Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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 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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 216 (409291)
07-08-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Grizz
07-08-2007 12:35 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
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.
No, but there is a consistent description of it that does not need to refer to Darwinism. If you wish to discuss the theory of evolution you would have to talk about a synthesis of various biological theories. If you want to know what those theories are you can start naming them. Darwinism, Mendelian genetics, gene drift. I can tailor the description quite easily depending on how much information you want.
You could spend hundreds of books describing all the parts of the Theory of Evolution, as I said earlier, and this is hardly a failing.
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.
And you then go on to say that Biology is harder to describe than physics!!! Sure, its easy to say 'the Universe exploded from nothing and gravity is a force of attraction'. I can do that for biology just as easily. Then, as with biology we then hear talk about further complications such as the expansion of time and space, how gravity is warping of the fabric of space and time caused by masses, masses being energy.
And soon enough - your head will explode. It can easily (and is often) discarded as mumbo jumbo.
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!
The end result is that some people don't know these things because they don't care to. Others don't listen to these things because they choose to believe strawmen so they don't have to accept the disturbing conclusions.
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.

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 35 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:25 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 38 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:38 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 34 of 216 (409292)
07-08-2007 1:22 PM
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. Just give me a probability instead of a specifric inference. That would be good enough.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:04 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:31 PM Modulous 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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 37 of 216 (409296)
07-08-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Grizz
07-08-2007 1:25 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
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.
Right - like how the biological community talks about peppered moths without 'jargon' and then talk about dinosaurs and birds and mammals and all of natural history without resorting to jargon.
However - you ask the random person what relativity is and he might say 'nothing can travel faster than light' or 'e=mc2' and that's about it. Ask them about evolution and they'll talk about dinosaurs and birds, they might throw in natural selection and/or 'survival of the fittest'. The public don't really care, and get their information from popular culture, not scientists.
The more complex the subject, the more distorted it has to get to be understood by a passively observing Joe 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:25 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:57 PM Modulous has 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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 39 of 216 (409301)
07-08-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Grizz
07-08-2007 1:38 PM


physics is just as boring as biology
Quite honestly most people would rather stick pins in their eyes than read an account of genetic drift or mutations within a genome.
And most people would rather stick pins in their eyes that hear about the difference of the fundamental particles or learn about the unification of the strong nuclear force.
On the other hand...mutants? Mutations? Cool. (nearly) Everybody understands that genetic mutations can have big effects on our bodies and if that effect is good, then that mutation might become the 'norm'. Like giraffes with long necks or dinosaurs into birds.
If you want to pick and choose the scales to make it look like physics has got its act together and is awesomely cool and biologists are perceived as mumbo jumbo talking boors go for it - but I reject it. Sure - physics leads to technology so it holds people interest longer (warp engines! Teleportation! Laser guns!), but biology gets a look in where it can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:38 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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 41 of 216 (409303)
07-08-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Grizz
07-08-2007 1:57 PM


Getting biology to the masses
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.
Right - they have watered down the salient points and have captured the imagination of the public who then go onto misunderstand the theories to tragic levels.
And so have the biologists. Evolution has massively taken hold in the public's imagination and you'd be deluded to think otherwise. As with the big bang, gravity, or the laws of motion, the public has a wonky understanding of it but that's to be expected. You assert that physics has done this great job, and I agree it has and it is a subject that makes it easier. However, I do not see evidence that biology has failed, I see the contrary. ESPECIALLY today - just look at how much press biology is getting right now - the EvC controversy is making biology a more 'sexy' subject in its own right.
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.
Except of course, there are plenty of people that go to the public. And in exactly the same way physicists complain about the way the media portrays the big bang, they complain about how the media misrepresents the theories. And then people like you like to imagine that scientists have the power to control the media.
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.
I've never heard Dawkins insult those who are not fully cognisant of biological theories. It certainly would hamper his book writing since basically all of his books are explaining evolution to those who aren't completely up to scratch with the ideas. Have you read any Dawkins? Or are you basing this on what his critics say about his recent controversial book? I find Dawkins to be an excellently patient explainer of ideas that I had previously been ignorant of, and at no point did he prefix anything with 'If you don't know anything about this chapter before reading it you are stupid'.
I will let you have the last word. I think we are going off topic here.
Sounds like a good excuse for me to include this video then. It's Dawkins giving a lecture on neo-darwinism (so is thus on topic - ZING!). If this is the last on the topic then we'll let watchers of the video judge Dawkins on this (I haven't had time to watch it all, but I look forward to it).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Grizz, posted 07-08-2007 1:57 PM Grizz has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 42 of 216 (409314)
07-08-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
07-07-2007 11:18 AM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
RAZD wrote:
The questions are:
...
(C) what is your personally preferred (concise) definition.
Hi, RAZD. Hope all is going well for you with your therapy. I've been away sailing for some weeks now and haven't kept up with the news. Good luck! It can't be easy.
To answer question C, I would say this: The theory of evolution attempts to explain how beneficial alleles are fixed in a population.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2007 11:18 AM RAZD has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 43 of 216 (409316)
07-08-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Modulous
07-08-2007 12:03 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
Modulous writes:
Either way, there is little true quarrel from creationists about the theory - most think that common ancestry is the theory of evolution and we should take pains to steer them from that misconception. It is only when we agree on consistent terms that we can have a meaningful debate.
So would you say creationists are more afraid of the implications of evolution, than the theory, and that a definition should not reflect anything which is a plausible inference? I'd agree with that.
The disagreement is twofold: How much change the theory of evolution can explain (it can explain micro but not macro according to the creationists) and how much change has occurred on earth (only micro and not macro).
Right, so it should be clear that decent with modification CAN explain all diversity on earth.
Anyway, don't take me too seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2007 12:03 PM Modulous has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 44 of 216 (409328)
07-08-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
07-07-2007 11:18 AM


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.
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).
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2007 11:18 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 07-08-2007 7:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2007 8:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2007 9:21 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 45 of 216 (409335)
07-08-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Cold Foreign Object
07-08-2007 6:01 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
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).
I would give infintely more weight to a definition provided by those who are actually doing scientific work in the ToE than one provided by a non-scientist whose only interest in the field is to promote a political agenda, and whose understanding of the field, if any, is warped by that agenda.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

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 46 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-08-2007 7:47 PM subbie 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