How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

I'm looking up definitions, and the first one I came across is this (short and sweet) --
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Do you agree with it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm looking up definitions, and the first one I came across is this (short and sweet) --
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Do you agree with it?

Yes but environment needs to be mentioned as well.

 

[Father Heathen]

Evolution - Wikipedia

 

[infrabenji]

I'm looking up definitions, and the first one I came across is this (short and sweet) --
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Do you agree with it?

I found this definition. In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time.

 

[Windwalker]

Evolution is just change over time. So technically speaking, everything since the big bang has evolved, stars, planets, solar systems, etc. But I realize the theory of evolution is taking the process of evolution and applying it to biology. Most people are thinking of biology when they mention evolution, but it shouldn't be restricted to that.

 

[Deeje]

I found this definition. In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time.

Most people's definition of "evolution" includes the unsubstantiated claim that such minor changes over time means that an amoeba can become a dinosaur, given a few million years.

I acknowledge that "adaptation" can change the physical characteristics of any species within a 'family' of creatures over generations when environmental changes also mean a change in diet....each is equipped to make those changes naturally as a survival mechanism (e.g. Peppered Moth or Darwin's finches)......but it is a fact that science cannot take the small changes that occur in one species and claim "evolution" on a macro scale, as if one family of creatures can become a different family, given enough time......and then treat that idea as if it must be a fact. (e.g. whale evolution, where the first "whale" was claimed to be a four legged furry land dweller, the size of a dog.) This is an assumption......not the same as a fact at all.

I believe that the line gets blurred even for scientists keen to get their evolutionary message across. (some relishing the idea of killing off God for good) But, when does science fact become science fiction?.....evolution is a classic example IMO.....not that gradual changes occurred in any given species over time, but at its very foundation where claims are made and real evidence is missing......lots of it.

 

[infrabenji]

Most people's definition of "evolution" includes the unsubstantiated claim that such minor changes over time means that an amoeba can become a dinosaur, given a few million years.

I acknowledge that "adaptation" can change the physical characteristics of any species within a 'family' of creatures over generations when environmental changes also mean a change in diet....each is equipped to make those changes naturally as a survival mechanism (e.g. Peppered Moth or Darwin's finches)......but it is a fact that science cannot take the small changes that occur in one species and claim "evolution" on a macro scale, as if one family of creatures can become a different family, given enough time......and then treat that idea as if it must be a fact. (e.g. whale evolution, where the first "whale" was claimed to be a four legged furry land dweller, the size of a dog.) This is an assumption......not the same as a fact at all.

I believe that the line gets blurred even for scientists keen to get their evolutionary message across. (some relishing the idea of killing off God for good) But, when does science fact become science fiction?.....evolution is a classic example IMO.....not that gradual changes occurred in any given species over time, but at its very foundation where claims are made and real evidence is missing......lots of it.

It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change. In the American vernacular, “theory” often means ”imperfect fact”-part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. ... Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I acknowledge that "adaptation" can change the physical characteristics of any species within a 'family' of creatures over generations when environmental changes also mean a change in diet....

Interesting. I'm going to assume you believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution. I have some questions for you...

Why do organisms adapt and change, in your opinion? What is the mechanism by which this happens? Is it through generational mutation, or something else?

Why do you think that changes will be limited to the confines of what parameters exist inside of a given "family" group? What is the mechanism that prevents organisms from changing beyond that?

If given enough time (let's say an infinite amount of time), do you think these changes could possibly allow an animal to change so much that they could fall outside of the confines of what the "family" group is identified by? Why or why not?

In 10,000 years or so, people have managed to turn wolves into this.

 

[Deeje]

It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.

I have seen the graphs....but please tell me when an "equine" was not an "equine" or a "feline" was not a "feline" or a"canine" wasn't a "canine"?....or any other "family" of creatures traced back to those (always missing) phantom "common ancestors"? Evolution depends on them, and insists that they "must have" existed.....but no one really knows who or what they were....and there is not a shred of actual evidence that they have ever existed, except in the fertile imagination of evolutionists.

And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.

Identifying mechanisms has its limitations as we all know. When a genetic road block is reached, imagination almost seamlessly falls into the evolutionary breach. It is a very big assumption to state that (macro) evolution can be extended beyond testable limits, and present those assumptions as if they were facts. The fact is, when you go back to those "common ancestors", they are most "uncommon" except on graphs as "branches" of an imagined tree....but yet evolution falls apart completely without them.

In the American vernacular, “theory” often means ”imperfect fact”-part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.

I love how science makes its theories "scientific"....meaning that they don't need proof for any of their musings as long as there is some jargon to back it up.....but then some will demand proof for the existence of an Intelligent Creator. They can't test for him?...does that automatically rule him out as if science, which took the human race thousands of years to reach its present level of knowledge, must already know all there is to know about how life arrived and then how it evolved? The arrogance amuses me TBH.

All I see is proponents of two belief systems...neither has actual proof for their beliefs.....so the choice is up to the individual to believe whatever they wish...and for their own reasons.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.

LOL...you just demonstrated exactly what I mean.....when is a fact not a fact?
When its theory....when is a theory not a theory? When its a "scientific" theory....

I remain as unconvinced about evolution as you apparently are about God.....I guess we will all know the right answer one day.

 

[Bear Wild]

Interesting. I'm going to assume you believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution. I have some questions for you...

Why do organisms adapt and change, in your opinion? What is the mechanism by which this happens? Is it through generational mutation, or something else?

Why do you think that changes will be limited to the confines of what parameters exist inside of a given "family" group? What is the mechanism that prevents organisms from changing beyond that?

If given enough time (let's say an infinite amount of time), do you think these changes could possibly allow an animal to change so much that they could fall outside of the confines of what the "family" group is identified by? Why or why not?

In 10,000 years or so, people have managed to turn wolves into this.

Actually I think that is called devo - devolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm looking up definitions, and the first one I came across is this (short and sweet) --
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Do you agree with it?

It's ok but brief. There is more to evolution than this simple definition. It does not take into consideration that change in the environment is the driving force behind evolution. Natural Selection in response to changing environment.

 

[infrabenji]

I have seen the graphs....but please tell me when an "equine" was not an "equine" or a "feline" was not a "feline" or a"canine" wasn't a "canine"?....or any other "family" of creatures traced back to those (always missing) phantom "common ancestors"? Evolution depends on them, and insists that they "must have" existed.....but no one really knows who or what they were....and there is not a shred of actual evidence that they have ever existed, except in the fertile imagination of evolutionists.


Identifying mechanisms has its limitations as we all know. When a genetic road block is reached, imagination almost seamlessly falls into the evolutionary breach. It is a very big assumption to state that (macro) evolution can be extended beyond testable limits, and present those assumptions as if they were facts. The fact is, when you go back to those "common ancestors", they are most "uncommon" except on graphs as "branches" of an imagined tree....but yet evolution falls apart completely without them.


I love how science makes its theories "scientific"....meaning that they don't need proof for any of their musings as long as there is some jargon to back it up.....but then some will demand proof for the existence of an Intelligent Creator. They can't test for him?...does that automatically rule him out as if science, which took the human race thousands of years to reach its present level of knowledge, must already know all there is to know about how life arrived and then how it evolved? The arrogance amuses me TBH.

All I see is proponents of two belief systems...neither has actual proof for their beliefs.....so the choice is up to the individual to believe whatever they wish...and for their own reasons.


LOL...you just demonstrated exactly what I mean.....when is a fact not a fact?
When its theory....when is a theory not a theory? When its a "scientific" theory....

I remain as unconvinced about evolution as you apparently are about God.....I guess we will all know the right answer one day.

TL;DR I thought this was the how do you define evolution thread? Not the fail to disprove evolution thread. We were just looking at different definitions online. Why write me a novel picking apart internet definitions done by experts? I’m not a scientist are you? I think there is a thread where they are discussing evolution vs creationism already goin on right now. I bet there’s some pretty smart people over there who are interested in talking to you about evolution.

 

[infrabenji]

Actually I think that is called devo - devolution.

Whip it good

 

[epronovost]

Most people's definition of "evolution" includes the unsubstantiated claim that such minor changes over time means that an amoeba can become a dinosaur, given a few million years.

It's substantiated by genetics, fossil record, the entire domain of taxonomy. Also it's the process to go from an amoeba to a dinosaur took several hundred million years not a few millions. You are wrong by a factor of over a 100. It's such a bad guess it would like saying that a brand new Iphone costs about 15 dollars.

I acknowledge that "adaptation" can change the physical characteristics of any species within a 'family' of creatures over generations when environmental changes also mean a change in diet....each is equipped to make those changes naturally as a survival mechanism (e.g. Peppered Moth or Darwin's finches)......but it is a fact that science cannot take the small changes that occur in one species and claim "evolution" on a macro scale, as if one family of creatures can become a different family, given enough time......and then treat that idea as if it must be a fact. (e.g. whale evolution, where the first "whale" was claimed to be a four legged furry land dweller, the size of a dog.) This is an assumption......not the same as a fact at all.

You fail to present any sort of mechanism that would prevent small changes to accumulate over hundreds of millions of years to produce radically different animals. Computer programs making simulation of evolution show that you can go from one form to something radically different to the point they are hardly recognizable just by passing small changes that grow bigger. Plus, small changes in genetics can have big impact in appearance. Evolutionary speaking there is almost no difference between a Canadian grey wolf and a teacup hairless chihuahua.

In the example of the whales for example we have a variety of fossils for semi-aquatic mammals becoming slowly more and more adapted to life at sea. The ancestry of whales from land creatures is still perfectly visible on their skeleton as they still have finger bones which are completely useless on any purely aquatic animals. It took about 8 million years for an animal rather akin to an hippopotamus to evolve into a fully aquatic lifeform and a further 40 for whales like those we see today (or very, very similar) to emerge.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm looking up definitions, and the first one I came across is this (short and sweet) --
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Do you agree with it?

Well that is the general idea and a starting place.
Here is one with a little more detail to think about.
"Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations — in other words, descent with modification... It explicitly includes the origin as well as the spread of alleles, variants, trait values, or character states. Evolution may occur as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, or both; the minimum requirements are those for either process. Natural selection does not necessarily give rise to evolution, and the same is true for genetic drift" (Endler 1986).

 

[Suave]

I'm looking up definitions, and the first one I came across is this (short and sweet) --
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Do you agree with it?

Evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

 

[Bear Wild]

It's ok but brief. There is more to evolution than this simple definition. It does not take into consideration that change in the environment is the driving force behind evolution. Natural Selection in response to changing environment.

That is true but remember @YoursTrue is only just getting started. Now is the a genuine wanting to know type post or is it the lead into another meaningless ploy to deny evolution.

I must keep hope on humanity and believe there is a chance this is a genuine "I really want to understand" moment. It probably will not take much time to tell.

 

[Polymath257]

I have seen the graphs....but please tell me when an "equine" was not an "equine" or a "feline" was not a "feline" or a"canine" wasn't a "canine"?....or any other "family" of creatures traced back to those (always missing) phantom "common ancestors"? Evolution depends on them, and insists that they "must have" existed.....but no one really knows who or what they were....and there is not a shred of actual evidence that they have ever existed, except in the fertile imagination of evolutionists.

Well, there were no canines of felids 50 million years ago. But there were miacids, creodonts, and mesonychids.

Clearly, the canines and felines came from something alive at that time, right?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Actually I think that is called devo - devolution.

I think so, though that opinion is subjective. People didn't breed wolves into those shapes for no reason - just not for a good reason.

 

[Father Heathen]

Most people's definition of "evolution" includes the unsubstantiated claim that such minor changes over time means that an amoeba can become a dinosaur, given a few million years.

I thought dishonesty was considered a "sin" by your religion? You've been here long enough to know what a straw man fallacy is, right? Shame on you.

(some relishing the idea of killing off God for good)

Uh, nope! As been established here innumerable times before, the theory of evolution and the concept of God are not mutually exclusive, nor are literal interpretations of creation myths prerequisite for belief in God. Sowwy!