Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.
Sometimes threads do tend to leave the main track, but you can't go wrong if you keep to the topic.
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Moderation Thread.
Again, welcome and fruitful debating.
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate
Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
...there is no mention of the time scale of these changes -- do they occur in individuals (no) or are they realized in descendant populations (yes)?
you know, I was making dinner with my wife and kids and I thought " oh, I forgot to add anything about a time pierod! " but by the time we were done eating we were watching a movie and I forgot again until this morrning at work :)
so I would add "Evolution is the process that, at the smallest level and over time,..."
The Integrity of an Atheist-evolutionist (who hides behind a deist shell)
Conclusion: yes you did accuse me of quote mining, and now that it has been shown that you cannot support this claim you are equivocating?
You have lied and dishonestly pasted my quotes to obtain your desired result. You have quote mined and have not attempted to hide it because the evolutionist Moderators will turn a blind eye.
Here is the first partial quote mine of my words:
RAZD partially quoting Ray writes:
I did not say that you quote mined "the definition" on page 157 ...
Here is the entire quote:
Ray msg #176 writes:
I did not say that you quote mined "the definition" on page 157 since what is written on page 157 and the description of that text to be "a definition" (in your unsubstantiated view) is what we are in disagreement over.
You dishonestly took what you wanted in mid-sentence and changed the entire meaning to suit your dishonest purposes.
Then you say this:
Yet on Message 165 you said:
Then you paste another chopped quote of mine from a completely different message:
RAZD quoting Ray msg #165 writes:
I have supplied Mayr saying this specifically from the source you and possibly Moran quote mined, ...
Here is the entire quote of mine from msg #165:
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.
You have quote mined two of my quotes from two completely different messages. The first quote above was protesting the unsubstantiated description of calling text on page 157 "a definition" when the Preface already settled the issue. You have evaded this point and quote mined Mayr by asserting page 157 contains a definition when it is explanatory exegesis.
The second quote of mine (from msg #165) is attempting to tell you that Mayr's genetic comments are made in the context of the Preface text. Therefore, page 157 cannot contain a definition since the Preface says it is not a definition and since the Preface says it is important explanation.
You have evaded all of these facts and brazenly twisted and quote mined Mayr and myself. You do this because you have no fear of Percy or Ned or infantile lap dog Modulous racking you up for lying.
In reality, you are a goofy faced smiling lying used car salesman. I have no respect for you whatsoever.
Why does RAZD engage in this degree of dishonesty, misrepresentation, evasion of the most critical parts of each post and straight out lying?
Answer: Because he cannot refute the facts and truth and must defend the errors he has already spoken up for.
Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist-Designist
Content hidden by Adminmodulous to avoid any temptation of others to reply. The content is not deleted and can be viewed by clicking the peek button.
Debating online, we all have to accept a bit of rough and tumble - I wouldn't want it any other way. However, we also like substance, which has been draining out of this subthread for some time. When you start showing such blatant disregard for forum members, it is time to step in.
Right now I am ruling Mayr's consistency or lack thereof off topic as are subtopics such as RAZD's integrity, the former can be discussed in a new thread at leisure. As for the latter, if you want to complain about the lack of moderator attention of forum violations you perceive RAZD to have engaged in, you know the procedure. If you feel the procedure is futile, then I can only suggest you refrain from complaining at all.
Either way, please be nice, Ray - this kind of post is the kind of post you've been suspended for dozens upon dozens of times and you seem incapable of restraining yourself. I'm taking no moderator action against you right now other than to warn you. Other moderators may see it differently.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
oops looks like your content was deleted ... that's what happens when you insult instead of deal with the issue.
For clarity Ray, "quote mining" is taking something OUT OF CONTEXT in a manner that MISREPRESENTS its original meaning. I have not done that. You have totally FAILED to show that to be the case, so all you do now is rail, insult, dance and equivocate on your original argument.
That is the truth.
Mayr said two things that are contradictory. That has been shown, that is the truth.
There are other places where he gives other "definitions" -- one example is:
quote:Evolution is best understood as the genetic turnover of the individuals of every population from generation to generation. -- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.76
That too shows "inconsistency" in his writing.
Perhaps you could document some other place where he says it is not the change in frequency of alleles? You know, back up your position with additional information? For it certainly seems that the main body of the book keeps referring to evolution as hereditary change in populations from generation to generation in one form or another.
This would also be on topic for this thread - the definition of evolution.
Given the topic of the book you should be able to substantiate your position by providing a quote of "what Evolution is" where it does not involve hereditary change in populations from generation to generation -- if that is really Mayr's position in the body of the book.
Consider that it is possible that Mayr was saying that "evolution is not a change in gene frequencies", but that it is still "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", because that is more than just change in gene frequencies (which is true).
ps -- This is what a quote mine looks like when exposed:
Ernst Mayr, writing critically in the context of the way evolution is presented and explained in literature:
quote:"....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).
(2) The actual text with your quoted sections in pink:
quote:The existing volumes intended to fill these needs have some of the following shortcomings. All of them are rather poorly organized and fail to present a concise, reader-friendly account. Most of them are not as didactic as they should be, because a difficult subject such as evolution should be presented as answers to a series of questions. Nearly all of them devote too much space to specialized aspects of evolution, such as the genetic basis of variation and the role of sex ratios. Virtually all of them are too technical and use too much jargon. About one-quarter of the content of all recent major evolutionary texts is devoted to genetics. I agree that the principles of genetics must be thoroughly explained, but there is no need for so much Mendelian arithmetic. Nor should space be wasted on arguing for or against obsolete claims, such as that the gene is the object of selection, or to a refutation of extreme recapitulationism (the idea that ontogeny recapitulates or repeats phylogeny). On the other hand, several of these texts do not give adequate space to an analysis of the different kinds of natural selection for reproductive success.
Most existing volumes on evolution have two other weaknesses. First, they fail to point out that almost all evolutionary phenomena can be assigned to one or the other of two major evolutionary processes: the acquisition and maintenance of adaptedness, and the origin and role of organic diversity. Although both take place simultaneously, they must be analyzed separately for a full understanding of their respective roles in evolution.
Second, 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, the stage of diversifying evolution. These will be the major objects of my analysis.
-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.XIV).
You have misrepresented what he was talking about when you say
....the principles of genetics must be thoroughly explained....[however]....most treatments of evolution ...
There is no "however" involved.
What he says is that evolution is not just "a change in gene frequencies" as it involves other components, but he also consistently throughout the book says that evolution does not occur without a hereditary (ie genetic) component. To say otherwise is to misrepresent what he says, and to use your quotation to justify that position is to be guilty of quote-mining.
objective persons know they can easily find the text to your post by hitting the "peek" button.
objective persons also know your stark raving mad.
of course, by your logic, since I'm against you, that makes you right, so because I say your stark raving mad that means either I'm actually stark raving mad or that you aren't, or both.
This also means that people cannot actually find your text by hitting the "peek" button, because since I said they could and because I'm an "enemy" and therefore wrong.
But if I'm stark raving mad (which I'd have to be to call you stark raving mad, and since I called you that that clearly means I am myself), how can you even trust what I say to begin with? After all, since I'm mad, I wouldn't know what I'm writing, right?
So we have this quote from the beginning of the book, where he is talking about evolution in general (Part I - What is Evolution)
Almost everything in the inanimate universe is also evolving, that is, it is changing in a distinctly directional sequence. But what is it that evolves in the living world? Species surely evolve, and so do all combinations of species in the Linnaean hierarchy - genera, families, orders, and all higher taxa up to the totality of the living world. But what about the lower levels? Do individuals evolve? Certainly not in any genetic sense. To be sure, our phenotype changes in the course of our life, but our genotype remains essentially the same from birth to death. Then what is the lowest level of living organization to evolve? It is the population. And the population turns out to be the most important site of evolution. Evolution is best understood as the genetic turnover of the individuals of every population from generation to generation.
To be complete the precise characterization of evolution in sexually reproducing species, it is necessary to define the evolutionary population. A local population (deme) consists of the community of potentially interbreeding individuals of a species at a given locality (see Chapter 5). Curiously, the concept of population, as here described, was unknown before 1859; even Darwin was inconsistent in its application. Everybody else tended to think in terms of types.
-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.76
Italics in the original. So what can he mean when he says "Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies.'" (p. xiv, preface)? He could be saying that just change in gene frequencies is not enough to be evolution, but can we substantiate that from the book?
Molecular genetics has found that mutations frequently occur in which the new allele produces no change in the fitness of the phenotype. Kimura (1983) has called the occurrences of such mutations neutral evolution, and other authors have referred to it as non-Darwinian evolution. Both terms are misleading. Evolution involves the fitness of individuals and populations, not of genes. When a genotype, favored by selection, carries along as hitchhikers a few newly arisen and strictly neutral alleles, it has no influence on evolution. This may be called evolutionary "noise," but it is not evolution. However, Kimura is correct in pointing out that much of the molecular variation of the genotype is due to neutral mutations. Having no effect on the phenotype, they are immune to selection.
-- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.199
Here we have an explicit statement of where he explains why "a change in gene frequencies" is not evolution, because it involves genes that are not subject to selection.
It is clear from the rest of the book (and the numerous quotes I've provided from it) that Mayr considers genetic change to be an important element of evolution, and that it must be linked with phenotype selection - the "turnover of the individuals of every population from generation to generation."
This is why I also prefer "hereditary traits" to "genetic traits" in the definition we have been discussing on this thread:
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time.
That is not the definition of evolution. The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time.
I would compare this with the university definitions presented in Message 107 here and with the subsequent discussion above.
quote:The real crux of the matter is that you need to be discussing evolution with the definition used in the science, or you are not discussing the science of evolution but something else. In this regard there are a couple of definitions that come directly from scientific sources -- universities teaching evolution:
quote:The Definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
quote:Definitions of Biological Evolution We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
Definition 1: Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
Definition 2: The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
These can be summarized as you have with "Change in a population's genetic traits across generations" -- noting that this tends to emphasis the microevolutionary aspect over the macroevolutionary one.
You will note that both of these discuss the "change in frequency of alleles within a population over generations" type of definition, but also discuss hereditary traits at a wider focus.
You will also note that they teach degree courses in biological evolution, and thus we can be confident that they know what they are talking about.
After we get that straight we can get on to the business of what constitutes "micro-evolution" and what doesn't. So let's start there...it will be fun to start from the beginning and take it nice and slow.
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Curiously, that this is similar to the "change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation," which you originally claimed was wrong. Now can you tell me how to measure the frequency of alleles for a fossil?
Note, you may want to read Message 192 above that discusses Mayr's explanation of why he thinks "a change in gene frequencies" alone is not evolution, because it involves genes that are not subject to selection.
It seems to me you've attempted to get around the real issue by defining your theory in a very broad way, as something like "heritable changes over time."
No, it is really specific by referring to hereditary traits, because this does not confuse the issue with non-effective mutations that can be counted as genetic changes while not affecting in any way the growth, development, behavior, survival or breeding of the organism. Such mutations do not affect the phenotype and thus are not subject to selection. Without selection it is not evolution.
Saying that evolution is the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation is actually more precise as it is telling you what is subject to selection.
but the problem is, ToE was constructed to explain the buildup of genomes...
LOL. Seeing as they did not even know what a "genome" was when Darwin formulated his theory of evolution, your comment is patently false.
The theory of evolution was developed to explain the diversity of life at the time Darwin formulated it. Since then it has been used to explain the complete and full diversity of life that we now know, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory and the archeological record, from geology, physics, paleontology and the fossil record, and from chemistry and the genetic record. There is more to explain, yet the theory is still the same, it is still descent with modification. We now know that the modification is to hereditary traits via genetics, but this has only refined the original concept.
... therefore, any ole change in bodies does nothing to explain where genomes came from...
Nor does the theory of evolution or the process of evolution or the SCIENCE of evolution need to explain where genomes come from.
All evolution needs to explain is what exists: the diversity of life we can see around us, as well as what is known from history, archeology, the fossil record and the genetic record, etc.
The theory of evolution does this by descent with modification.
that's why ToE must have a tie to changes in dna sequences.
Curiously you have now fully confused yourself between the process of evolution and the theory of evolution. All the theory needs to do is explain the evidence we have for the diversity of life.
In a simple form the theory of evolution can be defined as follows: the theory of evolution is that the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - coupled with the process of speciation - the division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations - is sufficient to explain the diversity of life.
I would also like to know if you believe micro and macro are accomplished via the same mechanism. Take your time....I'll be waiting...this is going to be fun.
"Evolution: A change in the gene pool of a population over time. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve."
I note two things about this:
(1) this is now the third definition you have offered, and
(2) the gene pool consists of the total hereditary traits for the population - so there is no real difference between these definitions.
What you are saying is that my definition - that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is wrong, because the "real" definition is that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Color me underwhelmed.
You then asked for a "mechanism" that would stop this so-called evolution from turning into macro evolution......but by doing so you are assuming that your mechanism of microevolution actually exists.
I have asked this question on several sites, and on multiple threads, and have never received a satisfactory answer:
What mechanism prohibits the micro-evolutionary events that everyone admits occur from adding up to a macro-evolutionary event over time?
In other words, what mechanism prevents evolution from going beyond "kinds" (which is not a scientific term, or even a defined term, but may serve here to represent the idea). What mechanism prohibits speciation, followed by speciation and still more speciation?
It speaks volumes of your ability to read and comprehend things, when you (a) can't see that the definitions of evolution are the same, and (b) confuse the people you are replying to.
I have challenged you to show me an example and you refuse to do it. If you don't care to debate fine. If you can't even present one example of evolution, as your theory defines it, then I suppose the debate is over.
So providing one example will satisfy you that I am right?
Several examples have already been presented, denial of them does not make them go away.
Here we see a small difference in hereditary traits - slight difference in plumage coloration and slight difference in mating songs that leave the two varieties reproductively isolated. These differences can be tracked around the far side of the ring, and they show gradual change from one to the other, and gene flow (reproduction mixing hereditary traits in hybrid zones) between adjacent varieties.
Here we see the variety of hereditary traits in the "gene pool" as bands at each level, we see a general trend in their change from level to level (= time = passage of many generations), and we see a division of the parent population into two reproductively isolated daughter populations.
we have foraminifera http://web.archive.org/web/19990203140657/gly.fsu.edu/tour/article_7.html
The latter example shows "An intact fossil record with no missing links" and "a virtually complete evolutionary record" with "hundreds of speciation events" where "The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents." The continuous fossil record extends back past the K-T boundary, 65 million years ago.
Based on your argument (I won't call it logic) you will now concede that evolution does indeed consist of the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Now you MAY be able to argue that the "genetic definition" (which is what evolutionary biologists usually call the "change in frequency of alleles in populations over generations" definition) is the better definition, but to do that, you will need to show how you have measured this change in the three examples of evolution in action shown above.
I'll await your reply ...
But you must also realize that it is then wrong-headed of you to expect others to present a mechanism that will somehow stop a mechanism of which doesn't even exist. In otherwords, you've constructed a strawman of an argument
It is your assertion that evolution does not exist, and you have yet to establish this as a credible statement in any way. This small detail means that the straw man is your argument.
Curiously, you are claiming that the life work of millions of scientists is all smoke and mirrors, while you somehow posses an insight nobody else has. All this based on your personal assertion ... and you ask us for evidence. :rolleyes:
Interestingly, saying that something does not happen does not prevent it from happening: you can claim that the earth does not spin on it's axis, but that won't make is so.
Amazingly, life will continue to live, eat, sleep, reproduce and evolve, whether you think so or not: nature is completely undeterred in any way by your opinion.
3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.