It's not difficult to find a proper definition of evolution. All you have to do is check your basic introductory textbooks on evolution. Google is not your friend in this case 'cause there's a lot of misinformation out there. If you're really interested in a scientific definition of evolution why not go right to the primary source?Most textbooks use some version of the following for the minimal DEFINITION of evolution [see What IS Evolution?].
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.Now, we all know that Intelligent Design Creationists are keen on real science. They certainly don't want to mislead their flock. Let's see how they define evolution in the latest book they are promoting [From Discovering Intelligent Design: Define Your Terms].
David Klinghoffer—a non-scientist—wrote the article but it consists entirely of an excerpt from the book Discovering Intelligent Design. Here's how the IDiots define evolution for their followers.
When terms are not carefully defined, miscommunication and false leaps of logic can result. For instance, when you see the word "evolution," you should ask, "Which definition is being used?" Typically, there are three common meanings."Definition" #1 might be close to a real scientific definition as long as they specify "heritable change." I doubt they do this.
>> Evolution #1: Microevolution (defined earlier): Small-scale changes in a population of organisms.
Macroevolution (also defined earlier) can be divided into two parts.
>> Evolution #2: Universal Common Descent: The view that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor.
>> Evolution #3: Natural Selection: The view that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation has been the primary mechanism driving the evolution of life.
Sometimes evolutionists purposefully confuse these definitions, hoping you won't notice that they overstated their case. It's not uncommon for an evolutionist to take evidence for microevolution (evolution #1), and claim it supports common descent (evolution #2) or development solely through unguided mechanisms (evolution #3).
"Definition" #2 is actually a conclusion based on observation. It's not a definition.
"Definition" #3 is what we normally refer to as "Darwinism" and it's one of the misconceptions about evolution that most textbooks try to dispel. It's not an acceptable definition in any textbook on my shelf.
So, there you have it. That's the best attempt by IDiots to explain the concept that they oppose.
Pathetic.
244 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 244 of 244Vashti asks,
What happened to random mutations? Are they no longer a part of the mechanism by which the change is accomplished in evolution?
Change in populations occurs in the absence of new mutations as long as there's already variation in the population. Thus, mutations are not part of the main mechanisms of change (natural selection and random genetic drift). It's possible to have significant mutation-driven change in the allele frequencies of populations but it's a very rare event.
It's best to think of mutation as a mechanism for creating variation upon which the change processes (selection and drift) can act.
When you're looking at the historical aspect of evolution (history of life) then mutations play an important role in defining those pathways leading to modern species.
she is accused of trying to get Larry fired
BZZZZT!
That was not the point at all.
The reason I brought up firing or other sanctions was in response to her statement that "I have trouble believing that you are not in violation of some university policy." Violating university policies does open you up to the possibility of being fired or having other sanctions applied against you, so if there could be no conceivable sanction levied against Dr. Moran for what he wrote or what other people said(!), then there can be no University of Toronto policy he violated anywhere.
I do, however, believe that the use of such language was meant to intimidate; the fact that it couldn't possibly intimidate anyone is evidence of the ignorance of the person who tried the tactic, not evidence that the tactic was never attempted.
Huh? And here I've been taught that both natural selection and random mutation together caused the change over time, now you say it fixes mutations? That means natural selection is in fact guided and has a goal. So much for the concept of neo-darwinism.
You beat everybody to set the record straight and prove ID is true. Who needs Dembski
Huh? And here I've been taught that both natural selection and random mutation together caused the change over time, now you say it fixes mutations? That means natural selection is in fact guided and has a goal. So much for the concept of neo-darwinism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)
That definition needs to be updated Professor Noble recently debunked it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYNLgX50TpU
take the time to watch the whole lecture.
Well, I already see one glaring alarm going off. He cites James Shapiro (bad) to refute the claim that mutations are random, and he does that by pointing out that there are mutational "hotspots" in the genome (much, much worse). The randomness of mutations is not in where they occur, but in their contribution to relative fitness of the organism. This was the point of the Luria-Delbrück experiment. If they had meant to establish that mutations can occur anywhere in the genome with equal probability, then their experimental setup would have been wildly different. Indeed, I'm not sure they could have done it with the available technology at the time (early 40s). Nothing Noble has said or Shapiro has said has impeached the idea that beneficial mutations occur because the organism somehow 'knows' they are needed.
That should read: "Nothing Noble has said or Shapiro has said has impeached the idea that beneficial mutations DO NOT occur because the organism somehow 'knows' they are needed."
Meant to hit "Preview" rather than "Publish" again.
Larry,
By what definition of "minimal" is one that doesn't cover the subject considered minimal? I would have thought that the word would entail adequacy. Otherwise a minimal definition could be zero words. Small, but no smaller than required, in other words. And a definition that excludes X can't be considered to allow for the possibility of X being included. If it's populations that evolve, species selection isn't evolution.
As for "process", it isn't the word I mind. It's evolution being defined as a process rather than a result. There are a great many evolutionary processes. See? I used the word. You will note that Futuyma, in the quote, doesn't define evolution as a process. He says it's a result, i.e. that the various processes mentioned are causes of evolutionary change.
Dr Dennis Noble Argue that mutations are in fact not random. Did you even watch the lecture or did you google for a critique?
All right, I've now watched that whole lecture, and nowhere in it does Noble "debunk" the definition of fixation as used in population genetics. If you disagree, cite a timestamp instead of presenting me with another whole tedious lecture to watch.
Dr Dennis Noble Argue that mutations are in fact not random.
That's what I said. I also explained why he was wrong — or more precisely why he was attacking a straw man. Are you absolutely incapable of reading for comprehension?
check your previous reply, you said random, unless you did so in a manner I did not understand
check your previous reply, you said random, unless you did so in a manner I did not understand
I guess I must have.
Here's what I said:
"Well, I already see one glaring alarm going off. He cites James Shapiro (bad) to refute the claim that mutations are random, and he does that by pointing out that there are mutational 'hotspots' in the genome (much, much worse)."
Do you see the verb "refute" in that sentence? If Noble thinks that Shapiro refutes the claim that mutations are random, what does that say about Noble's own position on the randomness of mutations?
I'm also still waiting for the specific point in the lecture when Noble refutes the term "fixation" as it is used in population genetics.
Why the beef with Shapiro, he is not a creationist or an ID'er? He is however skeptical of the Darwinian mechanisms as am I.
Nullifidian
Maybe I should be more articulate, if the concept of how genes work, or what they are has changed, then how they fit in with fixation must also be revised. That is the point I wanted to make. We thought we knew but did we really? If all the rules of the modern synthesis has all been broken, everything about it needs to be revised.
Lastly Rumracket's idea that NS and drift fixes RM contradicts the wiki article.... Who is right?
Lastly Rumracket's idea that NS and drift fixes RM contradicts the wiki article.... Who is right?
The Wikipedia article: "In the process of substitution, a previously non-existent allele arises by mutation and undergoes fixation by spreading through the population by random genetic drift and/or positive selection. Once the frequency of the allele is at 100%, i.e. being the only gene variant present in any member, it is said to be 'fixed' in the population."
Perhaps I'm being particularly unobservant, but I have difficulty finding the contradiction here.
Why the beef with Shapiro, he is not a creationist or an ID'er?
Simple: creationism doesn't factor at all into my rejection of a hypothesis, not even when the subject is creationism itself. That is, I don't reject creationism because it is creationism, but because it's wrong. I reject Shapiro's claims for the same reason.
@John Harshman
Remind me again how you would define evolution if you were writing a textbook.
Andre Gross did not know what fixation means: Huh? And here I've been taught that both natural selection and random mutation together caused the change over time, now you say it fixes mutations?
He acts shocked, shocked to hear that NS fixes mutations. It's like being shocked that the electric force causes like charges to repel each other.
AG: That means natural selection is in fact guided and has a goal.
No. So if the dark form of the peppered moth comes to outnumber the light form of the peppered moth, then NS is "guided" and has "a goal" according to Andre Gross. Does he think Jesus guided that?
Do you understand basic logic? Why did you switch to passive tense-- "guided"? What's doing the guiding? Why don't you use a noun-subject followed by an active tense verb-- e.g. "Jesus guides natural selection"?
Why do dishonest people always use passive tense verbs? A big pet peeve for me.
As for Shapiro, he is a crackpot who has a Lamarckian-type theory about organisms genetically engineering themselves. He also says that genomes need to be huge because they need vast amounts of what he calls "formatting information" supposedly so that specific genes or regulatory elements can be "addressed" or located by something or other-- the "operating system". Shapiro uses the technology jargon of early 1980's floppy disks (the 5 1/4 inch kind floppy disks) as his analogy for all genomes everywhere.
Shapiro has no explanation why some species of onion would vary by a factor 5 in how much "formatting information" they need. Shapiro has no explanation why some species of salamander would vary by a factor 100 (that's one hundred) in how much "formatting information" they need.
Shapiro's hypothesis makes no testable predictions and he does not say this honestly, but he instead is evasive on the subject. So this is pseudoscience. It may not be supernatural "Intelligent Design" but it's teleological, it is not honest about the fact that it does not make testable predictions, so it's pseudoscience. Not all pseudoscience is Intelligent Design.
I don't think any short definition would be adequate, but if forced I might go with "Heritable change in a population or group of populations." I'm not sure whether it's worth adding "...over multiple generations".
if the concept of how genes work, or what they are has changed, then how they fit in with fixation must also be revised.
That is a big "if". If you want to show that the concept of how genes work has changed, you're going to have to do better than one fringe person citing another, and you will have to show how this "changed concept" has implications for population genetics. I doubt you can use Noble to do that because he bases his understanding on Shapiro, and Shapiro doesn't appear to understand population genetics.
If all the rules of the modern synthesis has all been broken, everything about it needs to be revised.
The modern synthesis has been revised. Earlier revisions included neutral and nearly neutral theory, which Shapiro doesn't address in his book, despite its serious implications for his "natural genetic engineering" hypothesis. And contrary to the claims in the lecture, most of the "rules" haven't been broken when properly understood. I already explained why the claim of a refutation of the randomness of mutations was wrong.
lutesuite, I presume you are referencing the straw man fallacy, but I don't agree that it applies here.
Note that Klinghoffer said "evolutionists", not "biologists" or "scientists", as you substituted. This could mean anyone who advocates the reality of evolution, such as myself.
Unless nobody has ever conflated a definition of evolution with one of the 3 false definitions he presented, then he is right to reject them, and I have heard each of those false definitions often enough to agree the clarification is helpful.
More importantly, since these were definitions he rejects, then it shouldn't have been presented as how he defines evolution.
Allen, I always liked "descent with modification" but does "descent" cover horizontal genetic change? The word "modification" is fine, but "change" is fewer keystrokes. You do address the key point, though, that evolution is change. There may be other aspects of life's history, but evolution is, and is all about, change.
John and Larry, what is so helpful about the term "populations"? Isn't anything that happens to any organism also within a population? Is this an implication that it isn't evolution until a certain percentage of the population has the trait?
Why the "over multiple generations"? What if it happens in just one generation? Anything beyond that is not evolution, but stasis anyway. Evolution happens WITHIN a lifetime, as some epigenetic changes are heritable.
The flawed concept that evolution is always gradual and always takes many generations of single point mutations is way outdated and ignores whole genome duplication, frameshifting, and other large-scale, single generation modifications.
Some Sequoias average a 2000 year life span. How long must we wait before we conclude that this longevity trait evolved? As soon as one organism exists with a novel trait, it is evolution.
The word "evolution" means change. The more we add to that, the more we trip ourselves up.
The definition will fail if it either A. Fails to include anything that is a part of evolution. OR B. Includes that which is NOT evolution. Examples:
1. Insertion of a mobile genetic element IS evolution, whether it is phenotypically expressed or not.
2. Offspring maintaining the same trait as the parentage is NOT evolution, but stasis. This includes selection, by any definition, and thus the peril of force-fitting "many generations" or "populations" into the definition.
3. Inherited intelligence by domestication, training or any other heritable operant conditioning IS evolution, although not genetic.
4. Catastrophic climate change resulting in extinction of a species is NOT evolution, nor is any death of any kind.
5. Bacteria gaining resistance to an anti-biotic IS evolution. This is a testable, repeatable scientifically established fact.
Any time an organism changes any trait from that of its parentage, it has evolved. The expansion of that same trait within a population is NOT evolving, but remaining the same.
1. No it isn't. It's a mutation. Mutations are not generally considered evolution.
2. I think that by this you mean that a change in allele frequency isn't evolution. Yes it is. No biologist would agree with you.
3. No it isn't. No biologist would agree with you.
4. Clearly, climate change isn't evolution. But many biologists would agree that extinction is. By analogy with population-level evolution, species correspond to individuals, clades to species, and extinction to death of individuals. Both processes result in a change in the distribution of traits within a group.
5. If you mean a single mutation, then no. If you refer to a population of bacteria, then yes.
Organisms don't evolve. Populations (and perhaps other groups) evolve. No biologist would agree with you.
Nah. Lineages evolve. Some lineages produce more offspring than others, which increases their market share, and can snuff out the competition, just as in any competition between close ecological competitors, whether reproductively connected or not.
Me (quoting Darwin & Futuyma) "Descent with modification"
LM: That's really not acceptable because it fails to convey the notion that it's POPULATIONS that evolve and not individuals.
Well, since an individual can't be descended from itself, I don't think failing to make the former explicit should lead to the latter conclusion. It's certainly important to distinguish real evolution from Pokemon, but the concept of the evolutionary population is not universally applicable. It tends to be favoured because of our diplocentric outlook - a 'natural' process, sex, draws the boundaries, and such a population consists of close ecological competitors, interspersed with other organisms from other species which form their own populations, evolving their own merry way. This breaks down for prokaryotic ecosystems, but the lineages still evolve.
It also fails to distinguish between heritable change and other kinds of change.
OK, descent with genetic modification.
Vashti, it is noteworthy how much Neo-Darwinists hide from the "random mutations" part of their "elegant" theory, even though it is the only part that actually has anything to do with evolution.
Selection is a result of evolving, not a cause.... and mutations are definitely NOT random.
Darwinism is nothing but an over-hyped luck theory that has no hope of ever creating anything any more complex and functional than a decent soap dish. Darwinism is a destructive force only.
Diogenes, Shapiro's theory is, in fact, teleological, which is precisely why we should embrace it. Like it or hate it, the only hope for Biology is teleology. It is the only line of reasoning that works at all.
More importantly, it is factual, and contrary to your assertions, teleology is verifiable, testable, repeatable and demonstrable. Shapiro himself has cited scientific methodology clearly demonstrating teleology.
The challenge to you is this: Can you present any testable hypothesis refuting teleology? Or is it YOU who is practicing pseudoscience?
John Harshman, you can try to convolute and distort all you want, but it won't work. Claiming that all scientists universally agree with you is falsehood as well. L Moran is considered an extremist atheist apologist by the mainstream. The mainstream accepts evolution, but is sick and tired of the obfuscation of Darwinists and prefer accurate and precise definitions.
JH: "Mutations are not generally considered evolution."
Mutation = Change
Change = Evolution
See? The English language isn't that difficult when actually read a dictionary. You can't simply reverse meanings and say that staying the same (selection) means change and that mutating does not. You are simply claiming that staying the same is change but that changing is not change. Classic Darwinian reversal of fact.
JH: "Organisms don't evolve."
If they have a mutation and change to a novel trait, then they did just that.
JH: "...many biologists would agree that extinction is" (evolution).
No, it is death. It is failure to adapt, not adaptation. Again, only a Darwinist would claim that staying the same is change, change is not change, random mess causes functional order and now death causes life.
You could be a poster child at the next Darwin Day convention, but it isn't hard to see why most people reject your reversals of reality.
I agree with Allen Miller that LINEAGES evolve, not populations. If a subject organism is presented with environmental changes in a lab, and it evolves and adapts, then that is evolution, even if it never populates in the wild and remains a small experimental lineage.
Anything that happens AFTER evolution, such as selection or death, is NOT evolution. The genetic change itself is evolution, even if the newborn creature never reproduces.
The only reason pseudoscientists (Darwinists) try so hard to conflate evolving with staying the same, is that they want to distract from the fact that all they really have is a luck theory, without doing the math to see why that can't work. Selectionism is all a wordplay smokescreen.
It is just so much hot air. 100% of evolution is internal to organisms. 0% is this vapid banality deceptively called "selection".
@IntelligentAnimation
Mutation = Change
Change = Evolution
Did my somatic cells evolve as replication errors accumulated on my journey from a fertilized oocyte to a mutlticelled individual? Did I evolve when I stood next to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor after the meltdown?
Your definition is too basic.
JH: "Mutations are not generally considered evolution."
I have been studying evolution for decades and have never heard of anyone, even the most extreme materialist religious fanatic, who would claim that mutations are not a part of evolution.
But I am on a notoriously extremist blog, so I have to ask: Does ANYONE agree with Harshman that mutations are not a part of evolution? Anyone?
How is it that the only part of your asenine "process" that actually has anything to do with change of a genome supposedly ISN'T any part of evolution?
Other Jim, I do agree that the word "heritable" needs to be added to fit the concept of evolution correctly, but I do not agree with adding the terms "populations" or "many generations". Actually, the term "many generations CAN'T correctly be added. As soon as a second generation has the same trait, it is stasis and no longer evolving.
My basic "this = that" was a clarification of how wrong Harshman was to claim that mutations are not a part of evolution, not intended as an all-encompassing definition of biological evolution. I was segmentikng a part of the concpet that needed emphasis. You can't exclude mutations from evolution, when both words mean "change" and relate to the same thing.
The definition of evolution SHOULD be quite basic, and it is about changing from one thing to another. Related terms like "common descent" or "speciation" carry their own descriptions and need not be conflated with the simple act of changing over time.
Perhaps an analogy will help clarify what seems like a clear distinction to me: the difference between staying the same (selection) and changing (evolution).
An appliance manufacturer has a line of washers and a line of dryers. They engineered modifications to the design for a few years but have stuck with the same model for 30 years now. The washers have been popular and sell a lot, but the dryers barely sell, ever.
They BOTH have evolved, but neither has evolved in 30 years. The fact that one proliferated and was successful does not mean it is still evolving and the fact that one was unsuccessful does not mean that it did not evolve. What happens AFTER the evolution is stopped (stasis) is NO part of the evolution itself, let alone being a "primary mechanism" CAUSE, or definition of, evolution.
Evolution MUST NEVER be conflated with selection. The two words are antonyms, not synonyms.
Selection can NEVER select anything that has not already evolved in the first place. Hence, anyone claiming that selection is a mechanism that causes evolution, as L Moran has so foolishly done in this very thread, can't possibly be correct. Chronologically, evolution MUST happen first, BEFORE selection. It is lunacy to claim otherwise.
So how do deceptive Darwinists dupe the weak-minded into buying into their "theory"? By conflating selection (keeping things as they already are) with evolution (changing things). This mixing of cause and effect muddies the waters enough to confuse some people into believing they have a "process" that rises beyond rank luck.
This ridiculous hoax called Darwinism or Selectionism is the very reason that we MUST assure that our definitions are precise.
IntelligentAnimation,
OK, let's try something here.
The reason we say that evolution is about populations might become clear. Of course, selection acts on the variability that exists in a population. I hope this is what you mean by "already evolved." However, you fail to notice that if individuals are selected, then overall, the selected population will not look like the preceding, non-selected, population. Whatever characteristic required in the selecting environment will now be prevalent. Therefore selection is a mechanism for evolution.
If that were not enough, selection also introduces a bias in the next generation. The next generation will combine genes from selected individuals, thus potentiating the probability of combinations that would have a very low probability to happen without selection. This gives us therefore new variants, and new avenues to evolution. Selection becomes a mechanism causing evolution in yet another way.
So yes, selection is a mechanism for evolution. Nothing deceptive about it.
Sure, let's be clear about definitions. Start with your own. We define evolution at the population level for good reasons.
I disagree. Shapiro's theory is testable.
A formal test would be to obtain perfect clone cells. No genetic variation. We then get them into an evolving, selection-inducing environment (ala Lenski, or antibiotic resistance). NGE would make certain predictions about the pace of evolution in the absence of standing variation, relative to stochastic mutation / selection / drift processes.
Informal tests are those that show that the amount of standing variation in a culture of cells correlates to the speed that a culture responds to a selective pressure (ex. antibiotic resistance). If NGE was true, the amount of pre-exisitng variation would matter much less.
IntelligentAnimation: Like it or hate it, the only hope for Biology is teleology. It is the only line of reasoning that works at all.
"Line of reasoning"? What testable predictions does teleology make? In teleology, there is a sea of "purposes" or "goals", but the sea is invisible.
If a bacteria evolves to have X, you assert that the invisible sea (before you did the experiment) had an invisible goal of becoming X. If a bacteria evolves to have Y, you assert that the invisible sea (before you did the experiment) had an invisible goal of becoming Y. If a bacteria evolves to have Z, you assert that the invisible sea (before you did the experiment) had an invisible goal of becoming Z.
And so on; the more data we observe, the larger is your sea of invisible hypothetical entities = "goals". No, that is not the scientific method. Your hypothesis grows in complexity at least as fast as we observe data. It had might as well be elf theory.
More importantly, it is factual
Begging the question! I say teleology doesn't work, and, as evidence that it's real, you tell me it's real. You restated your hypothesis as evidence in support of your hypothesis.
teleology is verifiable, testable, repeatable and demonstrable. Shapiro himself has cited scientific methodology clearly demonstrating teleology.
OK, since Shapiro showed this already: describe one testable prediction that is required by your teleology = invisible sea with an uncountable number of forever-invisible "goals." Name one testable prediction that follows from that, which excludes certain observations and requires others.
Describe one testable prediction that can be made before an experiment is done, and compared to an experimental result. Just one.
Asserting that the purpose of a thing = whatever it does is not a theory. By your logic, the purpose of a thing is whatever it does. The purpose of ice is to melt, which we know because we saw ice melt. The purpose of priests/preachers is to molest children, which we know because we saw them molest children.
Your purpose is to evade questions, which we know because we've seen you evade questions.
The Other Jim:
Informal tests are those that show that the amount of standing variation in a culture of cells correlates to the speed that a culture responds to a selective pressure (ex. antibiotic resistance). If NGE was true, the amount of pre-exisitng variation would matter much less.
That sounds simple enough. Has anyone ever published anything like that?
@Diogenes
Standing variation correlations - there are people working on it. I worked at a hospital-associated research institute a while ago, and there was one virologist in the department. There is a lot of work on this regarding viral infections, such as HIV and the rate of developing drug resistance.
are you implying theistic evolution, i hope not cause that would be heresy
Post a Comment