|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Vashgun in the O.P. writes: I am unhappy with the results of the last thread for the definition of evolution. Which seemed to be from RAZD There's a lot of talking (or typing) at cross purposes going on in this thread. One of the main problems is that RAZD's thread, the one that Vashgun is referring to above, was titled "Definition for the Theory of Evolution", whereas this thread is titled "Definition of Evolution." The two aren't the same thing. I've just noticed that RAZD has already pointed this out to Vashgun in message 77:
RAZD writes: ...(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): I think this needs explaining further. Vashgun, defining a theory is really just a matter of deciding what's the best way to express it in language. It has nothing to do with whether we think the theory is a good one or not. For example, take the Steady State theory of the universe. Modern physicists, with their "Big Bang" theories, are not disagreeing on the definition of the S. S. theory with Steady State supporters, they just think the theory (not the definition) is wrong. If you wanted to define your own Creation Theory, I'm not going to disagree with your definition. You might choose to say something like "The Universe was created by God in accordance with the account in the Bible." You might have some discussion with other young earthers about the best way of expressing your general theory. So you could start a thread, just like RAZD's, titled "Definition of the Theory of Creationism". Defining all of the origins theories and beliefs is useful to us all in debate, so that we know exactly what we're arguing for or against. If evolutionists posted on your YEC "definition of the theory" thread saying that they disagreed with the theory as expressed by any of your chosen definitions, they would be off topic and their comments would be irrelevant. They can do that elsewhere. The title of your thread here, "Definition of Evolution" just requires a definition of biological evolution, and several people have already suggested perfectly adequate definitions which have nothing to do with anyone's theories, and fit with them all. The definition of a phenomenon is a completely different thing from the definition of any theory concerning that phenomenon. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Who is skeptical of this? The people who study those issues professionally? If not them, then who, and why are they skeptical?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. In Message 38 you state:
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.
Message 79 ... Dr. A. and RAZD can chill,... 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. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : toned down. 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 6058 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
There's a lot of talking (or typing) at cross purposes going on in this thread. One of the main problems is that RAZD's thread, the one that Vashgun is referring to above, was titled "Definition for the Theory of Evolution", whereas this thread is titled "Definition of Evolution." The two aren't the same thing. Yeah, what the hell are we talking about? Sorry people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I agree with the recent comment that Vashgun seems less interested in defining evolution than in arguing about it, but when Vashgun began this thread he did suggest a definition. He wanted evolution limited to describing "observable change" in "living systems" and in an "observed time frame." He also wanted the definition to include no mention of mechanisms, which I assume would be things like cell division, mutation, natural selection and so forth.
Any theory is just an attempt to represent what happens in the real world in terms of general rules. Vashgun's restrictions seem more to do with how he would like evolution defined and less to do with observations from the real world. This has forced this thread into side discussions of things like what is a religion, what is a theory, and what is science. Working through these issues seems like it should be a prerequisite to arguing about the definition of the theory of evolution, so I think these discussions should continue in this thread, but unless someone objects strongly I'm going to change the title of this thread to "Prerequisites for Defining Evolution". A side note: the thread is trending toward too many comments of a personal nature that don't really address the topic in any beneficial way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
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. Is it possible that you are under delusion?
I'll "chill" when you drop the arrogant, insulting, petulant, tantrum throwing behavior of a child and start behaving like an adult. 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. nice burn.
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". 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." Main Entry:evo·lu·tion Listen to the pronunciation of evolution Pronunciation: \‘e-v-l-shn, ‘-v-\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere Date: 1622 1: one of a set of prescribed movements2 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 evolved3: the process of working out or developing4 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 theory5: the extraction of a mathematical root6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena” evo·lu·tion·ari·ly Listen to the pronunciation of evolutionarily \-sh-‘ner--l\ adverb ” evo·lu·tion·ary Listen to the pronunciation of evolutionary \-sh-‘ner-\ adjective ” evo·lu·tion·ism Listen to the pronunciation of evolutionism \-sh-‘ni-zm\ noun ” evo·lu·tion·ist Listen to the pronunciation of evolutionist \-sh(-)nist\ noun or adjective This definition is obviously loaded. Taken from M-W.com I intended to start with this. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Vashgun writes: I like this one from Xaruan: "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" yes, I can agree with that. Anyone object? We could quibble about the wording, but I think the intended meaning is pretty clear, so I think many would find this definition acceptable, especially since it is very similar to one of the primary proposals in RAZD's original thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
(Edited for readability) 1: one of a set of prescribed movements 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." You can take this up with Message 32 Edited by RAZD, : ps 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xaruan Junior Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
quote: Right, they are pretty much identical. The only difference is my exclusion of the word species and use of the term "generations" rather than "time". I thought the exclusion of "species" would keep the definition a little more general but equally valid. My opinion still stays that the real question is to what extent evolution occurs. By the way, your original definition wasn't liberal at all. The definition doesn't say one side's argument is correct or not. (EDIT: That particular segment of your definition was nearly identical to mine.) I like how someone (in the last few posts) finally said that defining something shouldn't degenerate into arguing over what the theory implies. Once people all decide on a definition, this thread should be locked. Is there any reason why other arguments are going on? I also disagree with the renaming of the thread "Prerequisites for Defining Evolution". The definition iteself takes no more than one or two sentences. Does there need to be a thread on what we have to decide before deciding on a definition? With all due respect, I think a thread name "Prerequisites for Defining Evolution" makes little sense and will cause endless confusion with no forseeable conclusion. Edited by Xaruan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
WRONG!!!! It has everything to do with it. You must understand that your belief in billions of years is a contested theory ... Yes, we realise that creationists exist. There are also people who "contest" the Holocaust, the Big Bang, the round earth, heliocentrism, and the fact that the law says that you have to pay income tax. Anything can be "contested", all you need is a crank and a soapbox.
Life forming billions of years ago or reference to the fossil record is under deep skepticism. By cranks who know damn all about science.
Thus tree rings, fossils and rock layers are objective, observable parts of reality. This is subjective evidence. calling something blue, that is clearly red is a form of lying. However, saying that there are tree rings, fossils, and rock layers is not a form of lying. It's a form of telling the exact literal truth. Sheesh, how much reality can you deny? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xaruan Junior Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
Isn't this the thread about "Definition of Evolution" not the thread about "Proving the Theory of Evolution"? Seriously, threads have topic titles for a reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? You'd be surprised at how intransigent some people are -- see Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone) for example. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xaruan Junior Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
RAZD, that was a good post you linked to.
ev·o·lu·tion3. Biology. a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. That's a pretty good definiition. Normally, I would say the strict definition of evolution should avoid explicitly stating "resulting in the development of new species", but because I assume everyone accepts that natural slection occurs, the development of new species becomes the heart of the matter. 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). If people want a definition of evolution that disallows the very literal interpretation of Genesis (6 days, humans were made as is) I'll try to provide one. "Evolution involves the heritable changes in a population. Evolution implies how viruses and single-celled organisms were formed: components came to exist through an increase in molecular complexity. Atoms form molecules, which in turn form more complex molecules, such as RNA, DNA, amino acids, proteins, etc. Driving forces for the increase in complexity are explained through principles in physics and organic chemistry (such as steric hindrance and desire for a stable conformation/bond). Evolution uses the principle of natural selection--where traits aiding survival and/or reproduction are more likely to be passed on to future generations--to describe how some characteristics of a population continue while others die out. Heritable changes occur seemingly randomly and are not necessarily favorable, indicating not all changes will remain within a population. Drastic changes in populations are (typically) only visible over a significantly large time scale. Further implications include the increase in cell size and complexity (eukaryotes), the development of multicellular organisms (plants, fungi, animals), and the eventual emergence of humans. The necessary accumulation of heritable changes needed to account for the current number of species and their complexity could not have been reached in just the last 10,000 years." I think that's an adequately complex definition that will disallow compatibility with young-earth creationismFeel free to quote and edit if you feel modifications are in order. or If you prefer the more general definition, say so. Edited by Xaruan, : No reason given. Edited by Xaruan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Welcome to EvC, Xaruan.
Thanks for sharing these comments. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: It is my personal reading of evolutionary literature that most of the disputes about processes of evolution come from a time period in biological history when it was generally the focus of the participants on life on Earth. I think all kinds of differences of opinions can be read from the literature if one assumes that the extant evolution being discussed is that which can be described as occurring or having occurred on Earth. This is why the Darwinian notion is important to these differences. When you reapeat, "the extent that evolution occurrs", do you mean the density of evolutionary action per space? or are you trying to specificy something purely temporal here?? Heritability was introduced fairly broadly in the 60s to dispel fears that phenotypeless notion of Neo-Darwinain change was what was being discussed but Waddington for one, indicated that this does not keep the older thought that is not focused on the object of the disucussion from remaining purlely static. Without a clear communication of what you intend by "extent" of evolution I can not see how making a more material requirement to the conversation is very helpful. I, myself, have found that the continued denial of creationists is largely because the forms of life need not fill the "theoretical" discussion of evolution. This is obvious to the student. The teacher has a harder job, if this entails presenting a forward moving prospect where evolution is extant for any momemnt. Are you trying to tie the "extent" of evolution happening directly to heritiablilty here? if so then how are you considering that one is supposed to structure envirnomental paramters that make of niches where no ecology but only gases, liquids and solids exist???
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024