladogenesis occurring:

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

Again this would be similar to a "kind" reproducing and generating new species within the "kind"

Anyway as I have said before adaptation and even speciation is not a real concern for YECs like myself.

Then we are in general agreement at this point.

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 679 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 3:35 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 7:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 681 of 936 (810142)
05-24-2017 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 680 by RAZD
05-24-2017 6:55 AM


Re: Pelycodus
Agreed. Do you mind if I keep a copy of this? There are a couple of other threads I could use this on.

If you think it is substantially correct then go ahead.

Indeed, but I'm also not sure that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane would breed voluntarily, even though artificial insemination would likely produce results.

Even with artificial insemination I have read that a Chihuahua mother will spontaneously abort. However they are considered the same species.
Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species ... https://www.scientificamerican.com/...og-breeds-same-species

... the diversification of zebras, donkeys and horses making their hybrids sterile

Fertile hybrids are known although rare. Similarly we occasionally get fertile hybrids between tigers and lions. Among dogs wolf-coyote-domestic dog hybrids have been reported.

Again this would be similar to a "kind" reproducing and generating new species within the "kind"

Yes. This is considered macroevolution in some definitions but not others.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2017 6:55 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2017 9:44 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 683 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2017 9:56 AM CRR has responded
 Message 700 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2017 2:05 PM CRR has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 682 of 936 (810156)
05-24-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by CRR
05-24-2017 7:37 AM


Re: Pelycodus
Even with artificial insemination I have read that a Chihuahua mother will spontaneously abort.

Possibly there is an "early warning" system that the fetus unchecked would become bigger than the mother ...

Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species ... https://www.scientificamerican.com/...og-breeds-same-species

It might be more useful to consider them a "ring species" where there can be gene flow between intermediates but the extremes wouldn't breed.

Fertile hybrids are known although rare. Similarly we occasionally get fertile hybrids between tigers and lions. Among dogs wolf-coyote-domestic dog hybrids have been reported.

Agreed, and camel/llama, tiger/lion hybrids have been made via artificial insemination, so I don't think we can insist on genetic incompatibility as a necessary aspect of speciation, to me all that is required is isolation behavior -- failure to breed when there is opportunity, because incompatible behavior (wrong bird mating song, wrong sexual display dance, etc) -- so that gene flow is interrupted.

Curiously we can see a pattern in hominini history of separation, rejoining that mixes separately selected mutations, and then separation again:

quote:
And I also recall the discussion on New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi of a "braided" history ... from the article:

quote:
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?

Berger himself thinks the right metaphor for human evolution, instead of a tree branching from a single root, is a braided stream: a river that divides into channels, only to merge again downstream. Similarly, the various hominin types that inhabited the landscapes of Africa must at some point have diverged from a common ancestor. But then farther down the river of time they may have coalesced again, so that we, at the rivers mouth, carry in us today a bit of East Africa, a bit of South Africa, and a whole lot of history we have no notion of whatsoever. ...


Because Homo naledi is a mosaic of features some modern derived features and some preserved ancestral features, and that applies to other species, such that there is some mixing and matching going on, this suggests some hybridization in the past. We also know from DNA analysis that there was some hybridization with Homo neanderthalus (alt Homo sapiens neanderthalus )


Also see Interweaving Evolution & Hybrid Vigor

It should come as no surprise that some hybridization occurs in the early stages of daughter population division.

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 681 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 7:37 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 683 of 936 (810157)
05-24-2017 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by CRR
05-24-2017 7:37 AM


Re: Pelycodus
Your link doesn't work, can you fix it? Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 7:37 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 684 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 6:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 684 of 936 (810175)
05-24-2017 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 683 by Dr Adequate
05-24-2017 9:56 AM


Re: Pelycodus
Dr Ad: Your link doesn't work, can you fix it? Thanks.
CRR: Works on my PC https://www.scientificamerican.com/...og-breeds-same-species
This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2017 9:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 685 of 936 (810176)
05-24-2017 6:47 PM


the word Evolution?
Have we actually made much progress in defining the word Evolution?

Obviously the word itself has a range of meanings depending on the context. Such as;
Evolution of the universe
Evolution of the motor car
Evolution in population genetics
As shorthand for the Theory of Evolution
Microevolution
Macroevolution

Within biology the only one that seems to have a reasonably precise definition is within population genetics where it means "a change in allele frequency in a population over time". As Endor notes this is close to, but not quite the same as, microevolution. However it does not correspond to evolution used as shorthand for the Theory of Evolution. As a result the word can be ambiguous and interpreted differently by different people.


Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by Tangle, posted 05-24-2017 7:50 PM CRR has responded
 Message 687 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-24-2017 8:07 PM CRR has responded
 Message 693 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2017 6:44 AM CRR has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5053
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 686 of 936 (810177)
05-24-2017 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by CRR
05-24-2017 6:47 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
CRR writes:

Have we actually made much progress in defining the word Evolution?

You've been given several perfectly adequate and standard definitions of evolution, what's your problem?


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 685 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 6:47 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 11:52 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 687 of 936 (810178)
05-24-2017 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by CRR
05-24-2017 6:47 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
CRR writes:

As a result the word can be ambiguous and interpreted differently by different people.

When I am talking to other biologists we often ask for clarification if we don't quite understand what someone means when they use the various terms for evolution.

In papers and books the authors often spend quite a bit of space defining the terms they are using. This is a normal part of good communication. Unfortunately, not all scientists are good writers or communicators.

Right now I am reading a fascinating book, The Evolution of Beauty by Richard Prum. So far I am two chapters in and he is still discussing definitions of sexual selection, mate selection, and natural selection and how they relate to evolution and each other.

One thing you will rarely find is a creationist who has a definition of evolution or other scientific terms that scientists will agree with.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 6:47 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 688 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 9:31 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 688 of 936 (810182)
05-24-2017 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Tanypteryx
05-24-2017 8:07 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
I can't find your definition of evolution. Have you given one? As you say you'll probably need to spend a bit of space defining the terms.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-24-2017 8:07 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-24-2017 11:17 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


(1)
Message 689 of 936 (810183)
05-24-2017 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by CRR
05-24-2017 9:31 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
I can't find your definition of evolution. Have you given one? As you say you'll probably need to spend a bit of space defining the terms.

I am leaving on a road trip in about 10 hours so I will have to be brief, sorry about that. I did not give my definition primarily because it would be a repeat of what a number of others already gave.

I like RAZD's definitions best. I can't think of much I could do to improve on them.

I have commented numerous times recently that macroevolution is not a unique or separate process. All there really is is microevolution, the change in genetic frequency in populations from generation to generation as a result of mutations and natural and sexual selection. Macroevolution is just the accumulation microevolution over time.

Some people say macroevolution is speciation, but it is still microevolution that leads to a split in the population that each continue to microevolve.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 9:31 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 690 of 936 (810185)
05-24-2017 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by Tangle
05-24-2017 7:50 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
You've been given several perfectly adequate and standard definitions of evolution, what's your problem?

Precisely the problem! There are multiple definitions and when examined they often refer to different types of "evolution".

I see in Message 568 you give 4 definitions and you say they are all different ways of saying the same thing, but there are differences. I'll skip over #1.
#2 gives the population genetics definition which says nothing about any gain of novel genes or features, or any idea of every living thing coming from one or a few ancestors.
#3 is reduced to simple change over time, including "galaxies, languages, and political systems".
#4 finally covers the Theory of Evolution in the broad sense including common ancestry, " from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

So you have actually confirmed the problem. There are multiple definitions. This is fine if the sender and receiver are both using the word evolution in the same sense but can cause confusion if they are using it in different senses. For instance evolution of galaxies requires no change in allele frequencies. Change in allele frequencies does not necessarily result in common ancestry.

[edit] I see in Message 545 that you say "No one disagrees that LUCA is part of evolutionary theory.", yet there are others in this thread who clearly do not agree with that.

Edited by CRR, : LUCA added


This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Tangle, posted 05-24-2017 7:50 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2017 12:16 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 692 by Tangle, posted 05-25-2017 12:22 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 694 by Taq, posted 05-25-2017 10:46 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 696 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-25-2017 11:18 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4445
46
4748
...
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