|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
RAZD is seeking a consensus on the definition of the modern theory of evolution. And this is the only thing that this topic is about (as you knew).
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. Except for your dating (1920s; when in fact according to Mayr it occurred in the 1930s and 40s) Percy has stated a historical and scientific fact. The biological synthesis has decided that natural selection is the main mechanism causing evolution. All other mechanisms are auxilliary. I had plainly stated this fact up-thread in response to RAZDs error laden posts listing NS as merely one causal factor. It is not a matter of opinion: The Theory of how Evolution happens is by natural selection - period. Thousands of books in the 20th century have been written supporting this claim. EDIT: Darwin titled his book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." That is the only correct definition of said phrase. I will not embarrass RAZD by posting his messages that list NS as just another concept on a list thereby giving the impression that NS is ordinary and equal to the other things on his list - SHEESH! Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It is not a matter of opinion: The Theory of how Evolution happens is by natural selection - period. Thousands of books in the 20th century have been written supporting this claim. EDIT: Darwin titled his book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." As you point out, Darwin's Theory of how Evolution happens is by natural selection. We call this Darwinism. Another Theory of how Evolution happens is by mutation. We call this mutationism or Mendelism. The two theories were brought together, "synthesised", a few decades later to form the earliest concept of the Modern Synthesis. Since this, other theories of evolution have been synthesised into the Modern Synthesis. You do open the way to discuss a genuine debate in biology: what is the prime mover of evolution. I am fairly sure you are right to suggest that selectionism is the favourite today, but there are many that still argue that there are some phenomenon where mutation or drift are the more dominant explanatory concepts. As you should be able to tell, the title of Darwin's book is only partially relevant in discussing the Modern Synthesis, and that the modern synthesis definitely includes other mechanisms which are essential to the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I will not embarrass RAZD by posting his messages that list NS as just another concept on a list thereby giving the impression that NS is ordinary and equal to the other things on his list - SHEESH! Except you won't embarrass me, just yourself ... Again. As noted already the modern synthesis theory included mutation as a supply of variation for natural selection to operate on. Without this there would be no real evolution -- no formation of new species. But that is not all, for evolution is a response mechanism -- it responds to the environment and interspecies pressures. Natural selection without change in the environment OR change in interspecies pressures would produce stasis. Mutation provides opportunities for selection to operate. Ecological changes provide opportunities for selection in different directions. Finally, providing a list does not imply that all items on the list are necessarily of equal value-- that is another logical fallacy for your thinking -- just that they are of SOME value to the entire process (SHEESH indeed). Now, seeing as Natural Selection IS included in the current running definition of the theory of evolution here, unless you have something else to add to the theory statement that it is missing ... any further discussion of this is off-topic. If you want to pursue it follow Modulus' suggestion and start a new thread. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is not a matter of opinion: Oh, look, you said something true! You should have quit while you were ahead, but no ... The theory of evolution includes the laws of genetics, because without the laws of genetics it is not possible to explain evolution, which is, by definition, what the theory of evolution does. This is not a matter of opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't see reason why Theory of Evolution (ToE) is reffered as the modern synthesis. Because it's a synthesis, and because it's modern.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Because it's a synthesis, and because it's modern. One of the elements not included in the original synthesis, and which is now coming to be seen as of some real importance (especially for speciation or rapid change) is the evo-devo area and the effect of environment\hormones on the development and heterochrony of individuals and species. While this may not be necessary in all conditions it does apply to some specific ones (like human neoteny). Thus the process of development of the individual organisms to sexual maturity can also be critical to the evolutionary process in determining features that are then subject to selection. With this in mind differential development is also an evolutionary factor:
The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats. This is getting cumbersome. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : reworded for clarity Edited by RAZD, : again Edited by RAZD, : tweaked again 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
RAZD writes: This is getting cumbersome. Predictable right at the outset. Brevity and precision are opposites, and consensus developed by committee generate the worst possible outcomes as people earnestly work toward incorporating everyone's ideas. But it's a great learning exercise as one often discovers that the topic about which one thought there could be little disagreement among competent individuals actually includes a wide diversity of opinion. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Predictable right at the outset. Brevity and precision are opposites, ... True, but we now have a sort of hierarchy of brevity vs precision: (1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time. (2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected. (3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats. (4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:
Now it may be interesting to flesh out #4 with the lists of theories from natural selection to genetic drift to punk-eek to runaway sexual selection ... etc.
But it's a great learning exercise as one often discovers that the topic about which one thought there could be little disagreement among competent individuals actually includes a wide diversity of opinion. It also demonstrates that evolution is more complicated than many people realize -- especially those with a poor education in evolution, who think that a couple of simple mental "tricks" will disprove it or for those (like MartinV) that think one solution fits all cases. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : second quote & comment Edited by RAZD, : (3) slight mod Edited by RAZD, : tweaked again Edited by RAZD, : format 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6055 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
My problem with accepting a definition as broad as: change over time or something akin to that is that it doesn't reflect the true colossal nature of the theory.
To set up a hypothetical situation:Evolutionist: Evolution is change in species over time. Me (creationist): I agree Evolutionist: See you are stu... wait, sheeewhat!? It can't be argued that evolution by that definition isn't true. However, where is the line drawn? 5000 years, 20,000 years? If it was drawn out by observation then it would be by best estimates shortly defined. Why then the need to bandy words or debate semantics where an advantage for Camp Evolution would be gained by keeping the desired brevity of definition? To keep the ignorant in the dark? Just wondering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
However, where is the line drawn?
Evolution has been taking place since life arose. Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6055 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
"Evolution has been taking place since life arose." Nice wording. What about when life was created by a creator and "evolution" is just a variation within a kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
What about when life was created by a creator
What about it? Evolution is not about How we get life just what happens afterwards.
"evolution" is just a variation within a kind.
Please do what no other creationist has done and define "kind" in a biologically usefull manner. Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6055 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
I don't know what "biologically useful" means, and why it isn't useful to identify birds as things in the sky, and fish as things in the sea, and animals as things on the land and humans as the fallen masters of this world.
Quantifying it anymore seems a waste of time. I am ready to change my opinion if you can supply me with a reason to believe the Linnean model is "biologically useful."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Vashgun writes: I don't know what "biologically useful" means, and why it isn't useful to identify birds as things in the sky, and fish as things in the sea, and animals as things on the land and humans as the fallen masters of this world. Because birds aren't always in the sky (emus, kiwis etc), animals aren't always on land (fish, for example, are animals) and how does anyone determine that humans are 'fallen masters'?
Vashgun writes: Quantifying it anymore seems a waste of time. I am ready to change my opinion if you can supply me with a reason to believe the Linnean model is "biologically useful." Well, with the above examples, we determine what things are by characteristics that only they have. Humans can go under water, but we don't become fish when we do. So, identifying things by habitat isn't wise, as you don't know whether that species is 'just visiting'. So, you define birds as vertebrates with feathers, animals as mobile multicellular organisms and so on. You don't identify a human by whether they are a 'fallen master'. Instead, the way you determine that something is a human is if it looks and acts like what you call a human - a thinly-furred, bipedal and intelligent ape (it's more complicated than that, actually, at least for a specific genus, like 'human'). We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2667 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I don't know what "biologically useful" means... Here is a list of the different ways that "kind" has been defined by creos:
Genera as kinds ''Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind.'' (Gish, 1978, p 35.) Families as kinds ''Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind.'' (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271/) Suborders as kinds this website does what creationists very rarely do, and provides a list of "kinds". The general rule seems to be that a kind is the next taxonomic level up from family, i.e. a suborder or infraorder, although this is not completely systematic (mammal-like reptiles --- therapsids --- are lumped into one "kind", although they consistute an order). The same creationist excludes humans from the Catarrhini while lumping together oppossums, numbats, bandicoots, and the marsuipial tiger. (http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/showmammals.php?kindNumb...) Orders as kinds ''Some organisms seem to have more available diversity in their baramins than do others. Orchids and beetles each have thousands of named species''. (Creationism and Baraminology Research News: Stasis of the Baramin, Purpose, and Inheritance Mechanisms) Superorders as kinds ''Among the reptiles the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds.'' (Duane Gish: ''Evolution: The Fossils Say No!'') Phyla as kinds ''There are over seven thousand species of segmented worms, the worm kind.'' (http://www.creationmoments.org/radio/transcript.php?t=850) From Problems of a different "kind" (Science forums, Is It Science?) Should you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you head on over to that forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024