Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Don't hold your breath.

I guess I had hope that things might be different this time. Oh well.

You always were better at generating discussions, than answers. You have mastered the art of pregnant pauses and specious arguments

I know what he's up to and I get sucked in anyway It's like watching a guy threaten to jump off a ledge over and over again, ya can't look away because today might be the day

You should have seen some of his threads on Abuzz. I vaguely remember the "dinosaurs died in Noah's flood" troll which seemed to last forever.

He's just so good at almost answering things.... sheesh, I have to learn how to do that so I can become a creationist debater, or a politician.

Hey, this thread is now FEATURED!

We must be discussing something interesting here.

Either that, or the other threads are even less interesting... that would be bad.

Man, I was certain there would be something here by now.

Evolution means a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts. Just get to the punch already.

I dont think there ever was a punch rufio, and I doubt there will ever be one.

Bibliophile,

The definition which includes natural selection seems to generate the most controversy (among the general public).

OK, let's move on...hooray!

My opening question was: "Who wants to know what the word evolution means?"

Joefromchicago said: "On the other hand, if you think that a casual reading of dictionary definitions will give any insights into the scientific bases of evolutionary theory, then I'm afraid you are bound to be disappointed."

I agree with you Joe, and the other A2K posters, who felt that the dictionary definitions were insufficient...

Farmerman said: "I am fascinatted by the dictionary definiions. Yes evolution, not in its biological sense, has many definitions."

ebrown_p said: "Scientific evolution is not a process from lower, simpler, worse to higher, more complex or better."

In a later post Joefromchicago said: "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."

Rosborne979 said:
"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."

What is clear, is that the small group of A2K members who have expressed their views on the dictionary definitions of "evolution," as well as listing definition quotes from other sources, do not agree on what "evolution" means. If anything, they agree that defining what evolution means is indefinable!

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not here to have a go at anyone. Neither did I create this thread to be objectionable or trite. I genuinely want to address the title of this topic: "Evolution - who wants to KNOW?"

It is fundamental to any subject that involves the usage of certain words or terminology that there be a common understanding, a level playing field, upon which all who are involved comprehend what these words mean.

I often find with the subject of Evolution, that different contributors are debating from a different perspective or interpretation of the word "evolution," and this in itself can lead to confusion and intellectual frustration.

AND MEANWHILE, SYMPOSIA GO ON AND WORK GETS DONE AND WE PULL BACK THE FORESKIN OF SCIENCE , EVEN THOUGH MAYR , GOULD,AND OTHERS NEVER AGREED ON A PROPER DEFINITION.
DAMN FEW WORK AT EVOLUTION ITSELF, THEY CONTRIBUTE TO A SUPPORT FIELD THAT PROVIDES DATA AND FINDINGS THAT GO INTO THE STEW.

I WORK WITH FOSSILS AS AN ECONOMIC TOOL, ONCE IN A WHILE WE FIND A NEW ONE THAT FITS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE STRATIGRAAPHY WE SEARCH. I USUALLY TURN IT OVER TO A COLLEAGUE IN THE FORAM FIELD WHO DOES THE MORPHOLOGICAL WORK AND INCLUDES ME IN THE PAPER.

I DONT EVER RECALL, AFTER GRAD SCHOOL, EVER HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION, EXCEPT TO A CREATIONIST

GET MY DRIFT?

Bibliophile,

What are you talking about?

We all agree perfectly about what evolution means in a scientific context. I haven't seen anything to disagree with on this thread so far.

We all gave nearly identical responses to you definitions. All of us agreed that the first definition was wrong, and that the second definition was simplistic.

All of us agree that evolution is a scientific fact-- in the sense that it has overwhelming evidence and has been accepted by the scientific community.

What are you trying to do here. I have tried to treat your point of view with respect, and I am waiting for your point.

But... I can't help but feel that you are trying to trap us, in spite of the fact that we are all intelligent and fairly well informed.

I am willing to listen to what you have to say. I will listen with respect and respond. If you have a new point to make (that is one that I haven't encountered before) I will consider it with an open but but unnaive mind.

But I don't like being patronized nor played with.

Make your point please.

But the real question is, what the word "is" is.

Seriously. this is absurd. If we all agreed about what evolution meant exactly, there would be no room for scientific study or for learning more about evolution. I'd hate to see you speculate on what "culture" or "authenticity" means. I've certainly devoted not a few class periods to listening to those debates.

ebrown, He doesn't know how, and that's the crux of the problem.

Talk amongst yourselves. I will give you a topic: Evolution has many definitions. Discuss.

(I will be back after you prove my point.)

wand, If you had really kept up with this thread, you would know the answer to your question. Next question, please.

Wandel,

We are bored.

We all agree that the biological evolution is backed up by overwhelming evidence and accepted by the science community.

Other definitions include the formation of new gasses after a chemical reaction, or the formation of a solar system from instellar gas.

Please don't say you will be back. Give us something to talk about.

This thread is dead.

I'm with e_brown. We all agree what evolution is, that is not a problem.