Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Evolution
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 91 of 212 (418926)
08-31-2007 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ihategod
08-26-2007 9:45 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ihategod, posted 08-26-2007 9:45 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 9:39 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 212 (418930)
08-31-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 11:28 PM


Re: Denial, Definitions and Reality
quote:
Life forming billions of years ago or reference to the fossil record is under deep skepticism.
Who is skeptical of this?
The people who study those issues professionally?
If not them, then who, and why are they skeptical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 11:28 PM Ihategod has not replied

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


Message 93 of 212 (418934)
08-31-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 11:28 PM


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:
re·li·gion -noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
These are the basic definitions of religion, and they are based on beliefs, not on evidence and facts and testing.
be·lief -noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
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:
ob·jec·tive -adj 1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
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.

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 82 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 11:28 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 9:56 AM RAZD has replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 94 of 212 (418947)
08-31-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by bluegenes
08-31-2007 6:44 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2007 6:44 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 95 of 212 (418949)
08-31-2007 9:51 AM


And now, a word from our topic...
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 5:46 AM Admin has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 96 of 212 (418951)
08-31-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
08-31-2007 8:20 AM


Re: Denial, Definitions and Reality ... and baby behavior ...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2007 8:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 08-31-2007 10:21 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2007 12:04 PM Ihategod has not replied

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


Message 97 of 212 (418963)
08-31-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Ihategod
08-31-2007 9:56 AM


Re: Denial, Definitions and Reality ... and baby behavior ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 9:56 AM Ihategod has not replied

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


Message 98 of 212 (419003)
08-31-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Ihategod
08-31-2007 9:56 AM


Backing up the bus ... to start all over again
(Edited for readability)
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."
You can take this up with Message 32
Edited by RAZD, : ps

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 96 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 9:56 AM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Xaruan, posted 08-31-2007 1:01 PM RAZD has replied

  
Xaruan
Junior Member (Idle past 6052 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 08-31-2007


Message 99 of 212 (419024)
08-31-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
08-31-2007 12:04 PM


Re: Backing up the bus ... to start all over again
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2007 12:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2007 2:11 PM Xaruan has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 212 (419026)
08-31-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 11:28 PM


Re: Denial, Definitions and Reality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 11:28 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Xaruan, posted 08-31-2007 1:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 119 by Ihategod, posted 09-02-2007 1:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Xaruan
Junior Member (Idle past 6052 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 08-31-2007


Message 101 of 212 (419028)
08-31-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dr Adequate
08-31-2007 1:05 PM


Re: Denial, Definitions and Reality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2007 1:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Ihategod, posted 09-02-2007 2:06 AM Xaruan has not replied

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


Message 102 of 212 (419038)
08-31-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Xaruan
08-31-2007 1:01 PM


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?
You'd be surprised at how intransigent some people are -- see Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone) for example.
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 99 by Xaruan, posted 08-31-2007 1:01 PM Xaruan has not replied

  
Xaruan
Junior Member (Idle past 6052 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 08-31-2007


Message 103 of 212 (419063)
08-31-2007 5:03 PM


RAZD, that was a good post you linked to.
ev·o·lu·tion
3. 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 creationism
Feel 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-31-2007 5:06 PM Xaruan has not replied
 Message 105 by Brad McFall, posted 08-31-2007 5:22 PM Xaruan has replied
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2007 5:45 PM Xaruan has replied
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 6:19 AM Xaruan has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 104 of 212 (419064)
08-31-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Xaruan
08-31-2007 5:03 PM


Welcome to EvC, Xaruan.
Thanks for sharing these comments.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Xaruan, posted 08-31-2007 5:03 PM Xaruan has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 105 of 212 (419069)
08-31-2007 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Xaruan
08-31-2007 5:03 PM


extant vs extent
quote:
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).
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???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Xaruan, posted 08-31-2007 5:03 PM Xaruan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Xaruan, posted 08-31-2007 5:39 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024