Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
239 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 236 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,866 Year: 978/6,534 Month: 978/682 Week: 31/182 Day: 5/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 936 (259689)
11-14-2005 4:10 PM


Released from PNT. --Admin

How do you define evolution? I ask you to post your definition of evolution.

Why? Because over and over I see arguments based on differing opinions of the words being used. If we lack a common definition, we can scarcely be successful in our discussions. I suspect that evolution is one of those key words that evoke many different concepts in the minds of the readers and writers. With this thread, we may be able to see and understand some of those differences.

I ask that all definitions be less than 90 words in total. Keep it short, clear, and to the point. No justifications, no rationales, no references. Don’t go look it up then write what you read in your own words. Just post your concise opinion. Note that for reference, this paragraph, including these last sentences, contains 90 words as counted by Microsoft Word. I have added a little extra BS just to get this close to the exact value so we will have an easy reference. Three more words.

Before you make any arguments to support your position or to dispute other positions, please allow a few days for everyone to post their opinion. I wish to see each person's mental concept of the word evolution.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 4:17 PM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 3 by deerbreh, posted 11-14-2005 4:30 PM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 5:10 PM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 11 by U can call me Cookie, posted 11-15-2005 11:08 AM bkelly has responded
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2005 2:55 PM bkelly has responded
 Message 13 by Ben!, posted 11-15-2005 3:29 PM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 11-16-2005 2:58 AM bkelly has responded
 Message 24 by EZscience, posted 11-16-2005 2:13 PM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 03-15-2017 11:20 PM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 1:11 AM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 377 by Pressie, posted 04-21-2017 7:20 AM bkelly has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 936 (259756)
11-14-2005 11:04 PM


Wider response base wanted
Although this thread has not been active very long, I am interested in definitions from those who are adamantly opposed to ToE and those that accept at least some of it’s tenants but also believe in an outside influence. If you have doubts or misgivings, what is your definition? At this point I don’t want to argue, just to hear your position.


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 936 (259918)
11-15-2005 10:48 AM


Its time to include my definition.

When a descendant’s inheritable characteristics differ from those of its parent(s).

This includes when a trait changes from dominant to recessive or the reverse.

I define it this way in part because I had one person tell me that changes caused by humans (such as dogs from wolves and new strains of mice) don't count as evolution. Only changes that happen in nature (not human caused) are evolution.


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by deerbreh, posted 11-16-2005 10:40 AM bkelly has responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 936 (260050)
11-15-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by U can call me Cookie
11-15-2005 11:08 AM


Re: First Post , Woot!
As other say, Welcome to the fray. I am glad you spoke up and joined us.

Since you did, I will admit some ignorance and ask for an explanation.

Cookie writes:

Biologically, it is change in allele frequencies between successive generations,....

allele
noun: one of two alternate forms of a gene that can have the same locus on homologous chromosomes and are responsible for alternative traits

homologous
adj: having the same evolutionary origin but serving different functions
adj: corresponding or similar in position or structure or function or characteristics

When I apply these specific definitions to your definition I find my self no better off and need some help here. This definition of evolution seems to restrict it to changes that occur to genes that come in two alternate forms and in the same location. That seems like an unnecessary restriction. To me, any gene that changes from parent to offspring represents evolution to some degree regardless of what or where that gene is. And why must there be a change in frequency? I have seen that phrase several times and have yet to understand it.

When you write or speak the word evolution is this the definition that you have in mind?

Again, thank for joining us.


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by U can call me Cookie, posted 11-15-2005 11:08 AM U can call me Cookie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by U can call me Cookie, posted 11-16-2005 1:34 AM bkelly has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 936 (260057)
11-15-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2005 2:55 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Why would you need 90 words?

Obviously we don't. I was and am hoping that some that hold the concept of evolution to be false would post their definition. It occured to me that they might want to explain and to ensure that I understood, I wanted the answer short and simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2005 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2005 1:44 PM bkelly has responded
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2005 1:45 PM bkelly has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 936 (260351)
11-16-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by coffee_addict
11-16-2005 2:58 AM


small is good
Lam writes:

Evolution is a drastic physical change ...

I can say that is indeed incorrect. The smallest detectable change in inheritable characteristics from parent to child is evolution.

What is your position on ToE? Do you think that species can evolve into new species?


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 11-16-2005 2:58 AM coffee_addict has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 11-17-2005 9:07 AM bkelly has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 936 (260360)
11-16-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2005 1:44 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

That’s just a mutation and not evolution

I do not agree with that. Assume we have a population of blue eyed people that have had blue eyes for many thousands of generations. For no apparent reason a person with green eyes is born from mother and father with blue eyes. You would call that a mutation. I say there has been some amount of evolution.

Lets say the blue eyes spread to that persons 3 children, then to the 9 granchildren, then the 27 of the next generation then the 100 of the next, etc, etc. As what point does this change from a mutation to evolution? Why do you select that point?


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2005 1:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2005 10:46 PM bkelly has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 936 (260363)
11-16-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by deerbreh
11-16-2005 10:40 AM


in agreement
Hello deerbreh,
We are in agreement. Someone I worked with did not like the ToE. When I laid out some examples he said that they did not count because humans caused it rather than nature.

Needless to say, we did not agree. I am tempted to say that the roots of our disagreemet was found in our differing definition of the word evolution. On further reflection, I suspect that was the method he used to justify an opinion he did not want to surrender.


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by deerbreh, posted 11-16-2005 10:40 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 936 (260670)
11-17-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2005 12:46 PM


Yes, I guess technically, mutation is evolution; its justRe: Is a mutation evolution?
cs writes:

Yes, I guess technically, mutation is evolution; its just on an idividual level (but individuals don't evolve).

Agreed, but I feel the need to split a hair. In sexually reproducing entities (animal, plant, and anything else) the point of evolution is conception. The parent’s DNA combine in new and unique ways to produce an offspring. With one exception that I know of, after conception, there can be no further evolution of that individual.

Question, how is asexual evolution manifested?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2005 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2005 6:10 PM bkelly has responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 936 (260716)
11-17-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2005 6:10 PM


Re: Is a mutation evolution?
re: You gotta stop thinking of evolution on the individual level.

No, not only do I not gotta*, I should not. Evolution on a large scale is nothing but the composition of evolution of the individuals one at a time. You did not provide an adequate answer to my example of green eyes and blue eyes.

Because that is what I was taught in a 100 level college biology course on evolution.

That says why you believe, but it provides no evidence, justification, or substance.

Given my example of green eyes in a blue eyed population, at what point do we have the transition from mutation to evolution? Why do you pick that point?

Mutation is evolution. If the mutant dies without decendants, then that particular path of evolution failed. But it did meet the definition of evolution.

* Gotta is terrible english, but I will use it for effect

edited to fix typo

This message has been edited by bkelly, 11-17-2005 08:25 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2005 6:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2005 9:21 PM bkelly has responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 936 (260860)
11-18-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
11-17-2005 9:21 PM


another problems of definition
Hello Crash,
When I put together your response with that from Catholic Scientist
I figured out that we, no, I, have a defintiion problem. Here is how I see this now.

The individulal entity does not exist until the union of sperm and egg is complete. CS referred to the anaphase of mitosis and that is real close. The imprecision is that mitosis occurs in every cell division. I am referring to the process in which the sperm and egg combine their genetic material to become one living entity. Anaphase does not occur until that combination is complete and the first cell division is in progress. I did some searches but did not find the correct description.

I found a nice animation here: http://www.cellsalive.com/mitosis.htm
The DNA duplication appears to occur during interphase, but the site does not go into that very deeply.

According to this site: http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/cell_cycle/cells3.html
During anaphase the chromosomes separate at the kinetochores (as I understand this, where the chromosomes are tied together causing the X shape) but it does not clearly say where or when the chromosomes reconstruct after the split.

More to the point, neither site presents the point where sperm and egg combine for produce the first complete set of chromosomes for the individual.

So, you guys are right, an individual does not evolve. But the act or event of evolution occurs on an individual level during the process of conception. The same could be said for mutation, an individual does not mutate, the mutation occurs during the creation of the individual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2005 9:21 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2005 9:49 AM bkelly has responded
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2005 12:25 PM bkelly has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 936 (260912)
11-18-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
11-18-2005 9:49 AM


Re: another problems of definition
chuckle, I think we have another definition problem.

re: Well, they don't. They never reconstruct.

That depends on how we define reconstruct. Lets see if I have this right. The chromosomes split into two pieces. From each of these two pieces (really each piece seems to be multiple pieces, but the term piece refering to each complete half of the DNA should suffice) the entire and correct dna sequence can be constructed. Since the DNA was once whole, reconstruct is appropriate. After the split, each of the two pieces gathers together the bits and pieces it needs to "reconstruct" its other half and becomes whole again. At the end of this phase, there are two complete copies of the DNA of one cell. These two copies go their separate ways and become two cells.

re: To be most pedantic, the mutation is actually occuring during meiosis, the cellular division process that produces the haploid genetics of gametes.

I agree but don't think that is pedantic at all. Meiosis is composed of a series of smaller operatioins. I am looking further down into meiosis and into those smaller operations. What is the name of the step where the separated stands of DNA gather together the parts needed to make itself whole again.

And back to one of my earlier points, what is the name of the process when the half DNA of the sperm and the half DNA of the egg (each formed my mitosis) combine together to complete conception?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2005 9:49 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 11-18-2005 11:43 AM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2005 1:29 PM bkelly has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 936 (261636)
11-20-2005 7:21 PM


Haven't given up
I am looking for some sites that explicitly cover the fusion of the oocyte and sperm. My searching techniques seem to be sorely lacking.

Just the same, I have not given up on this thread. Just searching for more info. If you have any help, please reply.


  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 936 (261639)
11-20-2005 7:24 PM


Recast the OP
One of the primary goals of this thread was to hear the defintion of evolution from those that take the path of Intelligent Design. Will some of the IDers please take the time to respond? My intent is not to argue, just to hear what you have to say.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by CRR, posted 03-15-2017 2:33 AM bkelly has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022