Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Definition for the Theory of Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 216 (409214)
07-08-2007 1:37 AM


Remember, a theory is an explanation for a fact. Definition 1 says what evolution is. But the explanation for evolution is the law of natural selection and the laws of genetics: that's the theory of evolution.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 216 (409225)
07-08-2007 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by anastasia
07-08-2007 1:40 AM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
Yes, and the theory of gravity would make fundies lose sleep if we told them it included the formation of the Solar System, but it doesn't, as such. Nor does the theory of evolution as such include abiogenesis and universal common descent, and I don't see why we should change the meaning of "theory" and "evolution" and "theory of evolution" just to give creationists insomnia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 07-08-2007 1:40 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by anastasia, posted 07-08-2007 3:03 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 216 (409258)
07-08-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Grizz
07-08-2007 9:58 AM


It also helps to define what it is not. It is not an information rich theory like the Standard Model of particle physics or General Relativity. There are no equations or models that arrise from the theory that are capable of making specific predictions about the future. Essentially the theory is in a unique class in that it's explanatory power lies in the ability to reconstruct the past and not predict the future.
I would debate this supposed uniqueness, but as a forensic scientist has informed me I'll be murdered the day after tomorrow, and an archaeologist has told me that I'll be buried a few days later, I don't see why I should waste my precious time.
Instead, I thought I'd devote my last few hours to predicting the gravitational interaction of more than two bodies ... oh, wait, that's impossible, isn't it?
* rolls eyes *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 9:58 AM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 11:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 216 (409283)
07-08-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Grizz
07-08-2007 12:35 PM


When a student or lay reader comes accross the theory of evolution and reads something like 'Naural slection acting on random mutations' then hears further talk about alelle frequencies and all other sorts of foreign ideas the result is not so easy to conceptualise. It can be easily discarded as mumbo jumbo. IMO the scientific community does a very poor job of presenting the theory to the public.
One can only make things so simple. How should we explain evolution without mentioning such abstruse concepts as random mutation and natural selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 12:35 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 216 (409285)
07-08-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Grizz
07-08-2007 11:42 AM


The solutions to central force motion for an n-body system are not solvable without using perturbative methods; However the resulting equation for the center of mass of the n-body system is perfectly capable of predicting the future position of the center of mass.
Shifting other people's goalposts is impolite.
What does the theory of evolution exactly predict about the future of biological systems? Outside of inherently unpredictable events such as mutations what is the formalism for making predictions about specific states of the organism in the future?
Population genetics.
In it's current form the theory of evolution states systems will change - it is incapable of predicting what the future states will be.
But this is not true. It predicts that adaptive change is overwhemingly more likely than maladaptive change.
Natural selection acting on random mutations is of no value in making any specific predictions about the future states of a genome because the underlying mechanism is random.
Which makes all those repeatable experiments a bit odd, no?
If you would care to share what the theory predicts about future specific mutations that will occur in a genome I will be happy to listen and learn.
I did not, of course, claim to be able to do this, any more than you claimed to be able to use the theory of gravity to predict the fall of dice.
I can, however, predict what will happen on the introduction of a new broad-spectrum antibiotic --- without needing to predict anything about specific mutations --- with a vatic accuracy that would be the envy of, for example, a meteorologist.
You are confusing solvability with predictability.
Nope. Hey, I've got a great idea --- why don't you let me tell you what my opinions are, instead of you guessing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 11:42 AM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 216 (409391)
07-09-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Grizz
07-08-2007 1:04 PM


As I said I am eager to hear what the theory of evolution predicts about the specific mutations that will occur within a genome.
And as I have said, nothing whatsoever, just as the theory of gravity says nothing about how specific dice will fall when thrown.
HELLO ... CAN YOU HEAR ME?
Just give me a probability instead of a specifric inference. That would be good enough.
If you just want a probability, then feel free to look up mutation rates for mammalian genomes or whatever it is you're interested in. This is data we have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:04 PM Grizz has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 216 (409392)
07-09-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Cold Foreign Object
07-08-2007 6:01 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
The theory of how evolution happens is by natural processes, mainly natural selection as defined by the biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s. Although the geneticists, as led by Ronald Fisher, are judged to have won the debate, that is, their "change in gene frequencies" is widely held as the correct scientific definition of evolution, the naturalists, as represented by Ernst Mayr and Huxley and Dobzhansky reject reductionistic "gene frequencies" definition. The naturalists favor the traditional understanding; phenotypes, populations, inheritance, individual organisms as the principle object of selection inferred from observations. Darwin refurbished.
Thank you for this amusing misinformation. By the way, what century do you think you're living in?
But the only definition of Theory of Evolution that mattters is: an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator (Phillip Johnson).
But this is not a definition of the theory of evolution. This is a lie which Phillip Johnson likes to tell about the theory of evolution. Loonies like Phillip Johnson don't get to define scientific terms. Scientists do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-08-2007 6:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 11:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 216 (409788)
07-11-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 11:37 AM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
Something that a person who is ignorant of science history and grounded in preconceptions and subjectivity, would say.
Actually, something that someone who knows that Fisher, Mayr, Huxley, and Dobzhansky are all dead would say.
Now, you were telling me that I was ignorant of science history?
Why would any evolutionist protest the above definition of ToE?
Because it's complete rubbish, and we are sick of creationists misrepresenting the theory of evolution.
By implication said protest is saying that God is not excluded as an explanation in ToE.
No, that is not my point.
It appears Adequate is confused or just plain angry at any IDist since his point makes no sense.
Of course, there is another possible explanation, which is that my point makes perfect sense, but that you have no idea what it is.
Johnson's definition makes perfect sense as it is axiomatically true: ToE seeks to explain data apart from any Divine Being.
In the same way that the theory of gravity does, yes.
However, that does not make Johnson's definition sensible, any more than it is sensible to claim that the theory of gravity is defined as "an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator".
For the following reasons:
(1) A theory is not an interpretation of data.
(2) Neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution "explains how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator".
(3) Neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution denies in any way that a Divine Creator is responsible for nature; but they ascribe some of the phenomena of nature to natural causes --- what a theologian would call "secondary causes".
(4) A definition should actually specify the things defined. In order to define the theory of evolution, it is necessary to say what it is, not what it isn't. It is necessary, for example, to mention natural selection.
Hence, if Phillip Johnson claims that the theory of evolution can be defined as "an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator", then he is a liar (if he knows what the theory of evolution actually is) or a fool (if he has wasted his life opposing it without ever bothering to find out what it is).
As for Adequate's insults concerning one of his rivals:
Phillip Johson is not one of my rivals.
I would imagine that Johnson is not the least bit offended in being called a liar and loon from someone who thinks apes morphed into men over millions of years or that design indicates mindless forces instead of invisible Designer. I, for one, would not be either.
He might, however, feel a little bit chagrined by the fact that I am right, and that scientists get to define scientific terms, and that he doesn't.
And you might feel a little saddened to learn that your opponents get to decide what position we're arguing in favor of, and you do not. I, for one, will continue to argue for the theory of evolution as it appears in science textbooks, rather than for some nonsensical metaphysical moonshine which Phillip Johnson has dreamed up in his head and wishes to call "the theory of evolution".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 11:37 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 216 (409791)
07-11-2007 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
07-09-2007 11:52 AM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
an explanatory framework attempting to explain how populations of biological organisms may have changed with the passing of generations with no assistance from a Divine Creator explicitly necessary.
Hold on.
(1) It's not sufficient to exclude a divine creator. What about magic evolution pixies? We should make it clear that it excludes all supernatural causes, perhaps by explicitly stating that it is a scientific theory.
(2) That still wouldn't specify the theory of evolution, since it might describe, for example, Lamarckism. Or non-supernatural aliens, if it comes to that. So we still need to put in something about genetics and natural selection.
Which gets us back to the textbook-style definitions which have already been offered on this thread.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2007 11:52 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 07-11-2007 2:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 216 (409831)
07-11-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
07-11-2007 2:59 PM


Feel free to append anything you want that is not required by evolution. You could even use natural things like 'a combustion engine'.
I think you've overlooked my point. We can't list the all the things not involved; so in order to say what is and what isn't involved, we have to list the things which are involved and say that anything not on that list is excluded.
Of course it just describes what a scientific theory of evolution should do.
Yes, it says what a theory of evolution should do, but it doesn't say what the theory of evolution is.
Most of which I agree with, still Ray was talking about what the Theory means to him, so I tried to correct some of the incorrect statements whilst keeping it in his paradigm.
If he wishes to have a "definition" of the theory of evolution which gives the reader no clue as to what the theory actually is, then I don't see why you should help him. He can find such things on any creationist website.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 07-11-2007 2:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 07-11-2007 5:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 216 (410192)
07-13-2007 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Cold Foreign Object
07-12-2007 2:32 PM


Re: More drift.
The following comment is directed at all evolutionists:
Why?
If you directed it at creationists, you might succeed in fooling someone.
Evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies; the same is a temporal mode. Reductionism (genetics) needs explanation but evolution is about populations and the principle object of selection - the organism. Evolution is inferred (after the alleged fact) by observation. There are plenty of scholars who reject reductionism and explicitly favor the naturalist or traditional understanding of how evolution is identified. The theory of how evolution happens is natural selection. RAZD's present list of scientific concepts for the definition of ToE, with NS thrown in, defies all published scholarship on this issue.
It does not matter what any given person thinks how ToE is defined, what matters is how scholarship defines ToE: natural selection.
Well, that was a load of rubbish, wan't it?
"Scholarship" does not "define ToE" as "natural selection". This is why you cannot quote a single scholar offering that as a definition.
(Incidentally, I notice that the definition you attribute to "scholarship" is quite different from the one you attribute to Phillip Johnson. Is this, in your opinion, because he is a liar, or simply because he is not a "scholar"?)
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies. If you think you can give me an example of evolution without allele frequencies changing, let us know.
As for your piffle about genetics, I suspect you've read some half-baked article on the subject and failed to understand it.
Evolution is observed as well as inferred, surely you know that?
Oh, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead doesn't call the Great Pyramid "the pillar of Enoch". Remember that? Is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about?
Just about everything in this topic, offered by most evolutionists, is subjective and unsupported by assertion.
Could we have that again in English?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-12-2007 2:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2007 5:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 105 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-14-2007 3:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 216 (410203)
07-13-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Cold Foreign Object
07-12-2007 2:32 PM


Re: More drift.
Okay.
The following comment is directed at all evolutionists:
Okay.
The following comment is directed at all creationists:
Creationism is NOT about the work of a divine being creating the Universe, it's about magic pixies in silly hats jumping around on pogosticks shouting "Cheese! Cheese! Cheese!" There are plenty of scholars who reject reductionism and explicitly favor the naturalist or traditional understanding of how creationism is identified. The theory of how creation happens is pixies on pogosticks. Your present list of unscientific concepts for the definition of Creationism, with a supernatural entity thrown in, defies all published scholarship on this issue.
It does not matter what any given person thinks how Creationism is defined, what matters is how scholarship defines Creationism: magic pixies on pogosticks. Just about everything in this topic, offered by most creationists, is subjective and unsupported by assertion, whatever the heck that means.
---
Hey, you get to make up our opinions, so surely we get to make up yours? That's more than fair, since after all our real opinions are science, and your real opinions involve a talking snake, so I can't help thinking that you'd be getting the best of such a deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-12-2007 2:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 216 (410205)
07-13-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object
07-11-2007 9:53 PM


Re: More drift.
Why is an insignificant concept like neutral drift included in the definition of ToE?
Because the ToE necessarily includes the laws of genetics.
ND is outside of the control of natural selection, which is the definition of ToE.
Still wrong, eh?
RAZD has ignored my post saying that ToE is defined as natural selection, but he includes ND in the definition of ToE.
And I'm sure he will also ignore any posts in which leopards are defined as "things with spots", while including spots in the definition of leopards.
On the question of whether genetic drift is "insignificant", I wrote this introductory article. Look in particular at the section on drift with selection. Note that a beneficial mutation is much more likely to be eliminated by GD than fixed by NS.
Also, tell me this. If the mathematics in that article which shows the interaction between NS and GD is not part of the theory of evolution, then what is it? If you're not going to allow us to call the interaction of NS and genetics "the theory of evolution", then would you kindly tell us what we can call it? Only that's what we're actually advocating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-11-2007 9:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 216 (410207)
07-13-2007 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Modulous
07-11-2007 5:28 PM


I got the point. Of course we can't list all of the things not involved. However, the things not on that list are not necessarily excluded - they just aren't explicitly included. There are things we don't know about yet which could be influencing evolution so anything not currently in the theory can't be explicitly excluded.
They have to be, otherwise the theory is unfalsifiable.
What is the problem with that?
Every Creationist I've come across seems absolutely desperate to conceal from his readership what the theory of evolution actually is. I don't see why we should help.
There are millions of definitions that don't explain what the theory of evolution actually is.
But not good ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 07-11-2007 5:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 07-14-2007 5:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 216 (410296)
07-14-2007 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Modulous
07-14-2007 5:32 AM


Care to explain how saying 'no help from combustion engines is explicitly necessary' renders a theory unfalsifiable?
No, but I'd be happy to back up any statement I've actually made.
A theory which is not well-defined, by excluding what it does not include, is unfalsifiable. If we attribute evolution to NS, genetics, and "maybe some magic evolution pixies, who can say", then there is no observation which can falsify it, since we could always attribute any otherwise inexplicable observation to pixie power.
Right - we shouldn't help.
We shouldn't help creationists conceal the theory of evolution, no.
Also - a definition of the theory of evolution which simply describes the history of the science and what it seeks to explain, is perfectly good.
Except that putting forward such a definition, "perfectly good" though it might be, would do nothing to inhibit a creationist from lying about what the theory of evolution actually is, nor prevent him from doing so successfully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 07-14-2007 5:32 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Modulous, posted 07-14-2007 7:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024