Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 1:37 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,118 Year: 12,154/19,786 Month: 1,935/2,641 Week: 444/708 Day: 3/135 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Evolution and the BIG LIE
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1244 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 76 of 108 (443695)
12-26-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Elmer
12-23-2007 5:52 PM


Re: Waiting for Elmer
Actually, you might call my definition of evolution, above, 'idiosyncratic', but it will not be, 'stipulated', until those 'to whom it may concern', agree to it. A thing is 'stipulated'when it settled upon, agreed to, by those involved-- be it a decision, a date, a definition, a quantity, a time, or whatever.

Negative.

Acceptance does not constitute stipulation. The latter only needs to be explained by the author, speaker or "stipulator".

RAZD keeps pointing out that his definition of evolution is the one stipulated by darwinists, that is, population geneticists, biochemists, and molecular biologists. And he is correct about that. That is, in fact the stipulated molecular definition of evolution. As far as I'm concerned, that is fine for defining how chemicals evolve, but as for myself, I'm looking for a definition that applies to live organisms, not macromolecules.

I completely agree.

Gene-centricism is a private esoteric knowledge not available to the general population. It requires too much trust. I define evolution the way Darwin and Mayr define evolution. RAZDs stipulated definition is inclusive of inference-based on visible to the naked eye facts.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Elmer, posted 12-23-2007 5:52 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 2:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 78 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 6:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 77 of 108 (443713)
12-26-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 12:57 PM


While we're waiting for Elmer
Thanks Ray.

RAZDs stipulated definition is inclusive of inference-based on visible to the naked eye facts.

Such as the Galapagos finch beak sizes. At this point we don't need to know how the beak size changes, just that it does and that this change is hereditary.

What is your take on 'speciation' (Message 73)?

Note that I limit it to the division of existing species into two or more new species (and this may be more restrictive than some creationist definitions\usages). Thus each new (daughter) population inherits some (but not all) traits found in the parent population.

I also do not include any new feature in the process, as that is not necessary for species classifications, so this is a rather minimalist definition.

If we can accept this stipulated definition I think we can move on to an initial formulation for a theory that we can then study with examples (such as the Galapagos finches ... ).

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 6:53 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 78 of 108 (443781)
12-26-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 12:57 PM


Re: Waiting for Elmer
Hi ray,

As to, 'stipulates' etc., all definitions are made up of stipulations. Definitions themselves become 'stipulated' when their acceptance are is insisted upon by one party as a precondition to further debate. Whether or not definitions, points, propositions or anything else are idiosyncratic, unpopular,and/or unsupported by anything but personal taste, is irrelevent to their being 'stipulated' or not. Anything, popular or not, only becomes 'stipulated' when one or more of its particulars is insisted upon as a precondition to general agreement to a proposition.

A stipulated pre-condition to RAZD's definition is that it be notional, i.e., genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas my stipulation is that any definition of evolution must be empirical, i.e., based upon observation of what it is as an historical biological [organismic] process, without any insertion of speculation as to what its driving engine/force is, or may be.

I think that we probably agree on this principle issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 6:57 PM Elmer has responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1244 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 79 of 108 (443793)
12-26-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
12-26-2007 2:29 PM


Re: While we're waiting for Elmer
Such as the Galapagos finch beak sizes. At this point we don't need to know how the beak size changes, just that it does and that this change is hereditary.

Yes, but you do know that Creationism-Design has a different explanation of these facts (which is not the focus in this topic so I will not relate that explanation)?

What is your take on 'speciation' (Message 73)?

I reject all attempts to number how many species or kinds were on the Ark. It is pure speculation.

The real issue is how did the organisms on the Ark create the nature that we see today? But again this is wholly off-topic here.

Note that I limit it to the division of existing species into two or more new species (and this may be more restrictive than some creationist definitions\usages). Thus each new (daughter) population inherits some (but not all) traits found in the parent population.

I also do not include any new feature in the process, as that is not necessary for species classifications, so this is a rather minimalist definition.

If we can accept this stipulated definition I think we can move on to an initial formulation for a theory that we can then study with examples (such as the Galapagos finches ... ).

No mechanism of diversity is known to mankind that could have produced the nature that we see today if the starting base was the animals on the Ark about 5300 years ago.

The Creationist explanation is the direct hand of God supervising and multiplying nature.

But I have accepted your stipulated definition.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 2:29 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 80 of 108 (443795)
12-26-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Elmer
12-26-2007 6:16 PM


Waiting again for Elmer
... RAZD's definition is that it be notional, i.e., genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ...

... you are wrong again. It amazes me how you can ignore what is plain:

From Message 1

Where:
trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, the length of a bone, the size of a skull, the color of an eye, the thickness of hair,

(color and bold added for emPHAsis)

The size of a finch beak would be another quantifiable trait. You really should stop arguing against false representations of positions - it's called a straw man, and it is a logical fallacy - especially when it is so easy to show that this is what you are doing.

So can we move forward with 'variation and adaptation'?

'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from one generation to the next.

Where (as given in Message 71 = Message 1 with corrections):

trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, or the length of a bone, or the size of a skull, or the color of an eye, or the thickness of hair, etc.,
change is a measurable quantifiable difference in a trait, such as the number, length or color,
hereditary means that it is passed from parent to child offspring,
population means a group of individual organisms of the same species, and
generation is the average time it takes for a newborn to become able to reproduce.

We observe this in every day life, and this process is recognized by a creationist organizations. Do you have a problem with this process?

One step at a time eh? Then we can discuss Message 73

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 6:16 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Elmer, posted 12-27-2007 9:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 81 of 108 (444034)
12-27-2007 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
12-26-2007 6:57 PM


Re: Waiting again for Elmer
Hi RAZD;

You say--


quote:

... RAZD's definition is that it be notional, i.e., genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ...

... you are wrong again. It amazes me how you can ignore what is plain:

Well, excuse me! Here iswhat is "plain". Your definition of evolution, the one I characterize here, the one you reiterated in several posts, is this--
"evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation".
The first notion inserted ino your definition comes with the word, 'hereditary', implying that evolution is an epiphenomenon of the phenonenon, inheritance, ,-- when in fact evolution is the breaking of the chain of specified trait repetition [inheritance] by the introduction of novelty,change, difference, either by addition to or subtraction from, that chain of iterated traits [inheritence].
The next notional insertion in your definition comes with the word 'populations', [an abstraction treated as if it were some kind of emipirically defined entity. a fallacy called, 'concretizing the abstract']. Populations change numerically, but numbers of like individuals differing from one another quantitatively, arthmetically, on the basis of statistical distribution of parts of a shared trait inheritance, is not at all the same thing as an organism evolving, by addition or subtraction, a new trait 'set' that is not a part of the shared trait set of its fellows [the 'population'], and so puts it into its own trait set [taxon], once it has been shown to be regular and persistent.
Third, though not made explicit, the implication in 'from generation to generation' implies that trait change is discontinuous and abrupt [as in, the effect of a random genetic mutation], rather than a developmental, continuous, and extended organismic process that begins in one generation and continues, fluidly, into and throughout, the next.

My criticism of your definition is quite plainly accurate.


From Message 1
Where:
trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, the length of a bone, the size of a skull, the color of an eye, the thickness of hair,

(color and bold added for emPHAsis)

We were talking about your definition of evolution. Now you are talking about phenotypic traits. This is what is known as a 'non sequitur', an attempt to confuse the argument by replacing one issue with another. See also, 'red herring' and 'strawman'.


The size of a finch beak would be another quantifiable trait. You really should stop arguing against false representations of positions - it's called a straw man, and it is a logical fallacy - especially when it is so easy to show that this is what you are doing.

Do you wish to discuss finches? Just remember two things. One, finch beaks are an utterly distinct and different issue wrt my comment that-- "RAZD's definition is that it be notional, i.e., genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ... ",-- which you are supposedly attacking.
Second, you are the one suddenly throwing 'traits' and 'finches' into your definition of evolution. So let me remind you, in your own words-- "You really should stop arguing against false representations of positions - it's called a straw man, and it is a logical fallacy - especially when it is so easy to show that this is what you are doing.".


So can we move forward with 'variation and adaptation'?

If you like, but as you use these terms in your variations on your definition of evolution, [i.e., simply substituting them for 'evolution', and so implying that 'evolution' and 'variation and adaptation' are the same thing], " 'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from one generation to the next.', is something of a problem for me, since this proposition is so obviously false. "Variation and adaptation" are not, "Evolution", although 'adaptation' is a causal factor for evolution [i.e., change], and variation is an observable effect of evolution [change], neither nor both is act of evolution itself.


Where (as given in Message 71 = Message 1 with corrections):
trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene,

An "allele" aka, a "gene", is a macromolecular entity. Genes cannot 'evolve', that can only change, become, abruptly, that which they were not, i.e., different, in a mechanical sense. Just as a stick can be broken in two, a glass smashed two pieces, or two pipes welded into one. Such changes are not evolutionary, from 'to evolve', since evolution does not consist of abrupt mechanical changes to objects, but only to extended connected changes to productive systems'

If, as a materialist/mechanist, you wish to speak of molecular change as 'evolutionary', and any given macromolecule configuration as a distinct 'trait', then I guess I can't stop you. But let me point out this fact. When we speak of 'traits', the world at large speaks of properties that pertain to biosytems, not to molecules, i.e., that is, that apply to phenotypes, not to genotypes. That means that, as far as we non-materialist/mechanists are concerned, genes/alleles are not 'traits' in the evolutionary sense. That is, the 'gene' is not the 'trait'.


or the length of a bone, or the size of a skull, or the color of an eye, or the thickness of hair, etc.,
change is a measurable quantifiable difference in a trait, such as the number, length or color,

True, but you seem to be confusing 'what a trait is' with 'what evolution is'.


hereditary means that it is passed from parent to child offspring,

Fine. Noone is arguing with what inheritance is, but only your insitance that evolution is an aspect of inheritance, or an epiphenomenon of it. IOW, what matters is not what iheritance is, but what it is not--it is not evolution.


population means a group of individual organisms of the same species,

Uhm, I think a 'population' is distinct group, as above, but only when found together at the same time, in the same place. Never mind, but one thing "population" is, is an arithmetical, quantitative abstraction, like a 'sum'. One thing "population" is not, is a concrete empirical entity. Although a 'sum' of particular concrete entities, such as a flock of chickens, may be referred to as 'a population'.

IAC, one thing a population is, it isn't an organism, and so, like a molecule, it can only change arithmetically-- organisms can evolve novel traits--populations cannot. They can only be a collection of organisms that have or have not evolved.


generation is the average time it takes for a newborn to become able to reproduce.

As I said, above, I have no quarrel with what a 'generation' is, but only with what you imply with your [paraphrased], 'evolution is change in traits from one generation to the next'.


We observe this in every day life, and this process is recognized by a creationist organizations. Do you have a problem with this process?

What process? Evolution, no problem. Your definition of evolution--plenty of problems. See above.


One step at a time eh? Then we can discuss Adding speciation to the mix (Message 73)

Yep, but 'step one' is a mutually agreed upon definition of evolution, and we aren't there yet.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 6:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 12-28-2007 1:29 PM Elmer has not yet responded
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 9:06 PM Elmer has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18600
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 82 of 108 (444150)
12-28-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Elmer
12-27-2007 9:55 PM


Re: Waiting again for Elmer
Hi Elmer,

If only your goal had been to create a confusing hash, then your post could have been called a success. I'm not even going to attempt to untangle your Gordian knot of garbled prose and forced misinterpretations.

If you really dislike RAZD's definition of evolution then I again suggest that you offer your own. There's almost always at least a few ways to define anything.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Elmer, posted 12-27-2007 9:55 PM Elmer has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 83 of 108 (445356)
01-01-2008 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Elmer
12-27-2007 9:55 PM


RAZDism then, not Elmerism.
the one I characterize here, the one you reiterated in several posts, is this--
"evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation".

Which is not "genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ..." as I specifically defined trait to "an aspect that can be quantified," and gave specific examples that were NOT genetic.

... when in fact evolution is the breaking of the chain of specified trait repetition [inheritance] by the introduction of novelty,change, difference, either by addition to or subtraction from, that chain of iterated traits [inheritence].

Here you appear to be confusing evolution with something else of your own invention. We'll call it Elmerism.

My criticism of your definition is quite plainly accurate.

What you have done is shown that this thread is not about Elmerism.

Unfortunately, we are not here to discuss Elmerism (you have your own thread for that), but the process laid out in the OP.

We were talking about your definition of evolution. Now you are talking about phenotypic traits. This is what is known as a 'non sequitur', an attempt to confuse the argument by replacing one issue with another. See also, 'red herring' and 'strawman'.

Actually what I was doing was specifying a term used in the definition, indicated fairly clearly in the original post. This is for the purpose of clarity and communication.

Do you wish to discuss finches? Just remember two things. One, finch beaks are an utterly distinct and different issue wrt my comment that-- "RAZD's definition is that it be notional, i.e., genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ... ",-- which you are supposedly attacking.

Thus demonstrating that your characterization of my definition of evolution as "genetically based, arithmetically and chemically" is false. Thank you for that clarification.

Second, you are the one suddenly throwing 'traits' and 'finches' into your definition of evolution.

You know, Elmer, people can read the original post:

Message 1
We'll start with the process, where evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation

Where:
trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, the length of a bone, the size of a skull, the color of an eye, the thickness of hair,
change is a measurable quantifiable difference in a trait, such as the number, length or color,
hereditary means that it is passed from parent to child,
population means a group of individual organisms of the same species, and
generation is the average time it takes for a newborn to become able to reproduce.

The only thing changed in that from when it was posted is the addition of the population definition to the list.

The definition of evolution in Message 1 has always included traits and those trait have always been specified as "an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, the length of a bone, the size of a skull, the color of an eye, the thickness of hair," and this has always included other possible traits like finch beaks.

If you like, but as you use these terms in your variations on your definition of evolution, , and variation is an observable effect of evolution [change], neither nor both is act of evolution itself.

You mean it's not Elmerism (what you think evolution is), thus providing additional justification for calling the process under discussion something else.

An "allele" aka, a "gene", is a macromolecular entity. Genes cannot 'evolve', that can only change, become, abruptly, that which they were not, i.e., different, in a mechanical sense. Just as a stick can be broken in two, a glass smashed two pieces, or two pipes welded into one.

So?

This would be why evolution RAZDism would include the changes from one generation to the next as part of the overall process. Individuals do not evolve, and neither do parts of individuals.

Such changes are not evolutionary, from 'to evolve', since evolution does not consist of abrupt mechanical changes to objects, but only to extended connected changes to productive systems'

You mean Elmerism.

If, as a materialist/mechanist, you wish to speak of molecular change as 'evolutionary', and any given macromolecule configuration as a distinct 'trait', then I guess I can't stop you.

It is a quantifiable trait that can be hereditary, and that may affect the phenotype, and as such it cannot be excluded from consideration.

But let me point out this fact. When we speak of 'traits', the world at large speaks of properties that pertain to biosytems, not to molecules, i.e., that is, that apply to phenotypes, not to genotypes. That means that, as far as we non-materialist/mechanists are concerned, genes/alleles are not 'traits' in the evolutionary sense. That is, the 'gene' is not the 'trait'.

And some of those traits are determined by single genes, and thus they can be measured by the gene. The world at large talks about the genes for blue eyes, blond hair and other familiar traits. The phenotype does not exclude the genotype.

True, but you seem to be confusing 'what a trait is' with 'what evolution is'.

Yet you are the one that seems to be confusing the parts of the process with the whole of the process.

Fine. Noone is arguing with what inheritance is, but only your insitance that evolution is an aspect of inheritance, or an epiphenomenon of it. IOW, what matters is not what iheritance is, but what it is not--it is not evolution.

Yet you are the one that seems to be confusing the parts of the process with the whole of the process.

Uhm, I think a 'population' is distinct group, as above, but only when found together at the same time, in the same place. Never mind, but one thing "population" is, is an arithmetical, quantitative abstraction, like a 'sum'. One thing "population" is not, is a concrete empirical entity. Although a 'sum' of particular concrete entities, such as a flock of chickens, may be referred to as 'a population'.

Seeing as "population" is a (continually) changing entity in nature, made arbitrary by the (human) drawing of boundaries, the definition needs to reflect that lack of precise definition, especially in wild populations (controlled lab conditions being somewhat different).

IAC, one thing a population is, it isn't an organism, and so, like a molecule, it can only change arithmetically-- organisms can evolve novel traits--populations cannot. They can only be a collection of organisms that have or have not evolved.

You must be talking about Elmerism again.

Individual organisms do not evolve, the population changes because the offspring have different phenotypes from the parents, and their phenotype is driven by their genotype, and their genotype includes what they inherit from each parental genotype (in different mixes) plus mutations\changes.

What process? Evolution, no problem. Your definition of evolution--plenty of problems. See above.
Yep, but 'step one' is a mutually agreed upon definition of evolution, and we aren't there yet.

So we won't talk about "evolution" then -- not because we don't agree on the process but because we don't agree on which process to call evolution. The topic is the process, not what it is called, so we are not here to talk about Elmerism, but RAZDism:

RAZDism is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation

Where:
trait is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, or the length of a bone, or the size of a skull, or the color of an eye, or the thickness of hair, etcetera,
change is a measurable quantifiable difference in a trait, such as the number, length or color,
hereditary means that it is passed from a parent to its offspring,
population means a (temporal\spacial\natural) group of individual organisms of the same species, and
generation is the average time it takes for a newborn to become able to reproduce.

In other words we can measure the variation in trait {A} in population1 and then we can measure the variation in trait {A} in population2 and compare the results.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Elmer, posted 12-27-2007 9:55 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Elmer, posted 01-02-2008 9:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 84 of 108 (445540)
01-02-2008 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
01-01-2008 9:06 PM


Re: RAZDism then, not Elmerism.
Hi;

You say--


quote:

the one I characterize here, the one you reiterated in several posts, is this--
"evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation".

Which is not "genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ..." as I specifically defined trait to "an aspect that can be quantified,"

First, your use of 'hereditary' is confusing, since it would make more sense to say 'heritable' or 'inherited'. Second, in either case, genes, alleles, and other molecules, since they are all "aspects that can be quantified", and are all key aspects of 'heredity', cannot be denied on that basis . Your definition of evolution, if it is to be anything but 'gene-based', [i.e.,chemical], when you use the word, "hereditary" in it, [and/or arithmetic/statistical when you use the word "populations" in it], is going to require something more in order to avoid being pre-supposed as ' gene dependent'. Simply saying that a 'trait' is "an aspect [of an organism] that can be quantified", just doesn't get it done.


and gave specific examples that were NOT genetic.

Giving examples of organismic traits [hair, bone, whatever] is not claiming that those traits are not gene-dependent. Examples of traits that evolve without dependence upon prior genetic change exist, and this is called 'epigenetic' evolution, but your definition of evolution makes no reference to them.


quote:

... when in fact evolution is the breaking of the chain of specified trait repetition [inheritance] by the introduction of novelty,change, difference, either by addition to or subtraction from, that chain of iterated traits [inheritence].

Here you appear to be confusing evolution with something else of your own invention. We'll call it Elmerism.

You can invent as many words as you please, but that won't make this generation of evolution any less true. You are going to have to put some reaoning on paper if you hope to do that. Your problem is that you still confuse evolution with something else--heredity itself.


quote:

My criticism of your definition is quite plainly accurate.

What you have done is shown that this thread is not about Elmerism.

Well, you are the only one who is calling 'evolution', "Elmerism". I have shown, reasonably, that evolution is not as you define it {RAZDism}. It is up to you to show what I most certainly have not shown--"that this thread is not about Elmerism",-- as you claim.


Unfortunately, we are not here to discuss Elmerism (you have your own thread for that), but the process laid out in the OP.

Remind me, what process was that? I have been under the impression that it was evolution. The process that you are now referring to as "Elmerism".


quote:

We were talking about your definition of evolution. Now you are talking about phenotypic traits. This is what is known as a 'non sequitur', an attempt to confuse the argument by replacing one issue with another. See also, 'red herring' and 'strawman'.

Actually what I was doing was specifying a term used in the definition, indicated fairly clearly in the original post. This is for the purpose of clarity and communication.

When you inexplicably switch focus from 'cause' to 'effect', without explanation or justification, you do not improve "clarity and communication".


quote:
Do you wish to discuss finches? Just remember two things. One, finch beaks are an utterly distinct and different issue wrt my comment that-- "RAZD's definition is that it be notional, i.e., genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ... ",-- which you are supposedly attacking.

Thus demonstrating that your characterization of my definition of evolution as "genetically based, arithmetically and chemically" is false. Thank you for that clarification.

Fine. I should have said, 'One, finch beaks are a perfect example of RAZD evolution, and perfect support for my criticism of his definition, i.e., "RAZD's definition is that it be notional, i.e., genetically based, arithmetically and chemically, whereas ... ",

The Grants' study of finches was a perfect example of supposed support for the "RAZD" definition of evolution, which I had just finished criticising. Their work is a perfect way of showing just what your definition means, and why that meaning is false.

The 'finch' business had nothing to do with evolution, since in fact it found only a temporary fluctuation in the standard normal average beak size, [within the the parameters, ranges, and limits of normal sizes], in a population of finches. A direct conflation of 'alleles', 'genes', macromolecules, with beak size was assumed [as per RAZDism], and was applied to the statistical arithmetic of the whole population [as per RAZDism]. A perfect example of what evolution, except where contrived by population geneticists to mean, " a fluctuation in differential allele [chemical] statistics[arithmetic] within a group of genetically similar organisms over generations", is NOT.

But that study was a perfect example of RAZDism. See also 'peppered moth' for another example of non-evolution of the very same kind. Or, check out the unstable statistical allelic fluctuations in the heritable variation of thoroughbred horses, and/or champion cat breeds, and on and on. They are all RAZD. They are all about heredity, and differentiallele fluctuation in a local population. They are not evolution.


You mean it's not Elmerism (what you think evolution is), thus providing additional justification for calling the process under discussion something else.

Well, that certainly nonsensical. I meant exactly what I said, that variation [biodiversity] is an effect of evolution. Do you deny that fact? Do you still confuse, let's say, the length of a giraffe's neck,[a trait], for evolution, the process of changing from a short-necked okapi-like animal to a long-necked animal? A final product is not the process by which that product is developed.


An "allele" aka, a "gene", is a macromolecular entity. Genes cannot 'evolve', that can only change, become, abruptly, that which they were not, i.e., different, in a mechanical sense. Just as a stick can be broken in two, a glass smashed two pieces, or two pipes welded into one.

So?

So you cannot equate chemical change [genetic mutation] to organismic evolution [the development of productive traits]. The relation between the two exists only at the 'information' level, and chemicals, in and of themselves, do not contain information, only data--they are meaningless unless and until something that is itself meaningful invests itself in them. Such as making glass out of silica. Random accidents have no inherent meaning of their own. They invest no meaning into the chemicals they impact. They create nothing productive, including biological traits.

Individuals do not evolve, and neither do parts of individuals.

Totally false.


quote:
Such changes are not evolutionary, from 'to evolve', since evolution does not consist of abrupt mechanical changes to objects, but only to extended connected changes to productive systems

You mean Elmerism.

If that is how you wish to characterize the word, 'to evolve'-[see any dictionary]. Smashing a water glass is merely changing it,-- it does not 'evolve' into a pile of broken glass.


quote:
But let me point out this fact. When we speak of 'traits', the world at large speaks of properties that pertain to biosystems, not to molecules, i.e., that is, that apply to phenotypes, not to genotypes. That means that, as far as we non-materialist/mechanists are concerned, genes/alleles are not 'traits' in the evolutionary sense. That is, the 'gene' is not the 'trait'.

And some of those traits are determined by single genes, and thus they can be measured by the gene.

I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that the gene and the trait are the same thing?


The world at large talks about the genes for blue eyes, blond hair and other familiar traits. The phenotype does not exclude the genotype.

quote:
True, but you seem to be confusing 'what a trait is' with 'what evolution is'.

Yet you are the one that seems to be confusing the parts of the process with the whole of the process.

Not me. You are the one confusing the outcome part of the process, the trait, with the process as a whole.


Yet you are the one that seems to be confusing the parts of the process with the whole of the process.

As above. That's your mistake, not mine.


Individual organisms do not evolve,

Wrong. You know nothing of devo-evo, do you? Google, 'developmental biology'.

[qs]
the population changes because the offspring have different phenotypes from the parents,[/quote]

No, the "population" changes because its members, or its membership, have changed. Or are you going to tell us that a population can evolve without, or before, its individual members change? 'Population evolution' is the after-effect of individual evolution. To deny that fact is irrational.


and their phenotype is driven by their genotype,

Aw, and here you've been insisting all along that your RAZD definition is not gene-dependent. So much for that.


So we won't talk about "evolution" then -- not because we don't agree on the process but because we don't agree on which process to call evolution. The topic is the process, not what it is called, so we are not here to talk about Elmerism, but RAZDism:

You must be joking. This is hilarious!


In other words we can measure the variation in trait {A} in population1 and then we can measure the variation in trait {A} in population2 and compare the results.

Yes, we can do that. What's your point?

Edited by Elmer, : typoes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 9:06 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 9:51 PM Elmer has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 85 of 108 (445550)
01-02-2008 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Elmer
01-02-2008 9:19 PM


Re: RAZDism then, not Elmerism.
Yes, we can do that. What's your point?

That it's the topic. Not what you want to make it.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Elmer, posted 01-02-2008 9:19 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Elmer, posted 01-03-2008 5:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18600
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 86 of 108 (445638)
01-03-2008 8:58 AM


Need to Agree on a Definition of Evolution
If I could moderate this thread (I can't, I've already participated as a regular member), I would work with the participants to find a definition of evolution they both agree with. Elmer continues to criticize RAZD's definition, and I think it would be much more productive if he simply proposed his own definition, because I think it would make the differences in their positions much more clear.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 12:57 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 87 of 108 (445741)
01-03-2008 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
01-02-2008 9:51 PM


Re: RAZDism then, not Elmerism.

quote:

Yes, we can do that. What's your point?

That it's the topic. Not what you want to make it.

Oh! I thought that the topic was biological evolution, beginning with a definition of what what evolution is. Since I didn't know that evolution is, or is definitively defined as, "In other words we can measure the variation in trait {A} in population1 and then we can measure the variation in trait {A} in population2 and compare the results.", offered a descriptive definition of evolution that you labelled, "elmerism".

Now, your assertion just doeasn't correct to me. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything but measuring local differences in flora, fauna, or 'genomes'. But if you insist that that is what constitutes evolution, or, that that exercise is the actual topic of this thread, well then, I guess I'll drop out, since that sort of thing means nothing to me.

Edited by Elmer, : clarify


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 9:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 10:59 AM Elmer has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 88 of 108 (446223)
01-05-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Elmer
01-03-2008 5:46 PM


Just the process for now, thanks.
Now, your assertion just doeasn't correct to me. ... well then, I guess I'll drop out, since that sort of thing means nothing to me.

Thanks for your contribution. Opinion is not reality, no matter whose opinion is involved, and participation is voluntary.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything but measuring local differences in flora, fauna, or 'genomes'. But if you insist that that is what constitutes evolution, ...

It is the foundation. If there were no changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, there would be no evolution ... in my (humble yet sometimes arrogant) opinion.

I find it rather amusing that just using the word "evolution" causes such topic drift ... as a result, I have decided to try not to use the word further in this discussion to prevent wasting another 87 posts.

Thanks.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Elmer, posted 01-03-2008 5:46 PM Elmer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2008 1:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 89 of 108 (446247)
01-05-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
01-03-2008 8:58 AM


Starting from basics - with the process as the foundation
Thanks Percy, but I'm not really interested in another thread about what the definition is, rather I want to explore what we can deduce about biological life based on basic processes and observed mechanisms. People who want to discuss the definition can go to "the definition of evolution" thread (it is still open).

Using neutral language we can say that:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

This process can be measured and documented, it can be observed in all living species and thus is an observed fact, part of the evidence of objective reality.

There are several mechanisms that cause this process to occur, and these include

  • genetic mutation,
    • insertions\deletions during replication
    • point mutations,
    • etc.
  • epigenetic effects on the development of phenotypes,
    • nutrition effects,
    • chemical effects,
    • climate effects,
    • etc.
  • various selection processes,
    • sexual selection,
    • ecological selection,
    • intentional selection,
    • survival selection,
    • etc.
  • neutral trait drift,
    • etc.
  • etc.
Each of these mechanisms can be tested and observed in various species at various times, but it should be noted that several don't need to be continual mechanisms. Nor is their any "hierarchy" in action of the mechanisms and their relative importance can change (neutral trait drift could be more important during static than rapid periods of change, for instance).

It would be interesting to list all the mechanisms that are involved, but this would be a good topic on it's own, if not needing a thread topic on each mechanism, as we see continued debate about the mechanism of mimicry spanning several threads. It's also a good topic for individual study in depth (say by taking a university course in biology ... :D).

Discussing all the different mechanisms involved in the process should not be necessary to this thread, other than to mention some in passing as necessary, and thus we should be able to start with the most basic process that anyone can validate with their own observations:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Creationist say this is just "variation and adaptation within kinds," which they use to describe the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation from their hypothetical "original created kinds," with special reference to those that survived the hypothetical world flood event.

Included in the creationist model of biological change ("variation and adaptation within kinds") -- especially following the hypothetical flood event -- is speciation. The definition of species is also covered in an existing open thread - the "Definition of Species" thread - so we don't need to pursue that particular definitional\philosophical\semantic rathole here either. Going back to Message 73:

quote:
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)
quote:
... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind," ...

'speciation' is the division of a single species into two (or more) species.

Speciation is also often seen as the division line between micro-effects and macro-effects in the study of biological life, and so we may want to look at this as another process, with an emphasis on the hereditary relationship (to ensure the creationist position of "within a kind" is included):

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

Again there are several known and observed mechanisms involved, each of which could become a new thread. Speciation occurs by:

  • allopatric mechanisms,
  • peripatric mechanisms (including "founder effect"),
  • parapatric mechanisms (including "ring species"),
  • sympatric mechanisms (including "cryptic species"),
  • artificially, through animal husbandry or
  • artificially in laboratory experiments,
  • etc.
There's a graphic that shows the four basic types of speciation at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Speciation_modes.svg

I think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : emphasis parent\daughter

Edited by RAZD, : syli spling


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 01-03-2008 8:58 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2008 3:01 PM RAZD has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 90 of 108 (446252)
01-05-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by RAZD
01-05-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Just the process for now, thanks.
I find it rather amusing that just using the word "evolution" causes such topic drift ... as a result, I have decided to try not to use the word further in this discussion to prevent wasting another 87 posts.

Hi RAZD,

I think the problem with the word evolution is that it is to many as it is to me. That is it includes everything from the point that there was nothing until what we have today. This is what I always understood evolution to mean until I came to EvC. You are trying to take a part of that process and call it evolution.

Remember what I believe about the word evolution has entirely nothing to do with what the scientific world believes about evolution, or calls evolution for that matter.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 10:59 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 1:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019