Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Evolution
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 4 of 212 (418251)
08-27-2007 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Nuggin
08-27-2007 4:31 AM


Re: The what?
Nuggin writes:
quote:
What the heck is an "observed time frame"?
He's basically being pedantic.
There's a joke of the engineer, the physicist, and the mathematician on a train. While looking out the window, the engineer says, "Look! There's a goat in that field."
The physicist looks and says, "Yes, there is a white goat in that field."
The mathematician looks and says, "Yes, there is a goat in that field, and the side that is facing us is white."
Basically, he wants to be able to say that the various laws of physical nature only work back to some point in the past and beyond that, absolutely nothing can be said. Depending on how far he wants to take it, it is nothing but a thinly veiled variant of the, "Were you there?" argument: That because humans were not physically present to directly observe the biological processes of the past, then we cannot say anything about what happened, as if we had no physical evidence of what did.
He can help allay this suspicion by answering a direct question:
Assuming that we do see evolutionary processes happening now, what is to prevent them from having happened in the past?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2007 4:31 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:51 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 12:11 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 21 of 212 (418432)
08-28-2007 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 9:51 AM


Re: The what?
Vashgun responds to me:
quote:
Uniformitarianism commits itself to evolution as a foundational philosophy
But nobody is a uniformitarianist. So, what's your point? Do you know what the term "strawman" means?
quote:
However, even if this were true, the implications of major change are not noted in the overwhelming majority of the fossil record.
Incorrect. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge made their careers off of punctuated equilibrium. Why? Because the fossil record shows nothing but major change.
quote:
quote:
Assuming that we do see evolutionary processes happening now, what is to prevent them from having happened in the past?
A perfect pre-flood world.
But that fails your own standard: "Observable change shouldn't be coupled with unobserved pretenses."
Question: Wouldn't a "flooded" world leave physical remnants of having been flooded?
So if we examine the geologic column (and yes, it does exist in totality in multiple locations across the globe) and find that there is no physical remnant of a global flood, then can't we conclude through direct observation (after all, the rocks were there and we are directly observing the rocks) that there was no global flood?
Your argument is nothing more than an insistence that forensics is a sham.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:51 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 22 of 212 (418434)
08-28-2007 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 9:59 AM


Vashgun writes:
quote:
As long as we can officially change observable change in genetics and physicality to Variations within a kind.
But there's no such thing as a "kind." Why would we want to change the definition to include something that doesn't exist?
We've seen evolution happen right before our very eyes, both below and well above the species level to include new genera, families, and orders. Are you about to claim that a "kind" is really a class?
And with your claim of a "pre-flood world" and since the flood, according to chronology, happened only about 4500 years ago, that would mean not only does evolution happen, but it happens more rapidly than anybody has ever claimed it could. In fact, it would have to happen so rapidly that no life could possibly survive past a single generation: Every individual offspring would be its own species, incapable of reproducing with any other individual on the entire planet, and thus all life dies in the first generation after the flood.
This goes against your own standard of "unobserved pretenses."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:59 AM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 08-28-2007 8:00 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 212 (418435)
08-28-2007 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 10:10 AM


Vashgun writes:
quote:
I haven't personally witnessed any type of "evolution" in or outside a laboratory.
So hie thee to a bio lab! What are you waiting for?
Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house.
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.
You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
quote:
I remember something about experiments on a fruit fly. They never got anything else other than a fly.
Yeah. They got a different "kind" of fly. This proves your claim that somehow there is a "kind" barrier preventing evolution to be false. And no "unobserved pretenses" need to be invoked. You can watch it happen right before your very eyes.
What were you expecting? They'd come up with an ostrich?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 10:10 AM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 08-28-2007 7:57 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 60 of 212 (418747)
08-30-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 12:27 AM


Re: The question is WHY?
Vashgun writes:
quote:
A usable example of my inflated definition would be: a dog is a dog. a horse is a horse. if it looks the product of the two it is a dorse.
Then that means every individual is its own kind. Thus, it is impossible for anything to "reproduce after its own kind" for all individuals are unique kinds. Instead, we find different kinds coming together to make new kinds.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:27 AM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:04 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 61 of 212 (418749)
08-30-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
08-28-2007 7:57 PM


Tazmanius Devilus responds to me:
quote:
RRHAIN (Rural Rental Housing Association Indiana)
What are we? Twelve?
(Yes, I know of RRHAIN's existence.)
quote:
Bacteria reproduce by mitosis (fusion fission). This means that the daughter cells are exact replicas of the mother cell. And so on and so forth.
True. Silly me didn't think I would have to start from sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 08-28-2007 7:57 PM Taz has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 83 of 212 (418899)
08-31-2007 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 9:04 AM


Re: The question is WHY?
Vashgun responds to me:
quote:
If every individual was a kind, then Noah's Ark would have never worked.
Indeed. So give us a definition of "kind" that allows for the variation of species that we currently see that doesn't require evolutionary rates so rapid that each individual would necessarily be a separate "kind."
That's the problem: Set "kind" to low down the cladistic level, and the ark becomes a floating city. Set it too high, and you have alligators giving birth to ostriches.
If you gave your definition before, please state it again for I have not seen it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:04 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 115 of 212 (419123)
09-01-2007 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Doddy
08-31-2007 4:29 AM


Doddy writes:
quote:
I must point out that creationists are generally fine with the formation of a new species or even a new genus. They just limit things to 'kinds'. No problem with wolves (Canis lupis) and coyotes (Canis latrans) having a common ancestor, but just no evolution outside of the dog 'kind'.
But what is a "kind" and how does the genome know that it isn't allowed to evolve beyond that limit?
Is a "fox" part of the "dog" kind?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Doddy, posted 08-31-2007 4:29 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Doddy, posted 09-03-2007 12:12 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 116 of 212 (419124)
09-01-2007 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Admin
08-31-2007 9:51 AM


Re: And now, a word from our topic...
Admin writes:
quote:
when Vashgun began this thread he did suggest a definition. He wanted evolution limited to describing "observable change" in "living systems" and in an "observed time frame." He also wanted the definition to include no mention of mechanisms, which I assume would be things like cell division, mutation, natural selection and so forth.
OK...so how does one respond to that? It would seem that the thread would become nothing more than a laundry list of posters saying, "I think evolution is defined thusly" if one isn't allowed to put forward the proposition that the definition is insufficient, flawed, impractical, or conflicting with other established facts or standards.
While I can see a possible usefulness to such, I don't think the thread would last very long.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 08-31-2007 9:51 AM Admin has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 117 of 212 (419125)
09-01-2007 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Xaruan
08-31-2007 5:03 PM


Xaruan writes:
quote:
I would say the strict definition of evolution should avoid explicitly stating "resulting in the development of new species"
Oh? Why? Shouldn't the definition of evolution indicate if it is bounded in what it can accomplish?
quote:
Evolution implies how viruses and single-celled organisms were formed
The problem is that an implication isn't an actuality when it comes to science. Yes, evolution provides us with some very wonderful possibilities for how life arose, but evolution is not dependent upon any particular method. Life could have arisen any way you wish: Chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any one of a host of possibilities I haven't mentioned. So long as that life did not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, evolution is satisfied.
So while the chemical nature of biology and the iterative structure of evolution certainly make us think that it might be possible to develop life from non-biotic reagents and spurs us to investigate that possibility, evolution doesn't really say one way or the other.
quote:
Further implications include the increase in cell size and complexity (eukaryotes)
But that isn't an implication, that's an observation. It actually happened and evolutionary processes are consistent with such an outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forced outcome. After all, for most of the time this planet has had life, it was prokaryotic and unicelluar.
quote:
The necessary accumulation of heritable changes needed to account for the current number of species and their complexity could not have been reached in just the last 10,000 years.
Again, that is an observation, not a definition.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Xaruan, posted 08-31-2007 5:03 PM Xaruan has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 140 of 212 (419656)
09-04-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Doddy
09-03-2007 12:12 AM


Doddy responds to me:
quote:
Firstly, the genome doesn't know what a kind is.
Then how can we say that the genome can't evolve beyond a kind? How is it supposed to know that it isn't allowed to go beyond the externally-defined boundary?
quote:
Just as evolutionists will point out that creatures do not know to evolve.
Well, no. Indeed, the genome doesn't evolve consciously, but it certainly does know how to evolve: Replication is a chemical process. No chemical process is ever perfect every single time. Therefore, there will necessarily be offspring genetically distinct from its parents. Because there is a differential between one generation and the next, there will necessarily be a differential in reproductive success among various offspring. Those with better reproductive success compared to the others will have a different genetic makeup than those who came before.
And that, by definition, is evolution.
quote:
Rather, it is just something that occurs due to physical laws.
But what is this physical law? How is it that each individual genetic change is allowable but the aggregation of them is prohibited? What is to prevent it?
quote:
Now, because the laws of the universe (as read by creationists) prohibit information increasing without intelligence (more information) instructing it to do so
Now, assuming that the chromosome is "information" (it isn't), why? Is it allowed to duplicate a gene? Is it allowed to alter a gene? Then how is it that duplication and alteration is not allowed?
If we go from "a" to "aa" to "ab," haven't we gained information?
quote:
A 'kind' simply refers to all those organisms that are commonly descended from this perfect created kind.
But what is it? How does one define this "kind" so that one can delineate one "kind" from another? If you can't actually use your definition to make a distinction, then it isn't a definition.
quote:
But just because we don't know, it doesn't mean the term 'kind' is meaningless
Acutally, it does. If you cannot use your definition to draw a distinction, then your definition is worthless. Surely using your definition, you can develop a process that will allow you to see if something satisfies the definition. What is a "kind" such that we can determine of a "fox" and a "dog" are of the same or differing "kinds"?
[Yes, I know you're trying to answer for a creationist.]

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Doddy, posted 09-03-2007 12:12 AM Doddy 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