|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4443 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
The we'll need to define macroevolution ... because you can bet some creationists get it wrong. eg -- what does "evolution above the species level" mean ... But, of course it is still just "species" that are evolving, by the same process, "microevolution". Only now it is two or more daughter species microevolving. Macroevolution is just the continuation of microevolution in the daughter lines.
Macroevolution is not a separate process.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
CRR writes: Kirk Durston at least tried to provide precise definitions No he didn't, he's just attempted - and singularly failed - to do what you're attempting and also failing to do; define macroevolution and common descent out of evolution for purely religious reasons. It's a hopeless task as there isn't, in fact, any difference between them; macroevolution simple being a consequence of multiple microevolutionary events. You might as well say that adding water in 100ml cups to a 1 litre jar can never fill the jar. Find us some non-creationist scientists and you might get a bit more traction. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
CRR writes: That's one big thing I've learned in my short career (nearly 30 Years as a Geologist). Anyone asking for or providing professional, definite, short and precise definitions for any of the very complex phenomena is quite delusioned. Basically a crank. Kirk Durston at least tried to provide precise definitions but those have been rejected by many here.... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Kirk Durston at least tried to provide precise definitions ... Nope, he tried to define reality out of existence.
quote: As I said above, the "evolution above the species level" would be misunderstood (misinterpreted or misused). Unfortunately it does not matter how he defines it, because science gets to define the terms used in science (and if you want to debate the science you need to use the scientific meanings, not something made up). In science macroevolution is anagenesis and cladogenesis, and both have been observed and documented. Thus Macroevolution -- the scientific version -- has been observed and Kirk Durston is simply wrong. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Unfortunately it does not matter how he defines it, because science gets to define the terms used in science Just as you have admitted there is not one scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution, neither is there one scientific definition of Macroevolution. You don't get to define it either. So it seems that in the debate about evolution none of these major terms are precisely defined;Theory of Evolution Microevolution Macroevolution Evolution Species Kind
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ah, now I see where you're going. You want the ToE to involve Universe formation, star formation, planet formation and everything.
Unfortununately for you, the ToE is an explanation of the mechanisms involved in how the first forms of life (difficult to exactly define), prokaryotes as the oldest examples, changed into the variety of forms of life we know today. The ToE doesn't involve Universe formation, star formation, planet formation or anything like that. The ToE only involes life; nothing else. But, again, I'm not a biologist or anything like that by any means. I leave it all to the experts. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10075 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
CRR writes: As you said "There is no single "official" definition [of the TOE (scientific version).]" Neither is there any single "official" definition of micro or macroevolution. A complex and broad theory can not be condensed down into a short definition.
At least Durston's definitions could be applied to a speciation event, where genomes can be compared, to decide whether it was microevolution or macroevolution. If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and both species evolved from that common ancestor, would you accept that as an example of macroevolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10075 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
CRR writes: Just as you have admitted there is not one scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution, neither is there one scientific definition of Macroevolution. You don't get to define it either. When creationists state that macroevolution does not occur, what are they saying does not occur?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
When creationists state that macroevolution does not occur, what are they saying does not occur? They're saying, "I ain't no kin to no monkey!"Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When creationists state that macroevolution does not occur, what are they saying does not occur? Well, what I say is that genetic change stops at the boundary of the Kind when you run out of genetic diversity in the genome. Purebreeds are the model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10075 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Well, what I say is that genetic change stops at the boundary of the Kind when you run out of genetic diversity in the genome. Purebreeds are the model. Even in purebreds there are new mutations that emerge in every individual in every generation which increases genetic diversity. Is this macroevolution? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1530 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Ringo.
Lighter than air flight could of been inspired by spiders. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/...piders-fly-without-wind"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Even in purebreds there are new mutations that emerge in every individual in every generation which increases genetic diversity. Is this macroevolution? Evolution is phenotypic change in a population at least and MACRO evolution would be change beyond the Kind. And your mutations in a purebred are either superfluous or detrimental. People want to preserve their breeds, they don't want more change. In any case in order to GET more change you'd need a lot more than a few mutations. You need them in the sex cells and you have to get them selected, they have to become characteristic of a new breed or population, and for that to happen means you have to lose competing traits. You don't get evolution without a cost. And at the rate implied by this scenario there is absolutely no way you could ever get evolution past the Kind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
People want to preserve their breeds, they don't want more change. That should be telling you one of the many reasons why purebreeds are a bad model: Nature doesn't have wants like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10075 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: Evolution is phenotypic change in a population at least and MACRO evolution would be change beyond the Kind. You defined kinds by an exhaustion of genetic diversity. This means a new kind is produced with new genetic diversity, which is exactly what new mutations produce.
And your mutations in a purebred are either superfluous or detrimental. Evidence, please.
You need them in the sex cells and you have to get them selected, they have to become characteristic of a new breed or population, and for that to happen means you have to lose competing traits.
Then new mutations produce new alleles that replace those alleles. Keep repeating this process and you have macroevolution.
You don't get evolution without a cost. And at the rate implied by this scenario there is absolutely no way you could ever get evolution past the Kind. All we need is a single mutation to produce a new kind, according to your definition.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024