Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Definition for the Theory of Evolution
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 136 of 216 (413497)
07-31-2007 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 3:34 AM


Re: a constant is a number
computer hiccup - apologies for the double post.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 3:34 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 137 of 216 (413498)
07-31-2007 4:50 AM


Theory and phenomenon
There are two different meanings of the word 'evolution' being used - and confused - in this thread. One of them is short for "the theory of evolution", the other points to the phenomenon of evolution itself. What Joseph is asking is whether evolution as a phenomenon is ubiquitous in the universe, or else confined to just our own planet Earth. That is a legitimate question to which the answer is not (yet) known.
However, evolution in the other sense, i.e. as the theory that explains the phenomenon, may be of some assistance in trying to get a glimpse of the answer to Joseph's question, in the following way.
The theory of evolution effectively states that if certain conditions are met, then logic dictates that evolution (as a phenomenon) must take place. The necessary conditions are: imperfect replication and limited resources. So Joseph's question boils down to whether or not these conditions hold anywhere else in the universe besides Earth.
Although it is not yet certain whether or not evolution as a phenomenon takes place on other planets, if logic itself applies everywhere in the universe, evolution as a logical consequence of the necessary conditions is indeed "a constant" in the universe. (Let's not bicker about Joseph's peculiar use of the word 'constant'.)
This means that wherever there are imperfect replicators of any form in an environment of limited resources, the process of evolution is an inevitable consequence. Since we have no reason to assume that our planet is a special place in the universe, it is not at all unlikely that conditions such as on Earth could be found elsewhere in the universe. With billions of galaxies to search, it is indeed almost a certainty.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 6:13 AM Parasomnium has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 138 of 216 (413499)
07-31-2007 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Parasomnium
07-31-2007 4:50 AM


Re: Theory and phenomenon
quote:
That is a legitimate question to which the answer is not (yet) known.
However, evolution in the other sense, i.e. as the theory that explains the phenomenon, may be of some assistance in trying to get a glimpse of the answer to Joseph's question, in the following way.
Thanks, you did put it better than I did. So let's examine the phenomenon aspect of evolution in your response.
quote:
This means that wherever there are imperfect replicators of any form in an environment of limited resources, the process of evolution is an inevitable consequence.
Does this mean that life has to first subsist, and then too in an imperfected mode, to effect a form of evolutionary adaptation? I appreciate that answers are not known here, but an already subsisting life seems unreasonable, and may contradict all assumptions how life began on this planet - and evidently there`was such a position whereby life did not exist here at one time. Or perhaps the issue of life's origin and its emergence is not associated with evolution, which appears to impact only after life has already emerged (imperfectly)?
We have a situation here, where either life, or evolution, may be exclusive to this planet, but this cannot be resolved where it is made subject to life already existing elsewhere, compounded by the impossible requirements of determining that life does NOT exist in trillions of space bodies, before addressing this issue. If another means of determination is not available, at least both potential views should be examined, namely, what if the evolutionary process is exclusive to this planet, against it being not so. This would bring new questions for consideration, such as: is there an unidentified ingredient on this planet not seen elsewhere, and what would that be? I say this because I have discounted the critical mix of conditions as a pre-requisite from the equation.
quote:
it is not at all unlikely that conditions such as on Earth could be found elsewhere in the universe. With billions of galaxies to search, it is indeed almost a certainty.
But when I pondered this further, I concluded the reverse. The billions of galaxies actually foster a 'no life' probability. The known universe acts as a first hand, actual poll, containing every variety of conditions, and best represents the unknown universe. IOW, the unknown universe is more likely than not the same as the known universe: no life. The time factor also negates life outside earth: not all space bodies would be too far for a more advanced life form older than earthlings, and advancement being time related. The loss of evolutionary benefits outside earth would further negate life potentials.
Either way, if points to evolution being a focused impact on this planet only - save only for the *improbable* premise of life being common in the unknown universe. We know that there has not been life in the known universe for over 4.5 Billion years, with no such imprints detected from archeology, moon and mars missions, deep-space telescpic views, radiational residues, and from deep space signals sent from earth.
I am not aware of a devil's advocate was ever undertaken, based on the impacts on evolution as a specific and exclusive earthly phenomenon, and how much this would change present thinking. The situation is complicated, so a scientist must put his entire career on the line to suggest such a premise, notwithstanding it will be difficult getting a grant here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Parasomnium, posted 07-31-2007 4:50 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2007 6:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 139 of 216 (413500)
07-31-2007 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 6:13 AM


irrelevant
Whether life exists elsewhere in the universe is not relevant to defining the theory of evolution. If it does exist elsewhere, and it evolves, the theory of evolution can either explain it or it can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 6:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 7:06 AM Modulous has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 140 of 216 (413501)
07-31-2007 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Modulous
07-31-2007 6:47 AM


Re: irrelevant
quote:
Whether life exists elsewhere in the universe is not relevant to defining the theory of evolution. If it does exist elsewhere, and it evolves, the theory of evolution can either explain it or it can't.
Which means its a local issue. Like cars and planes? At least, it impacts the probability of life elsewhere, even if it were possible for any life to exist outside earth: there will be no adaptation or speciation; all would be one simple basic life form forever.
The reason I pursue evolution being considered outside earth, is whther to define it for what it is. If it is limited to this planet, then it means a factor not seen elsewhere is responsible for its occurence here, and it is better defined as a premise unique to earth. And the 'why' question becomes relevent. Usually, the discussion is always focused on the workings of evolution, as opposed to the premise base itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2007 6:47 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AdminPaul, posted 07-31-2007 7:08 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 07-31-2007 9:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 216 (413502)
07-31-2007 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 7:06 AM


END IT HERE
Modulous is right. This discussion is off-topic here.
Please find a relevant topic or propose a new one, per the forum rules. Anyone who continues this diversion will be suspended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 7:06 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 142 of 216 (413513)
07-31-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 7:06 AM


Re: irrelevant
Hi IamJoseph,
AdminPaul has properly ruled this off-topic, but I think I can reply to this and keep it on-topic:
IamJoseph writes:
The reason I pursue evolution being considered outside earth, is whther to define it for what it is. If it is limited to this planet, then it means a factor not seen elsewhere is responsible for its occurence here, and it is better defined as a premise unique to earth. And the 'why' question becomes relevent. Usually, the discussion is always focused on the workings of evolution, as opposed to the premise base itself.
Having not read this thread I'm not aware of the definitions of evolution that have been proposed, but one common definition is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. The creation of new alleles, the death of existing alleles, the remixing of alleles, is not dependent upon any special conditions unique to Earth. Any life anywhere that reproduces imperfectly will follow the principles of the theory of evolution, and even sexual species with perfect reproduction would evolve, although of course no new alleles could ever be introduced (although now that I think of it, even with perfect reproduction, radiation and cosmic rays could still cause mutations, so evolution would still occur, but very slowly).
--Percy
PS - Google and Firefox both provide spellchecking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 7:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 10:00 AM Percy has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 143 of 216 (413522)
07-31-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by IamJoseph
07-30-2007 9:25 PM


STILL OFF TOPIC
I dont think it is off topic to render a definition of evolution in a thread of this name.
I don't care what you think.
This thread is not about a definition of evolution but about the definition of the theory of evolution.
This topic is NOT about
Evolution as a process
Evolution occurring on other planets
Evolution being limited by arguments from incredulity
Or anything else YOU fancy to talk about.
This thread is ONLY about the definition of the theory of evolution.
How do I know? I wrote it that way.
Now go start your own thread on what YOU want to talk about and you will find plenty of response to correct your erroneous thinking.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2007 9:25 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 144 of 216 (413526)
07-31-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Percy
07-31-2007 9:11 AM


Re: irrelevant
There have been additions and extensions to darwin's theories. Eg, random genetic drift is post-darwin, and which also allows random effectations.
I trust it is reasonable to ask, in this narrow knife edge portrayal about defining the evolution thery, how the seed of a host fits in with darwin's theories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 07-31-2007 9:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 07-31-2007 10:05 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 146 by AdminPaul, posted 07-31-2007 10:07 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 07-31-2007 1:15 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 145 of 216 (413529)
07-31-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 10:00 AM


Re: irrelevant
I trust it is reasonable to ask, in this narrow knife edge portrayal about defining the evolution thery, how the seed of a host fits in with darwin's theories?
Who knows? You seem to use 'seed' in half a dozen different contexts with absolutely no clarification of what precisely you mean in any of them.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 10:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied

AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 216 (413530)
07-31-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 10:00 AM


Re: irrelevant
Extensions to the theory are only relevant to this topic in so far as they affect the definition. There is no "narrow knife-edge protrayal".
Does your question refer to an observed phenomenon that is relevant to the definition ? If so you need to explain it in terms that can be understood by people other than yourself. If not, it should be considered off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 10:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 147 of 216 (413557)
07-31-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 10:00 AM


Re: irrelevant
Percy writes:
I trust it is reasonable to ask, in this narrow knife edge portrayal about defining the evolution thery, how the seed of a host fits in with darwin's theories?
I can only echo what others have said: I have no idea what you're talking about.
The theory of evolution is often referred to as the modern synthesis. That's because it's a synthesis, a combining if you will, of the science of genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection and descent with modification. Once you get deeper into the details you can define the theory of evolution in many acceptable ways, but they'll all be consistent with the modern synthesis. And the principles and processes included and/or inferred by the modern synthesis are consistent with all known physical laws throughout the universe and so hold true everywhere.
You obviously have some image in your mind involving "hosts" and "seeds" that seems to you like a problem for evolution, but this thread isn't for discussing problems with evolution. It's for working toward a mutually agreeable definition of evolution. Once agreement is reached you can start a new thread and tear evolution as so defined apart, you can even do that now preemptively if you wish, but if you're not going to help hone this definition then get off the thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 10:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by MartinV, posted 08-01-2007 3:05 PM Percy has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 148 of 216 (413840)
08-01-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Percy
07-31-2007 1:15 PM


Re: irrelevant
The theory of evolution is often referred to as the modern synthesis. That's because it's a synthesis, a combining if you will, of the science of genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection and descent with modification. Once you get deeper into the details you can define the theory of evolution in many acceptable ways, but they'll all be consistent with the modern synthesis.
I don't see reason why Theory of Evolution (ToE) is reffered as the modern synthesis. Many prominent scientists or "brilliant but unorthodox geneticist" like Richard Goldschmidt - according Gould -proposed "hopeful monster" or saltationism as Theory of Evolution.
Rummy Online | Play Indian Rummy Games For Cash
Forbidden
The prominent German palentologist Schindewolf (director of the Geological Survey of Berlin; in 1948 he became a professor at the University of Tbingen) was also saltationist. He suggested that major evolutionary transformations must have occurred in large leaps between species.
Other Theories of Evolutions are - I mentioned them in my post 119 -:
1) Darwinism
2) Lamarckism
3) Nomogenesis - evolution governed by law
3) Orthogenesis
4) Idealistic morhphology
5) John Davison's Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis
etc...
There is no reason for presupposition that Theory of Evolution = Modern synthesis.
Especially take into consideration German idealistic morphology with it's long tradition and prominent proponents before second WW (prominent proponent of it with his research accepted world-wide Wilhelm Troll died 1978).
The same for RAZD.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 07-31-2007 1:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 08-01-2007 4:02 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2007 3:16 PM MartinV has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 149 of 216 (413857)
08-01-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by MartinV
08-01-2007 3:05 PM


Re: irrelevant
Hi Martin,
I think you should reread Message 1, because you're going off in unintended directions. RAZD is seeking a consensus on the definition of the modern theory of evolution. Invalidated or incomplete theories from the past, such as Lamarckism or orthogenesis or nomogenesis or even Darwin's original formulation, aren't the focus of this thread.
MartinV writes:
There is no reason for presupposition that Theory of Evolution = Modern synthesis.
The synthetic theory of evolution, also known as the modern synthesis, arose around the 1920's when the population geneticists demonstrated that Darwin's formulation of evolution as natural selection upon a varied population with imperfect reproduction was precisely what emerged from their genetic models. This brought together the then separate theories of genetics and evolution into a single theory now called the modern synthesis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by MartinV, posted 08-01-2007 3:05 PM MartinV has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2007 7:28 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-02-2007 12:09 PM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 150 of 216 (413911)
08-01-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
08-01-2007 4:02 PM


New summary theory?
The synthetic theory of evolution, also known as the modern synthesis, arose around the 1920's when the population geneticists demonstrated that Darwin's formulation of evolution as natural selection upon a varied population with imperfect reproduction was precisely what emerged from their genetic models. This brought together the then separate theories of genetics and evolution into a single theory now called the modern synthesis.
This is similar to the "Standard Model" in physics, which is not a single theory so much as a compendium of all current working theories. In this vein (and in keeping with some similar comments by Modulus in Message 11, Message 12 and Message 33) I propose the following:
The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time, how change is enabled by the available variations (diversity) within populations due to the accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and how changes made within each generation are selected by the differential response of organisms to passing on their hereditary traits under prevailing ecological pressures and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
Trying for a balance between specific and general ... without getting cumbersome?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 08-01-2007 4:02 PM Percy 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