Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,279 Year: 5,536/9,624 Month: 561/323 Week: 58/143 Day: 1/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution by Definition
Taz
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 74 (453979)
02-05-2008 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by tesla
02-04-2008 10:55 PM


Re: ill "try"
tesla writes:
evolution: the biological changes in living things.
Technically, no. Specific living things don't evolve. The smallest unit that could evolve is a population.
but wait..doesn't non living things evolve? doesn't the stars have an evolution?
Stellar evolution is directional. Biological evolution is not.
evolution: the changes in the universe of all things in it, by way of adaption, based on the conditions that it exists.
No.
i must admit, i cannot further define evolution. it is beyond my ability.
The word "evolution" is thrown around way too much, me thinks. People go and see the movie 'Underworld: Evolution' and they think they should get a phd on biological evolution.
Even writers of the Star Trek series have it totally wrong. In one of the episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise, the ship encounters a planet where two sentient species have survived the "evolutionary process". One of them is technologically advance enough to travel to other star systems while the other still in their stone age. But wait, there's a catch. "Evolution" has decided that the technologically advance species must go in order for there to be room for the stone age species to grow. So, this whole race is dying. Doctor Flox, being a genius that he is, finds a cure for this genetic disease. But he convinces Captain Archer not to give the cure to the dying race because "Evolution" has made a choice and "who are we to question it?" So, the Enterprise leaves orbit with the cure leaving behind 2 billion dying people.
What kind of moron wrote that story? The bastard must have thought evolution is some kind of deity.
/end rant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tesla, posted 02-04-2008 10:55 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 9:52 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 41 of 74 (454313)
02-06-2008 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by tesla
02-05-2008 9:52 AM


Re: ill "try"
tesla writes:
i thought the question was, what is the TRUE definition of evolution.
You forgot to read the question in context of Phat's OP. He was referring to biological evolution.
do stars evolve?
has the earth evolved?
man has evolved?
the ocean currents have evolved?
the universe has evolved?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Maybe
Yes
if it evolves..isn't it evolution?
No. The term evolution, or more specifically biological evolution, refers to a nondirectional change in allele frequency of a population or species over time due to selective pressure. If you're talking about stellar evolution, it's a directional change in the state of a planetary system or star due to the initial composition and status of the planetary system or star. Two entirely different things.
evolution then would encompass more than the biological sense in a "true" definition.
Again, it depends on which "evolution" you are talking about. The only reason I use the word "evolution" for both biological and stellar change is due to the limitation of the English language. They're two entirely different things.
Biological evolution is directional while stellar evolution have inevitable results.
the same elements that make up the earth and universe are present in the make up of biological things, and the same forces (strong force etc) are holding together these elements in biological things, as it holds things together in non biological things.
You are commiting the fallacy of composition. Look it up and try to see why I said that.
the term "alive" is applied only to the biological things, because of the complexity of the environments that the elements exist in.
Actually, as we look more and more at biological systems, we've realized more and more that the line between biological and nonbiological things aren't so clearly defined.
ie: if you take biological ,material and examine its base composition, what is found? carbon..i dunno the rest. carbon based i do know.
And...?
now, the arrangement of the carbons and other elements work together in a complex fashion, therefore, it is "alive"
There are plenty of complex forms of carbon based molecular arrangement, and most of them are not "alive". You need to be more specific.
under this observation, the laws that apply to non living things, apply to living things. but must be scrutinized by individual environments (conditions).
Yes and no. Yes, it's true that living things are subject to the same "laws" as everything else. No, it's not what you're referring to.
so to say evolution of biological things is the most common understanding of the word evolution not a lie, but that a true definition of evolution would be attributed to things that "evolve"
Again, you're just using the word "evolution" to describe 2 entirely different processes. This is due to (1) the limitations of the English language and (2) your unfamiliarity with this subject. A layman, more often than not, depends too much on words. Trust me, people who are more educated on these topics don't depend so much on words or semantics. We try to see past the words and actually look at the concepts and mathematics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 9:52 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 6:31 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 61 of 74 (454416)
02-06-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by tesla
02-06-2008 6:31 PM


Re: ill "try"
tesla writes:
biological evolution can refer to any points of biological evolution, and because there are so many different types of biological evolution, the term is misunderstood by which biological evolution is the topic.
What the hell are you talking about? There is only ONE biological evolution. But just to be clear, can you name a few biological evolutions that you think exist?
there needs to be clearer definitions of individual types of biological evolution to discuss the different aspects without going too far off topic of the posters discussion.
Let me guess, are you thinking about "micro" and "macro" evolution? If so, you've been misinformed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 6:31 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 10:45 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 66 of 74 (454442)
02-07-2008 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by tesla
02-06-2008 10:45 PM


Re: ill "try"
I really have no reply to this, as others have pointed out that your answers are so off they're not even wrong.
Anyway, seeing how this is going nowhere and there really is no way for me to get through your walls of misconceptions, I'm officially out of this conversation. Good luck with your fantastic endeavors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 10:45 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by tesla, posted 02-07-2008 9:54 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 71 of 74 (454641)
02-08-2008 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by tesla
02-07-2008 9:52 PM


Re: ill "try"
tesla writes:
i didn't make these terms up to hurt anything, it was just a suggestion concerning how "biological evolution" can be misinterpreted when discussed in topics.
You are playing a game that many of us would classify as the intellectually dishonest game. Instead of gleaning for the main points from our posts, you guibble at insignificant details, nitpick every mistake in our choices of words, and purposely being extremely dense and playing dumb. This is a game that many people, including myself, do not care to play.
In an intellectually honest debate, we try to keep as true to the principlle of charity as we can. Instead of insisting on nitpicking the semantics, we actually try to see past the insignificant details and tackle at the main points.
Let me be honest. The game that you are playing is very often used by the less educated because on a quick glance it makes them look really smart. They could literally make a college professor look like an illiterate from some third world country. This is the reason why it's so appealing to people like you.
Sure, you could continue to play this game, or you could learn how to be intellectually honest. You're not fooling anyone here. Playing word games and committing every fallacy in the book might fool and impress the ordinary bystander, but you're not fooling those of us here who are honest about our limitations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by tesla, posted 02-07-2008 9:52 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by tesla, posted 02-08-2008 9:01 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024