Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinists? and other names for "evos"
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 72 (163581)
11-27-2004 8:50 PM


I have encountered several Evolutionists that get rather indignant and defensive when I refer to them as Darwinists. Has anyone here had a similar experience? Can anyone suggest any reason why people who believe in evolution try to reject Darwin?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2004 9:05 PM jeafl has not replied
 Message 4 by jar, posted 11-27-2004 9:11 PM jeafl has not replied
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 11-27-2004 9:13 PM jeafl has not replied
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 11-27-2004 10:34 PM jeafl has replied
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2004 5:45 AM jeafl has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 72 (163585)
11-27-2004 8:54 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Edited topic title to focus the discussion
and Welcome to EvC !
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-27-2004 08:56 PM

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 72 (163591)
11-27-2004 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jeafl
11-27-2004 8:50 PM


Upset over names
Let me have a go at this.
First:
The correct term would be biologists or more specfically evolutionary biologists.
I think that any sensitivity comes from the suggestion implicit in the terms evolutionist, darwinist and the like is that this "ist" is just like being a creationist. It might go back to the idea that biology is a "faith" too that some literalists like to expound on.
The term "dawinist" might be a bit worse than some since it might imply, to some, an attachment to the authority rather than to the concepts put forward.
As well, the current theory is "neo-darwinism" as there is some that consider the changes over the 150 years to be enough to separate somewhat from what Darwin originally put forward with a huge amount less information. (I don't happen to see the separation being so much)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 8:50 PM jeafl has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 72 (163595)
11-27-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jeafl
11-27-2004 8:50 PM


I don't think it's a rejection of Darwin as much as an acknowledgement that what we know about Evolution has change greatly in the 150 years or so since he published his theories.
When you attach a term like Darwinist it implies that the persons concept of the Theory of Evolution stopped with what was known and speculated upon way back then. It hasn't and the theory continues to be revised and modified as new information and discoveries come to light. The Theory of Evolution is a work in progress and I imagine that if Darwin himself returned he might classify himself as a Gouldist.
Today, that is.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 8:50 PM jeafl has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 72 (163596)
11-27-2004 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jeafl
11-27-2004 8:50 PM


"Rejecting Darwin" and "not liking to be referred to as Darwinist" are two very different things. Those who agree with the latter do not necessarily agree with the former; in fact, they are likely to disagree with the former.
It's certainly not accurate to refer to people who accept evolution as "Darwinists". Darwin was the first one to elucidate the most core concepts of evolution, but that does not make "evolutionists" followers of Darwin; we are, rather followers of evidence.
Are you a Young Earth Creationist? If so, would you like be called a "Priceist"? (after George Macready Price, the source of most YEC "geology"). If you wouldn't, would that mean you reject Price's "theories"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 8:50 PM jeafl has not replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 72 (163605)
11-27-2004 9:49 PM


The people I have encountered that object to being called Darwinists have had no qualms about being called Evolutionists.
Furthermore, I use the term Darwinist to identify anyone who accepts Darwin’s theory of natural selection as a mechanism whereby macroevolution can be achieved. But, no one has tried to explain to me how macroevolution can happen without Darwin’s survival of the fittest.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2004 10:01 PM jeafl has replied
 Message 8 by jar, posted 11-27-2004 10:03 PM jeafl has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 72 (163607)
11-27-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jeafl
11-27-2004 9:49 PM


SofF
But, no one has tried to explain to me how macroevolution can happen without Darwin’s survival of the fittest.
That wasn't Darwin's term but you're right in that it is really refering to natural selection (NS). I don't see how anything but drift can occur without some form of selection. Well, perhaps, isolation and drift with no real selection.
The evolutionary process includes, right from day one, natural selection as a major pillor. You don't have "evolution" in the sense it is used in biology without NS.
The term macroevolution comes up again. There isn't really such a separate thing you know. If you have your own definition it might be useful to supply it.
It is, in the way it is occasionally used in biology simply some one or set of "microevolutionary" changes that finally manages to push a population apart into two species. Since species are a bit blurry even that doesn't give a clear split between macro and micro evolution.
Let me try a new way of wording this (just in case it is needed).
There are genetic changes in individual organisms. These are usually very small and most often don't do much or anything. Some of these are large (polypoidy (sp?) for example ). That is all there is as far as changes in the genome go. Large or small these changes may not result in speciation and so they are all "micro" using the biological definition.
The same "size" of changes or even the very same changes might result in a speciation event and then be called "macro".
There is, in biology, nothing else but species. For convenience we group them into larger groups, (genus, family, order etc.) but those are just groups of species. There is nothing but species!
(as an aside, since the species boundaries can often be a bit blurred we could say that there are only individuals but I think that is a bit extreme)
Anyway, once you have a new species you have macro evolution. Done finished!
Of course, when two species continue to evolve and slit off more species and have more and more time separated from each other the differences between species that was once pretty small can become rather large. It is still just speciation. One after another, changes piled on changes. The changes are all the same kind of changes we called microevolution way back there.
There aren't any macro or micro changes. There are just results that we call speciation or something more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 9:49 PM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 10:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 72 (163608)
11-27-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jeafl
11-27-2004 9:49 PM


Maybe it's simply a matter of understanding and precision.
But, no one has tried to explain to me how macroevolution can happen without Darwin’s survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest is more a popular slang term than anything really related to the Theory of Evolution. It is somewhat misleading since it sounds like it is assigning some value or quality criteria, critter A is Fitter than critter B.
Actually, it's Natural Selction. There are two basic parts to the Theory of Evolution. One is that change happens all the time, that there are mutations that go on all the time in every critter.
The second part is Natural Selection. Every once in a while one or more of the random changes might give one critter an advantage in reproducing. Maybe it can feed more efficiently and so spends less energy eating and more energy screwing around, or maybe it's faster and so less likely to get eaten and so has more time to screw around. That critter has a better chance of living long enough to breed and so pass that trait on to future critters.
But the Theory has changed much since Darwin. There is still no such thing that I have seen as Macroevolution. So far it just looks like lots of time and lots of little changes. There is the newer modifications to the Theory to explain newer evidence, for example, the long periods with little change followed by short periods of great and abrupt change.
So it's still the Theory of Evolution but if Darwin returned today he'd have a bunch of studying to do to catch up.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 9:49 PM jeafl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 11-27-2004 10:05 PM jar has replied
 Message 11 by berberry, posted 11-27-2004 10:17 PM jar has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 9 of 72 (163609)
11-27-2004 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
11-27-2004 10:03 PM


Topic!
OK, both Jar and Nosy!!
You are allowing this simple topic to wander off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 11-27-2004 10:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 11-27-2004 10:08 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 72 (163610)
11-27-2004 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AdminNosy
11-27-2004 10:05 PM


Re: Topic!
Yes Massa.
but I was closer to on topic than nosy. I at least tried to bring it back to talking about dawinism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 11-27-2004 10:05 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 72 (163613)
11-27-2004 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
11-27-2004 10:03 PM


Re: Maybe it's simply a matter of understanding and precision.
One might reject 'Darwinist' for the same reason that a modern, radical socialist might reject the term 'Marxist'. Eponymous terms like these imply an allegiance to the author of the ideas rather than to the ideas themselves. One who embraces some of the core values of marxism while rejecting many of its excesses would naturally prefer to be called a socialist than a Marxist. Similarly, one who holds to many of Darwin's original ideas but who rejects some of the original conclusions drawn or some particular aspects of Darwin's theories might reject the term 'Darwinist' in favor of 'evolutionist'.
We see similar attitudes in the political realm. Many (but not all) neocons and social cons reject the term 'Reaganite' because, although they hold to many of Reagan's ideas and ideals, they reject his understated religious convictions and prefer to bring religion to front-and-center of American life, even to the point of eroding church-state separation. Likewise, some of my liberal friends have begun to take mild offense at the term 'Clintonite', primarily because of Clinton's views on Iraq and his lukewarm attitude toward gay rights.

Dog is my copilot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 11-27-2004 10:03 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 10:38 PM berberry has not replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 72 (163615)
11-27-2004 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
11-27-2004 10:01 PM


Re: SofF
quote:
The term macroevolution comes up again. There isn't really such a separate thing you know. If you have your own definition it might be useful to supply it.
I have various sources that define macroevolution as the origination through evolution of taxa higher than species.
Speciation within a genus is something that many Creationists and I accept as valid. But the variation is limited by the genetic material (as mutated) that God originally created.
Minute changes that divide one population into two is really microevolution i.e. speciation.
quote:
There are genetic changes in individual organisms. These are usually very small and most often don't do much or anything. Some of these are large (polypoidy (sp?) for example ). That is all there is as far as changes in the genome go. Large or small these changes may not result in speciation and so they are all "micro" using the biological definition.
Genetic changes in an organism after birth can come only through mutation i.e. the erroneous copying of DNA when somatic cells reproduce and the erroneous copying of DNA for protein synthesis or the erroneous reading of DNA protein codes or the erroneous assemblage of amino acids to make proteins.
Largescale genetic changes, like the ones involving chromosomal changes, generally happen during meiosis or fetal development. Changes show up in organisms only because they first appeared in gametes or arose during fetal development. Genetic changes after birth are generally small- but they are not always harmless- as carcinogens would indicate. Genetic changes after birth, that do not involve games, are not inheritable.
quote:
There is, in biology, nothing else but species. For convenience we group them into larger groups, (genus, family, order etc.) but those are just groups of species. There is nothing but species!
I don't argue this point, but since humans and apes are not part of the same species, you have to explain the speciation processes that allowed them to both to development; you must explain macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2004 10:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 11-28-2004 9:57 AM jeafl has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 72 (163616)
11-27-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jeafl
11-27-2004 8:50 PM


There is a further, perhaps more subtle, reason why "darwinist" is unacceptable to a lot of biologists. When Eldredge and Gould published their theory on Punctuated Equilibrium in the 70's, there was a great deal of opposition for one reason or another. In defense, Eldredge especially started using the term "darwinist" or "ultradarwinist" to characterize his opponents, relating the term to an ultrareductionist and ultragradualist approach to evolution. IMO, he was over the top, and used the term as something of a strawman - I don't think such a person actually exists. However, he continues to use the term as a pejorative in his more recent writings (see, for example, his 1999 book "The Pattern of Evolution"). So there is some sensitivity in the community to the term based on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 8:50 PM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 10:43 PM Quetzal has replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 72 (163618)
11-27-2004 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by berberry
11-27-2004 10:17 PM


Re: Maybe it's simply a matter of understanding and precision.
quote:
One who embraces some of the core values of marxism while rejecting many of its excesses would naturally prefer to be called a socialist than a Marxist.
Give some examples of Marxist excesses that modern day advocates of from each according to his ability to each according to his needs would reject.
quote:
Similarly, one who holds to many of Darwin's original ideas but who rejects some of the original conclusions drawn or some particular aspects of Darwin's theories might reject the term 'Darwinist' in favor of 'evolutionist'.
Give some examples of some of Darwin's conclusions that modern day advocates of evolution via natural selection reject.
And if you reject the idea that natural selection is necessary for evolution, explain why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by berberry, posted 11-27-2004 10:17 PM berberry has not replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 72 (163619)
11-27-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Quetzal
11-27-2004 10:34 PM


Did any Evolutionist object to being called a Darwinist before Eldredge and Gould came on the scene?
As far as the fossil record goes:
Darwinism: Evolution to slow to be noticed.
Punct Eeek: Evolution to fast to be seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 11-27-2004 10:34 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2004 10:54 PM jeafl has not replied
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 11-27-2004 10:56 PM jeafl has not replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2004 3:38 AM jeafl 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