Definition of Evolution

Tazmanius Devilus responds to me:

quote:

---

RRHAIN (Rural Rental Housing Association Indiana)

---

What are we? Twelve?(Yes, I know of RRHAIN's existence.)

quote:

---

Bacteria reproduce by mitosis (fusion fission). This means that the daughter cells are exact replicas of the mother cell. And so on and so forth.

---

True. Silly me didn't think I would have to start from sand.

They possibly would, depending of course on how the mudskipper evolved from its current form. Where's the problem? All species are transitional. Mudskippers provide a clear example of a creature adapted to a life split between the land and the sea, as do pinnipeds (sea-lions etc) and many other species. As time passes these creatures continue to adapt to changing environments.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Is zebra a zebra? A donkey a donkey? Or are they all "horses"?Is a lion a lion? A tiger a tiger? Or are they all "big cats"?What "kind" is a Tigon, or a Zorse, or a Mule?A wolf is a wolf and a dog is a dog. So what "kind" is Wolf-Dog?

Although you question the relevance of my comment to the topic, I think there's some mileage in an examination of your belief in evolutionary dogmatism.You appear to define those aspects of evolutionary theory with which you are unhappy - let’s call that macroevolution for want of a better term - as dogmatic, unscientific, and inadmissible. Some people have already pointed out an obvious problem with this stance; namely, that it is inconsistent to on the one hand require rigorous empirical evidence for scientific claims, but on the other accept the claims of an ancient civilisation's apparently fantastical text as gospel.It seems that you are dividing scientific investigation into two - that which can be directly observed through experiment and that which can be inferred from secondary evidence. One you accept, one you don’t. I believe this distinction to be artificial because in an absolute sense all evidence relies to some degree on the secondary - to the point that we cannot know anything without accepting that it is a past event mediated through our senses and memory. What makes you reject the fossil record as being too removed and mysterious, and yet accept the idea that there were Incan or Egyptian people? If you accept their existence, why is it that you reject Atlantians? Similarly, what do you make of an 'indirect' observation of an atom through an electron microscope?The question I am asking, then, is this:Do you draw the line beyond which you cannot believe the claims of evidence-based science because it is too indirect for your liking for any reason other than convenience?There is an irony in a fundamentalist's approach. When it comes to their favoured religion, its sacred text is considered to be so self-evident as to not require interpretation; however, when looking at the fossil record it is expedient to emphasise humanity's ignorance and to claim that it is impossible to interpret it. By this argument from ignorance it is denied that any claim, no matter how tentative, can be made.I'd like to respond again to the idea that science is as dogmatic as religion. I don't know if I hold much store in Freud really, but I've always liked the idea of transference, and it (or something like it) seems to be operating here. It benefits you to believe that scientists generally share your tendency to dogmatism. This really isn't true. I'm not saying that people who believe in the efficacy of scientific investigation are always able to discard incorrect ideas about how the world works as quickly as perhaps they should. The unsentimental shedding of errors is, however, the ideal.For a deeply committed religious type though, this readiness to change beliefs in light of new evidence cannot be the ideal. Or am I wrong? Do the beliefs of the devout change according to the evidence of the physical world around them?*Which to me seems to be a convenience with the most wibbly goalposts imaginable and not a rigorously thought out definition.

My apologies, Vacate, for misattributing your quote to Vashgun, whose point of view I intended to respond to. I fixed the text. It would be an evolutionary dead-end, yes. Presumably some other amphibious creatures, ancestral to it, would be the place to look for transitionals.Which is, of course, why we see so much discussion among scientists about the proper placement of species. The picture has ancestral species and transitionals, but also those offshoots and dead ends. There's a main trunk that divides into major branches that further divide. And there are twigs that stick out that don't go very far.It's like any family tree, really.
___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Sadly in your mind was the only place it did anything of the sort. If the 'it' in question was the whole field of experimentation using Drosophila and by 'macroevolution' you mean speciation then you are wrong. If you mean something else by 'macroevolution' then you should be more explicit what it is.If by 'it' you are specifically referring to mutational screens then as I have pointed out repeatedly you are talking about a class of experiments which were never intended in any way to explore 'macroevolution'. Even so it would be misleading to suggest the prove nothing in favour of macroevolution, the similarities in phenotypes between mutants of highly divergent species are clear evidence for the highly homologous nature of their developmental systems.As far as showing anything about beneficial mutations goes you are just trying to make something from nothing. The type of mutations that were intentionally induced in the vast majority of such experiments were supposed to be radical and ideally to compromise the function of genes entirely, there was neither any intent to produce nor any effort to find beneficial mutations. The fact that they therefore reported finding none is hardly surprising.TTFN,WK

I think you're reading to much into it. I did indeed assert that nobody directly observed common descent. But of course, I would also assert that eyewitness accounts are not the only means by which we can make conclusions. In fact, often other methods are just as good, if not better, than having a witness (seeing as witnesses can make mistakes more often than a DNA assay or ballistics test will).Say I was to assert, right now, that I am in fact an eyewitness of common descent. That's right, I saw humans and chimps evolve from the same species of ape. I saw fungi and animals evolve from the same species little multicellular lifeforms. And I am here to testify that fact to you. You wouldn't believe me, would you? And yet you were not around (I know) to check that I wasn't alive in the precambrian or devonian. So how do you come to the conclusion that I wasn't around to witness evolution in all its glory?

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

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. You are just playing word games, misusing terminology and pretending that you are talking about reality. This is called delusion. 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.Let me know when you want to discuss reality.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.

NO, bad assumption. You need to step out of the box. If every individual was a kind, then Noah's Ark would have never worked. You have to understand, I work through the limitations of what God said. If he lied, there is no hope. Which is why it is important that he didn't. Which he didn't.

First thing to note here is that quantifying the limits of variation would be difficult. With that said, I think your playing stupid. If you took the zebra as the "first" kind or foundation, then all the donkeys, and horses would be variations of that first kind. Anyone can see how these can be related. It is so obvious, yet you try to bandy words to make it look like you have a case for ape to human transmorphism. Because you demand a strict definition, like the Linneus model, which is suited towards common ancestry through morphology, I am unable due to the obvious kind paradox. It is so simple to look and tell from whence it came.

You know nothing of my religion, which I have not discussed. I don't see how any of that was an answer to my post.'Cos it wasn't.You might want to look up the word "tirade", by the way.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes. Simply your reasoning suggests that your world view model is true. As if the Bible has been proved wrong. I strongly disagree and contend with that philosophy. You can spout off all the so called "evidence" you want, but the reality is that only a few of these "sciences" are in conflict with the biblical account and they so happen to be based on fundamental flaws in their assumptions. Your whole question again assumes that your worldview is correct and justified. I don't need to change anything of my views that pertain to what God has already told me. Your science is floundering behind, not mine. You desire the how, I know the why. If there was evidence to suggest that this universe sprang from nothing material, then blew up evolved everything with time, then I might reconsider. You misrepresent "facts" in favor of your religion and expect me to swallow it. No thanks, I resent the implications of your belief.

You can delude yourself with conclusions all day. It won't change the fact that your religion includes that which mine excludes through lack. Restraining the definition to knowable limits makes it less dogmatic and more universally accepted. 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. I un-limited it and then you disagreed. You must have a hidden agenda. What's wrong with seperation of definition and religious inference? The usable definition for a kind, is in the kind itself. It should be obvious that a wolf and a dog are related. A banana and a wolf is a stretch. 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?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.

But if you insist on proposing the existence of "kinds" that is exactly what you must do.Until that time you're just blowing hot air...Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

The problem with this position is that it must be applied to all definitions and it is unnecessary. If the allele's of a population change, it is evolution. If they haven't changed - it isn't. It would be like saying murder is unlawful killing that evidence demonstrates occurred. It isn't - murder is any unlawful killing (I appreciate there are other conditions depending on the legal system, but none of them change the point I'm making). Whether we can say a murder has happened in any given case depends on the evidence.Likewise, whether evolution happened in any given case depends on the evidence.One must be open minded, and this how being open minded works (since I am sure you consider yourself to be so, I doubt you will argue this):
Assume natural history as described by scientific consensus happened - what would we call the process that generated this history? We would call it evolution.The question of whether natural history happened the way they say it did or not is irrelevant to the name we would give the process that led to it if it did. The definition of evolution make no inferences whatsoever. The definition of evolution does not infer natural history in any way shape or form. The definition of evolution does not even infer that it happens at all and nor should it. The definition merely states that if a change in allele frequency happens, then biological evolution has occurred.