Definition of evolution

. And the change in allele frequency in a population over time is what we call evolution.
I don't think this is about semantics. We are all understanding each other quite well here. I think you just don't understand that the above definition is a process.

Allele frequency change in a population over time is a process. Evolution is considered a process.

Circular reasoning again.

What if it does NOT depend directly on allele frequency change , but as Darwin presented it, as yet "unknown".

All you have done here is to make a claim. a claim that is not supported by evidence.
You make a claim that Darwin's presentation does depend on genetics in that he says there is an unknown.
and the unknown, is, therefore, allele frequency change.

geez. we discover something and that something must be it - because it was an unknown.

Darwin has no reason to even be brought up, unless we're discussing the history of the theory or something. In regards to the conversation about the modern, scientific definition of evolution, Darwin has no place.

The definition has been cited, and most scientists would agree. And it is considered a process. I don't know what you're still bickering about. What else is there to discuss?

"the theory of evolution describes how biological (genetic if your prefer) changes occur in populations over time"
versus
Evolution is the change in gene frequencies in a population over time.
Are those the same statement to you?

That's not true, that there is no place for discussion of Darwin, as he spoke of Evolution, could identify it, and yet he needed no knowledge of allele frequency change in order to identify evolution.

How could he do that, if allele frequency change is the definition of Evolution ?

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time, and (note these aren't mutually exclusive) the theory of evolution describes how biological changes occur in populations over time.

Just as gravity is the fundamental force of attraction that all objects with mass have on each other, and the theory of gravity describes why people fall to the ground after jumping off of buildings (for instance).

---------- Post added 01-20-2010 at 10:58 PM ----------



He didn't know of allele frequency, he just knew there was something that caused the change.

What part aren't you getting?

"the theory of evolution describes how biological (genetic if your prefer) changes occur in populations over time"
versus
Evolution is the change in gene frequencies in a population over time.

No, you misunderstood me. I was just noting that we can define a theory and state all the things it explains.

Prothero stated:



There is no versus. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time, and it describes how biological changes occur in populations over time. Doesn't it?

you keep saying that allele change is evolution, and indeed that is one definition ( Mayr). But repeating it does not make it true.

and no, Evolution does not describe. Neither does the process describe

What is your reason for thinking it's not true? What is your gripe here? Do you not think it is an appropriate definition?

I was using the word "describe" as a synonym for "explain". Wouldn't you agree that the theory of gravity explains why I fall to the ground after jumping off a cliff?

no. that's what we've been discussing.

theory explains. gravity does not. Evolution does not. theory does.

What is the definition you propose?

---------- Post added 01-20-2010 at 11:31 PM ----------



...you know we're talking about theories here...

You're just playing with me now. :surrender:

My group gets all it needs to reach it's potential, your group gets very little. My group is more successful in raising the offspring, and there are more of them.

here's more reading

now here is a selection of Aedes quotations from this thread and others:

Circular reasoning again.

Simple definitions of complex processes or concepts always engender some dispute. I know you think I am probably either dense or stubborn and I may be both.

Evolution is change in organisms. That's the definition that is never proven wrong, never allows exceptions. I could say, for instance, that respiration is also correlated with every case of plant and animal Evolution. As you might say allele frequency change is. But I'd be more correct. Gene difference is not associated with every case of evolution.

Developmental Biology 8e Online: Inheritance in Ciliates

Weirdly enough - when two definitions are thought to be synonymous - people arguing that they are so are going to continue to compare them.

Unbelievable as that might sound.

Weirdly enough, when shown that their thinking is wrong, some are so obtuse that they do tend to go on for while, whimpering as if that changes things.

Unbelievable as that may sound.

I don't know who you think is being stubborn, but if the cortical inheritence is divorced from gene change, then of course I am incorrect.

I would openly admit that. I would also not be ashamed to do so, because I would have learned something new.

Here's a clue: not you. :bigsmile:

that's just one example of how the notion that "allele frequency change is Evolution", is incorrect, outdated.

I don't know who you think is being stubborn, but if the cortical inheritence is divorced from gene change, then of course I am incorrect.

Dave inquired about it also, so it's not like he's not giving it thought (that alleles may not be the key).

I'm off to do some research on cortical inheritance.

Do you know of any other exceptions?



Interesting, I had thought it had to do with gene change.

the vast number of exceptions can not even be demonstrated, for the "allele struck" - because they have predefined them out of existence.

to fool oneself, one first arbitrarily decides that "evolution is allele frequency change and nothing else".

so therefore -by definition - nothing else can be.