Definition of evolution

@Aedes,

Here's a few of what two attackers have said about me. I have done less offences than they have.

I've made this thread with the articles showing how "Gene" concepts have changed, with citations for who changed thinking in what year, what paper or book, I've shown other means of inheritance with paramecia, I've clarified thought ... as shown by Aedes renouncing his long maintained
priority that allele change in populations over time IS Evolution.

However, he has NOT reconciled yet, what Dawkins reconciles for himself. Aedes is stuck halfway. Dawkins says the gene is whatever does inheritance, but Aedes is almost going completely with molecular biology on that, his gene is still that bit of DNA...he's stuck, with an non reconcilable problem - unless he goes Dawkins' route.

and now this attack relatively out of the blue.

this is them at work:

*****************************************************

Aedes:your penchant for thread hijacking

You happen to be very much in the business of shooting ideas down, yet seldom offer your own ideas.

Cut the crap and have a conversation like a grownup.

DA : Don't hold your breath.
DA :Though expecting a straight answer was naive of him.
DA :OK, well done. You really are smart.

Aedes:Your epithets, digs, labels, and overall childish attitude are getting us nowhere

Are you adult enough to have a conversation without it?
Clearly not.

DA: Why not moderate the troll

Aedes: Besides, I think beneath the terrible social skills

2 Replies

@memester,

memester;121797 wrote:

Aedes:your penchant for thread hijacking

You happen to be very much in the business of shooting ideas down, yet seldom offer your own ideas.

Cut the crap and have a conversation like a grownup.

DA : Don't hold your breath.
DA :Though expecting a straight answer was naive of him.
DA :OK, well done. You really are smart.

Aedes:Your epithets, digs, labels, and overall childish attitude are getting us nowhere

Are you adult enough to have a conversation without it?
Clearly not.

DA: Why not moderate the troll

Aedes: Besides, I think beneath the terrible social skills

I'll stand by it all, frankly. I think you regularly add nothing of substance to discussions on this forum other than evasive and ill-mannered trolling.

You are now getting a taste of your own oil.

Like it or lump it.

Maybe you could think of dropping your abrasive attitude and follow the advice given to you and grow up.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;121797 wrote:

as shown by Aedes renouncing his long maintained priority that allele change in populations over time IS Evolution.

Long maintained? Exactly how long have you and I been conversing about it? A month or two? It's only fairly recently that I've even tried to articulate it in just a sentence. I've never been wholly committed to the idea. I've told you that I've never read a single word of Dawkins, and I don't have much more than a passing interest in historical ideas about evolution. I've been quite taken by the scientific publications of Thomas Cavalier-Smith, though, and I've been influenced by my own research mentors -- but my own attitude towards it always has been subject to revision. Is it so hard for you to have a conversation without someone being an ideological enemy?

And if you'd like me to pull a list of your jabs and attacks, it could quite easily be done, but the whole point is that I want to leave it out. That is the last that will be said on the subject by me -- and I strongly advise you to take the same tact.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;121803 wrote:

Long maintained? Exactly how long have you and I been conversing about it? A month or two? It's only fairly recently that I've even tried to articulate it in just a sentence. I've never been wholly committed to the idea. I've told you that I've never read a single word of Dawkins, and I don't have much more than a passing interest in historical ideas about evolution. I've been quite taken by the scientific publications of Thomas Cavalier-Smith, though, and I've been influenced by my own research mentors -- but my own attitude towards it always has been subject to revision. Is it so hard for you to have a conversation without someone being an ideological enemy?

And if you'd like me to pull a list of your jabs and attacks, it could quite easily be done, but the whole point is that I want to leave it out. That is the last that will be said on the subject by me -- and I strongly advise you to take the same tact.

no, pull the list. let's expose who is truthful and fair and who is not. who did more of what. I have TWO attackers, remember. Don't double the appearance, PAUL.
who said what to who. count em and judge em. openly.
Or remove your attack

You have fully committed here to the idea of allele frequency change, YES YOU HAVE. A month ? Let me check how long I've been hearing it from you. A half year is my estimate from our first tango, and I doubt it started with me...or did it ?
I can pull the times you said population genetics is Evolution,is allele frequency change pop/time. IS. you said it and can pull it.

I don't say that you've read
Dawkins.
I will say that the genius of his route is your only way of reconciling your understanding into a coherent bundle.

what is so important to biology about Dawkins' approach ? read the philosophical article on "gene"...

With Dawkins' approach it's the very vagueness itself, that is so useful in opening up many scientific enquiries.
whereas you wish to terminate that. frightening, isn't it ?
.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;121804 wrote:

You have fully committed here to the idea of allele frequency change, YES YOU HAVE.

Not to my eyes.

I think he first posited it in order to satisfy Rich with a definition all could agree on.

That's not a dog in a manger - if anything it was Rich who was being the dogmatic one requiring such a definition before accepting it was even science.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;121812 wrote:

Not to my eyes.

I think he first posited it in order to satisfy Rich with a definition all could agree on.

That's not a dog in a manger - if anything it was Rich who was being the dogmatic one requiring such a definition before accepting it was even science.

I'm not talking about in this thread. Aedes has been saying that for months, even to my knowledge of 6 months interaction or so ... and who knows when, first ?
Definitely has in the past committed to it explicitly

so go ahead and say someone else was the cause of the shift. who cares. I know what happened.I watch for that shift in thinking.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;121813 wrote:

I'm not talking about in this thread.

I don't see Rich in this thread.

Do you?

No.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;121814 wrote:

I don't see Rich in this thread.

Do you?

No.

I was talking about Aedes' use of "allele frequency change in pop.over time" .

He has committed to that statement in other threads.

I have not mentioned "Rich".
If "Rich" was his first contact with that notion, or if conversation with Rich convinced him to start using it, of that I have no knowledge.

However, now we are getting renunciation, and to me that shows that what Aedes and you both are saying, attacking me saying that I do not put forward ideas, is quite a false and unfair statement.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;121815 wrote:

I was talking about Aedes' use of "allele frequency change in pop.over time".

Yeah, I know.

I first saw him suggest that definition in a thread in response to a challenge from Rich to provide a defintion Rich could work with.

About six months or so ago.

Geddit?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;121817 wrote:

Yeah, I know.

I first saw him suggest that definition in a thread in response to a challenge from Rich to provide a defintion Rich could work with.

About six months or so ago.

Geddit?

yeah, that puts it at least six months he's been at it. maybe much longer. to think it was not a basis of his learning in school might be an error. maybe the notion lingered long before "Rich' asked for a definition.

glad to be of service, anyway.

before he bans me as a non contributing troll

2 Replies

@memester,

memester;121818 wrote:

yeah, that puts it at least six months he's been at it.

At what?

Positing a definition that hasn't been dogmatically held-up as absolute truth (despite your tedious assertions to the contrary) but has yet weathered all challengers?

Good Lord, how dare he?

---------- Post added 01-22-2010 at 12:00 PM ----------

memester;121818 wrote:

before he bans me as a non contributing troll

Soon, I hope. Seeing as you seem to be in denial about your own part in the tone of the debates you involve yourself in.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;121821 wrote:

At what?

Positing a definition that hasn't been dogmatically held-up as absolute truth (despite your tedious assertions to the contrary) but has yet weathered all challengers?

no, at positing a definition that he has now renounced, and this change, I am saying, is partly due to my prodding - thus showing that I am contributing ideas and information. That I have contributed ideas and information and challenges to thinking, is obvious throughout this thread anyhow.
whether you like it or not.

and I will now get back on topic, so I cannot waste more time on your efforts, Dave Allen.

If he relinquished such a powerful weathered non dogmatically held up definition as you describe , I'm pretty satisfied that I made a little progress.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;121818 wrote:

yeah, that puts it at least six months he's been at it. maybe much longer. to think it was not a basis of his learning in school might be an error. maybe the notion lingered long before "Rich' asked for a definition.

glad to be of service, anyway.

before he bans me as a non contributing troll

Noone's getting banned. The worst that will happen is that this thread will be closed because, well, it has no contributory value anymore.

I say this as amicably as possible, but you don't seem as though you want to actually discuss evolution. You seem to just want to criticize others' definitions, without reconsidering your stance, or at the least humoring others. This is a war with words, not a sharing of ideas; respect has long since been forgotten, and language is being abused.

And who cares when Aedes started saying whatever. Jeez, are we really going to make this much fuss about it? Oh boy, Aedes stated a defintion of evolution 5 months, 23 days, and 12 minutes ago! He mustn't ever rethink what he states! Everyone can revise their understanding of things - no one is infallible here, right? It doesn't make us weak to do so either. Especially things science-related, where new discoveries are made almost weekly.

-

I think this conversation is still salvagable, but we must be very clear and precise with our words. We must state, explicitly, what we feel is worth discussing here anymore, and how we ought to go about doing so.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121828 wrote:

Noone's getting banned. The worst that will happen is that this thread will be closed because, well, it has no contributory value anymore.

I say this as amicably as possible, but you don't seem as though you want to actually discuss evolution. You seem to just want to criticize others' definitions, without reconsidering your stance, or at the least humoring others. This is a war with words, not a sharing of ideas; respect has long since been forgotten, and language is being abused.

And who cares when Aedes started saying whatever. Jeez, are we really going to make this much fuss about it? Oh boy, Aedes stated a defintion of evolution 5 months, 23 days, and 12 minutes ago! He mustn't ever rethink what he states! Everyone can revise their understanding of things - no one is infallible here, right? It doesn't make us weak to do so either. Especially things science-related, where new discoveries are made almost weekly.

-

I think this conversation is still salvagable, though. But we must be very clear and precise with our words. You must state, explicitly, what you feel is worth discussing here anymore, and how we ought to go about doing so.

not at all, it is GREAT to rethink ! I don't know how you came to that, Z.
There is no BLAME for reconsidering, it is PRAISEWORTHY.
I'm defending myself, by showing that I am part of why he is now changing his thinking.

which means showing that he indeed was committed to that definition for some period, and right now is saying he is not, anymore.

I do not know why you folks are so against someone who is finding fault, hitting weakness.
that's how you show something is false.

but you quite unfairly then demand replacement for your lost former belief

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;121831 wrote:

not at all, it is GREAT to rethink ! I don't know how you came to that, Z.
There is no BLAME for reconsidering, it is PRAISEWORTHY.
I'm defending myself, by showing that I am part of why he is now changing his thinking.

That's the problem. This conversation has been about you, and you pleasing yourself. That's why I made that joke about you orgasming earlier. You just want someone to admit that you've proven someone wrong, or have influenced someone in some way. You care more about this than the actual conversation.

Quote:

which means showing that he indeed was committed to that definition for some period, and right now is saying he is not, anymore.

Don't you see how childish this sounds? Who cares?!

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121832 wrote:

That's the problem. This conversation has been about you, and you pleasing yourself. That's why I made that joke about you orgasming earlier. You just want someone to admit that you've proven someone wrong, or have influenced someone in some way. You care more about this than the actual conversation.

Besides, if Aedes abandoned his definition because of some hypothetical possibilities that might - if proven to be divorced from allele frequency change - render the defintion moot it strikes me that he's been a bit of a pushover.

So I suspect there's more to it than that.

If not - my bad.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121832 wrote:

That's the problem. This conversation has been about you, and you pleasing yourself. That's why I made that joke about you orgasming earlier. You just want someone to admit that you've proven someone wrong, or have influenced someone in some way. You care more about this than the actual conversation.

Don't you see how childish this sounds? Who cares?!

I care if someone changes their views - not personally - I don't give a damn about his threatened self and his posturing bully tactics - and yes, I do recognize an ethical weakening, when a combatant is the referee doing the threatening.
I do expect the grunting and squirming; pulling teeth like this is a bit of a chore.

I am interested in how learning happens. and yes, I do care more about my pet snail than I do about Aedes. so what ? He cares more about his dog than he does about my child. Let's not be false about these things, eh ? I'm no more abusive than either of these two. I don't tag team with anyone as they have been doing, adding social reinforcement for each negative comment about me.

I have noted the generous number of 'thanks" you gave me vs. my rate of reciprocation , and for that lack of social graciousness I am guilty. but I "excuse myself" knowing I hold a good opinion of you, regardless, or even including of our present exchange.

Aedes brought my posts from the other thread ( it turned out OK, no looking back) here and a talk that I was on center stage and the lights were on. cited a batting average too, if you don't mind my mixing of metaphors .
and now you complain about that aspect too, if I defend myself and my thread content as being legitimate.

as to events:

You don't know if something changed unless you note that first it was this way and then it was that way.

and it was not such a "passing thing" as might have been argued. He has been committed to that for about 6 months at least, and now is changing that view .

good !
and I'd like to see him struggle to reconcile his views on the gene. It is the DNA gene, and yet it isn't.

You can argue that the gene includes other things that make for gene regulation, to expression, so that by gauging the affect from this nebulous factor we make the differentiation, and name "alleles". That definition can be useful for certain tasks.

"Factor", like in the old days before the pretending got so heavy. That factor was "the genetics" ( unfortunate choice of name) - with all entailed, not the DNA bit.

One more angle to throw in: the in-forum transmitting of that AF definition of Evolution - and it's possible localized extirpation - could be an interesting study in itself.

1 Reply

@memester,

here is a topic from within our discussion that needs help.
here's an interesting "take" to start with

Genetic vs. heritable trait : Gene Expression

Quote:

...they assume that if I say that a trait is mostly heritable I mean that its development is mostly a function of genes. In reality not only is that false, it's incoherent

Quote:

The number of fingers you have on your hand isn't heritable, it's inherited.

Quote:

In other words, the greater environmental inputs result in greater heritability

Quote:

The increased heritabilities of traits as individuals age are not due to them becoming "more genetic,"

1 Reply

@memester,

Quote:

Let's try and reach common ground here.

Point #1 -- agree / disagree / elaborate, please:

The theory of evolution describes biological changes in populations over time.

If you disagree, please tell me what the "theory of evolution" means in your own understanding of it.
__________________

this square one misapprehension is evident. theory explains what has been described.

Quote:

If you're interested in the topic of how Aedes defines evolution, here is your chance. You've cowered away from answering the question I've asked (and you've quoted). Do you have what it takes to go head to head with me when I'm asking you the hard questions? You're 0 for 1 in this new thread so far.

I just knocked that pitch over the fence. scoreboard needs updating. hard to tell outcomes when the pitcher is the ump and he says it seems to be starting to rain now

1 Reply

@memester,

If we accept what has been offered thus far, that "the genetics" comprises more than just the DNA sequence collection, if it includes regulation and all epigenetic effects - so that an environmental input can be said to be "the genetics" doing something... well then...

...that means we can easily say that phenotypic change in a population, even if caused solely by an environmental change, is Evolution.

We're working to integrate the descriptions offered, into "the genetics" and "evolution", here.

to integrate it with Population Genetics, "allele" must mean anything that behaves as mutant gene behaves, in this scenario, where "the genetics" is not just "the genes"

Of course, my definition is fine with all that. so long as we understand that a gene is not a gene, it's clear sailing. Doesn't matter, because phenotypic change is Evolution now. So is gene mutation.

1 Reply

Definition of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know