Evolution- the thing- defining “evolution”:
Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”
Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' 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 proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.
Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley
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
Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10
Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. That is evolution, the thing, in a nutshell.
OTOH there is evolution, the theory, which is about how that thing took/ takes place. For example:
A majority of biologists subscribe in one form or another to the main tenets of the theory, first proposed by Charles Darwin, that biological evolution is the outcome of accidentally arising genetic variations passively screened by natural selection according to the ability of the variants to survive and reproduce progeny under prevailing environmental conditions.- Christian de Duve in Mysteries of Life: Is there “Something Else”?
That is, according to the theory of evolution the different allele frequencies, different functional multi-part systems, different body parts and different body plans arise via accumulations of genetic accidents. These genetic accidents accumulate through natural selection, random genetic drift, and just because (ie chance/ luck).
The point being is that it is obviously OK to accept evolution, the thing and question the vercity of evolution, the theory. As Stephen C Meyer said Intelligent Design is an alternative to evolution, the theory all the while accepting evolution, the thing.
Unfortunately evolutionists don't seem to be able to grasp any of that. Sad really...
I am an evolutionist and I grasp it just fine, but I dont agree with it. We should expect onfusion to reign as long as we use confusing terms.
ReplyDeleteIt isnt just your opponents here who dont follow, but the general public. How on earth can you say you oppose the theory of evolution and you oppose evolutionists without making people believe you oppose evolution? Darwinists love the confusion because it keeps the public on their side, but we in ID should not surrender the battle of defining terms so passively.
If they call random accident "THE" theory of evolution, then they have already won. If you say you oppose "evolutionists" then you are to blame for the confusion.
Why do you call your opponents "evolutionists"? Am I an evolutionist to you?
The first World War was the "War to end all Wars" and was called "THE World War".
ReplyDeleteWhen we had another similar war, it became "World War I".
Since there are competing theories pertaining to the cause of evolution, it is inappropriate and confusing to continue using the term "THE" for any offshoot of the general concept of evoloution.
IA:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you call your opponents "evolutionists"?
Because they adhere to the theory of evolution.
IDists adhere to an alternative theory.
Yes, your opponent believes in evolution, but that is not what ID opposes. What distinguishes your opponents from most people is that they believe random accident accounts for the creation of life.
ReplyDeleteCall them Accidentalists, materialists or Darwinists and you would be clear about who and what you oppose. You should use terms that draw the difference between your theory and theirs, not a term that is common between ID and Darwinism.
Call your opponents evolutionists and the clear conclusion is that you oppose evolution. You just finished a debate on the subject and now you needed another lengthy blog, yet you are no closer to clarification because of your own poor choice of words.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteIDists adhere to an alternative theory.
Perhaps now would be the time to go into what that alternative theory is?
OM:
ReplyDeletePerhaps now would be the time to go into what that alternative theory is?
Perhaps now would be the time for YOU to stop your whining and actually provide positive evidence for your position.
But you won't because you are a coward.
IA
ReplyDeleteYes, your opponent believes in evolution, but that is not what ID opposes.
You are not readinbg what I posted. I said the theory of evolution, which ID does oppose.
IA:
Call your opponents evolutionists and the clear conclusion is that you oppose evolution.
Evolutionists adhere to the THEORY of evolution which posits accumulations of genetic accidents led to the diversity of life from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms.
Joe,
ReplyDeletePerhaps now would be the time for YOU to stop your whining and actually provide positive evidence for your position.
No, you are right. You've convinced me. I can't produce any positive evidence because there is no positive evidence.
I'm now an intelligent design supporter. Could you go into the detail of what the "theory of intelligent design" is please?
I'm using the word "Theory" in this context:
In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[6]
A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[5]
A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.
Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.
OM:
ReplyDeleteNo, you are right. You've convinced me. I can't produce any positive evidence because there is no positive evidence.
Yes, I know.
OM:
I'm now an intelligent design supporter.
ID doesn't want nor need your support.
Thanks anyway.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteID doesn't want nor need your support.
Fine, but about that "ID Theory" that can be used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon? Any chance of that?
OM,
ReplyDeleteAny chance of you ever staying on-topic?
You have already admitted that you can't support your position.
OM:
ReplyDeleteFine, but about that "ID Theory" that can be used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon? Any chance of that?
The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships and is in accordance with uniformitarianism.
As I said, Joe, I understand the tortured logic of why you call your opponents evolutionists but dont oppose evolution. I also follow your rationalization of calling one wrong theory of evolution "THE" Theory of evolution, leaving the rest to be... what? "Theories of evolution that arent THE", I guess.
ReplyDeleteBut your poor choice of words is causing the very confusion that you are fighting so hard to unravel. Do you not understand why your words are confusing?
Darwinists thrive and indeed rely on the confusion those misleading terms create.
When I say "the theory of evolution" I am referring to the currently accepted theory- which, as far as I know, is only one.
ReplyDeleteNow if there were more than one currently accepted theory of evolution I would understand your point about using te word "the" in front of "theory of evolution".
Joe,
ReplyDeleteWhen I say "the theory of evolution" I am referring to the currently accepted theory- which, as far as I know, is only one.
What is it then? If you can't say then could you point me to where it is? A book? A paper? Is "the theory of evolution" written down anywhere?
When you say "currently accepted theory" who is it accepted by? Can you name names? And they will all say exactly the same thing about evolution?
When I say "the theory of evolution" I am referring to the currently accepted theory- which, as far as I know, is only one.
ReplyDeleteOM:
What is it then?
If you have to ask...
Joe,
ReplyDeleteIf you have to ask...
Yes Joe I have to ask as your recent "debate" with Ogre showed quite clearly your idea of "evolution" is very different to what actual biologists actually think.
Is it news to you that there are different groups within "evolution" that think that "evolution" can be explained in any number of different ways, some of which are mutually exclusive? Or that there is quite a substantial debate over the mechanisms of evolution?
In fact these different ideas even have different names. Even famous evolutionists have disagreements with each other. In public.
The difference between the way actual biologists operate and the way ID supporters operate is that biologists propose an idea and then attempt to support that idea with evidence. Then disagreements can be resolved on the basis of said evidence.
Funny how that never seems to happen within the ID camp. You don't even know if the "designer" last intervened last Thursday or 150 million years ago or somewhere in between. You don't even know when/how what you claim happened happened. And there is no hope in sight that any of that will ever be resolved.
Unlike the endeavor known as science as performed by actual scientists. As new evidence is found, some ideas are rule out. As new evidence is found disagreements are resolved.
Yet if you read UD today it might as well be 5 years ago - nothing has been resolved. Even TT is still going round and round on the same few topics over and over.
Just like this blog. What have you actually achieved since you started it?
OM:
ReplyDeleteYes Joe I have to ask as your recent "debate" with Ogre showed quite clearly your idea of "evolution" is very different to what actual biologists actually think.
Liar. I provided evolutionary biologists definitions of evolution- Ogre provided nothing.
Then you bitch about ID yet your position has produced absolutely NOTHING and it is the FAILURE of your position that has allowed ID to persist.
What have evolutionists actually achieved? Absolutely NOTHING.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThen you bitch about ID yet your position has produced absolutely NOTHING and it is the FAILURE of your position that has allowed ID to persist.
Nothing except a thriving research community that each day finds out a little more about how life on earth came to be. And that really grinds your gears huh?
OM:
ReplyDeleteNothing except a thriving research community that each day finds out a little more about how life on earth came to be.
How thriving can it be if there still isn't any evidence to support the claims of the theory?
Loser
Joe,
ReplyDeleteHow thriving can it be if there still isn't any evidence to support the claims of the theory?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.2011.65.issue-6/issuetoc
There is more research in the current issue alone then ID has ever done in it's entire history.
OM sez: "Is it news to you that there are different groups within "evolution" that think that "evolution" can be explained in any number of different ways, some of which are mutually exclusive? Or that there is quite a substantial debate over the mechanisms of evolution?"
ReplyDeleteI fully agree. In fact we are in that debate now, and we are not alone. It is incorrect, outdated and confusing to continue to call it "THE" theory of evolution.
OM also sez (same post): "The difference between the way actual biologists operate and the way ID supporters operate is that biologists propose an idea and then attempt to support that idea with evidence. Then disagreements can be resolved on the basis of said evidence."
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, I would say that ID is the only branch of evolution that follows the evidence. The random accident crowd calls the evidence an "illusion" and promises that they will find a way some day to explain why the evidence is wrong.
If this blog is any indication, that trend continues...
OM sez of ID: "You don't even know if the 'designer' last intervened last Thursday or 150 million years ago or somewhere in between."
ReplyDeleteWe dont say that there was a singular "designer" and the term "intervened" doesnt fit.
As to timelines there are different opinions within ID, just as within any other branch of evolution. ID simply posits that some or all of evolution is best explained by intelligent cause.
Personally, I have no such equivocation: No aspect of life or evolution has ever successfully occured without intelligent agency. There is no plausible random chaos explanation for anything at all.
The term "intervention" means that during a process a secondary influence interjects an influence that could cause a change of course. To me, life and evolution are 100% intelligent cause, with no secondary influence.
Some IDists would accept the term "intervention", but I would disagree and it doesnt fit ID as a whole. Still, your point does not defeat ID. As long as they can identify ANY examples of intelligent cause, they are not required to know EVERY example in order to prove their case.
Can you show ANY example of random chaos intervening on the functional order of life in such a way that it luckily causes benefitial features to an organism? Did random chaos help us last Thursday?
Joe, when you say "evolutionists adhere to the theory of evolution", it sounds so simple and true, and it should be. Yet by your definitions it may be true or it may be false.... depends.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes ask people in the general public what they believe about evolution. I have found a small percentage are creationists but mostly believe in evolution. So far out of dozens of adults I have asked, none believe in random accident cause. Only my neice and nephew, in high school, believed it and then only because their teachers said it.
Yet when I ask about teaching evolution in school all but the creationists want ID to go away.
Why do all adults I asked believe in intelligent cause and yet (aside from creationists) oppose ID, thinking everything is just fine with the way we teach evolution (accidental cause)?
Because the terms we use are confusing. They ALL equate evolution with what you call the theory of evolution and all equate creationism with ID. They equate evolution with random accident so they believe that since evidence suports evolution, that it must also support random accident. All of these beliefs are incorrect and they all hurt our cause.
Please use terms that correctly delineate one hypothesis from the other, or accept blame for perpetuating the problem.
How thriving can it be if there still isn't any evidence to support the claims of the theory?
ReplyDeleteOM:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.2011.65.issue-6/issuetoc
There is more research in the current issue alone then ID has ever done in it's entire history.
And where is the evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise t usful, functional multi-part systems?
The point being is that yor position doesn't have anything nd your equivocation is duly noted.
Essence Of Evolution, Natural Selection
ReplyDeletehttp://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/
Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:
Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.
This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes are the probable or actual evolution steps between physical states ordained for natural selection.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/