|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2272 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Darwinsim IS the theory of common descent. Variation, adaptation, and natural selection all were recognised before Charles Darwin. So was the Tree of Life. What Darwin did was use the former to explain the latter.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
To clarify for Dredge, Darwinian evolution involves common descent. However the extent of that common descent is identified by evidence, not required by the theory.
Thus, universal common descent is not an important part of the theory, simply a conclusion from the evidence.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2272 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms. Darwin of course knew nothing of the genetic code. Since then we have discovered the genetic code and that it is universal with only minor variations. Hence most evolutionists today believe there was a universal common ancestor. So I would say that today universal common descent IS an important part of the theory
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Because the evidence pointed that way, even in his day.
quote: But only because of the evidence. If the evidence pointed in a different direction - to a few rather than a single ancestral form - it would not make much difference to the theory at all.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CRR writes: Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms. Well yes, that's what this was all about.
He came to that picture - his hypothesis - from the evidence he'd gathered from fossils and his ideas about changes over time leading to speciation.
Darwin of course knew nothing of the genetic code. Since then we have discovered the genetic code and that it is universal with only minor variations. Hence most evolutionists today believe there was a universal common ancestor. So I would say that today universal common descent IS an important part of the theory Yes, Darwin's ideas were later confirmed by DNA. And again yes, common descent (not necessarily universal) is an important part of the theory. It's actually integral to the theory - it's a result of the evolutionary process. But so what, why are you so obsessed with it? Why do you think it helps your arguments in any way?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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Darwinsim IS the theory of common descent. Variation, adaptation, and natural selection all were recognised before Charles Darwin. So was common descent, by some people. But, as I have pointed out, before Darwin people didn't understand variation and natural selection. They thought of natural selection as being conservative and keeping a check on variation, not as directional and producing adaptation. So that was one of Darwin's contributions: the development of the theory of evolution. The other was to amass a lot of evidence for the fact of evolution and for how much of a role it had played in the history of life. Darwinism is quite a good name for the principle of common descent combined with the theory of evolution. But to say that it "IS the theory of common descent" and to actually exclude natural selection from it is silly; besides which we already have a phrase meaning common descent. It's "common descent". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: I agree, Taq, universal common ancestry is inseparable from both Darwin's theory of evolution and the modern synthesis. Strange that you would characterize my posts in such a manner since I said the exact opposite.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: Mountains of pseudo-evidence, more like it. Care to give an example?
Er, what you refer to as an "obsession with definitions" might have something to with the fact that the topic we are discussing is entitled, "How do you define the word Evolution?" That a creationist would start a thread on the definition of evolution only further highlights the obsession that creationists have with definitions, as opposed to facts and science.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: Darwinsim IS the theory of common descent. False. Darwin's book was all about descent with modification as caused by natural selection. Nowhere did he claim in the original book that all life shared a universal common ancestor.
Variation, adaptation, and natural selection all were recognised before Charles Darwin. Can you please cite an earlier work that theorized descent with modification by natural selection?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms. Therefore, Darwinism did not include universal common descent as a required condition.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: Care to give an example? The fossil record.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Mountains of pseudo-evidence, more like it. Taq writes: Care to give an example? The fossil record. You mean like this?
quote: Care to show how this is "pseudo-evidence"? Or do you have some silly example to share? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : Dredge quote added Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: The fossil record. How is the fossil record "pseudo-evidence"?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The fossil record. By the way, referencing the topic, I defined evolution as:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. The graphic in my previous post, Message 657, shows this occurring continually with each level of fossils showing a shift in the frequency of the traits for size. Here it is again:
So this is objective empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution (that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the evidence). Can you explain why you think this is "pseudo-evidence" for evolution? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2272 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
This is thread is for definitions of Evolution. You don't need to argue about whether it is a valid theory or not.
Evolution is the official personal information manager for GNOME. It combines e-mail, address book, calendar, task list and note-taking features. Its user interface and functionality is similar to Microsoft Outlook. Evolution is free software licensed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). Edited by CRR, : General edit.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024