Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

I thought that St. Peter hung your flag...

Am I going to hell for that?

TTF

0 Replies

I'm still here!

Just finished a fight with Molly Malone and Arthur Guinness.

I'll get back on thread momentarily...

0 Replies

Okay...screw evolution.

What I wanna know is...

...Bib, is you alive or is you a goner who just doesn't get it?

0 Replies

Merriam Webster Dictionary, 10th Edition, 2003:

noun, evolution

Definition 2c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.

Definition 4b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Q1. Does anyone object to these two definitions for Evolution?
Q2. Do you accept these definitions as commensurate with your understanding of the word?

I would appreciate as many comments on this post as possible. Thanks.

0 Replies

Why do WE need to accept those two definitions? We ain't the one's having problems with the woid or it's meaning.

0 Replies

Neither of these definitions is an adaquate definition of scientific evolution.

The first is simply not correct. Scientific evolution is not a process from lower, simpler, worse to higher, more complex or better.

First of all, these words are not well defined (what does "better" mean, is a frog better than a rose?). Second of all, evolution favors forms that are lead to more successful reproduction. This often leads to mutations being selected that you and I would both consider "simpler".

My problem with the second definition is that I fear that you will fixate on the word "theory", when in fact Scientists almost universally accept the scientific view of evolution as proven.

The part about present organisms having origins in other pre-existing types is correct.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Merriam Webster Dictionary, 10th Edition, 2003:

noun, evolution

Definition 2c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.

Definition 4b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Q1. Does anyone object to these two definitions for Evolution?

I presume you are asking if anyone objects to these two definitions as definitions of the theory of evolution, correct? Because as definitions of the word "evolution" they are, as far as I can see, unobjectionable.

As a definition of the theory of evolution, however, definition 2c(1) is most certainly wrong. The theory of evolution does not posit evolution going from lower, simpler, or worse to higher, more complex, or better. Indeed, evolution often works the opposite way, from complex to simple.*

Definition 4b is rather simplistic, but it is an adequate definition of the theory of evolution. Of course, no definition will capture the entire theory, and so no definition can serve as a summation of the theory. If one wants to understand the theory of evolution, one should turn to Darwin, not Merriam and Webster.

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Q2. Do you accept these definitions as commensurate with your understanding of the word?

See above.

*written before I saw ebrown's post.

0 Replies

Creationism (n.) The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
<my emphasis>

I'll go with evolution being the exact OPPOSITE of this nonsense.

0 Replies

Stillwater,

No need for belligerence.

Evolution is not the opposite of Creationism, and calling Creationism "nonsense" is patronizing.

This type of post doesn't help those of us who are making the point that evolution is a widely accepted scientific explanation of the origin of species backed up by reason and observation.

I am not anti-religion. I believe that religion and science each have their place in society and don't have to be so hostile to each other.

Let's make the point that evolution is based on science. Science has been very effective at explaining our world and is now a very important part of our society.

But science has nothing to say about whether there is an omnipotent Creator.

I am all for presenting the quite strong case for evolution. I don't want to be part of a anti-religion attack.

0 Replies

I'm wit you ebrown. I got no choice; all my siblings and many of my friends are christians, and believe in creationism. Religion probably plays a larger part of their lives than studies in evolution, but that doesn't mean they are ignorant or not living in 'reality.' I have my own take on religious' beliefs, but that's for another forum.

0 Replies

I hate to cut/paste, but the following essay addresses the "Definition of Evolution" problem in detail, and I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here, or write our own versions of what scientists have already defined.

When I talk about biological evolution, I'm talking about the following:

Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 wrote:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

Or in short form:

Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 wrote:

"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."

I don't know what definition Bib is using, but it's probably not one of these.

In addition to these definitions, I would submit that there is probably another definition of evolution which incorporates the concept of natural selection as a mechanism for linking allele distribution (and morphological design) to the environment. I haven't yet found such a definition, but I suspect that Mayr probably uses it. I'm still looking....

The complete article is as follows...

TalkOrigins.org wrote:

What is Evolution?
Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"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

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

0 Replies

Mayrs definitiion isthe most elegant and simplest, he says that evolution is
"The graduaal process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life.

Bib,Since you used a dictionary to define a word (use of authority) why not use an evolution scientists own definition as authority?
You look up the first batch , then you make up the next.

PS your first definition is just you trying to be silly. your second (4b) is you trying to be a bit more sensicaal but , life derives" from",... it only has its origins in other forms as an anthropomorphism. you , as a sentient being, see the origin of a form. That form itself, has no idea which way its going, subject to environmental and organic stresses. Life is selected for or against whatever events present hemselves.

Extremophilic animals evolved over deep ocean fumaroles. the fumaroles migrate with the spreading center of the mid oceanic ridges. We see that tthere are unique species of extremophilic molluscs in tthe Deep Pacific and the deep Atlantic.They are Totally different species with differing forms, yet theyve adapted to the same boiling hot sulphurous water vents. If that doesnt show evolution in action , Ill buy you a pint.

0 Replies

Ros, Joe and ebrown:
Thank you for your comments - they are balanced, polite and much appreciated.

I am grateful to Ros for the extensive quote from Mr. Futuyma - I will be discussing this a little later on, amongst other "evolution scientists'" quotations.

I am familiar with ALL the published writings of past and present "evolution scientists" - and I'll discuss this later on.

0 Replies

I would remind all contributors to this thread of my comments at its initiation:

"This thread is for genuine, inquiring minds. Those who wish to make personal attacks on any of its contributors will be ignored by me. I will not be replying to such persons. Save the personal criticisms or snide remarks for another thread.

In this thread I want to address the word and subject of Evolution. Nothing else. This is not a Christian, Creationist or "have-a-go-at-em" thread. Please respect these conditions."

Thank you.

0 Replies

I don't have much to add, but this thread has been a smashing read. I'm looking forward to seeing how it will evolve.

0 Replies

A true discussion in evolution usually gets fairly heated tthere Bib. If, your refusal to answer questions merely because they dont fit your preconceived biases is a bit of intellectual cowardice. You ask for certain rules that only favor the POV you wish to project. Thats ok, but others may not agree with you, and can do it with very recent evidence.

This is a subject that is borne totally on evidence , not debate.so an "inquiring mind" would have to default (or at least recognize) tthat . You have constantly failed to address evidence and fact tthroughout your past posts. I find that curious and somewhat amusing.Especially so, since you sttated that you were in the engineering field.(which is applied science)
I understand your position on evolution , but so far, all your arguments are totally fact-free, and somewhat disrespectful to an entire series of disciplines. As if, people whose lives are devoted to tthe sciences 'haavent a clue' about what is correct. YET, you dont supply anything in counterexcept a repetition that evolution is not a fact. Perhaps if you got to a point, wed all find this a valuable discussion. Im beginning to suspect that youre merely spinning your wheels for the fun of it.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Ros, Joe and ebrown:
Thank you for your comments - they are balanced, polite and much appreciated.

Personally, I would also like to thank Farmerman for his pointed, yet balanced contributions to this and other threads. I have found his input not only cogent, but educational; a real gift to A2K.

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

I am familiar with ALL the published writings of past and present "evolution scientists" - and I'll discuss this later on.

Wow, that's a lot of reading Bib. Have you read Ernst Mayr's book?

Why do you put quotes around "evolution scientist"?

0 Replies

So far, much ado about nothing.

0 Replies

rosborne,

The article you gave us by Laurence Moran is helpful. Is he saying that evolution can be discussed without reference to theories about the mechanisms of evolution? If so, can evolution be taught at the elementary and secondary level without mentioning mechanisms such as natural selection?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

So far, much ado about nothing.

Pretty much, yes. The only thing I found interesting so far is that the two "definitions" on evolution which are in TalkOrigins focus only on genetic change (frequency of alleles). They don't incorporate Natural Selection into the definition, which was a bit of a surprise to me when I read them in detail.

In most discussions, especially creation/evolution discussions, I tend to think that the discussions revolve around "Evolution" in a broader scope. I think that people are talking about the "result" of biological evolution, not just the "process" of evolution.

Farmerman provided a quote from Mayr, which seems too general for me since it doesn't mention mechanisms at all, and yet the quotes I provided seem too specific because they don't get beyond the mechanisms of change alone.

I found the following statement more in line with my general use of the term "Evolution" in these discussions:
Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated by environmental conditions.

What's interesting to me is that even with all the definitions of evolution out there, I haven't found one yet (even from the science references) which really expresses what I "think" we are talking about in these creation/evolution debates. The scientific definitions are fine definitions of change, and specifically genetic change in populations, but they are not broad enough to include the results of those changes. I want to avoid the use of the term "progress" when I say this, but what I think people are most impressed with (and in the case of creationists: in objection to) is the way in which the result of evolution causes organisms which match their environment so well through simple natural selection.

What most creationists object to is probably not Evolution by itself, but by the idea that the results of evolution we see can arise by natural processes alone. As a result, these discussions of creation/evolution might be more accurately called creation/natural-selection-resulting-in-species debates.

None the less, a nice concise definition of evolution which included the general assessment of resultant species and organisms might help in these debates.

0 Replies

Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know