Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 11:47 PM
104 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ramoss (4 members, 100 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,536 Year: 3,573/19,786 Month: 568/1,087 Week: 158/212 Day: 25/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 121 of 205 (546952)
02-15-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Wounded King
02-15-2010 8:55 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
I think Dr. A is wrong to place the blame for the conflation of evolutionary theory with the natural history of evolution of life on earth as something that creationists have done.

To clarify my point, I don't think that people like Arphy are exclusively to blame. I just think that they're particularly morally culpable. He thinks that it is "deceptive" to equate the process of evolution with the history of life --- and then he insists that biologists should re-write the English language so as to do just that.

Most people without a biological background will think of evolution in terms of the evolutionary history of life on earth, I would suggest that is the concept that is most commonly tied to the term 'evolution' in the general populace.

Perhaps that might be the first thing that comes into the average man's head when he hears the word "evolution". Nonetheless, it is also true that if I say to the average man: "Mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT", he can consider that proposition on its own merits, and if he agrees that it's true he is in no way agreeing with common descent.

I'm not deceiving that average man by getting him to agree that evolution has occurred. But Arphy would like to redefine the English language so that I would then be able to play some pathetic little trick on him --- so that I could then say: "Ah, you admit that evolution has occurred. Well, according to some guy who calls himself "Arphy" on some forum called "EvC", that means that you subscribe to the whole of "secular natural history". Gotcha!"

But of course I don't want to do that. Arphy wants me to do that. He wants --- nay, demands --- that we should redefine the word "evolution" in such a way that playing such pathetic little word-games would be slightly less stupid than it currently is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Wounded King, posted 02-15-2010 8:55 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 122 of 205 (546955)
02-15-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
What I don't understand is why evolutionists are so hot on excluding common descent from the definition of evolution.

It's a delicate question as to whether common descent should be included in the theory of evolution. (I would say no). But it's a complete no-brainer as to whether common descent is part of the definition of evolution. Of course not. Evolution is evolution. The question of whether it has happened in any particular case has nothing to do with common descent.

Suppose, for example, that I had a time-machine, and that I could show you definitively that common descent was absolutely false, but that the proposition that birds evolved from dinosaurs was absolutely true. Would you then reject the proposition that birds evolved from dinosaurs on the grounds that common descent wasn't true?

Evolution is evolution is evolution. In the cases where it's happened, it's happened, and we should call it "evolution" because that is what evolution is called, and this is the case whether or not common descent is the key to understanding biology or just a ghastly mistake.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:17 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 123 of 205 (546956)
02-15-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
02-15-2010 9:03 AM


Re: Are You Talking to Me?
No, I wasn't thinking of you.

I was playing Travis Bickle. I don't think myself the only fellow evolutionist here. I've even got sources. AbE: Ah! I see where I went wrong: I forgot to add the accent. I'll go correct that.

I would say that you're trying to argue that language is more precise than it actually is…

No, It's sloppy alright, but I see no need to make it sloppier on purpose.

Make your distinctions too fine and you're going to lose them.

Anyone making an honest attempt to alleviate their ignorance to either adopt or battle ToE is not going to be won or lost on semantics. Either group will gain from the distinction. Those who are willfully ignorant, those who use the conflagration as a weapon, are all ready lost. Those who are blissfully ignorant are the group we risk losing as we bore them to death. With that group we can use a lax definition just as you can use a lax definition with me. They're not looking for any little thing to protect their notions.

Edited by lyx2no, : No edit:I mis-read myself.

Edited by lyx2no, : AbE:


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 9:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 124 of 205 (546958)
02-15-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
double post

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:17 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 125 of 205 (546976)
02-15-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
02-15-2010 9:03 AM


Re: Are You Talking to Me?
I think the greater danger lies in telling someone who includes common descent in their definition of evolution that they're wrong. We're talking to people who are inconceivably ignorant of science and who in many circumstances have been the target of a great deal of misinformation. Make your distinctions too fine and you're going to lose them.

I agree that we shouldn't be needlessly pedantic in debate. Fine. Fair enough.

But that's not what we're talking about. RAZD's OP was about some bunch of creationists who said: "Evolution, as it is strictly interpreted in technical terms ..." is something that they made up in their heads. And then ICANT jumped in and said that the real definition of evolution should be whatever it is about evolution that he personally dislikes. And then along comes Arphy to tell us that scientists are actually being deceptive unless they use a definition of evolution that would actually deceive people.

It's one thing if creationists are a bit wrong with their terminology but we understand what they mean. In that case, sure, instead of being pedantic we should engage them on the actual issues. But it's a whole other thing when they take it upon themselves to rewrite the English language so that "evolution" doesn't mean what biologists mean when they say "evolution".

It's one thing for them to get it a bit wrong, it's another thing altogether for them to allege that anyone who doesn't join them in their personal error is being "deceptive". At this point it is not needlessly pedantic to point out that they're talking crap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 9:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 126 of 205 (547037)
02-15-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Arphy
02-14-2010 9:38 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Hi Arphy,

It's rather fascinating to watch someone insist on being wrong.

That the evolutionist definition of evolution is inadequate in explaining the actual use of the word in our society.

Curiously it works very well in explaining the actual use of the word in science. Let me repeat that definition from Berkeley again:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Let me put this in my words:

Biological evolution is the change in frequency in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation.

This explains the evolution within species populations, and how species adapt to different ecologies or go extinct.

This explains how sub-populations living in different ecologies, can diverge, creating varieties within species.

This explains how varieties can sometimes diverge enough to prevent interbreeding between sub-populations, creating new species.

This explains how nested hierarchies of common ancestry can form.

When we look at the fossil record, we can see this same pattern of nested hierarchies based on the morphological changes in traits in the different ages of fossils, and see how they form a tree of life pattern of relationships, so evolution helps us understand the history of life as shown in the fossil record.

When we look at the genetic record, we can see this same pattern of nested hierarchies based on the genetic changes in genes in the different species, and see how they form a tree of life pattern of relationships, so evolution helps us understand the history of life as shown in the genetic record.

So in your definition of an evolutionist (i.e. someone who believes in evolution) it is vital that that person believes in secular natural history.

Natural history is the evidence of life on earth, it is neither secular nor religious, it is fact.

Yet you are also saying that natural history is something completly seperate from evolution.

Because they are.

The fossils are there regardless of belief, regardless of what you think about them. The physical and geological relationships to age are also fact, and if you want to argue about this, see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.

The genetic record is also there, regardless of belief or opinion.

So yes the evidence of life in the past is different from evolution, and one does not depend on the other to be valid.

The natural history pattern of life could have been entirely different, and evolution would still be the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation.

Evolution could be wrong, and the natural history pattern of life would still be composed of the fossils and rocks and genetics.

Because if an evolutionist is someone who believes in evolution and evolution is defined as "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" then strictly speaking I am an evolutionist. But this clashes with your definition of an evolutionist. So either your definition of evolution is wrong (or inadequate) or your definition of a evolutionist is wrong.

Curiously, I would pick "evolutionist" as being the weaker definition, as it is a construction by creationists to name people that are opposed creationism, a catch-bag for anyone arguing against the pet belief of the day.

I would say your definition of evolution is inadequate.

Or you are leaving out part of the definition of evolutionist I gave to create a strawman argument.

Message 94: Someone who understands evolution, has investigated it and the evidence for it in an open-minded skeptical manner, and found that it is a valid concept for explaining the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil and genetic record.

That's more than just understanding the process of evolution. It is also understanding how the process of evolution explains the evidence of life on earth.

We can also consider what it means to be an evolutionary biologist, and that would include understanding on another whole level from the basic "evolutionist" understanding, and get into the biological details, actual measuring and documenting of changes in hereditary patterns, etc.

So I can be an evolutionist and yet not be an evolutionary biologist.

So you can understand the process of evolution and yet not be an evolutionist.

So go on, kick and scream all you want, but just realise that your definition of evolution is different from the uneducated masses and you will just have to live with that.

Once again this is the fallacy of the appeal to popularity, because no matter what the public thinks they can be wrong. Certainly if their opinion is based on false and misleading information then any conclusion or opinion they have will be worthless.

Likewise, you can keep on, kicking and screaming all you want, but just realize that when you want to discuss evolution in an intelligent and informed manner with a biologist, that you will then need to use the definitions as used within the science, otherwise you will not be talking about evolution, and they will not be talking about what(ever) you are talking about.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 9:38 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1805
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 127 of 205 (547039)
02-15-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Arphy
02-14-2010 9:38 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
So go on, kick and scream all you want, but just realise that your definition of evolution is different from the uneducated masses and you will just have to live with that.

Fuck the uneducated masses, fuck them up their uneducated asses. If they decided that the definition of chrisitanity included the daily buggering of farm animals would you go along with it? Why should science conform itself to what the masses think?


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 9:38 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-18-2010 6:13 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 128 of 205 (547041)
02-15-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
Thanks Percy, for another perspective.

What I don't understand is why evolutionists are so hot on excluding common descent from the definition of evolution. I, personally, prefer to include common descent as additional detail after first providing a very brief definition of evolution, ...

This is precisely what the Berkeley University definition does:

quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

... but I'd be perfectly happy with a thoughtful definition that included it.

Which is what the University of Michigan definition does:

quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels.


As you can see, this gets rather bulky and unwieldy for general discussions.

What I don't understand is why evolutionists are so hot on excluding common descent from the definition of evolution.

One of the problems I have is that speciation is not inevitable nor necessarily a result of evolution, but it is what defines the pattern of common ancestry - for without speciation there would only be one species.

Evolution explains speciation and the subsequent formation of nested hierarchies, but common ancestry does not explain fluctuations of hereditary trait frequencies in population.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:17 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 129 of 205 (547044)
02-15-2010 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Arphy
02-15-2010 3:54 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Hi Arphy, I thnk you missed a post;

where? please explain.

Take a look at Message 111 for an example of a creationist denying exactly the kind of evolution that you claimed "nobody is going to argue with".

But the problem is that when the term evolution is used, whether by creationists or evolutionists, universal common ancestry is implied even though the definition "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" does not suggest this in any way.

But the problem is that when the term Christianity is used, whether by Christians or atheists, the singing of hymns is implied even though the definition "a follower of Christ" does not suggest this in any way.

Naturally related ideas are going to be closely associated. It is almost inevitable that there is going to be confusion over terminology. Usually, in day to day life, this isn't too much of a problem.The problem comes when;

a) We engage in detailed discussions about biology, a subject which is inherently complex and demands detailed and specific use of language to understand.

b) Creationist websites present definitions of evolution which claim to be technical and specific, but are in fact woefully inaccurate.

Science is not simple. Evolution is a huge subject, with many discrete yet mutually complementary ideas involved. Trying to understand it whilst insisting upon using non-specific, non-technical terms is only going to be a hindrance. Why hobble our attempts to understand the topic from the start?

my point remains that there is nothing in the phrase "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" that implies universal common ancestry.

No. that is because evolution doesn't demand universal common ancestry. In fact, there are biologists out there now, specifically looking for strains of life that are not related to known life. The most likely possibilities are thought to be extremophiles in caves or ocean vents, etc. If such organisms were found, it wouldn't harm the ToE one bit, because universal common ancestry is not demanded by the ToE, nor is evolution itself synonymous with common ancestry.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 3:54 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2509 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 130 of 205 (547074)
02-16-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
02-15-2010 8:17 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
Thanks Percy

I guess this whole issue just needs to have a bit of compromise from both sides. Yes, It is possible that creationists will often over-emphasise the the common descent part of what evolution is. But then I don't agree that it should be under-emphasised by evolutionists either. Believe me, I wouldn't have a problem if the definition "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" was what everybody understood evolution to be and it is used as such. But the fact is that the word evolution is used in both professional and public language as also implying common descent. That creationists will focus on this part is natural because this is where the most disagreement occurs.
As wikipedia shows and i believe other sources show this as well, that there is no distinction made between "we are now talking about evolution" and "we are now talking about common descent". In the minds of the public and really most people these two ideas are inextricably linked. In most people's minds when you mention one of these words you also implie the other, unless stated otherwise.
If scientists want to maintain a formal definition of evolution then so be it (although as the definitions in razd's post 128 shows, I don't think that most scientist see the two things as completly seperate). But I don't think that it is something that should be complained about that the generally public is using it in a different sense. Especially when writers on the internet or in books or whatever are writing to the layperson they should be writing in a way that people understand. I do not think that it is right to pull up a creationist or evolutionist writer writing to laypeople who uses the word evolution in the way it is understood by the public.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:17 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2010 3:53 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 131 of 205 (547078)
02-16-2010 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Arphy
02-16-2010 3:12 AM


Re: To My Fellow Evolutionists
Well, I think that if you really care about this issue you should pick a side. Do you want to help your fellow-creationists to cause this confusion in the public mind, or do you want to ally yourself with us evolutionists in our campaign to eliminate it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Arphy, posted 02-16-2010 3:12 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 132 of 205 (547087)
02-16-2010 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
02-06-2010 11:58 AM


The Creo definition is no worse than a subset of the Biological definition
Hi RAZD,

Creolution: - is the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones by various suggested mechanisms.

Evolution: - is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation.

... and see how "creolution" compares with evolution in their ability to explain the diversity of life around us and what biologists study:

*snip table*

Except that definition of biological evolution doesn't explain a single one of those things. You've omitted all the bits that make the Theory of Evolution powerful. Yeah, evolution can be summed up using changes in allele frequency, but the Theory of Evolution can't.

The Theory of Evolution includes (most importantly) natural selection as a mechanism of change, and it includes common descent.

The Creationist definition is weak, because it includes increasing complexity in the definition, which the ToE does explain and does predict but it isn't required or directional. But implying you can boil evolution down to change in allele frequency and still retain it's extraordinary explanatory power is simply untrue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2010 11:58 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 10:23 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 133 of 205 (547168)
02-16-2010 9:56 PM


ICANT Daffynition of "macroevolution" = "transformation" of individuals
From Message 27 of the Rapid Evolution in Lizards thread:

Creos look at macroevolution as transmutation or when one critter becomes a totaly different critter.

And as this is not something that is NOT included in the whole science of evolution, it remains a creationist fantasy, based on a false definition of "macroevolution," and it doesn't matter what such creationists think, because they are wrong, terribly wrong.

To my knowledge this has never been documented, and no evidence presented in favor of such an event. It must be accepted by faith that all the little changes over a long period of time can accumulate to the point that it has to take place.

And real world evolution predicts that you will never see this "transformation" occur, no matter how long you wait. In fact, seeing such an instance would tend to disprove evolution than validate it.

Evolution does not occur within individual organisms, it occurs within populations of organisms, from generation to generation, with variations in their hereditary traits while they remain breeding populations. All evolution occurs within species.

Before speciation evolution contributes to the development of variation within species.

After speciation evolution contributes to the divergence and differentiation between the daughter species, but this occurs by evolution within each daughter species.

Note that in Message 15 ICANT was asked to define macroevolution:

"Micro"evolution is a fact.
"Macro"evolution is an assumption.

Can you please provide a definition of these?
...
Macroevolution - as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists - is the change that occurs after speciation, as daughter populations become more diverse over time due to microevolution - as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists - within each species. In both cases the changes are due to descent with modification or the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation.

There is massive amounts of evidence of this type of change in the fossil record. You've seen it. Every transitional fossil is evidence of macroevolution - as the term is used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists. The Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process thread discusses such transitional fossils.

Therefore, either your definitions are different - and you are looking for evidence of something that is not relevant to evolution as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists, or you are in denial of the evidence.

At that time ICANT posted several times without really defining what he meant:

Message 26: Short form
Micro evolution, changes that occur in species.
Macro evolution changes that occur above species.

Message 42: Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation.
I don't have a definition that I have not read here or on a site that was referenced here.

And yet now we see him saying that it is transformation of individual organisms into hopeful monsters.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 134 of 205 (547174)
02-16-2010 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Dr Jack
02-16-2010 5:40 AM


evolution as a process, as a theory and as a science
Hi Mr Jack,

Except that definition of biological evolution doesn't explain a single one of those things.

The change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation does not explain the observed changes Peppered Moth populations? Really?

The Theory of Evolution includes (most importantly) natural selection as a mechanism of change, and it includes common descent.

Yes, but here we are talking about the process of evolution. The theory of evolution and the science of evolution are applications of this process as part of the explanation of the diversity of life.

There are many mechanisms that assist this process, natural selection is one. Neutral drift may be just as important in developing the variety within species to enable them to take advantage of new opportunities, opportunities that would not exist if only natural selection operated and only adapted traits to specific ecologies occurred. There can also be environmental factors, density of oxygen, salinity, temperature, etc that can affect the development of the phenotype.

The Creationist definition is weak, because it includes increasing complexity in the definition, which the ToE does explain and does predict but it isn't required or directional. But implying you can boil evolution down to change in allele frequency and still retain it's extraordinary explanatory power is simply untrue.

The definition of the process of evolution does not need to provide the "extraordinary explanatory power" of the theory of evolution, it just needs to explain the difference between one generation and the next: the hereditary traits expressed in the populations have changed.

From this simple definition of the observed fact of evolution we can proceed to look for the mechanisms that cause this.

From this simple definition of the observed fact of evolution we can theorize that this can explain the diversity of life as we know it.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Dr Jack, posted 02-16-2010 5:40 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dr Jack, posted 02-17-2010 3:39 AM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 135 of 205 (547190)
02-17-2010 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
02-16-2010 10:23 PM


Equivocation diminishes evolution
The change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation does not explain the observed changes Peppered Moth populations? Really?

Correct, a change in hereditary traits is merely an observation. To explain the observed changes in Peppered Moth populations you have to invoke natural selection.

Yes, but here we are talking about the process of evolution. The theory of evolution and the science of evolution are applications of this process as part of the explanation of the diversity of life.

The definition of the process of evolution does not need to provide the "extraordinary explanatory power" of the theory of evolution, it just needs to explain the difference between one generation and the next: the hereditary traits expressed in the populations have changed.

Sure, but to suggest that this tiny part of evolution is equivalent to the majesty of the ToE is equivocation. Hideous, ugly, equivocation. And it's downright disingenuous to suggest that it's meaningful to use it as the definition when arguing with Creationists. Only the most naive of creos would claim that genetics are static across generations; what they're arguing with are the grander claims of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 4:48 AM Dr Jack has responded
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 1:51 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019