I don't think that it is fair to Creationists that this be let off the hook so easily. I think the definition should be changed to:
Evolution is observable change(s) in all living systems limited to the observed time frame.
Why limit it (to all living systems and observed time frames)?
The purpose of a theory is to explain data and evidence, and the test of a good theory is how much it explains, not how limited it can be made.
If the theory is not capable of explaining data and evidence beyond the living systems and observable time, then it would fail tests using that information and be invalidated. I would think that creationists would be particularly interested in doing that -- rather than running in fear from the information.
So the question is why do you want to limit the definition? What purpose does such limitation serve?
Mechanisms should not be classified within evolution.
Again: why?
Different mechanisms and processes exist and cause different results. They are part of the reality of evolution. What purpose is served by ignoring them?
Message 10 I'll be happy to change evolution to exactly what you really want it to be. Evolution- a change in species via genetic mutations and natural selection over Billions of years. As long as we can officially change observable change in genetics and physicality to Variations within a kind.
Billions of years is also an unnecessary limitation: evolution occurs from generation to generation.
And to change to "Variations within a kind" you would need to (1) justify limiting it this way and (2) provide a usable definition for "kind" -- something you have avoided doing on the Problems of a different "Kind".
Shouldn't evidence for macroevolution be so completely abundant so as to be self-evident? Should it really be necessary that you have to find some obscure creature that might qualify, if the theory is as strong as it claims?Shouldn't evidence for macroevolution be so completely abundant so as to be self-evident? Should it really be necessary that you have to find some obscure creature that might qualify, if the theory is as strong as it claims?
What is macroevolution and how is it distinct from microevolution? How should it show up in the fossil record that is different from microevolution?
If my memory serves correct, they were looking at specifically homeobox sequences to see if intentional tweaking could speed up speciation.
Seeing as we KNOW (documented) that your memory is faulty (to put it kindly), perhaps you should look into this and see what the purposes of the experiments were. One clue would be to look at the first articles on HOX genes and the dates of the experiments on fruit flies. Another would be to search for articles on speciation and fruit flies.
You know -- ground truth your facts before spouting nonsense. Again.
Whether it was half or 4 times as many is beside the point. The point I'm making is that they are simpler than that of humans, procreate much faster, are more prone to mutation, etc. The point is that they are a much coveted test experiment for evolution, but it yielded unfavorable results unworthy of defending the theory.
Except that the experiments reinforced the theory of evolution: conclusion? your impression of the purpose of the experiments is false, again.
No, please don't hold back for my sake... Tell me how you really feel.
Statements of fact aren't based on feelings. The fact that you can easily ground-truth your assumptions to show they are faulty before posting means that they are inane when you don't.
All I know is that the fruit fly has been used as an evidentiary claim for macroevolution. I am simply dispelling the notion that it proved anything in favor of macroevolution.
Speciation has been observed during the course of fruit fly experiments. Are you saying that speciation is macroevolution now? Please define what you mean by macroevolution, nem - don't hide it from the debate eh?
I would also like to see the alleged instances of observed speciation. I'm guessing it is going to show various forms of microevolutionary specimens that no one objects to.
Especially if you never define the difference nor say what you expect to see. Moving goalposts and all that, right nem?
Then where does a theory like punctuated equilibrium come in to play that contravenes the supposed finely gradated series? There are no finely gradated series. There are organisms that appear fully-formed in strata just as they are walking around today.
ONE way to find out would be to read the work by Gould and Eldridge. That you are STILL ignorant of punk eek is ONLY your fault nem. It's been discussed several times. There are lots of examples of "graded series" - the stasis parts - but not all records are complete enough to rule out faster evolution during some periods - the punki parts.
I don't see how this off-topic, being that the premise of the OP is quite broad.
The premise of the OP is
I don't think that it is fair to Creationists that this be let off the hook so easily. I think the definition should be changed to:
Evolution is observable change(s) in all living systems limited to the observed time frame.
Mechanisms should not be classified within evolution.
It should be acknowledged that theoretical science is separate from theological musings, and should not be coupled within a standard of a definition.
So we are talking about the definition of evolution. Now we can discuss what is and is not microevolution and what is and is not macroevolution, but you will need to provide definitions of what you mean by them and what you expect to see.
Is that a more gentle of way of saying, shut up, nem... you don't know what you're talking about.?
You've already proven that you don't on this thread.
I'll ask you, what purpose does expanding the definition to meet your religious views serve?
My religious views have nothing to do with your reasons for limiting the definition of evolution - you didn't answer the question. Conclusion: no purpose served.
So I can freely use scientific terminology and not have religious inference weigh upon me. ok, i meant infinity.
You are just playing word games, misusing terminology and pretending that you are talking about reality. This is called delusion.
I did give a definition to a kind. You refused to acknowledge it. A usable example of my inflated definition would be: a dog is a dog. a horse is a horse.
Actually you did not provide a usable definition, which was my stipulation. With a usable definition you don't need examples, you would be able to tell that a horse was one kind and a dog was another -- if they fit the definition. The fact that you need to state these means you have no definition that can be used. Once again you are playing word games to delude yourself that you are dealing with reality instead of fantasy. Unfortunately for you reality exists and will continue to evolve with or without your conscious participation.
It won't change the fact that your religion includes that which mine excludes through lack. ... Your religious views are the cornerstone for your desire of a monopoly on this definition. If you can't win this definition, you can't confuse people into believing your lies. Conclusion: purpose served.
Again, my religion has nothing to do with your definition of evolution. You have no idea what my religion lacks, as you have no idea what it includes. Just characterizing the positions of others as religion does not make it so -- you are still playing word games to deceive yourself: delusion. Conclusion: your purpose is self delusion that you are dealing with something rather than ignoring it.
Restraining the definition to knowable limits makes it less dogmatic and more universally accepted.
So limiting it to phenomena observable today makes it more universally applicable -- ie applicable to past times and phenomena?
Or do you mean just making it a tolerable definition for everyone, so that they can hide their heads in the sand and delude themselves that evolution does not go on regardless of what they believe?
You realize of course that changing the definition does not change the process or any aspect of reality ... so the only purpose served then is the self delusion that you are dealing with something rather than ignoring it.
I un-limited it and then you disagreed. You must have a hidden agenda.
You went from saying must be over billions of years to must be over infinite time -- that is not un-limiting it, but making it useless.
The only "agenda" I have is that you show logical reasons for your definition and that what you derive is useful. So far all you are doing is throwing ad hoc constructions together without any regard for logical consistency or applicability to reality.
What's wrong with seperation of definition and religious inference?
There is no "religious inference" in the definition of evolution you quoted in Message 1 (which was from the thread on the definition of the theory of evolution, not the definition of evolution, btw - which is why you were off topic on the original thread):
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time ...
We can observe this in phenomena today, and we can see evidence of this in the fossil record. Whether this occurs from original "kinds" or from life that developed on this planet over 3.5 billion years ago is not restricted by the definition in any way. Your invoking of "religious inferences" as a reason to change the definition is therefore a red herring and not a valid reason.
The usable definition for a kind, is in the kind itself. It should be obvious that a wolf and a dog are related.
So all life is of one kind then. Everything is related. The definition is in the kind itself, and it should be obvious, eh? Thanks for clarifying that.
It should be obvious that a wolf and a dog are related. A banana and a wolf is a stretch.
Yet they share the same essential DNA made from the same basic building blocks. The only difference is in the arrangement of the DNA pairs within the strands of DNA, but those types of differences in DNA between banana and wolf are the same as the types of differences in DNA between wolf and dog ... there are just more of them. You can take one and artificially modify it to match the other and end up with viable DNA for that species.
Thus again they are related and of one kind, it's obvious eh?
I admit that quantifying the process is and would be difficult, the fundamental kinds would be hard to tell, for example: Zebra and horse, both agree in morphology yet which came first?
Based on the evidence, Hyracotherium came before either. Their relationship is also based on morphology.
You accuse me of not being in reality, perhaps you would like to define reality? I doubt you can give me a usable definition. If telling the truth is outside reality then I don't want to be in.
You have the same problem with defining "truth" ... but I would say that denial of evidence (reality) that contradicts your belief is NOT a way to find reality. As far as an actual definition, I am happy to use a standard definition of reality:
Thus tree rings, fossils and rock layers are objective, observable parts of reality. You can also pursue this further on my Perceptions of Reality. What it comes down to, is that the more objective evidence you need to deny in order to maintain a specific world view (regardless of the basis for it) the less real it is.
This would also apply to definitions of terms used in science: if you are not using the definitions used in the science, then you are removed from reality in discussing that science when using your definition: you are deluding yourself regarding the reality of that science. It is not the truth.
I can pretend to redefine gravity to only apply to what is observable here on earth, but this will not affect the orbit of planets nor the paths of stars in the universe, and to think so would be delusional.
Re: Denial, Definitions and Reality ... and baby behavior ...
WRONG!!!! It has everything to do with it. You must understand that your belief in billions of years is a contested theory, and I use "theory" lightly. If I call evolution a religion, you get all bent out of shape. When you attack my belief with speculative reasoning that you deem superior, I get upset.
And here I thought your were giving my religion equal footing and respect as your religion. My religion is Deism, not evolution.
Once again we are dealing with your petty self delusion that you can redefine things to fit your fantasy world: reality doesn't work that way, and the more YOU need to do it the more YOU are removed from reality.
Instead of calling into question my psychological state, you should educate me with facts instead of assertions relative to your religion.
It's not your psychological state, but the degree of delusion that is in question here. You can be deluded by other people that you trust to provide you with information and still be totally rational -- the question is whether you cling to the delusion when confronted by evidence to the contrary.
Reality has nothing to do with religion -- it exists independent of it. That is why it is called reality instead of fantasy. People who cling to fantasy in the face of evidence to the contrary are NOT dealing with reality. This is a fact.
Therefore, for us to come to any type of terms of agreement we must supplicate our view points. Also, calling what you believe a religion is true, if it is unfair, then calling Christianity a religion is also unfair. Again with citing religious dogma. When will you understand, I desire religion out of the definition?
Nope. We need to deal with reality. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Reality is not fair, it just IS. What you "desire" is irrelevant to reality.
For the record, we call set beliefs religions when they fit the definition of religion:
These are the basic definitions of religion, and they are based on beliefs, not on evidence and facts and testing.
Note the absence of evidence and facts and testing for the basis of these beliefs.
My religion, Deism, fits the definition of religion, the science of evolution, like any science, does not. They are different things.
The problem I have with superposition is, if God created earth (rocks, land, etc) then the rocks or earth would be the same age. Or the age of Creation. So then why is there a necessity to prove otherwise?
This is the essential difference between religion and science: science looks for answers and tests the theories, while religion sits on it's butt telling you it has the answers. Science tests it's knowledge against reality, and religion doesn't. Religion hides from reality.
This is why evolution is not a religion, but science. This is why the definition of evolution is what is used in the science, regardless of your particular religious preference.
So we need a definition that remains unbiased.
Nope. We need a definition that is true. We don't need to pander to your pet religion (or any other religion), because we are concerned with being true to reality not to fantasy.
Not to say that we can't observe the effects of evolution. Which is, in my opinion, labeled under observable. So something that happened 200 years ago is knowable and possibly scientific. However, expanding this range to supplicate your belief system is unacceptable.
It's only "unacceptable" if you want to hide from reality. You come on here and insult people right left and center, and then whimper that your values are not given special treatment. This is the logical fallacy of special pleading, and it is childish.
Life forming billions of years ago or reference to the fossil record is under deep skepticism. So postulation of unknown hypotheses must meet the same requirements you so readily give to any biblical science or study. And I agree that variations happen, why can't we call these observations variations?
Your skepticism is noted, but it doesn't alter the facts that the evidence is there. The theories being used in science need to meet the criteria of science -- based on evidence, explanation of the evidence, make predictions to test the theory -- and nothing more. The theory of evolution does that. Calling it something else does not change that fact, all it does is lead to self delusion instead of reality.
Where did that come from? All life one kind? No, how about: All life from one source? Your so static in your reasoning, all you can perceive is your own ideal.
It is based on your definition of "kind" taken to the logical conclusion: if all life is related, then there is only one "kind".
Until we know everything there is to know about genetics and genetic data, let us (you) drop the arrogance posture. The fact is, relationships are found. The end. Because things are similar doesn't make some fantasy story come to life to result in an observable construct. Which brings me back to the point: Evolution should be carefully used to a specific degree and not a jumped to over hyped conclusion.
Right, we should hide in religious ignorance from reality, deny the evidence that conflicts with any religious belief and pretend that they will all go away if we ignore them ... sorry, reality doesn't work that way.
We don't need to know everything to validate what we do know. That is what the scientific testing does.
This is subjective evidence.
Nope. Tree rings, fossils and rock layers are all objective evidence:
Objective evidence can be observed by different people at different times and they can compare their subjective impressions of the evidence, but the evidence itself is objective.
calling something blue, that is clearly red is a form of lying. Although you probably don't have any standard, besides yourself, for the accumulation of morals, I don't expect you to understand.
This thread is not about morals but the definition of evolution. If you want to discuss morals there are a number of threads on the subject, but you can always start a new one.
But I agree with you that "calling something blue, that is clearly red is a form of lying" -- which is why changing the definition of evolution from what is used in science is wrong. I do expect you to understand, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'll "chill" when you drop the arrogant, insulting, petulant, tantrum throwing behavior of a child and start behaving like an adult.
Message 1 Not in ANY way to suggest that I haven't been warned and excused on excess, I would like to apologize and submit that I am here to learn. I, however, will not be treated with contempt and refuse to be the victim of special alienation due to any character flaws I may possess. I apologize now and ask that I be granted due participation, uninterrupted; unless in clear and unprovoked violation of rules, in this wonderful forum.
That's a step in the right direction. I've edited this post to tone it down a notch. We'll see where this goes.
1: one of a set of prescribed movements 2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved 3: the process of working out or developing 4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory 5: the extraction of a mathematical root 6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
This definition is obviously loaded. Taken from M-W.com I intended to start with this.
Again I note that this is (mostly) various definitions of evolution and that only 4b is a definition of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution addresses\explains how evolution occurs.
Not loaded at all, but certainly covering all the general usages of the word. The definitions that apply to the science of evolution are 4a = common descent, and 4b = descent with modification, so the other definitions don't need to be considered.
You have defined evolution according to your terms, which is extremely liberal, however evolution is still based off of the hypothesis of evolution. I like this one from Xaruan: "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" yes, I can agree with that. Anyone object?
No real objection at all, especially seeing as this is virtually identical to my "extremely liberal" definition of evolution "according to (my) terms" you quoted in Message 1:
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time, ...
Now we can quibble that not all genetic traits are hereditary traits (the genetic change needs to be in the genes passed to the next generation, while some mutations occur during growth and only affect the development of the existing organism), and we can quibble over the minor distinction between "generations" and "time" ... but overall they are basically interchangeable.
Now what you objected to in Message 1 was the inclusion of the theoretical mechanisms for evolution that are part of the theory of evolution:
... and these theories explain different mechanisms and processes that occur. These theories also explain the existing evidence known from genetics, lab and field studies and the fossil record.
The theory of evolution is the attempt to explain how evolution - "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" - happens, and this necessarily includes mechanisms and processes.
Welcome to reality.
Enjoy.
ps -- regarding "kinds"
I know this is OT but, I don't think you can quantify kinds down to the "one" kind or species. You want to mind-wrestle me into accepting this quantum craziness. I don't know of any sound evidence for this, and I have read talk.origins 29+ macro evolution "evidences."
Re: Backing up the bus ... to start all over again
Welcome to the fray, Xaruan
calm voices are always welcome.
Once people all decide on a definition, this thread should be locked.
As a general note, most threads are closed after they reach 300 posts. This was originally done due to some software glitches, but has been maintained as a way to focus people on the topic(s) involved.
Is there any reason why other arguments are going on?
If one takes to time to consider this definition, it still allows for some creationists to believe in the theory of evolution. I have known some creationists to believe that evolution (by this definition) can occur but started occurring only after God created the Earth. So this definition does not disallow creationism. (Like I said, the question is to what extent evolution occurs).
The issue creationists have is not with evolution per se but with descent from a common ancestor population, and what\who those ancestors were.
This is where the issue of macroevolution rears it's pretty little head. For evolutionists macroevolution is increased diversification between descendant populations over longer periods of time, caused by continued microevolution within each sub-population. For creationists macroevolution seems to be a different process altogether, though it is difficult to get them to define it.
RAZD, that was a good post you linked to. ev·o·lu·tion That's a pretty good definiition.
The problem is that the debate there devolved into a "your list of definitions versus my list" with a lot of interpretation of different definitions in the mix ...
The real crux of the matter is that you need to be discussing evolution with the definition used in the science, or you are not discussing the science of evolution but something else. In this regard there are a couple of definitions that come directly from scientific sources -- universities teaching evolution:
quote:The Definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
quote:Definitions of Biological Evolution We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
Definition 1: Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
Definition 2: The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
These can be summarized as you have with "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" -- noting that this tends to emphasis the microevolutionary aspect over the macroevolutionary one.
Thanks. I've borrowed some of this for Message 117
The blog is good reading too.
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"
Is this acceptable?
Yes - it is acceptable. There are other acceptable definitions such as 'Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time'.
But you could say that fixing of new alleles in a population is an important step. Most (surviving) mutations in populations are in recessive genes and this makes their spread within a population easier.
However, once fixed in a population they are still subject to variation in number within the population, so they are still subject to evolution as the change in alleles from generation to generation.
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"
Is this acceptable?
Yes - it is acceptable. There are other acceptable definitions such as 'Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time'.
Works for me.
Yes, it works for me, too. But the evo-devo people say ...
Are you or are you not proposing a change to this definition?
A population's success in fixing beneficial alleles.
Define beneficial so that it can be measured.
Does this evolution occur when the allele is fixed or when it becomes beneficial? If the later then fixing is irrelevant, if the former then it is no different than fixing a neutral allele.
Whitlock advances a stochastic model to define the probability of fixing new beneficial alleles:
2hs(1-FST)Ne / Ntot
“ . where hs is the change in fitness of heterozygotes relative to the ancestral homozygote,
So we're still stuck with defining fitness being beneficial or not to determine hs.
I note that Whitlock et al say:
quote:The rate of adaptive evolution of a population ultimately depends on the rate of incorporation of beneficial mutations. ... The results developed in this paper can be used to estimate the fixation flux, defined as the rate at which beneficial alleles fix within a population. The fixation flux measures the rate of adaptive evolution of a population and, as we shall see, depends strongly on changes that occur in population size.
Which differs from your definition by the qualification of the evolution involved being adaptive evolution. In other words they do not make the distinction that you are making.
You also did not answer the rest of my questions on your definition:
Does this evolution occur when the allele is fixed or when it becomes beneficial? If the later then fixing is irrelevant, if the former then it is no different than fixing a neutral allele.
If deleterious mutations are fixed in the population, is that devolution - previous population more fit than current?
What happens if later those deleterious mutations turn out to be beneficial? At what point then does it become evolution?
Moving on ...
Personally I think that rather than focusing on relative benefit, that may change at any time, you should be focusing on new alleles becoming fixed in the population as the criteria, and let the beneficial\neutral\deleterious aspect sort itself out via selection etc. from generation to generation.
Thus you would have "evolution involves the introduction of new alleles and the subsequent change in frequency of alleles in a population from generation to generation"
By this definition the changes observed in populations for the Galapagos Finches and the Peppered Moths would not qualify as evolution per se as they did not involve new mutations\alleles but only existing ones.
In these instances it would take continued selection pressure and new mutations that become fixed in the populations during the period of stress to contribute to eventual evolution of those species.
Now we could use the qualification that Whitlock et al used above, and say that evolution was observed but that it did not reach the point of realizing "adaptive evolution" ... but I have trouble with that conceptualization, as the adaptation in both cases was clear and unambiguous. We need a different qualifier.
We need a qualifier for the "new and improved" set of alleles that includes the new mutations in the mix as opposed to only having a shifting balances of all previously existing alleles.
A logical qualifier for me would be "fixed" -- where evolution becomes fixed when the alleles in a population include fixed new alleles that did not exist in a previous populations set of alleles.
Thus we can say that the evolution of the Galapagos Finches and Peppered Moths was not fixed.
Thus I would say that "fixed evolution involves the introduction of new alleles and the subsequent change in frequency of alleles in a population from generation to generation"
We can also say that such a concept of fixed evolution is important for speciation to occur.
Then you don't have adaptation per se, you have exaptation, which is Gould's way of explaining how previously fixed alleles that were once neutral, or even deleterious, become usefully adaptive.
And exaptation would still be a part of evolution, and it can be critical for speciation as well, so provision for this would need to be included in the general definition.
You are looking for a more generalized definition, I suppose.
That would be the purpose of the thread. Are you then happy with:
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"
™ Version 4.2
