Evolution by Definition

What the hell are you talking about? There is only ONE biological evolution. But just to be clear, can you name a few biological evolutions that you think exist? Let me guess, are you thinking about "micro" and "macro" evolution? If so, you've been misinformed.

Mac Arthur wrote in The Theory of the Niche

quote:

---

“People who insist that all such terms be operational will reject “niche” just as they must reject “phenotype” and “genotype, “ as involving an infinite number of measurements; but statements about differencesbetween niches are perfectly testable and that is all that matters. (In fact, the parallel between “niche “ and “phenotype” is more than formal. “Phenotype” embodies all the measurements which can be made on an individual during its lifetime, including those measurements which constitute its niche. Thus “phenotype” includes “niche.” And to the extent that all relevant phenotype parameters affect fitness, “niche” almost includes “phenotype.”) Hence, the term “niche” will mainly appear in comparative statements.

---

(page 160-1 in Population Biology and Evolution ed by Lewontin 1968).I feel you are hiding emergence in the “differences” inhere sometimes.But I personally think that Poincare’s complaint (in “Science and Method” that pasigraphers (think logicians if nothing else comes to mind) that finite numbers (whatever are thought in games or dice)are thought of in this roundabout (same word you used to mention Tesla) from infinity only hinges on Hilbert’s program giving the “feeling” of an empty form and yet if the infinity of MacArthur is really extant then it seems to fit in this roundabout way. So, I have invested Croizat’s method with a content of incidence geometry that is not ”empty’(http://www.axiompanbiog.com)which leaves your notion of emergence somewhat suspect even from a purely formal point of view. I know I have a rather odd perspective but hiding emergence between phenotype and genotype is easy to do as long as we really do not have a good handle on what *true* levels are or the long list of relations of physical forces to mutations as Tesla mentioned. If mutations are so important why is it that no one has found out how to relate physical forces to them mathematically? This is why Gould proposed three conditions for his levels of selection. He tries to avoid the whole thing logically.There was a recent (2004) article out of AMNH supporting Gould’s notion but it admitted THREE hierarchies (selective, ecological, and somatic (which might be part of ecological (they said). Regardless, these things really can only be thought about from the “roundabout” direction (Gould's or mine etc) if they are to remain only up to infinite induction of Pascal but should other infinite thought processes be involved, well, then the variables may not be infinite but the properties might not be emergent either. Gould simply wants to imagine emergence just like Poincare complained that Cantorians wanted to imagine the difference of cardinal and ordinal numbers. I really cant see any difference here and yet we have from MacArthur no less, that NS sees infinity itself. Poincare complaint was that one has to "select" what science to think about. This needs to be thought of in terms of natural selection. But with infinite measurements a la MacArthur we HAVE to use Cantorianism.This is actually the simplest way that I can resovle the tension in historical biogeography. To say otherwise implies a lot of smart people are actually stupid and the avergae person who knows little to nothing is more correct. That is hard to believe or fathom.If you wish to say that there is no need for all this in science, biology etc then for me with or without emergence, you need to explain why there has not developed a proper historical biogeography. If the answer simply is that history is by lucky accident then one has to say that Croizat's claim that there are patterns in distributions is just his imagination.If I die with only my imagination intact that is not a deal breaker for me. The loss is only for those who can not follow it.

glad you asked =) let me see..course i will probably miss some, and not properly name others..but in the spirit of solution ill try. ill shade the new terms.ill start at the top and work down: b-evolution being short for biological evolutionthis evolution would describe only the overall effects of b-evolution, such as the evolution of man or dog or full bodied creature. topics included would be: environmental evolution and its effects on the creature as a whole, and whole scale evolution of the creature within environments of the whole body. this evolution would focus on the inner workings of the bodies of the creature in question that is evolving, this topic would include massive evolutions of full body changes, as well as the cell evolutions within the bodies of the creatures and its DNA this evolution would describe the atomic evolutions within the DNA and components , but also would have to cite the relevance of changes by the environment that the creature did or does exist in, that could affect the cells on the atomic level.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You live in a fantasy world, dont you. Everything you just posted is outright crazy.You're literally making this crap up, it has zero connection to reality, and you dont even comprehend the words you're using.Atomic evolution?! Are you serious? Are you crazy, or just that completely clueless about any and all scientific topics?This is another case where you're so far off base that you're not even wrong - you've simply added the word "evolution" to a random bunch of what you think are sciency-sounding words, and imagined somehow that it makes some sort of sense. You are mistaken.You definitely win the Word Salad of the Year award, tesla, if nothing else.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Rahvin's right, Tesla: you don't make any sense. I'd tell you to edit your posts--you know, use punctuation and capital letters--but that would just make it easier to read the nonsense, and wouldn't cause this stuff to be sensical.Anyway, even if there were different "types" of evolution, they would all be considered, at most, factors contributing to an overall process, and only the overall process would be accurately called "evolution."Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar. See: I edit mine.

I really have no reply to this, as others have pointed out that your answers are so off they're not even wrong.Anyway, seeing how this is going nowhere and there really is no way for me to get through your walls of misconceptions, I'm officially out of this conversation. Good luck with your fantastic endeavors.

i wouldn't "expect" anything accept a pure evolutionist and biologist to understand what I'm saying.the scope of biological evolution is very large, encompassing archeology to chemistry, and a man needs to divide and work out the science in cooperation of the other fields in order to gain a greater understanding.the evolving of biological things are tied to its base components, and should not be ignored. thats why i added "atomic" evolution.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You are not welcome in this thread, Tesla.You don't seem to grasp the nature of the discussion.This will apply to other serious threads as well.

Hi Tesla,If I could just add my voice to AdminNosy's, you get much credit for being an original thinker, but you have to tie your ideas in to the real world, and you should mostly use accepted terminology instead of creating your own.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

it was just a suggestion.if someone is talking about biological evolution by archaeological evidence, and says "evolution" and wishes to remain scrutinizing the archaeological aspects, but another person pipes in with evidence from biological evolution concerning the chemistry of the body, and begins arguing points concerning that, not on topic of the archaeological aspects the poster wishes to discuss;then both are right in saying "evolution", but the topic of discussion that was wished to be pursued by the poster, has taken a turn for the worse.i didn't make these terms up to hurt anything, it was just a suggestion concerning how "biological evolution" can be misinterpreted when discussed in topics.all apologies for any offense

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You are playing a game that many of us would classify as the intellectually dishonest game. Instead of gleaning for the main points from our posts, you guibble at insignificant details, nitpick every mistake in our choices of words, and purposely being extremely dense and playing dumb. This is a game that many people, including myself, do not care to play.In an intellectually honest debate, we try to keep as true to the principlle of charity as we can. Instead of insisting on nitpicking the semantics, we actually try to see past the insignificant details and tackle at the main points.Let me be honest. The game that you are playing is very often used by the less educated because on a quick glance it makes them look really smart. They could literally make a college professor look like an illiterate from some third world country. This is the reason why it's so appealing to people like you.Sure, you could continue to play this game, or you could learn how to be intellectually honest. You're not fooling anyone here. Playing word games and committing every fallacy in the book might fool and impress the ordinary bystander, but you're not fooling those of us here who are honest about our limitations.

this is a lie.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Please keep discussion focused on the topic. If you have a complaint about a post or a member, please post to the Windsor castle thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

OK..how about this one?

evolutionist: specifically, a person who accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. More generally, it is often used by creationists as a blanket term to refer to anyone who places scientific evidence and theories above religious revelation.