Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 12:45 AM
17 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Evolution and the BIG LIE
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 61 of 108 (442541)
12-21-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Cold Foreign Object
12-21-2007 2:57 PM


Re: Notes for Ray
Mayr said two things:

1. Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies (said in Preface).

2. But genetics is important to evolutionary theory (importance explained in the chapters).

The point I was making using Mayr was to have a source that rejects a gene-centric definition of evolution. Mayr rejects evolution defined at the genetic level but he admits genetics is important to evolutionary theory. Pease do not misrepresent this issue or the plain points I have made above. I think you need to acknowledge that not EVERY evolutionist defines 'evolution' at the genetic level, RAZD.

Nor do I, seeing as my definition given previously of evolution is "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" and that is not a genetic definition ... your point would be? Also, I find the genetic definition impossible to use outside of instances where you can actually measure genetics, such as with fossils.

I also showed you (the definition of evolution, message 192) that Mayr said

quote:
Evolution is best understood as the genetic turnover of the individuals of every population from generation to generation.
-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.76

Molecular genetics has found that mutations frequently occur in which the new allele produces no change in the fitness of the phenotype. ... Evolution involves the fitness of individuals and populations, not of genes. When a genotype, favored by selection, carries along as hitchhikers a few newly arisen and strictly neutral alleles, it has no influence on evolution. This may be called evolutionary "noise," but it is not evolution. ... Having no effect on the phenotype, they are immune to selection.
-- ibid p.199


And as I said before, here we have an explicit statement where he explains why "a change in gene frequencies" is not evolution, in his opinion, because it involves genes that are not subject to selection, while he says previously that genes that are subject to selection are evolution. See the distinction?

Here you have stipulated a definition, which is fine.

Good. So we can now move on to how a definition for a "theory of evolution" could be phrased?

Now, what is the "big lie" told by Creationists? I assume you are talking about Creationists that accept microevolution? RAZD, what do these Creationists propose for a mechanism accomplishing the micro-changes?

The lie is that this is not evolution. That it is just variation and adaptation. Surely you seen those claims. It doesn't matter what scale it is, this is still evolution, hereditary traits subject to selection (to use Mayr). The lie is that 'evolution doesn't occur' (but we'll call it something else and allow that to occur - the name shell game).

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 58 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-21-2007 2:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-21-2007 5:17 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 62 of 108 (442557)
12-21-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Elmer
12-21-2007 2:27 AM


Discussion with Elmer, getting bogged down in details
My problem was with your OP definition, which is little diffferent from your last statement, "A Theory of Evolution is that all the diversity of life is explained by a synthesis of theories on how hereditary traits in populations change from generation to generation." First, at this stage we are supposedly defining 'evolution' itself. Once that is done we can move on to an explanion of what causes evolution.

BTW, when we begin talking about developing a valid 'theory',for the mechanism that drives evolution, we should do that without 'a priori' peconceptions of what it is, working from the decided definition of the phenomenon to hypotheses regarding its causation that can be empirically observed, tested, and verified in scientific [empirical]rather than metaphysical terms.

Now, above, you say "A" theory of evolution, which would make more grammatical sense if, instead of "A" , you said "One", implying that more than one exists, which is true, or "The", which implies that only one 'theory'of evolution exists, which is not true. Even granting that there is one hypothesis of evolution which is called, by its adherents, "THE" theory of evolution.

Again, let's come back to this when we talk about the theory of evolution (Part 2) and not the process (Part 1).

As it happens, that hypothesis sounds suspiciously similar to what you describe in your statement. This leads me to believe that you are not looking for a proper empirical definition of 'evolution' per se, but rather, presnting, 'fait accompli', a tendentious, notional definition of evolution that has built into it a presupposed and pre-accepted explanation for evolution. This, to me, smacks of circular argument and question-begging.

Do you agree that variation and adaptation occur? Further, that it occurs in all populations of all species from one generation to another whenever investigated? It doesn't need to be major selection going on, as someone (Fisher I believe) calculated that a <1% rate of selection per generation was enough to cause a major long term trend.

Can we go with "evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

... or do we need to stay with "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"?

... or do we need to stay with "'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"?

"Selectionist" is defined thusly--"somebody supporting natural selection: a believer or promoter of the theory that natural selection is the chief or only force governing biological development"

Needless to say we would all be 'selectionist' if there were no dissenters to this notion, i,e., if there were no 'other side' to the 'evolution's mechanism' debate.

Facts are self-evident. They are data, observations of what is. But in and of themselves they are meaningless. What matters are the inferences drawn from facts, and the hypotheses derived from these inferences, and finally the principles/theories derived once these hypotheses have been validated via the well-known scientific method.

In the selectionist pov, the fact of random genetic mutation is sufficient to explain evolution, without taking the necessary steps that lie between observed fact and established universal principle.

IAC, although 'random genetic mutations' are factual,what is not factual is the assumption that all and every genetic mutation is accidental, i.e., random. Nor that these random mutations can account for increased biosystem productivity, just as they have been empirically shown to account for decreased biosystem productivity.

All of which doesn't relate to whether evolution or RAZDism occurs, so we can hold that for discussing the theory issue if we need to. I'll just note that the fact of relativity was not self-evident to Newton, and that you've got some assumptions here that may not be true.

I'm disappointed that you believe that. AFAIAC, I'm digging out implied assumptions and revealing that these assumptions are often unfounded, illogica, and downright false. No matter how plausible they sound at first blush.

Well it seems that your posts are frequently like you get the ball, put your head down and run for the endzone before checking that it's the right one first.

Let's keep this real simple and talk about whether we can we go with "evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" or if we need to stay with "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation" for now. or if we need to stay with "'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" for now.

Message 57

Well, in truth, where biological evolution is concerned, and aside from those rare instances where one organism consciously or, more oftern unconsciously, selects one member of the opposite sex to be its sexual partner and so join in the mutual effort of generating offspring, [that is, what is commonly called, 'sexual selection], selection' is as far from being a 'fact' as it is possible to get. It is only a notional mental construct when presented as if it were a causal mechanism in the specified and universal sense that science requires for efficient causes. And it is only a vacuous truism when presented as an observed current state of ecological affairs. And finally, it is only an arbitrary, ad hoc, label for the generality of statistical quantitative changes/fluctuations in the organismic contents of ecosystems and 'populations' over time.

Nobody has as yet observed, either in the lab or in nature, a case where random genetic mutation is indisputably the causal mechanism for an increase in the productivity of a biosystem. That is simply the metaphysical assumption that some people make and propose be accepted as a 'given', even as an empirical 'fact'. Moreover, human experience with productive systems in general, especially productive machine systems, is in direct contradiction to this assumption, since always and everywhere it is observed that accidental change to such systems invariably decrease productivity, and never increase it.

Okay, so you are in denial about the occurrence of selection and random mutation (or confused at any rate), no problem: we can discuss this when we get to the application of the theory of evolution (if we ever get there) to the evidence of evolution (Part 3) - if we need to.

Also, nobody has ever observed, in the lab or in the field, a case in which 'natural selection' rises above the level of a meaningless truism, that is a trivial observation of an effect, i.e., the
current state of local ecosystem composition.

In other words it is a trivial meaningless truism whenever it is an actual observed fact?

Of course 'heredity' is a part of evolution, and is subsumed within that process. I never denied it. Evolution is more than just 'any old change in an organism'.
What I _am_ denying is the neo-darwinian, 'Modern Synthesis', Fisherian assumption-- that evolution is subsumed within genetics, [including population genetics]. That is, the condition wherein evolution is reduced to being just one facet of the study of heredity. The opinion that evolution is merely an epiphenomenon of faulty inheritance mechanisms.

And we can talk about this when we get to the application of the theory to examples of evolution (Part 3).

You can, of course, call it whatever you wish. The trick is to get people to agree with you. Inherited variety wrt traits, [which I take you to mean by "hereditary variation and adaptation"] can be unchanging, constant, static within a particular taxon, or can be seen as constantly changing and reconfiguring itself between individual members of that taxon, with no reference to 'evolution' whatsoever--IOW, just heredity, plain and simple.

The trick is to reach common understanding of what the terms we are using mean. Such as taxon (you'd be better to use "kind" as a typical creationist vague term and which we all understand to mean a vague group of individuals).

I think it necessary to arrive at a generally accepted definition of the process [evolution] itself, apsrt from its supposed causal mechanisms.

So, can we go with "evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

... or do we need to stay with "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"?

... or do we need to stay with "'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"?

No causal mechanisms there.

BUT, if you think that this thread is only about the proposition that evolution, per se, is a real phenomenon, rather than a hypothetical one, then you need to confine your debate to creationists. Since I am not one of their number, my opinions are irrelevent to your issue, and perhaps I should bow out?

Whether you call it "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" or "the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation" it is an observed and documented real phenomenon, a fact. Speciation has been observed and is another documented real phenomenon, a fact. Denial of these facts does not make them go away.

The issue is to recognize this fact, this reality in our everyday objective reality world ...

... and then move on to theory/ies on mechanisms, and whether or not we can apply this to all the diversity of life we know.

btw -- I think you can see why it is important to focus on each step and not be carried away into other areas just because "evolution" means a process, OR a theory/ies OR a science (study).

So which is it?

(1) "evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR perhaps

(1a) "(micro)evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR

(2) "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"?

(2) "'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"?

OR

(2a) "'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : 1a added

Edited by RAZD, : subtractions & additions

Edited by RAZD, : 2a


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 55 by Elmer, posted 12-21-2007 2:27 AM Elmer has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 63 of 108 (442566)
12-21-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
12-21-2007 3:49 PM


Back On Topic
Nor do I, seeing as my definition given previously of evolution is "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" and that is not a genetic definition ... your point would be?

According to your own arguments said definition is based - in part - on a genetic-based definition. Don't get me wrong: I actually like it because it is not overtly genetic-based or centric.

You know EvC member Elmer has, in my view, gone to great lengths to conceal his bias. But based on things he has said he is a Ernst Mayr evolutionist; rejects "Fisherian school" conclusions for the definition of 'evolution' which is terminology straight out of "One Long Argument" (Mayr 1991). He has also taken you to task for a gene-centric component definition of evolution which also corresponds to Mayr's view; and he has specifically stated that unless the phenotype is effected it is not evolution which again corresponds to Mayr's view. I have all of these books written by Mayr, and when I read Elmer I can hear Mayr speaking.

The point is: you want it both ways at the same time. If someone criticizes you for gene-centricism you have an out. If someone criticizes you for a Mayr-Naturalist-based definition you have an out.

But your definition is stated and proposed as stipulated which is perfectly legitimate. It is invulnerable on this "up-front" basis alone.

Also, I find the genetic definition impossible to use outside of instances where you can actually measure genetics, such as with fossils.

Good point. And again that was one of Mayr's reasons for rejecting the gene-centricism of the Ronald Fisherian school. And once more: we are only talking about the best definition of 'evolution'. Mayr wants it in visible reality based on inference and out of the microscopic world of genetics. And again: Elmer is correct when he pointed out that there are genetic changes that have nothing to do with evolution.

And as I said before, here we have an explicit statement where he explains why "a change in gene frequencies" is not evolution, in his opinion, because it involves genes that are not subject to selection, while he says previously that genes that are subject to selection are evolution. See the distinction?

Of course.

Good. So we can now move on to how a definition for a "theory of evolution" could be phrased?

Why? Is not this topic about your stipulated definition and its relation to the views of certain Creationists?

The lie is that this is not evolution.

Do they not accept microevolution?

That it is just variation and adaptation. Surely you seen those claims.

Yes, I have. But my understanding is that they accept microevolution within kinds, which is simply saying that a genetic barrier exists preventing macroevolution.

It doesn't matter what scale it is, this is still evolution

And they accept microevolution - right?

The lie is that 'evolution doesn't occur' (but we'll call it something else and allow that to occur - the name shell game).

You probably have a point. If they accept microevolution you have a point. Personally, I do not see how a Creationist can accept microevolution. It will inevitably lead to points that you are making. This is why some time ago I announced that my view had changed: I reject microevolution to have ever occurred. Apparently these Creationists do not see the damning position that they are in.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2007 3:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2007 5:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 64 of 108 (442583)
12-21-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object
12-21-2007 5:17 PM


Re: Back On Topic
Thanks Ray,
According to your own arguments said definition is based - in part - on a genetic-based definition. Don't get me wrong: I actually like it because it is not overtly genetic-based or centric.

You know EvC member Elmer has, in my view, gone to great lengths to conceal his bias. ... when I read Elmer I can hear Mayr speaking.

The point is: you want it both ways at the same time. If someone criticizes you for gene-centricism you have an out. If someone criticizes you for a Mayr-Naturalist-based definition you have an out.

Both those comments occurred to me, that is why I put in the spectrum in my response to Elmer:


-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 00 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10
___|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___

I fully concur with Mayr (and many others) that selection occurs on the phenotype, the individual organism that succeeds in surviving to breed to the best of their (relative) ability.

I disagree with Mayr (as do many others) that neutral drift is not an element of evolution, if for no other reason than these "neutral" elements are not negative elements. Personally I think they are important to allow elements to be dispersed in populations to increase diversity within the population and give the species protection against random ecological change or an opportunity to invade new ecologies.

Consider that a certain phenotype may have a selectively neutral version of a trait while other phenotypes had -2 selectively negative or +2 selectively positive versions and thus the trait could affect the success of the others in comparison to the one with the neutral version: that's a selective difference.

Good point. And again that was one of Mayr's reasons for rejecting the gene-centricism of the Ronald Fisherian school. And once more: we are only talking about the best definition of 'evolution'. Mayr wants it in visible reality based on inference and out of the microscopic world of genetics. And again: Elmer is correct when he pointed out that there are genetic changes that have nothing to do with evolution.

Mayr came to evolution from being a field naturalist (specializing in birds IIRC), so this is a natural result.

Do they not accept microevolution?
And they accept microevolution - right?
Yes, I have. But my understanding is that they accept microevolution within kinds, which is simply saying that a genetic barrier exists preventing macroevolution.

Yes, but not that it is {EVOLUTION}.

You probably have a point. If they accept microevolution you have a point. Personally, I do not see how a Creationist can accept microevolution. It will inevitably lead to points that you are making. This is why some time ago I announced that my view had changed: I reject microevolution to have ever occurred. Apparently these Creationists do not see the damning position that they are in.

Life gets interesting Ray.

So, are we on for

(1) "(micro)evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"

OR

(2) "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"

to move ahead with?

Edited by RAZD, : added


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-21-2007 5:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2007 1:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 65 of 108 (442729)
12-22-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
12-21-2007 5:45 PM


Re: Back On Topic
Life gets interesting Ray.

So, are we on for

(1) "(micro)evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"

OR

(2) "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"

to move ahead with?

Both.

But what is the point?

Where are you going with this?

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2007 5:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 11:08 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 66 of 108 (442989)
12-23-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object
12-22-2007 1:37 PM


Waiting for Elmer
Both.
But what is the point?
Where are you going with this?

Next will be Part 2 - a theory developed from Part 1 (the process). I am probably going to reword it from the previous version (to prevent inadvertent misunderstanding of which evolution applies where) and change the emPHAsis for clarity, but I want to get Elmer on board with the process for a base first.

So, for Elmer (from Message 62):

So which is it?

(1) "evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR perhaps

(1a) "(micro)evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR

(2) "'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"?

OR

(2a) "'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : emPHAsis

Edited by RAZD, : (2) was "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"? - changed for consistency and clarity

Edited by RAZD, : 2a


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2007 1:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Elmer, posted 12-23-2007 4:32 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4101 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 67 of 108 (443054)
12-23-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
12-23-2007 11:08 AM


Re: Waiting for Elmer
Hi;

Must have been a communication breakdown, since I've been waiting for you to answer the question with which I closed my last response to you; that is, in view of the fact that I am not a creationist and that seems to be your focus, do you want me to drop out of the debate? I received no reply, and since you and ray have been quite busy responding to each other, I assumed that you weren't interested in my thoughts.

But, sine you invite me to continue--


So, for Elmer (from Message 62):

So which is it?
(1) "evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR perhaps

(1a) "(micro)evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR

(2) "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"?

Enjoy.

If your are asking me to endorse any of the above, I cannot. My own definition would be something like this--

Evolution is change in organisms, over generations, in those intrinsic, inherent, morphological, physiological, and instinctive behavioural traits which, by their continuing presence, form the empirical parameters that characterize and identify a particular taxonomic group; eg., a herring gull, a spruce tree, a dog. Minor, trivial, non-vital changes to this historically established set of organismic properties constitute micro-evolution, whereas robust, vital changes to the above are macro-evolutionary. It must be noted that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are usually determined on the basis of their contribution to the basic, vital functioning [survival] of that class of organism.

Is there anything in your post 62 that you'd particularly like me to go back to and address?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 11:08 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 4:56 PM Elmer has responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 68 of 108 (443061)
12-23-2007 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Elmer
12-23-2007 4:32 PM


Re: Waiting for Elmer
If your are asking me to endorse any of the above, I cannot. My own definition would be something like this--

Evolution is change in organisms, over generations, in those intrinsic, inherent, morphological, physiological, and instinctive behavioural traits which, by their continuing presence, form the empirical parameters that characterize and identify a particular taxonomic group; eg., a herring gull, a spruce tree, a dog. Minor, trivial, non-vital changes to this historically established set of organismic properties constitute micro-evolution, whereas robust, vital changes to the above are macro-evolutionary. It must be noted that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are usually determined on the basis of their contribution to the basic, vital functioning [survival] of that class of organism.

Elmer: I am taking the liberty here in an attempt to reiterate what I think RAZD is trying to accomplish.

YOUR definition of evolution (as articulated above) is essentially what is called a stipulated definition because it is your own and because it contains no references in support. While I am sure you could provide references for each claim or component, and that the same is based on scientific facts - all of this is beside the point because the point is that because your definition has no references and it is your own definition - admittedly - it is therefore stipulated.

RAZD has done the same thing. He has repeatedly pointed out that his definition, while being based on a conglomeration of sources, is stipulated; and he ASKS persons to accept it on this basis for the sake of the debate or the discussion. RAZDs definition of the evolutionary process appears in yellow lettering through-out his posts. It is a working definition that only needs to be understood, and those participating need only to announce that they understand this, and that if they participate in the debate or discussion they will work with his stipulated definition (which he offered to amend early on).

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Elmer, posted 12-23-2007 4:32 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Elmer, posted 12-23-2007 5:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4101 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 69 of 108 (443080)
12-23-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object
12-23-2007 4:56 PM


Re: Waiting for Elmer
Hi ray;

You say--


quote:

If your are asking me to endorse any of the above, I cannot. My own definition would be something like this--
Evolution is change in organisms, over generations, in those intrinsic, inherent, morphological, physiological, and instinctive behavioural traits which, by their continuing presence, form the empirical parameters that characterize and identify a particular taxonomic group; eg., a herring gull, a spruce tree, a dog. Minor, trivial, non-vital changes to this historically established set of organismic properties constitute micro-evolution, whereas robust, vital changes to the above are macro-evolutionary. It must be noted that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are usually determined on the basis of their contribution to the basic, vital functioning [survival] of that class of organism.

Elmer: I am taking the liberty here in an attempt to reiterate what I think RAZD is trying to accomplish.

YOUR definition of evolution (as articulated above) is essentially what is called a stipulated definition because it is your own and because it contains no references in support.

Actually, you might call my definition of evolution, above, 'idiosyncratic', but it will not be, 'stipulated', until those 'to whom it may concern', agree to it. A thing is 'stipulated'when it settled upon, agreed to, by those involved-- be it a decision, a date, a definition, a quantity, a time, or whatever.

If and when all here agree to accept my definition of evolution, or any other, then that definition, at least among ourselves, will become 'stipulate'. In fact, as I originally understood the purpose of this thread, it was to stipulate [agree upon] a definition for evolution.


While I am sure you could provide references for each claim or component, and that the same is based on scientific facts - all of this is beside the point because the point is that because your definition has no references and it is your own definition - admittedly - it is therefore stipulated.

Let us say that my definition is idiosyncratic, that peculiar to myself and deviating the popular, common, and customary definition, has nothing to do with whether or not it is a better or worse definition. That depends on what people are trying to get out of a definition. I think that a scientific definition of any phenomenon is best when it is strictly empirical, with no built-in suppositions, assumptions, or judgents.


RAZD has done the same thing. He has repeatedly pointed out that his definition, while being based on a conglomeration of sources, is stipulated; and he ASKS persons to accept it on this basis for the sake of the debate or the discussion.

RAZD keeps pointing out that his definition of evolution is the one stipulated by darwinists, that is, population geneticists, biochemists, and molecular biologists. And he is correct about that. That is, in fact the stipulated molecular definition of evolution. As far as I'm concerned, that is fine for defining how chemicals evolve, but as for myself, I'm looking for a definition that applies to live organisms, not macromolecules.


RAZDs definition of the evolutionary process appears in yellow lettering through-out his posts. It is a working definition that only needs to be understood,

OTC, his definitions are easily understood--provided you start with certain set of metaphysical preconceptions--that is, a certain implicit 'faith component'. Without that 'faith' they can still be 'understood', but understood to be, at best, dubious.


and those participating need only to announce that they understand this, and that if they participate in the debate or discussion they will work with his stipulated definition (which he offered to amend early on).

If RAZD says that his definition is still open to amendment, then he is claiming that it is not yet 'stipulated'. But the facts in his case, as I see them, is that he is really only trying to find a way to 'word' the stipulated definition for materialist molecular evolution agreed upon by geneticists, et al, in such a way that might sound agreeable to people who think biological evolution is about organisms, not chemicals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 4:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 6:45 PM Elmer has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 PM Elmer has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 70 of 108 (443098)
12-23-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Elmer
12-23-2007 5:52 PM


Working on a common terminology for Elmer
Thanks Elmer,

RAZD keeps pointing out that his definition of evolution is the one stipulated by darwinists, that is, population geneticists, biochemists, and molecular biologists. And he is correct about that. That is, in fact the stipulated molecular definition of evolution.

It also works for field naturalists measuring beak size in finches on the Galapagos islands and for paleontologists comparing traits in fossils. It also includes epigenetic effects as well as genetic traits in development of organisms and the phenotype that is subject to selection. Just for clarification.

That is, in fact the stipulated molecular definition of evolution. As far as I'm concerned, that is fine for defining how chemicals evolve, but as for myself, I'm looking for a definition that applies to live organisms, not macromolecules.

If RAZD says that his definition is still open to amendment, then he is claiming that it is not yet 'stipulated'. But the facts in his case, as I see them, is that he is really only trying to find a way to 'word' the stipulated definition for materialist molecular evolution agreed upon by geneticists, et al, in such a way that might sound agreeable to people who think biological evolution is about organisms, not chemicals.

Are you saying that hereditary traits do not change in populations from generation to generation? Changes in beak size in Galapagos finches for example? Just curious.

In fact I know of no species population that does not show change in hereditary traits from generation to generation, so I have trouble understanding your point.

What I am looking for is a common ground on which to build a discussion. For this we do not need your definition of evolution, we need to recognize the factual existence of certain basic processes in life. We can call it something else, like "variation and adaptation" or "RAZDism," if necessary to get around common misunderstandings caused by using the word "evolution" ...

Message 67


So, for Elmer (from Message 62):

So which is it?
(1) "evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR perhaps

(1a) "(micro)evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR

(2) "'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in a population from generation to generation"?

OR

(2a) "'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in a population from generation to generation"?

Enjoy.

If your are asking me to endorse any of the above, I cannot. My own definition would be something like this--

I am not really interested in what your definition of "evolution" is at this point, especially when they include any confusion in "taxon" definitions. What I am interested in is your agreement that the process occurs, and then what we should call it for further discussion:

(1) "'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ...

OR

(2) "'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"

Think of this as describing in general terms what is observed in the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches from one generation to the next (whether the beaks get bigger or smaller).

Thanks.

Edited by RAZD, : phenotype

Edited by RAZD, : reorg for clarity

Edited by RAZD, : (2) was "'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation"? -- clarity and consistency

Edited by RAZD, : more clarity

Edited by RAZD, : 2 - 2a & 2a - 2

Edited by RAZD, : a s


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 69 by Elmer, posted 12-23-2007 5:52 PM Elmer has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 71 of 108 (443102)
12-23-2007 7:05 PM


Summary
Note that this is not much different from the initial position, edited to show changes to date (with additions and subtractions):

Message 1

We'll start with the process, where evolution RAZDism is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation

Where:
trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, or the length of a bone, or the size of a skull, or the color of an eye, or the thickness of hair, etc.,
change is a measurable quantifiable difference in a trait, such as the number, length or color,
hereditary means that it is passed from parent to child offspring,
population means a group of individual organisms of the same species, and
generation is the average time it takes for a newborn to become able to reproduce.

The major difference seems to be a preference to use other words than "evolution" at this time.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 72 of 108 (443133)
12-23-2007 8:10 PM


Notice of edit affecting several responses
I have made a general edit of "RAZDism" to be more consistent with the general creationist substitution of "variation and adaptation" for "(micro)evolution" and usually added "variation and adaptation" as another alternative.

Subtractions have be struck out, like:

"'RAZDism' is the hereditary variation and adaptation in a population from generation to generation."

Additions are underlined, as in:

"'RAZDism' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation."

OR

'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

This is similar to "track changes" in word documents. The messages edited are Message 53, Message 54, Message 62, Message 64, Message 66, and Message 70

The purpose is discussion of the basic process without confusion of what it is called. This also keeps the definitions of the words from Message 1.

Sorry for any confusion my confusion has caused anyone.

Thanks.

Edited by RAZD, : listed changes


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 73 of 108 (443564)
12-25-2007 5:17 PM


Adding speciation to the mix
Speciation, how does it fit in?

From one well known creationists:

quote:
... John Woodmorappe,2 in his book on the reasonableness of Noah’s ark, used the genus level as the average for the Genesis kinds. He ended up with only 16,000 animals that needed to be on Noah’s ark.3 So, there would have been plenty of room on the ark for all the animals that would have repopulated the earth after the Flood.

Giving you ~8,000 kinds,

or creationist organizations like AiG:

quote:
How many animals were on Noah’s Ark? If created kinds really are families, as few as 2,000 individual animals might have been on the Ark.10

Giving you ~1,000 kinds.

This requires a lot of rapid and continual adaptation and variation since any theoretical "flood date" and it requires a vast amount of division of populations into new species to account for the diversity of life today:

quote:
Currently, scientists have named and successfully classified over 1.5 million species. It is estimated that there are as little as 2 million to as many as 50 million more species that have not yet been found and/or have been incorrectly classified.
Even using 1.5 million known species and 8,000 "original kinds" means each on average resulted in 1,500,000/8,000 = 187.5 species per kind and increasing, a rather permanent result.

This brings up the issue of "speciation" which occurs when one population divides into two (or more) populations that no longer interbreed, and they are considered different species. This too is an accepted process in creationism:

quote:
... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind, ...

This gives us variation and adaptation within species and the division of populations by speciation, both as common and accepted processes within the world of creationism:

  • 'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation
  • 'speciation' is the division of a single species into two (or more) species.
That should be enough for further discussion.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : improved link



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.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 12-25-2007 6:16 PM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31076
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 74 of 108 (443569)
12-25-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
12-25-2007 5:17 PM


Re: Adding speciation to the mix
You need to adjust for clean and unclean "kinds".

Genesis 7 writes:

1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

So to get the number of Kinds you need to divide based on the ratio of clean to unclean, so there are either 7 or 14 of each clean kind and 2 or 4 of each unclean. The strict reading of the passage would be 14 clean (7 each male and female) and four unclean (2 each male and female).

What the ratio of clean to unclean is exactly is open to whatever fudge factor you want.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2007 5:17 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2007 6:52 PM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 75 of 108 (443576)
12-25-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
12-25-2007 6:16 PM


Re: Adding speciation to the mix
You need to adjust for clean and unclean "kinds".

I've got a number that by two counts (out of unknown hundreds?) varies from ~1,000 to ~8,000 and you want to subtract ~{6n/2}(n=1→∞+/-)? :D

What the ratio of clean to unclean is exactly is open to whatever fudge factor you want.

Depends on the amount of soap available ... and how much fudge they got into.

Let's say we have "several thousand" kinds on the (supposed) ark and "several million" species today, and we note that every "kind" would qualify as a species today, and that leaves us with a number of "speciation events" as being necessary to the "flood" model of life. The exact number doesn't matter.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ∞

Edited by RAZD, : 7-1=6


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 74 by jar, posted 12-25-2007 6:16 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019