Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 7:59 PM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   Definition of Evolution
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3607 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 151 of 212 (419786)
09-04-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Wounded King
09-04-2007 5:24 PM


Re: So what is this evolution thing, anyway?
Have you just totally given up on having your posts make any sort of sense?

Well, no, not "just totally." Where did you pick up the Valley Girl speak in Dundee, Scotland?

You were moaning about Conway-Morris 'grinding an ID axe', I was simply pointing out that he was not neccessarily any more ID than any theistic evolutionist and certainly not a proponent of ID as it would be generally be understood on this site, i.e. the position espoused by Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Will Dembski and promoted by the Discovery Institute. I likened this to describing a theistic evolutionist as a creationist, since the believe in a creator, which would still be quite distinct from the common usage of creationist on this site either in the young earth or old earth context.

I liken the Discovery Institute to a Christian organization out to discover nothing but evidence of God and His glory.

Are you actually going to address any of the points I made or just keep dodging and whining?

Ah, what was your point again?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Wounded King, posted 09-04-2007 5:24 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Wounded King, posted 09-05-2007 5:26 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19815
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 152 of 212 (419794)
09-04-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Fosdick
09-04-2007 7:29 PM


Re: Review time, qualified evolution
Then you don't have adaptation per se, you have exaptation, which is Gould's way of explaining how previously fixed alleles that were once neutral, or even deleterious, become usefully adaptive.

And exaptation would still be a part of evolution, and it can be critical for speciation as well, so provision for this would need to be included in the general definition.

You are looking for a more generalized definition, I suppose.

That would be the purpose of the thread. Are you then happy with:

"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"

as a generalized definition?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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 150 by Fosdick, posted 09-04-2007 7:29 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Fosdick, posted 09-04-2007 8:34 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3607 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 153 of 212 (419805)
09-04-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
09-04-2007 8:11 PM


Re: Review time, qualified evolution
Are you then happy with:
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"
as a generalized definition?

After kicking a few tires, I think I'm ready to buy your yellow jalopy, RAZD.

Good thread.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2007 8:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1155 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 154 of 212 (419811)
09-04-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2007 12:11 AM


Re: Post of the Month
NJ writes:

Well, to be fair, science as a general rule of thumb must base its fledgling theories with observation, testing of hypotheses, and repeating the processes. Neither of those fit the criteria for the theory of evolution.

Darwinian macroevolution has never been directly observed, to which you might reply, it takes years and years to accumulate enough minor gradations. Its like trying to watch fingernails grow!

But the thing is, fossils are snapshots in history. And in the same way you might not be able to see one's fingernails or hair grow, directly, you can still see clear evidence of it from those snapshots.

The fossil record is inept in answering these questions because we do not see any clear examples of transitional forms. Indeed, this has long been the problem for evolutionists. But the argument is brought up so much now or days against evolution that it is not as widely admitted as it was in the past.

The second tier is with the fact that evolution cannot be duplicated in a lab. For instance, the Dros[o]phila Melanogaster, which is your average fruit fly. Numerous scientists have bombarded these fruit flies with X-ray radiation, among other techniques, in order to mutate them. Well, it worked remarkably well. They were able to produce offspring with eyes missing and wings growing out of their heads. But I suppose the point is, no bionic fruit fly was ever the bi-product of these experiments. (No dragonflies, houseflies, horseflies, butterflies, were ever bioengineered-- just fruit flies and lots of them).

Of those that actually survived essentially produced monstrosities with horrible deformities that certainly would have eliminated them in the wild. Natural selection works against the typical evolutionary model because it does not further the advancement of mutations, but rather, tends to weed out any aberrations.

The Drosophila has been no exception to the rule. Even more damning, the fruit fly is molecularly very simple in relation to that of a human. What is worse, their lifespan is not even a thousandth to that of the average human lifespan. What does this mean? Essentially, it means that the fruit fly has the physical ability to evolve more readily than that of a human being. The fruit fly is relatively simple with a genome, composed of four pairs of chromosomes, of about 13,000 genes.

Aside from this, they breed at a much quicker rate. So, then, surely in 80 to 90 years of experimentation, their generations would be into the hundreds of thousands. Compare that figure to humans. In 80 or 90 years, how many generations have come out of your immediate family? Most likely, about three generations, and maybe four in that amount of time.

If ever there were a prime candidate for proving macroevolution, the Drosophilia would be it, and yet, nothing even comparable has ever been established.

Lastly, they cannot repeat the results of the experiment because they cannot simulate it in the lab to begin with.

Therefore, I scarcely see how dissenting objections to evolution should be viewed with such scathing anger. (Not you, but in general) For how ever misguided you'd like to say creationists are, they have some very reasonable objections to the theory.

Having said that, they have to respond to some very reasonable postulates presented by evolutionists until a solid consensus can't be found in some appreciable way.

This is the Post of the Month. Extremely well written and fluid (keeps moving).

While very few posts are perfect (as is seen in the fact that NJ concedes microevolution, which we know is false) this post is still excellent, especially the part where it says that the geological fossil record is not admitted to not support ToE as it was in the past - so true. Evolutionists (ordinary ones) simply lie; published scholarship has always admitted that the fossil record shows no signs of the reason for being evidence (species transitioning).

Hats off to NJ.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 12:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2007 9:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 157 by AdminWounded, posted 09-05-2007 5:24 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 159 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2007 6:04 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 1:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19815
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 155 of 212 (419812)
09-04-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object
09-04-2007 9:41 PM


Re: Post of the Month -- but NJ was OT (as well as wrong)
So Ray. Thanks for picking out one of the posts that strayed from the topic -- the definition of evolution -- for comment (I also notice that you paid no attention to the refutations of his several errors and misrepresentations). Can we get back on topic?

Do you agree that the definition of evolution is:

"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"

If not why.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-04-2007 9:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-04-2007 10:21 PM RAZD has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1155 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 156 of 212 (419818)
09-04-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by RAZD
09-04-2007 9:48 PM


Re: Post of the Month -- but NJ was OT (as well as wrong)
Do you agree that the definition of evolution is:

"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"

It does not matter what any given person thinks (subjective) the definition to be, what matters is how scholarship (objective) defines said word. Your definition is a variant of the genetic definition. The genetic definition is not the only valid definition. In fact, the genetic definition was first postulated by R.A. Fisher in the early 1930s. The ensuing biological synthesis (until 1950) became divided into two camps: the geneticists and the naturalists. The latter was led by Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley. While Mayr agrees that the genetic definition is important he rejects it to represent the meaning of evolution. Evolution IS NOT a change in gene frequencies, it is an observation, an inference made after the fact based on variation, homologies, inheritance and fossils. Evolution is an observation (traditional understanding) the naturalist position.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2007 9:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 7:23 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 212 (419868)
09-05-2007 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object
09-04-2007 9:41 PM


Re: Post of the Month
You do realise there is a perfectly good POTM - September 2007 in existence entirely for this sort of thing. Why repost NJ's entire post in the thread it is already in instead of in the POTM thread where it will get wider exposure?

TTFN,

AW

Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-04-2007 9:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-05-2007 12:30 PM AdminWounded has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 158 of 212 (419869)
09-05-2007 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Fosdick
09-04-2007 7:40 PM


Re: So what is this evolution thing, anyway?
Ah, what was your point again?

Wouldn't it be easier just to reread the posts you totally failed to address rather than getting to repeat myself over and over?

I'll give you the condensed version...

  • You attributed to 'evo-devo-ists' in general, and Mary West-Eberhard and Simon Conway-Morris in particular, a position which there is absolutely no evidence that they ascribe to. Namely that 'evolution can happen even without the inheritance of genetic traits.'

  • You explicitly state that Conway-Morris has 'an ID axe to grind', which can only be true if you use ID as such a loose term as to make it virtually meaningless in discriminating between different positions held by anyone who believes in god.

    I totally agree with your analysis of the DI so I don't see why you want to tar a perfectly reputable scientist with the same brush.

  • Your claim that 'adaptation does not occur until the benefical alleles are fixed.' is clearly wrong unless you are using 'fixed' in a radically different way to how it is understood in population genetics. Your subsequent dialogue with RAZD suggests that you were using it as it is used in population genetics so your claim makes no sense at all. An adaptive trait can just as easily exist in one individual as it can in a whole population.

    TTFN,

    WK


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 151 by Fosdick, posted 09-04-2007 7:40 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

        
  • bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 584 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 159 of 212 (419870)
    09-05-2007 6:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object
    09-04-2007 9:41 PM


    Re: Post of the Month
    Cold Foriegn Object writes:

    This is the Post of the Month. Extremely well written and fluid (keeps moving).

    bluegenes writes:


    nemesis writes:


    Aside from this, they [Drosophila Melanogaster] breed at a much quicker rate. So, then, surely in 80 to 90 years of experimentation, their generations would be into the hundreds of thousands. Compare that figure to humans. In 80 or 90 years, how many generations have come out of your immediate family? Most likely, about three generations, and maybe four in that amount of time.

    Drosophila Melanogaster has an average generation gap of just under two weeks, meaning about thirty generations in a year, thus meaning about 3000 generations in a century. 3000 does not equal hundreds of thousands.

    Were you particularly impressed by nemesis's in depth knowledge of fruit fly experiments, or by his astonishing grasp of mathematics?

    Or was it, perhaps, his eloquent demonstration of the point that some creationists are in complete denial about the fossil record, combined with his astute ability to misunderstand a topic?

    RAZD writes:

    "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"

    That's fine as a general definition, and couldn't get more economical.

    If we were going to get more wordy, then I quite like the Futuyuma definition that Modulous posted earlier:

    quote:
    'Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual...The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.'

    Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-04-2007 9:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

      
    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 19815
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 160 of 212 (419873)
    09-05-2007 7:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 156 by Cold Foreign Object
    09-04-2007 10:21 PM


    back to the definition(s)
    While Mayr agrees that the genetic definition is important he rejects it to represent the meaning of evolution.

    And yet Ernst Mayr "contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept" and he also defined evolution as:

    quote:
    Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species.

    Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.157


    The genetic definition is not the only valid definition. In fact, the genetic definition was first postulated by R.A. Fisher in the early 1930s. The ensuing biological synthesis (until 1950) became divided into two camps: the geneticists and the naturalists.

    My personal preference is

    Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time.

    Because the naturalist can measure and document changes in hereditary traits, as Mendel did, without needing genetic analysis. But I don't see that as being significantly different from

    Evolution is the change in a population's genetic traits across generations.

    In either case we get change that is hereditary and that is passed from one generation to the next based on relative reproductive success.

    Evolution IS NOT a change in gene frequencies, it is an observation, an inference made after the fact based on variation, homologies, inheritance and fossils. Evolution is an observation (traditional understanding) the naturalist position.

    I suppose you think gravity is just an observation, an inference.

    Sorry ray, but this is not a definition either, it is just a way for you to avoid confronting the evidence. Perhaps you should read Mod's Message 122 and the links he provided.

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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 156 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-04-2007 10:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-05-2007 12:24 PM RAZD has responded

      
    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1155 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 161 of 212 (419908)
    09-05-2007 12:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 160 by RAZD
    09-05-2007 7:23 AM


    Re: back to the definition(s)
    And yet Ernst Mayr "contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept" and he also defined evolution as:

    Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species.

    Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.157

    [Ray: where is your second quote mark?]

    First off, Mayr is known for populational thinking and not the synthesis of Mendelian genetics into Darwinian science.

    I originally said that Mayr said that the genetic aspect of evolution IS IMPORTANT, but it is not the primary definition; therefore, your use of Mayr is a quote mine:

    Ernst Mayr, writing critically in the context of the way evolution is presented and explained in literature: "....the principles of genetics must be thoroughly explained....[however]....most treatments of evolution are written in a reductionist manner in which all evolutionary phenomena are reduced to the level of the gene. An attempt is then made to explain the higher-level evolutionary process by 'upward' reasoning. This approach invariably fails. Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies.' The two most important units in evolution are the individual, the principal object of selection, and the population...." ''(What Evolution Is,'' 2001:XIV).

    I hope you choose to respond in a timely fashion (as you normally do) because I would really like to settle this issue.

    Ray

    PS: I may have to serve a short suspension soon.

    RM

    Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 160 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 7:23 AM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 1:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

        
    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1155 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 162 of 212 (419909)
    09-05-2007 12:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 157 by AdminWounded
    09-05-2007 5:24 AM


    Re: Post of the Month
    You do realise there is a perfectly good Thread POTM - September 2007 in existence entirely for this sort of thing. Why repost NJ's entire post in the thread it is already in instead of in the POTM thread where it will get wider exposure?

    Yeah, I knew but I forgot.

    I apologize.

    Ray


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 157 by AdminWounded, posted 09-05-2007 5:24 AM AdminWounded has not yet responded

        
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16093
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 163 of 212 (419915)
    09-05-2007 1:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object
    09-04-2007 9:41 PM


    Re: Post of the Month
    While very few posts are perfect (as is seen in the fact that NJ concedes microevolution, which we know is false)

    Where by "we", you can't even include your fellow-creationists.

    this post is still excellent, especially the part where it says that the geological fossil record is not admitted to not support ToE as it was in the past - so true.

    It is true that creationists don't admit that the fossil record does not support the ToE --- however, they did not do so in the past.

    Evolutionists (ordinary ones) simply lie; published scholarship has always admitted that the fossil record shows no signs of the reason for being evidence (species transitioning).

    Perhaps you could quote one evolutionist telling this lie. Or perhaps this is some crazy fantasy that you've made up in your head?

    And perhaps you could tell us who you think produces published scholarship about the fossil record if not evolutionists, and why pointing out the bleedin' obvious constitutes an "admission"?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-04-2007 9:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

      
    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 19815
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 164 of 212 (419916)
    09-05-2007 1:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object
    09-05-2007 12:24 PM


    Re: back to the definition(s)
    [Ray: where is your second quote mark?]

    Right where I left it (after concept).

    First off, Mayr is known for populational thinking and not the synthesis of Mendelian genetics into Darwinian science.

    He is known for both.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr

    quote:
    Ernst Walter Mayr (July 5, 1904, Kempten, Germany – February 3, 2005, Bedford, Massachusetts U.S.), was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists. He was also a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, historian of science, and naturalist. His work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept.

    He comes from the side of naturalist (ornithologist) and taxonomist and he had reservations about a "gene centric" view.

    He is also known for inconsistency. I suggested you read Mods Message 122 and follow the links: apparently you haven't done that. One of them was

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html

    quote:
    The Gene Centrist Objection

    Ernst Mayr wrote an entire book on the subject of this little essay. One might expect some insight from one of the original founders of the Modern Synthesis but, unfortunately, we aren't going to get any help from Mayr. On page 157 he says,

    Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species.

    Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.157

    This is good stuff. It restricts the changes to genetic changes and it clearly identifies the population as the unit that evolves. There's no mention of any particular mechanism. But—and you knew there was going to be a "but" didn't you?—good things never last. In his chapter on macroevolution Mayr describes the work of his colleagues Rensch and Simpson. These workers were able to study macroevolutionary events without referring to allele frequencies in a population. Mayr coments,

    This approach was consistent with the modern definition of evolution as a change in adaptedness and diversity, rather than a change in gene frequencies, as suggested by the reductionists.

    Ernst Mary (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.189

    Consistency is not one of the hallmarks of Ernst Mayr's writings. That's why he can propose two conflicting definitions in the same book; even a book that's devoted to the topic of defining biological evolution! Nevertheless, Mayr does highlight two different objections to the minimal definition that I am defending.


    I suggest you read the whole article.

    That Mayr can give - and use - two different definitions does not mean that one or the other is more correct. In the second case he is talking about adaptive evolution -- the 'fixing' of changes in the genotype, a necessary step (imho) on the way to speciation. See Message 147 and related discussion with Hoot Mon. This doesn't happen without change in alleles and their frequency in populations.

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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 161 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-05-2007 12:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 165 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-05-2007 5:57 PM RAZD has responded
     Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-05-2007 6:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

      
    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1155 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 165 of 212 (419966)
    09-05-2007 5:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
    09-05-2007 1:23 PM


    Re: back to the definition(s)
    Right where I left it (after concept).

    I meant for the material quoted from page 157.

    He is known for both.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr

    Who wrote the article on Mayr? Ninja Turtle, 007, Son of Sam or Britney Spears? Or did all of them have a say?

    The point is that Wikipedia is not a source.

    He is also known for inconsistency. I suggested you read Mods Message 122 and follow the links: apparently you haven't done that. One of them was

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html

    Mods msg #122 says nothing about Mayr. You are saying that Larry Moran says that Mayr is inconsistent - no?

    The Gene Centrist Objection

    Ernst Mayr wrote an entire book on the subject of this little essay. SNIP...

    What essay is being referred to here? Is it this one?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

    How does blog writer know that Mayr wrote said book to reply to said essay?

    IF it is Larry Moran who says Mayr is inconsistent then this is a circular piece of data on your part. Moran is a geneticist, why wouldn't he disagree with Mayr? To say Mayr is inconsistent is merely an insult evading the fact that neither you or Moran have actually showed an inconsistency - it is asserted. The evidence I have already posted, quoting Mayr, says the genetic explanation is important but it is not the definition of evolution. The quote goes on to say that evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies, and it tells us why. Look, I am not obligated to do your work, I do not have to read any article, RAZD, by telling me to read some blog, absent a clear chronology as to who said what and when they said it is called literature bluffing. You really need to support your assertion that Mayr is inconsistent. Mayr is not inconsistent: he acknowledged the importance of genetical explanation but said evolution is not defined at said level.

    The point is that your genetic definition is not the only valid definition of evolution. I have supplied Mayr saying this specifically from the source you and possibly Moran quote mined, ignoring the text I pasted altogether. Usually, persons ignore what they cannot refute. This seems to be the case, here. I would surely appreciate a reply to my questions and points.

    Ray


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 1:23 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 7:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

        
    RewPrev1
    ...
    910
    11
    12131415Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019