Evolution by Definition

Bullshit. I already said in Message 13 that in the vaguest sense, evolution = change.You didn't reply to that tho. That is one of the most retarded things I have ever read.

evolution= changeOK. ill go along with that. but it needs more definition.change where? change how ?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Well, sense this thread is suppose to be about biological evolution, it would be changes in a population via the natural selection of genetic mutations.But you seem to want to describe evolution in a very vague sense. SO, in the vaguest sense it is just change. Your going to have to add a qualifier if you want it do describe something more specific.

biological evolution misses some truths because it fails to observe other evolutions that could be affecting the biological evolutions.to be blunt: their overlooking variables.the body is composed of the very elements of the universe, and subject to its laws. the evolutionary stages of all these things, play its role in the evolution of biological things.therefore, to observe biological evolution, it should be under the direction of all things that may be causing the changes, and then consider potentials of an items capability to evolve, within the given environments to understand what happened in the evolution of the biological item of scrutiny.(this should include salts,carbons, etc.)if the term evolution does not only apply to biological things, then there should be another term to further define which evolution is being studied.in my opinion of course.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I think you might be grabbing a bit to much right now, as Catholic scientist said: So he was talking about the biological sense of evolution. And this single sentence isn't the complete theory, its a summary of what the term biological evolution means in a broad perspective.. If you wan't to actually get in on everything influencing the processes.. Well you will have to do some research.

quote:

---

if the term evolution does not only apply to biological things, then there should be another term to further define which evolution is being studied.

---

The term under discussion in theis thread is Biological Evolution.That's the term that further defines the kind of evolution being discussed....as you've already been told a number of times.

quote from topic post.my logic:hmm good question. since the species being studied is biological, and biological beings and agents are affected by both the evolution of elements (literal salts, carbons, minerals etc.) and by the evolution of the biological components based on these elements, and the environment of both the elements of the base, and the environment of land and forces of nature, and also possibly being affected in mood or temperament by the rotation of the solar system and gravitational fields, the term biological evolution is both broadly, and narrowly used to define the same process, but being used generically on studies involving specific forms of evolution as it is relevant to living things.conclusion: evolution is a misused word, and different area's of study need better defined definitions.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Tesla, there is a two word term, Emergent Property, in biology that refers to the vertical organization of life on this planet.by vertical, I mean, of course, the successive levels of organization that life takes. These are:atoms-->molecules-->organelles-->cells-->tissues-->organs-->organ systems-->organisms-->populations-->communities-->ecosystems-->the BiosphereEach successive level of organization has properties that the previous level lacks. These properties are called "Emergent Properties". For example, cells are the smallest unit that can carry out all the necessary functions of life, while organelles, molecules and atoms cannot by themselves do so. An organism is motile, can respond to stimuli, while the levels below it can't (with little exception).The process of biological evolution is an emergent property at the population level, and the population level and those above it are the only organization levels of life at which evolution can take place.Atoms and molecules don't evolve, they simply change. the evolution we are trying to get to the bottom of is not simply change, but change and thereby optimization for the environment. Atoms and molecules and organelles don't evolve in the biological sense, and it is the biological sense we are talking about.Your argument about the different types of evolution is misplaced. Simply because the word evolution means multiple things depending on the context it is used in, for example: the evolution of heat in an exothermic reaction, the evolution of language, and evolution in a biological sense, it does not mean that biological evolution is inaccurate. It is perfectly accurate. We just use the term "evolution" to describe it because it has to do with change.

ok, i read this, but dont fully understand, but think ive grasped some of the basics.for clarification: this comment say's to me: because elements do not change beside's by natural process's relevant to that element, and does not evolve by way of direction of DNA, it is considered an emergent property.true or false?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

From Tesla:

quote:

---

biological evolution misses some truths because it fails to observe other evolutions that could be affecting the biological evolutions.
to be blunt: their overlooking variables.

---

"Biological evolution" does not miss any truths, Tesla. Maybe people trying to study it miss it, but evolution is the product of the forces of the universe that work on it, so there is no possible way it could miss it.Organicmachination said this:

quote:

---

Your argument about the different types of evolution is misplaced. Simply because the word evolution means multiple things depending on the context it is used in, for example: the evolution of heat in an exothermic reaction, the evolution of language, and evolution in a biological sense, it does not mean that biological evolution is inaccurate. It is perfectly accurate. We just use the term "evolution" to describe it because it has to do with change.

---

That's very good stuff, Tesla. In biology, "evolution" is defined as "descent with modification." Therefore, when you say stars and the Earth evolve, you can't be talking about the same process because there is no descent (i.e. no offspring). Minerals cannot evolve because they do not give rise to new minerals: aragonite doesn't build up slowly through geological processes that eventually transform it into ulexite. Therefore, there is no real "modification": there is just the initial production, followed by possible breakdown and production of something different.If you want to include all of these ideas under one definition, your only real recourse is to say it means "change" (as has been asserted ad nauseum by Catholic Scientist) or, to be even more specific, "change over time." You may even want to add "cumulative" in there, because, as in my mineral example, cyclical changes don't really change anything.So: "cumulative change over time"On a more general note, I don't think it's appropriate for a creationist to define evolution, anyway. This is a debate. And, in debates, you don't really get to dictate your opponents' arguments to them.Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

DNA is not an emergent property, although it is a novel level of organization. the DNA molecule has the ability to repair itself, replicate itself and direct the synthesis of proteins along with a host of other organelles in the cell. An atom of DNA alone could not do these things. Therefore, the properties of DNA are emergent properties.So if I understood what you were saying correctly, then yeah, you're understanding what I'm saying.

the poster is just trying to clarify the use of the word.for instance: one person can be talking about the cell evolution, while another poster talking about the evolution as it is relative to genus only.there both related. both relative. but because a clearer definition of which evolution was the point of argument, there is confusion.for instance, when i said lucy could either become ape or man, i was looking at the evolutionary probabilities given environment, adaptive abilities, and the power of choice. i said :evolution.teen4christ then starts talking about evolution of DNA.both relevant, but the term evolution was used generically.im saying that DNA evolution is as relevant as you can see of it. and that evolution on the grand scale, only can take into account what it knows or does not know definitily. and since you cannot get DNA from lucy to compare, the DNA of current apes and humans can be misleading.but when your both throwing around the same term, but talking about a different scale of the biological evolution, there can be confusion.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

cool. then i can only ask, how does the natural evolutions of the emergent properties, affect decisions of DNA and mitochondrial activity?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Emergent Properties are just that, properties, and because they are emergent, they do not affect the levels below the ones with those properties. However, that is not to say that Emergent Properties of a higher level cannot evolutionarily affect the fate of the levels below them. The fact that organisms can move around and eat and drink and think while DNA itself can't does not mean that evolution works on the organism itself. The mutations at the lower level of DNA cause the higher up levels like the organism itself to have its Emergent Properties affected in some way. That's how a change in one base pair of a DNA sequence can cause sickle cell anemia in the blood of the organism, even when DNA itself cannot become sickle shaped or diseased in the traditional sense.

ill agree with that.but also, because of how salt , vitamins, and other emergent properties react, what the entity eats can affect the behavior on a cellular level, and follow up the chain.which means : say that a flower migrates to a new area via a bird.the flower is an outsider to the natural order of its new placement. the flower produces a stimulation in things that eat it. the stimulation prompts the creatures to eat more of it. but it acts as an acid to a salt or vitamin that was natural to the creatures development, and with a lack of the salt, DNA makes changes to compensate.your thoughts of the potentials of emergent properties to affect DNA activity?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides