Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[ericmurphy]

Well... no point in you responding then, is there?

Evolution is the mechanism.

No. Totally wrong. Evolution is the result of various mechanisms. Evolution, itself, is not a mechanism.

The theory of evolution is our best interpretation of the mechanism. It's like the difference between a blueprint (or more accurately, an as-built drawing) and a building: one describes the other. The fact that a theory contains information about its subject does not mean that the theory and the subject are the same thing any more than building plans are a building themselves.

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. The theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are entirely separate things. One is an attempt to explain the other. One is not the same thing as the other.

A wealth of scientific data, evidence and well-supported logical conjecture based on established facts. If you want to get more specific about the basis for our understanding of evolution, you might be better off finding a good textbook on the subject.

I have a solid understanding of evolutionary theory. I also have a solid understanding of the evidence supporting that theory. I also understand the difference between the observation of evolutionary change, and the theory that attempts to account for that change. I'm beginning to wonder if anyone else here can.

 

[ericmurphy]

Sooner or later you'll stop digging. :slap:

I'd be happy to stop digging, if you could actually give me a reason for thinking I'm wrong.

You have consistently said you think my assertions about the fact of evolution are crap. You have not stated why you think they're crap. Apparently you think the answer is obvious. It's not obvious. You are leaving me with the very strong impression that the distinction between the observed phenomenon of evolutionary change, and the theory which explains that observation, is entirely lost on you.

Is it, or isn't it? Can you explain what that distinction is? Or do you deny that there is a distinction?

 

[McBell]

I have a solid understanding of evolutionary theory. I also have a solid understanding of the evidence supporting that theory. I also understand the difference between the observation of evolutionary change, and the theory that attempts to account for that change. I'm beginning to wonder if anyone else here can.

Interesting how with your self proclaimed "solid understanding of evolutionary theory", that you have thus far presented TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT definitions of the term 'evolution.'

 

[ericmurphy]

wow.
You have now given a completely different definition.

If it makes you happier for me to come out and say my earlier definition was wrong, because incomplete, I am more than happy to admit so. I have no difficulty admitting I was wrong, or incomplete.

Now: do you have any difficulty with my definition of "evolution" (as utterly distinct from "evolutionary theory") as "a change in types of organisms over time"?

I concede it's possible you believed I was saying evolution is "a change in the numbers of organisms over time," but apparently I incorrectly assumed you'd realize I'm not completely mentally retarded. Apparently I presumed a bit too much.

 

[ericmurphy]

Interesting how with your self proclaimed "solid understanding of evolutionary theory", that you have thus far presented TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT definitions of the term 'evolution.'

I'm not even discussing evolutionary theory. My understanding of evolutionary theory has absolutely no bearing on what I am talking about, which is the observed phenomenon of evolutionary change.

Do you understand the distinction? I don't think you do.

 

[Autodidact]

9/10: I just wanted to point out that we haven't actually gotten to the fossils yet, although anyone is welcome to cover that ground. So far we're still on DNA. I realize it's long thread, but I'm trying to eventually list all of the main sources of evidence, so I'm keeping track. It's just that there's so much of it....(hint, hint.)

 

[McBell]

If it makes you happier for me to come out and say my earlier definition was wrong, because incomplete, I am more than happy to admit so. I have no difficulty admitting I was wrong, or incomplete.

Now: do you have any difficulty with my definition of "evolution" (as utterly distinct from "evolutionary theory") as "a change in types of organisms over time"?

I concede it's possible you believed I was saying evolution is "a change in the numbers of organisms over time," but apparently I incorrectly assumed you'd realize I'm not completely mentally retarded. Apparently I presumed a bit too much.

Nice.
Interesting how your arrogance is getting the better of you.
Perhaps you should define what you mean when you use the word 'type', since your own personal definitions have thus far been rather useless...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Totally wrong. Evolution is the result of various mechanisms. Evolution, itself, is not a mechanism.

Totally wrong by your own personal definition, not by the generally accepted one.

Etymology time: the word "evolution" comes from a Latin term that means "to unroll" or "to unfold". Modification of the organisms themselves (or rather, of species or populations within species) is fundamental to any use of the term "evolution" in the context of biology.

At its most basic level, you could define evolution as "descent with modification", meaning that change occurs between organism and offspring, and between generations within a population. Just saying "there used to be trilobites; now there are rabbits" does not capture the defining aspect of evolution: that it is change between related organisms.

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. The theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are entirely separate things. One is an attempt to explain the other. One is not the same thing as the other.

Yes... and just as building plans are a representation of a building, the theory of evolution is a representation of evolution itself. A building is made up of structural elements; in the same way, evolution is made up of inheritability, random mutation, and natural selection acting on populations of living organisms.

 

[McBell]

I'm not even discussing evolutionary theory. My understanding of evolutionary theory has absolutely no bearing on what I am talking about, which is the observed phenomenon of evolutionary change.

Do you understand the distinction? I don't think you do.

And yet you STILL have two entirely different definitions presented in this thread alone for the tern 'evolution.'

Why you are trying to so hard to keep your personal definition as generic as possible?

 

[Autodidact]

It occurred to me that the creationists in this thread are saying two contradictory things:
1. Evolution occurs--up to a(n unspecified) point. This entails mutations creating new information in the genome.
2. Mutations cannot create new information in the genome.

 

[ericmurphy]

Nice.
Interesting how your arrogance is getting the better of you.
Perhaps you should define what you mean when you use the word 'type', since your own personal definitions have thus far been rather useless...

Is there any ambiguity in what I mean by "type"? Do you not understand what I mean when I say organisms have changed over time? Do you not understand how it is possible to tell a trilobite from a rabbit? Do you have difficulty distinguishing between the organisms that existed in the Precambrian and the organisms that exist today?

This isn't a matter of fine definitions. It's a matter of plainly obvious differences.

 

[ericmurphy]

Totally wrong by your own personal definition, not by the generally accepted one.

It's not wrong by my personal definition. It's wrong by the generally accepted definition. "Evolution" is not a mechanism. Evolution is the effect of multiple different mechanisms.

Etymology time: the word "evolution" comes from a Latin term that means "to unroll" or "to unfold". Modification of the organisms themselves (or rather, of species or populations within species) is fundamental to any use of the term "evolution" in the context of biology.

Yes. It is the change itself that is the evolution. That change is caused by various mechanisms; it is not a mechanism itself.

At its most basic level, you could define evolution as "descent with modification", meaning that change occurs between organism and offspring, and between generations within a population.

No. That is an explanation for why evolution happens. Common descent with modification is a proposed explanation for why evolution happens. It is the change itself that is the evolution. Common descent is an explanation, not an observation.

Just saying "there used to be trilobites; now there are rabbits" does not capture the defining aspect of evolution: that it is change between related organisms.

No. You're still not getting it. You are talking about the defining aspect of evolutionary theory. Evolution itself is the observation evolutionary theory is intended to explain. it is an interpretation of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the observed evolution is the result of inheritable change from ancestors to descendants.

Yes... and just as building plans are a representation of a building, the theory of evolution is a representation of evolution itself. A building is made up of structural elements; in the same way, evolution is made up of inheritability, random mutation, and natural selection acting on populations of living organisms.

No. You're still misusing the term "evolution" as shorthand for "evolutionary theory." I am trying to get across the distinction between the two. Evolutionary theory is not a "representation" of evolution; it is an explanation for why evolution happens.

 

[yossarian22]

Your definition evolution is wrong and flatout useless. Evolution means gradual change. Proof of evolution requires far more than a beginning and an end. You have to show multiple stages between them.

 

[ericmurphy]

And yet you STILL have two entirely different definitions presented in this thread alone for the tern 'evolution.'

I do not have "two entirely different definitions" of evolution. I have one: "Evolution is the observed change in the types of organisms over time." While you may have interpreted what I said earlier as meaning "Evolution is the observed changes in the numbers of organisms over time," that is not what I said, and it is not what I meant.

Why you are trying to so hard to keep your personal definition as generic as possible?

A) It's not my personal definition; it's the generally accepted definition: "In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." I'm broadening this definition slightly by removing "in the inherited traits" in order to get general agreement, from those not predisposed to credit evolutionary theory, that organisms have changed over time. I am not asking anyone to accept any particular explanation for why evolution has happened, or what the mechanisms are for it. I am seeking general agreement that the organisms we see today have not always existed in the history of life on earth, and that is an observation which needs an explanation.

I am making essentially no headway making what I would have thought would be a very simple, straightforward argument: that it is inarguable that organisms have changed over time.

 

[McBell]

Is there any ambiguity in what I mean by "type"?

As a matter of fact, there is.
and seeing as you have refused to define it...

Do you not understand what I mean when I say organisms have changed over time?

It is that I want to set the goal posts firmly into the ground.
You on the other hand, seem to have a desperate need to put the goal posts on wheeled carts.

Do you not understand how it is possible to tell a trilobite from a rabbit?

Seems you just cannot help but let your arrogance out.
Since this has nothing to do with how you define the term 'type' I am wondering why it was brought up at all...

Do you have difficulty distinguishing between the organisms that existed in the Precambrian and the organisms that exist today?

And what does this have to do with how you define the word 'type'?

This isn't a matter of fine definitions. It's a matter of plainly obvious differences.

Yes it is.
Especially given that your definitions tend to change drastically within a thread.

Take your two completely different definitions of 'evolution' within this thread for example.

 

[ericmurphy]

And yet you STILL have two entirely different definitions presented in this thread alone for the tern 'evolution.'

Why you are trying to so hard to keep your personal definition as generic as possible?

Your definition evolution is wrong and flatout useless. Evolution means gradual change. Proof of evolution requires far more than a beginning and an end. You have to show multiple stages between them.

No it is not. Evolution doesn't even imply "gradual change." It states that change has happened. You are STILL not getting the distinction between the observed phenomenon of evolutionary change and the theory of evolution which is an explanation for that change.

I don't have to show any stages of changes between two populations of organisms to show that organisms in general have changed. Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

[McBell]

I do not have "two entirely different definitions" of evolution. I have one: "Evolution is the observed change in the types of organisms over time." While you may have interpreted what I said earlier as meaning "Evolution is the observed changes in the numbers of organisms over time," that is not what I said, and it is not what I meant.

and now we have three definitions provided by you.
You keep changing the definition and wonder why no one agrees with you.

A) It's not my personal definition; it's the generally accepted definition: "In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." I'm broadening this definition slightly by removing "in the inherited traits" in order to get general agreement, from those not predisposed to credit evolutionary theory, that organisms have changed over time. I am not asking anyone to accept any particular explanation for why evolution has happened, or what the mechanisms are for it. I am seeking general agreement that the organisms we see today have not always existed in the history of life on earth, and that is an observation which needs an explanation.

I am making essentially no headway making what I would have thought would be a very simple, straightforward argument: that it is inarguable that organisms have changed over time.

Dude, now you have presented yet ANOTHER definition.
When will it end?

What are you up to now?
Four?
you better slow down with your definitions, We might lose track.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A) It's not my personal definition; it's the generally accepted definition: "In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." I'm broadening this definition slightly by removing "in the inherited traits" in order to get general agreement, from those not predisposed to credit evolutionary theory, that organisms have changed over time.

Please note the part that I bolded in your post. In addition to the fact that you've disregarded the reference to inherited traits (incorrectly, IMO, since doing so changes the definition of the term), I think your apparent disregard of the last part of the definition may be at the root of the difficulties we're having in communicating together.

I am making essentially no headway making what I would have thought would be a very simple, straightforward argument: that it is inarguable that organisms have changed over time.

It might be simple... if you were to actually argue that.

 

[yossarian22]

No it is not. Evolution doesn't even imply "gradual change."

Open a freakin dictionary.
Read what it says. If evolution meant change, than it would be a synonym to change. Open a thesaurus, Do you see evolution as a synonym to change? I sure don't, and I have the biggest, fattest, latest dictionary
All forms of evolution involve a progression.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Is there a link between these 2 species ?

BEFORE​

AFTER

Its called DNA?

Your obviously an enemy of science. Science gave you that computer... ITS A SIN!!!! BURN IN HELL!!