Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 15 of 216 (409167)
07-07-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by subbie
07-07-2007 6:29 PM


Re: my opinion, my Favorite
I would vote for the forum defintion.
For an operational definition of what an evolutionary scientist does I would say: A study of natural mechanisms that can lead to changes in a genome over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 07-07-2007 6:29 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Wepwawet, posted 07-07-2007 8:48 PM Grizz has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 24 of 216 (409249)
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.
The theory also could be characterised as defining classes of interacting chaotic systems which comprise a whole. Small changes in a variable can lead to large changes in the whole. One cannot predict what those changes are or will be - one can only predict the whole will change. Not only are the components capable of directing the whole but the whole is capable of shaping the future of the parts through natural selection.
Looked at in this way neo-darwinism is essentialy a dynamical chaotic Theory of process. It is a lesson in chaos and systems theory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2007 10:47 AM Grizz has replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 26 of 216 (409266)
07-08-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2007 10:47 AM


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?
hmmm...Ok I'm game although I don't want to stray too much from the OP.
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. One is capable of making exact inferences about the the future of the system as a whole. If you would I will gladly share the equations of motion for the center of mass of a 3 body system in a central force field.
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? In it's current form the theory of evolution states systems will change - it is incapable of predicting what the future states will be. The only prediction for an organism is it will eventually no longer be tenable - it will 'die'.
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. In it's current form it's utility lies only in its ability to act as a theory of mechanisms to account for the past. You cannot use it to predict the future of a species.
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. * Rolls Eyes * (counter to your eye roll)
Also .....
You are confusing solvability with predictability. There are many techniques one can employ to circumvent the solvability issue and still arrive at specific predictions about the future state of a system - there are perturbative methods, computer modeling, simulations ect. We send probes to land on the surfaces of bodies within a complex dynamical system because we have the tools to predict the future physical states of systems with a high degree of accuracy. Classical graviation is an extremely usefull tool not only in explaining the past states of a system but also in predicting the future. We can do all this because gravitation does not describe a random process - the future is deterministic.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2007 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2007 12:55 PM Grizz has replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 28 of 216 (409280)
07-08-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Modulous
07-08-2007 12:03 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
It is only when we agree on consistent terms that we can have a meaningful debate.
Looking at the literature available there does not seem to be a standard defintion for what evolution is. There are too many terms a lay reader comes accross - Darwinism, neo-dariniwms, mutations, natural selection, gene drift ect ect. The result is information overload.
A student looking at a physics text might see a defintion of gravity such as 'the force of attraction between 2 bodies'. One can very easily conceptualise this. Reading and following a theory of origins like the Big Bang also is easy to conceptualise.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 12:03 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2007 12:45 PM Grizz has replied
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 1:14 PM Grizz has replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 31 of 216 (409286)
07-08-2007 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2007 12:45 PM


One can only make things so simple. How should we explain evolution without mentioning such abstruse concepts as random mutation and natural selection?
By creating a primer for the public that uses toy models and gedanken experiments. Toy models are common in the theoretical physics commnunity not only in their approach to theories but also in presenting their ideas to the public.
The physics community has been extremely successfull in presenting such strange and mathematically complex theories like strings, general relaltivity, and quantum mechanics to the public. They have popularised it and made it cool not only because the ideas are strange but because they have avoided overloading it with jargon and terminology. One such toy model is schrodigners cat - it is almost a household term.
Why not create a toy model called Darwin's cat to get people acquanited with the idea? The way evolution is presented to the public it comes accross as impersonal, dry, and without the golly gee whiz 'wow' factor present in the popular accounts of modern physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2007 12:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 32 of 216 (409288)
07-08-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2007 12:55 PM


Nope. Hey, I've got a great idea --- why don't you let me tell you what my opinions are, instead of you guessing
As I said I am eager to hear what the theory of evolution predicts about the specific mutations that will occur within a genome. Just give me a probability instead of a specifric inference. That would be good enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2007 12:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 1:22 PM Grizz has replied
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2007 8:58 AM Grizz has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 35 of 216 (409293)
07-08-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
07-08-2007 1:14 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
In the end, it is not the scientific community that has to present the theory to the public - there job is doing science not teaching it (though given the academia side of it, some scientists do both or even just teach it). The information is out there for anybody who actually wants the information - it took me about 12 months to get decently acquainted with the theory with only a casual amount of time exploring it. I found the sources engaging and interesting but most people just don't care.
As I indicated in my prior post Physicsts teach physics to the public all the time via popularised accounts of current theory. These accounts are not loaded down with jargon but are capable of taking extremely complex mathematical theories and making them intelligible to the lay public.
There is also a larger issue here. The majority of students who will take a high school biology class are not really interested in science or the issues we are discussing. To them Science is for Geeks. Science(biology especially)is not very popular among youth.
The Biological sciences are in desperate need of a Carl Sagan type figure to popularise the field.
Biologists always have had physics envy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 1:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 1:36 PM Grizz has replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 36 of 216 (409294)
07-08-2007 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Modulous
07-08-2007 1:22 PM


Well that does get done - but that isn't what the theory of evolution deals in since it deals with changes to populations not changes within individual genomes. Sure - there is some cross over and genetics has an understanding of mutation 'hot spots' where the probability of an uncorrected copying error will occur.
I understand. I was just taken aback by the refutation of my post that stated Evolutionary Theory(natural selection acting on random mutations) is not a theory that is used to make deterministic predictions about the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 1:22 PM Modulous has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 38 of 216 (409297)
07-08-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
07-08-2007 1:14 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
You seem to think that the scientific community does a good job on getting the theory of relativity across to the public, despite the fact that almost everybody doesn't even have the first clue about it. Most people don't even realize that gravity, relativity and the big bang are part and parcel of relativity!
I aggree but it succeeds in popularising science and giving a basic understanding to those who will never take up such a complex field of study. It fascinates many people and they want to hear more. They may not understand it completely but they have enough information to form an idea of the nature of the physical world.
Quite honestly most people would rather stick pins in their eyes than read an account of genetic drift or mutations within a genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 1:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 1:56 PM Grizz has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 40 of 216 (409302)
07-08-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
07-08-2007 1:36 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
I'm more of a physicist than biologist, and I have to call baloney on this: it is one of those snobbish things physicists say. It's like how physicists get consulted in sci-fi productions, but biologists rarely do. Biology is specific subset of physics - dealing with a complex subject matter. However, biology has had its Carl Sagan - Stephen J Gould. Would it be great to have other charismatic leaders explaining the science to people? Yes, always! I don't see them in desperate 'need' of it though. And we still have PZ Myers and Dawkins, who are at least excellent writers.
Physicists have a right to be snobby - They have succeeded very well in making their field intelligible to the lay public who will never open a physics textbook. They have turned complex and information rich mathematical theories into fascinating expositions the public eats up.
Biologists have failed. They say we don't need to go to the public - they need to come to us. They then complain that nobody understands what we are doing. The public voices we do hear(Dawkins etc) start by insulting the public who know little of the theory by calling them stupid and ignorant. Apparently nobody has ever read Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people".
Also..
I will let you have the last word. I think we are going off topic here.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 1:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 2:13 PM Grizz 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