|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mr Jack,
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:
Windsor castle Message 16: In my old text by Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd Ed., he gets right down to the definition of biological evolution on the second page of chapter 1. Futuyma says:
quote: Futuyma had previously explained that the properties about which he is speaking are are those "...in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics, variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several processes." To be a bit more terse, I learned many years ago that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations of organisms over generations. Don't confuse this with theories of evolution. The above is not a theory. It is a definition that was arrived at during the formulation of the modern synthesis. Theories of evolution are explanations of observed phenomena that fit the above definition. For example, observed change without heredity is not evolution. I note that this is not significantly different from my original formulation:
Evolution is the change in the frequencies of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation. The above definition does not specifically mention natural selection either (as most "modern synthesis" definitions do not do), and only alludes to it in the further explanations of the definition terminology, and then he also includes mutation as equally critical. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, that's a little jumbled, especially at the end.
Mutation Gene Flow Genetic Drift + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution Natural Selection Is supposed to be:
quote: Note that there is no process present in that equation that is not in microevolution except the longer span of time: macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution, as they say just before that:
quote: The word "can" is there because they don't have to, it is just as possible that some cyanobacteria remain happily as cyanobacteria after all that time. I think you are reading too much emphasis into the word "transformation" (and personally I don't think they should have used it - "transition" would be better and more descriptive of what is going on, as "transitional" fossils are understood), as it gives the impression of individual organisms morphing into new forms.
quote: This occurs by the simple formation of nested hierarchies with descent from common ancestors after speciation events: a species is a breeding population, when speciation occurs there is no longer a single species, but two (or more) and this is the generation of genera. Likewise when further speciation occurs, the genera become families. It is easier to envisage with clades, imho, as there is less confusion of what the different branches are - they are just lineages of descent from the common ancestor populations.| At the top we have a single ancestor species population, at the bottom we have a "larger" group of descendant species, all related by common ancestry. When we "zoom in" to a single species we can see evolution in process, as the species undergoes the change in proportions of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. When we "zoom out" we see the effects of continual evolution in all species through time, we see specieation and increased diversity, we see the formation of nested hierarchies, and we see the formation of "groups larger than an individual species" that are related by descent from common ancestor populations. This is macroevolution, and it has been observed. In the process of this macroevolution the different branches are "transformed" generation by generation by microevolution until at the end they are different appearing than the ancestor population.
quote: This is where I think you go wrong in how you read what they are saying. If we take the evolution of mammals as an example: You can start here at REPTILOMORPHA:Palaeos: Page not found Reptiliomorpha - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of reptiliomorphs are still reptiliomorphs. SYNAPSIDA are descendants of reptiliomorphs: Palaeos: Page not foundSynapsid - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of synapsids are still synapsids. THERAPSIDA are descendants of synapsids: Palaeos: Page not foundTherapsid - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of therapsids are still therapsids. CYNODONTIA are descendants of therapsids: Palaeos: Page not foundCynodont - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of cynodonts are still cynodonts. MAMMALIFORMES are descendants of cynodonts: Palaeos: Page not foundMammaliaformes - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of mammaliaformes are still mammaliaformes. MAMMALS are descendants of mammaliaformes: Palaeos: Page not foundMammal - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of mammals are still mammals. THERIA are descendants of mammals: Palaeos: Page not foundTheria - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of therians are still therians. EUTHERIA are descendants of therians: Palaeos: Page not foundEutheria - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of eutherians are still eutherians (which are still therians, which are still mammals, which are still mammaliaformes, which are still cynodonts, which are still therapsids, which are still synapsids, which are still reptiliomorphs). So we have gone from reptilian ancestors to placental mammals (which includes you and me and bears, but not alligators and kangaroos). In the process we see:
But none of these transformations occur in a single species, or in a time frame that a typical life-span human could observe directly, they occur over geological time frames, and yet each stage is observed, each transition has a beginning stage, intermediate stages and final stages, and these stages are found in the fossil record. Thus the transformation (transition) of one ancestral form into a quite different modern form is observed in pieces, like the frozen images in a movie film, each picture frozen in mid action, and only when you run the film through the projector do you see the motion, the transformation, the transition in time. Just because we cannot see\observe\document large scale transitions in real time does not mean that we can see\observe\document the evidence of large scale transitions that have occurred. Enjoy
... I have been very involved with one of my members that had terminal cancer ... Thank you for doing what you can. Certainly I can understand how much just a little help is appreciated. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : reworded bits we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, you need to look more closely.
Your exception is that it includes microevolution which is not supported in the definition of Macroevolution. ... Could you please point out to me where the definition says it covers microevolution? As I noted in Message 154:
quote:color bold italic added for emphasis.quote:Note that there is no process present in that equation that is not in microevolution except the longer span of time: macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution, as they say just before that: Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, and Natural Selection are all part of microevolution, the change in the proportions of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities:
microevolution + time = macroevolution
There is no other ingredient.
In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley. Again, as I said in Message 154:
quote: This is macroevolution as defined and used by evolutionary biologist. This is macroevolution as defined and used by Berkeley. You have speciation and the formation of larger groups than the original species, as the clade that started with a single species is now a larger group that includes seven species. Without speciation, this increased diversity and the formation of larger groups would not occur, and you would only have one type of organism. You can think of a species as tunneling through time, and when speciation occurs the tunnel branches, but all evolution occurs inside the tunnel within the breeding population occupying the tunnel at any one point along the various hereditary lineages. a The difference between a & b is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & b.
The difference between a & c is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & c.
...The difference between a & d is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & d.
The difference between a & e is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & e.
The difference between a & f is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & f.
The difference between a & g is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & g.
The difference between a & h is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & h.
The difference between b & c is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b & c populations.
The difference between b & d is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b (or c) & d populations. This has been underway for more generations than the different evolution between b & c, and thus can result in greater difference between b (or c) & d than we see between b & c.
The difference between b (or c or d) & e is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b (or c or d) & e populations. This has been underway for more generations than the different evolution between b (or c) & d, and thus can result in greater difference between b (or c or d) & e than we see between b (or c) & d or between b & c. This is how diversity increases over time. In addition to the seven species, we see the formation of several clades of groupings larger than species:
Because of the longer time (greater number of generations) for different evolution to occur within the different lineages since the respective speciation events, we expect the possibility of:
Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : or we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi DC85, time for an update.
last I checked the the words were only used by creationists. Wrong. From the University of Michigan
quote: From Berkeley Universityquote: andquote: Microevolution is the evolution within species, while macroevolution is the effect of such evolution on the diversity of life via speciation events, the divergence of sibling species after speciation, and the formation of nested hierarchies. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Asking, and welcome to the fray.
Setting up a Strawman of evolution and then knocking it down is a common creationist tactic. Sadly the less informed seem to fall for it all the time. Indeed, and not just because they are under-informed about reality, but because the creationist hoax of misinformation feeds them the kind of information they wish were true. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again barbara,
While I am not a moderator, I am interested in keeping my threads on topic, so if you want to discuss how bacteria can evolve into humans then we should start a new thread.
"The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use" If you use this simple little bit of dB coding:
[qs]The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use[/qs] it makes these cute little quote boxes
The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use You can also use [qs=coyote]The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use[/qs] and it does this:
coyote writes: The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use This makes it much easier to distinguish your quotations of another post from any random phrase you may put in quote marks.
This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future. No, the purpose of having specific definitions is so that it is very clear what scientists are actually talking about. This improves communication, not build a barrier to it. For instance, when we say that in evolutionary biology, evolution is defined as "the change in character and proportion of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation," this makes it very clear that we are not talking about the evolution of stars. Likewise, when we say in astronomy, evolution is "the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime,"(1) this makes it clear that we are not talking about the evolution of biological life forms. This of course, can be made even clearer by using the terms "biological evolution" and "stellar evolution" so that they should not be confused by people unfamiliar with the specific terminology. This is usually done when addressing lay people, but the adjectives "biological" and "stellar" are usually taken as stated when communicating within each science. Sports terminology also does this, as does engineering and chemistry, etc. This is not special to science, and the reasons for are the same: to be more specific about what is being discussed so that it can be understood better. So when you see creationists making silly statements like those in Message 1, you know that they are not helping people understand evolution. Enjoy REF:(1) - Stellar evolution - Wikipedia ... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. Edited by RAZD, : added 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry but discussion of evolution is not the topic the topic is Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. Please start a new thread to continue discussions 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024