Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 91 of 936 (803537)
04-01-2017 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by caffeine
04-01-2017 7:41 AM


Re: My definition
Reasonable comments, caffeine. Thank you. I don't think any definition will satisfy everyone. I was trying to give a concise definition, including only what was necessary, excluding the non-essential.
I think it can allow for multiple independent life forms having originated abiotically but only one, which could have been a chimera, became the ancestor for all living things today. I believe the prevailing opinion today.
It also doesn't exclude change, in fact a great deal of change would have been necessary to produce all of today's life forms from LUCA. But it does leave room for a discussion about whether all change is evolution.
I included abiogenesis specifically to exclude the position that life was created and evolved from there. Kerkut explicitly included it and I think Coyne also included it by his reference to a "self replicating molecule". It might not exclude everyone in the ID movement, I think at least some would accept an abiotic origin of the first life and most seem to accept evolution over millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by caffeine, posted 04-01-2017 7:41 AM caffeine has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 92 of 936 (803538)
04-01-2017 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
04-01-2017 12:12 PM


Re: My definition
I think the term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Huxley after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and formulated the Law of Biogenesis. At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 04-01-2017 12:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 04-01-2017 10:01 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2017 10:55 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2017 2:28 AM CRR has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 93 of 936 (803539)
04-01-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by CRR
04-01-2017 9:51 PM


Re: My definition
CRR writes:
I think the term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Huxley after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and formulated the Law of Biogenesis. At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution.
Which even if true would be totally irrelevant to how the terms are used today. Stop trying to play childish carny con games here or at least try to find some we have not been laughing at for decades.
Your definition has nothing to do with how the term is used or to9 your utterly false claim that it is an essential part of the thinking of most evolutionary biologists and inseparable from evolution.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by CRR, posted 04-01-2017 9:51 PM CRR has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 936 (803540)
04-01-2017 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by CRR
04-01-2017 9:51 PM


Re: My definition
I think the term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Huxley after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and formulated the Law of Biogenesis. At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution.
Let's examine what you think for any disconnect from reality.
The theory of evolution was formulated primarily by Darwin who wrote extensively on the Origin of Species (even titling his work as such) at a time when neither the mechanism for inheritable variation nor the origin of life was known. In short, the theory of evolution was entirely independent of abiogenesis from the very beginning.
In the context of arguments about evolution vs. Creationism that there may be a need or logical reason to raise the two in a discussion because Genesis itself covers the origin of life as well as the species. No question that the topic is relevant, but abiogenesis has not proceeded much beyond hypothesis. Panspermia as an alternative to abiogenesis would fill the spot for a suggested origin of life equally well.
Finally, how can your critique the theory of evolution by imposing your own definition? Wouldn't you just be critiquing some other theory that you made up?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by CRR, posted 04-01-2017 9:51 PM CRR has not replied

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


(2)
Message 95 of 936 (803550)
04-02-2017 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by CRR
04-01-2017 9:51 PM


Re: My definition
At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution.
"It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." --- Darwin, letter to Hooker, 1871.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by CRR, posted 04-01-2017 9:51 PM CRR has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 96 of 936 (803579)
04-02-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by CRR
04-01-2017 6:42 AM


Re: My definition
After reading previous discussion and having a good think on the subject I think the best definition of evolution overall is a slight modification of Kerkut’s;
Why would you not base your definition on the way it is defined by scientists working in the science of evolution? Is that not the only technical basis for a technical scientific definition -- to use it the way it is actually used in the actual science?
There are of course other uses of the word, but the one applicable to the science of evolution is the one used by the evolutionary scientists -- any other definition would just sow confusion and talking at cross purposes. Unless that is your intent.
Evolution is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself arose naturally from an inorganic form.
The key elements of this are abiogenesis and ascent from a last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
The theory of common descent is a prediction of the theory of evolution. As a (sub) theory it makes the prediction that all life can be explained by descent from a common ancestor. Falsifying this (sub) theory would not falsify the theory of evolution, just common descent. We know evolution occurs, we don't know if there was only one source population.
The "last universal common ancestor (LUCA)" is likewise a prediction of the (sub) theory of common descent.
Curiously neither the (sub) theory of common descent in specific nor the theory of evolution in general make any predictions about the origin of life, as they take life as a given and are only concerned with what happens between first life and now.
The definition from population genetics; a change in allele frequency in a population over time; is unsatisfactory because it focusses on only a part of the whole scope of evolution.
Possibly because population genetics is a sub-science within the science of evolution?
I find it unsatisfactory for use with fossils, as genetic material is notoriously difficult to find ... but the bones do tell the effects of genetics in the way they are expressed in the phenotype, and thus in the bones and their fossil record. Those bones can and do show patterns of hereditary traits when the genetics are unknown.
That definition also does not include any reference to driving conditions for evolution, not just natural selection, but the effects of the changing ecological matrix that enmeshes all living species. The evolution of one species affects the species it interacts with, generating evolutionary responses in return.
These are the reasons I use "hereditary traits" instead of alleles, and why I added "in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats" to the definition for (micro) evolution.
Now I know that some people will object to including abiogenesis in the definition but I think it is an essential part of the thinking of most evolutionary biologists and inseparable from evolution.
Possibly, just possibly, because the way the science of evolution does not include the study of abiogenesis, leaving that to the science of abiogenesis. Just like they don't include the study of physics nor the study of chemistry.
It's kind of like saying that you can't study the bible without studying how written language and stories originated.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by CRR, posted 04-01-2017 6:42 AM CRR has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2328 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 97 of 936 (804084)
04-07-2017 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
11-14-2005 4:10 PM


I define evolution in three words, not 90.
"OP stated "I ask that all definitions be less than 90 words in total. Keep it short, clear, and to the point. No justifications, no rationales, no references. Don’t go look it up then write what you read in your own words. Just post your concise opinion. Note that for reference, this paragraph, including these last sentences, contains 90 words as counted by Microsoft Word. I have added a little extra BS just to get this close to the exact value so we will have an easy reference. Three more words.""
Luck and Chance
All evolution comes down to luck and chance, magical beneficial mutations.
My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE"

.
Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.
The Lord created science and all things. Laws did not create themselves. Nothing happened by chance and accident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 11-14-2005 4:10 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 04-07-2017 10:25 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 99 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 10:57 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2017 11:02 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2017 11:08 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 103 by Diomedes, posted 04-07-2017 1:26 PM Davidjay has replied
 Message 107 by CRR, posted 04-10-2017 5:45 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 98 of 936 (804135)
04-07-2017 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 1:11 AM


My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE"
Nobody cares what your definition is.
Scientists get to define the terms they use, not preachers who are 180 anti-science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 1:11 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 99 of 936 (804146)
04-07-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 1:11 AM


My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE"
Aw, sweet. I found a picture of evolution.
See evolution IS real.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 1:11 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by jar, posted 04-07-2017 11:00 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 100 of 936 (804148)
04-07-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by herebedragons
04-07-2017 10:57 AM


hbd writes:
Aw, sweet. I found a picture of evolution.
And, just as in reality, the House wins.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 10:57 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 101 of 936 (804149)
04-07-2017 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 1:11 AM


Davidjay writes:
My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE"
Almost. Try
CHANCE and SELECTION.
Then you'd at least be in the right ball park.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 1:11 AM Davidjay has not replied

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


(1)
Message 102 of 936 (804150)
04-07-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 1:11 AM


Luck and Chance
All evolution comes down to luck and chance, magical beneficial mutations.
My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE"
Why do you bother to drool out this stupid lie to an audience of people all of whom know that you're lying? Whom do you hope to deceive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 1:11 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(3)
Message 103 of 936 (804161)
04-07-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 1:11 AM


The Scientific Creationist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 1:11 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Davidjay, posted 04-08-2017 9:33 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2328 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 104 of 936 (804332)
04-08-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Diomedes
04-07-2017 1:26 PM


Thanks for the pic, HEREbedragons.
But lets narrow down the words even further and be more precise.
ONE WORD
LUCK
for luck and chance are basically the same. Lucky mutations, and lucky selections. Keep rolling the dice, evolutionists hoping in true faith for a better outcome to your theory and sadly to your lives.
But theres still time to push away from the table before you are absolutely broke.
Evolution can be summed up in one word .. LUCK

.
Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.
The Lord created science and all things. Laws did not create themselves. Nothing happened by chance and accident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Diomedes, posted 04-07-2017 1:26 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2017 10:14 AM Davidjay has not replied

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


Message 105 of 936 (804338)
04-08-2017 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Davidjay
04-08-2017 9:33 AM


Why do you keep telling this lie? Whom do you hope to deceive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Davidjay, posted 04-08-2017 9:33 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by dwise1, posted 04-08-2017 5:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024