|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the Theory of Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, I said what I meant. I want him to quote the preceding sentence --- the one that came immediately before the bit he quoted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Agreed. We need to know the context of that quote to be able to understand what he's really saying. That's what I was going for in asking for a proper citation, but being given the preceding text would also work.
If CRR had picked that quote up from a quote-mine as I suspect, he won't be able to fulfill your request. ABE:It seems that every time I've heard Jerry Coyne mentioned it has been by a creationists who's quoting him as saying something against evolution. So I looked him up on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne. Coyne turns out to be a outspoken critic of creationists in all their disguises, such as "intelligent design". Looks like yet another case of creationists misquoting a scientist in order to make it appear that he's on their side, like what they kept trying to do with S.J. Gould. Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Coyne wrote "In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence:"
So I guess he is indeed using a narrower definition than most biologists would.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I would suggest that a brief summary is not a formal definition, nor is it intended as one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
So, after all of this my deduction is that CRR used a quote from a book he has never read himself. Creationist quote- mining. Not really shocking.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Why Evolution is True
Jerry Coyne Chapter 1 - What is Evolution? p3 quote: Looks like a definition to me. I have read the whole book; and I have read several other books by noted evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It's not described as a definition. It doesn't look like a formal definition. In fact it looks like a summary of the current content which is what it is described as.
And surely the whole point of asking for a definition is to ask for a formal definition. Which that is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So he wrote a whole book about why evolution is true and never defined the theory of evolution?
You're clutching at straws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I don't see why a formal definition would do better than the summary for Coyne's purpose (in fact it would probably be worse). Nor do I think that pointing out the fact that Coyne explicitly says he is summarising the theory rather than offering a definition can be considered "clutching at straws".
Perhaps you should consider why you are so desperate to call Coyne's summary a definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
quote: Looks like a definition to me. If that is a definition, then what does the theory so defined predict and how can it be tested? 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: So he wrote a whole book about why evolution is true and never defined the theory of evolution? The entire book is a part of the definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CRR writes: Looks like a definition to me. And yet you will twist yourself into logical pretzels in order to not understand it. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
I disagree. I think that this definition is pretty good:
The body of knowledge relating to the process of biological evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
OK so you don't like my definitions, what's your's?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
OK so you don't like my definitions, what's your's? The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. where:
quote: Anagenesis is the accumulated effects of the process of evolution within a population over multiple generations. 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 for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. and where:
quote: Cladogenesis is anagenesis in two (or more) populations that become sufficiently reproductively isolated that they evolve independently of one another. And example from the fossil record is Pelycodus:
quote: The depth in feet on the left side show relative age, with the oldest fossils at the bottom. The overall trend lines clearly show anagenesis occurring over time, and the split in the populations at the top clearly shows cladogenesis occurring as the two populations diverge from one another. They diverge further after this, becoming classified as new genera, not just new species. The pattern seen in this fossil record is explained by anagenesis and cladogenesis, thus it supports the Theory of Evolution given above. The Theory of Evolution predicts that similar patterns will be seen for other species, and the theory is tested by every new find, of a new living species, of a new fossil, and of a new genome record. The Theory of Evolution predicts that every fossil species found will have an older ancestral species nearby, both in time and in geographic location. This is tested by placing fossils within the temporal spacial matrix where they are found, and comparing them by homologies and shared derived traits with nearby fossils of similar structure. This gets into the science of paleontology as well as evolution. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024