|
QuickSearch
|
| |||||||
Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
WookieeB | |||||||
|
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the Theory of Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 1998 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
The mechanisms involved in the changes from the first living (which in itself is a fuzzy concept to define) organisms; forms of Prokaryotes, to the variety of forms of life we observe today. But, then, I'm not a Biologist by any means; so I'll leave it all up to the specialists.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19732 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
And if the explanation is any good, then you can make predictions for future discoveries. Those predictions can be used to test the explanatory power of the theory: If they come true the theory would appear valid, and it can be used for further predictions; If they don't come true the theory would appear invalid, and a better explanation is needed. Enjoy 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) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1592 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Which is why it's a shit definition, if you'll excuse my bluntness. The purpose of a theory of evolution is to explain the mechanisms of evolution. Anything which doesn't attempt to is not a theory of evolution. The modern theory of evolution would require a book to explain. My hamfisted attempt to summarise in a brief paragraph would go as follows: Organisms have heritable characteristics; and the primary mode of inheritance is through DNA. Heritable characteristics which increase the probability of an organism leaving offspring are likely to increase in frequency in a population. The likelihood of leaving offspring we refer to as fitness. DNA replication produces imperfect copies, so new variety is constantly being introduced. Fitter new varieties will tend to increase in frequency. Fitness is relative to the environment, so two populations placed in different environments will tend to diverge, This seems incomplete, but I was trying to sum up the main points in as few words as possible, and I am not a biologist.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
quote: Note Darwin says "into a few forms or into one". Earlier in the book he makes it clear that he favours "one". So yes I maintain that common ancestry, from one or a few common ancestors, was a core part of Darwin's theory, and the ToE today. I also maintain that the consensus view today is for universal common ancestry as exemplified in Theodosius Dobzhansky's "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Then enlighten me; how is it defined by the scientific consensus?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 6611 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.9
|
You're a weird crew you creationists. Darwin's work is for science historians and general interest - it's not the bloody bible and it's not modern science. It doesn't matter what Darwin said, he's not Moses. He happened to be proven right on pretty much everything but it wouldn't matter if he wasn't - we'd be using our current understanding, not his. LUCA may be the single source of all life or it may not be. Darwin was correct to say 'probably'. As far as I'm aware, this is science's current view. quote: Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19732 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Original common ancestry is an outcrop of evolution, a prediction reached when following the theory and the evidence to a logical conclusion, rather than a foundation. This is what the evidence shows: daughter populations descending from a common parent population, that is also a daughter population descendant from a more ancient common parent population, along with the formation of nested hierarchies. The process of evolution explains how this pattern develops, but it does not require it. Theories explain evidence, so the ToE explains the evidence of nested hierarchies. Theories make testable predictions, so the ToE predicts an original common ancestor pool. We test this prediction by looking for new evidence that supports or invalidates it. Enjoy 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) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 6611 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.9
|
But he's been told this before - it doesn't make any difference. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
1. a gradual development [the most basic definition] 2. a gradual development, esp to a more complex form 3. a change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations [biology] 4. a heritable change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations [biology] 5. a change in allele frequency in a population over time [biology: population genetics] So we can talk about the evolution of language, the motor car, species, or many other things. But these are all definitions of the WORD evolution and not the THEORY of Evolution (ToE). We can talk about a theory of Cosmic Evolution or the theory of the evolution of the Solar System but when we say the Theory of Evolution without some addition or qualification it is generally understood as the modern version of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. (Although I understand Lamark's theory of evolution is making a bit of a comeback with epigenetics) Of course Darwin's theory has been modified since it was first proposed and some would say that there are today several theories of evolution all derived from Darwin's theory. Darwin made several specific claims in his theory and likewise the modern theory/theories make specific claims. Darwin took a whole book to discuss his theory and ague his case but many people (e.g. Kerkut, Coyne, Gould, Weintraub) have given definitions of one paragraph or less. So when I proposed this topic I asked for your definition of the Theory of Evolution. By all means borrow from another source; in which case it is polite to acknowledge it. My definition was a single sentence. Can you give a definition of the ToE in no more than a couple of paragraphs. (If Coyne could manage it I'm sure you can.)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 6611 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.9
|
You've had stacks of definitions. Your request for definitions is disingenuous - this is all you're trying to do:
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7670 Joined: Member Rating: 4.3
|
It isn't. Almost all epigenetic markers are removed during gamete production, so most epigenetic markers are not passed on. Of the ones that are passed on they only make small changes and only last a generation or two. Epigenetics is incapable of explaining the differences seen between species, and is also incapable of explaining long term evolutionary changes.
There is still just one theory of evolution.
Those paragraphs are still incapable of describing the entire breadth of the theory.
And that is a set up. You want to force people to propose a short definition that will necessarily be inadequate in explaining the entire breadth of the theory. You will then point to this inadequacy as a problem for the entire theory, but the only problem is in your expectation that a theory as broad as the theory of evolution can be boiled down to one sentence or one paragraph.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 1960 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
The Santa Clause What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16083 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
What good is it? Well, it can explain all the others. And this is in fact what it does. Sheesh, how long have you been posting here and you're still whining and lying about mere definitions rather than any substantive question of fact? Why?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019