Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:I agree with you Joe, and the other A2K posters, who felt that the dictionary definitions were insufficient...
This thread must be nearing the point of absurdity: people are actually agreeing with me.
I came back to see if any progresses is being made. Don't see any.
No progress will be made, I'm convinced this thread was a sick joke from the beginning.
Re: Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?
Bibliophile
First, I want to know.
I didn't read all the replies, but I liked those of Joe Chicago.
To give my own opinion, I describe evolution as the ocasional adjustment of a living entity to some of the conditions that interacts with it.
Perhaps it is not a very precise definition, but I think we must avoid all teleological concepts.
Re: Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?
val wrote:Bibliophile
First, I want to know.
I didn't read all the replies, but I liked those of Joe Chicago.
To give my own opinion, I describe evolution as the ocasional adjustment of a living entity to some of the conditions that interacts with it.
Perhaps it is not a very precise definition, but I think we must avoid all teleological concepts.
This definition is not aplicable to the theory of evolution. It only deals with changes in a population over successive generations.
Re: Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?
As I said, I want to know.
So, explain why my definition "is not aplicable to the theory of evolution".
cicerone, ebrown,
sorry about my last post. that was my attempt to be clever and describe what happened in the first nine pages.
Re: Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?
val wrote:As I said, I want to know.
So, explain why my definition "is not aplicable to the theory of evolution".
The theory of evolution is basically selective breeding, with various forms of natural selection substituted for artificial selection.
Aquired characteristics are not genetic, and are not passed on to subsequent generations.
Evolution, short version.
1. A population of individuals exist.
2. The genetic makeup differs between the individuals.
3. This results in differences in behavior and physical makeup between the individuals.
4. Individuals with some (beneficial) genetically determined characteristics will as a result of these characteristics successfully bring up more offspring than individuals without them. (And individuals with other (harmful) genetically determined characteristics will successfully bring up less offspring)
5. Genes are passed on to offspring, and as a result genes with beneficial effects will be more common in this generation than in the generation which preceded it. (If it were not for mutations)
6. Mutations randomly create new genetic code in the new generation, not paswsed along by the preceding generation.
7. repeat from step 2.
Over numerous generations harmful genes are weeded out, and beneficial ones become more common. Mutations provide an endless supply of new genetic material, minor adjustments to the design, to be put to the test of natural selection. Selective pressure may guide a species to an equilebrium, aproximating an ideal model, all mutations being harmful. Changes in selective pressure, making previously harmfull genes beneficial and vica versa, can then cause evolution to take a different path.
A species isolated in two geographically sepparated locations can evolve in different directions, resulting in speciation.
wandeljw was doing a Saturday Night Live bit with Mike Meyers as a Barbara Streisand-loving Jewish woman.
I see NO agreement here as to what the definition of evolution is. That's the point.
Some of you say that you know what it is, others proclaim that "we all agree" - what definition of evolution are you referring to?
Just open your eyes Bibliophile. You will see.
We are bored here. Are you going to make a point?
Arguing about whether you think the rest of us agree or not doesn't seem very interesting.
Say something interesting. Please!
Einherjar:
I think your "short version" is a very good one, and able to create a consensual answer to the present Topic.
Australopitthecus walks into a bar
"Ill have a beer please'
...I need a punch line
aat least we caan try to amuse ourselves whle the host is off somewhere.
Einherjar wrote:Evolution, short version.
1. A population of individuals exist.
2. The genetic makeup differs between the individuals.
3. This results in differences in behavior and physical makeup between the individuals.
4. Individuals with some (beneficial) genetically determined characteristics will as a result of these characteristics successfully bring up more offspring than individuals without them. (And individuals with other (harmful) genetically determined characteristics will successfully bring up less offspring)
5. Genes are passed on to offspring, and as a result genes with beneficial effects will be more common in this generation than in the generation which preceded it. (If it were not for mutations)
6. Mutations randomly create new genetic code in the new generation, not passed along by the preceding generation.
7. repeat from step 2.
Over numerous generations harmful genes are weeded out, and beneficial ones become more common. Mutations provide an endless supply of new genetic material, minor adjustments to the design, to be put to the test of natural selection. Selective pressure may guide a species to an equilebrium, aproximating an ideal model, all mutations being harmful. Changes in selective pressure, making previously harmfull genes beneficial and vica versa, can then cause evolution to take a different path.
A species isolated in two geographically sepparated locations can evolve in different directions, resulting in speciation.
Lets all rally around this, and see what bib comes up with.
there's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks.
We might as well follow einherjar's lead. My impression was that Bibliophile had us discuss a variety of definitions and then waited to come back just to say: you proved my point....none of you can agree on what evolution is.
I accept Einherjar's definition (although point #1 seems a bit controversial.)
ebrown_p wrote:I accept Einherjar's definition (although point #1 seems a bit controversial.)
Oh well, we could well do without it. I just figured I'd rule abiogenesis out since it is not covered by the theory of evolution.
farmerman wrote:Australopitthecus walks into a bar
"Ill have a beer please'
...I need a punch line
aat least we caan try to amuse ourselves whle the host is off somewhere.
An Australopithecus walks into a bar and tells the bartender "I'll have a beer please." The bartender looks at him and says "I think you need a stiffer drink than that, pal." "Why?" asks the Australopithecus. "Because you're only walking semi-erect" retorts the barkeep.
(As Homer Simpson would say, "it's funny because it's true")
