Evolution according to Zosimus

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

As my thread has become somewhat of a loading bay for wannabee theorists, I thought I might give this poster a punt.

EVOLUTION ACCORDING TO ZOSIMUS

What is "evolution?" Properly understood evolution is simply the fact that things change. Biological evolution, in fact, can be defined as the change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation.

Why does evolution happen? There are many reasons. Sexual reproduction practically guarantees that the frequency of alleles will change. For example, if a couple has only one child, it will be impossible for that one child to have copies of all of the alleles of both parents. Even if the couple has an even number of children the likelihood that each allele will be faithfully represented in the right proportions in the following generation is remote. Additionally during both meiosis and mitosis certain copying errors are made. It is estimated that humans receive three harmful mutations, zero beneficial mutations, and a large number of neutral mutations per generation. In addition, many types of bacteria engage in horizontal gene transfers to add desired features from other bacteria around.
------------
Now in any normal world what I have just broken down above would be the law and theory of evolution. As you can easily see, the fossil record has fact all to do with evolution.

Surely you must be referring to the The Theory Of Common Descent. On the previous page, we find the three scientific questions posed, and I will provide you with the answers:

1. Can we prove that there was a single common ancestor?
2. Can we prove we've drawn the diagram correctly?
3. Where did the ancestor come from?

Answers:

1. No.
2. No.
3. No one knows.

How does the fossil record fit in? Well, if you want to get a good grade in your biology class, try reading Fossil Evidence Supports Evolution, which unfortunately is written by someone who has no clue about the difference between evolution and common descent.

Now if you get assigned a logic class, or you want to actually do critical reasoning as opposed to merely regurgitating the "right" answers, let me know and I'll be glad to help.

Or you could just learn How To Use Google.

 

[EternalDragon]

So what should we do if we don't know something???
All together now............Let's make something up.

I know. If scientists didn't do that we wouldn't be here debating it
so much.

 

[EternalDragon]

There is no debate, evolution is a fact and religions are myths.

Did you read the OP?

 

[SkyWriting]

So what should we do if we don't know something???
All together now............Let's make something up.

Practice using google is a fine idea.
At least have one site to support your theories
as a frame of reference. I prefer secular sites.

 

[Zosimus]

As my thread has become somewhat of a loading bay for wannabee theorists, I thought I might give this poster a punt.

EVOLUTION ACCORDING TO ZOSIMUS

What is Evolution?

In the above link, the author quotes Douglas J. Futuyma on evolution. Who is Douglas J. Futuyma? Apparently he has been president of the Society for the Study of Evolution. What does Doug have to say?

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable 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 proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

Still confused? Try a simpler definition from the same website:

"... evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

That's what evolution means. If you pick up any reasonable college-level biology textbook, that's what it will say. When scientists say that they have observed evolution, what they mean is that they have observed a change in the frequency of alleles in a population.

Now in case you don't believe that, here's a link to a PDF on a university website talking about evolution, wherein we read:

"Change of allele abundance/frequency is the basic evolutionary change."

In conclusion, evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. That's what evolution is. Anyone who tries to tell you that evolution has to do with fossils, or abiogenesis, or apes turning into humans, or whether God created life, or whether science has disproved God's existence simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

Now there are lots of other related theories. Most people who say that they believe in "evolution" really believe in something we call neo-Darwinism. However, neo-Darwinism is not evolution. Evolution is not neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a synthesis of several different theories and is often called the Modern evolutionary synthesis. This synthesis itself has evolved over time and will continue to do so. The Modern evolutionary synthesis is controversial. Evolution, itself, is not. Even the most devout YEC Bible-literalist will not insist that the frequency of alleles never changes from generation to generation. You could easily open a thread here and get thousands of posts from apologists on both sides arguing whether macro-evolution occurs. You would, however, be hard pressed to find anyone who denies that micro-evolution occurs.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

That's lovely, but I think what you might need is a simple definition of Evolution. Here's one provided by the Berkley website:

'The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.'

Moving on to Macro-evolution:

'It is not necessarily easy to "see" macro-evolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.'

What is Evolution?

In the above link, the author quotes Douglas J. Futuyma on evolution. Who is Douglas J. Futuyma? Apparently he has been president of the Society for the Study of Evolution. What does Doug have to say?

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable 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 proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

Still confused? Try a simpler definition from the same website:

"... evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

That's what evolution means. If you pick up any reasonable college-level biology textbook, that's what it will say. When scientists say that they have observed evolution, what they mean is that they have observed a change in the frequency of alleles in a population.

Now in case you don't believe that, here's a link to a PDF on a university website talking about evolution, wherein we read:

"Change of allele abundance/frequency is the basic evolutionary change."

In conclusion, evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. That's what evolution is. Anyone who tries to tell you that evolution has to do with fossils, or abiogenesis, or apes turning into humans, or whether God created life, or whether science has disproved God's existence simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

Now there are lots of other related theories. Most people who say that they believe in "evolution" really believe in something we call neo-Darwinism. However, neo-Darwinism is not evolution. Evolution is not neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a synthesis of several different theories and is often called the Modern evolutionary synthesis. This synthesis itself has evolved over time and will continue to do so. The Modern evolutionary synthesis is controversial. Evolution, itself, is not. Even the most devout YEC Bible-literalist will not insist that the frequency of alleles never changes from generation to generation. You could easily open a thread here and get thousands of posts from apologists on both sides arguing whether macro-evolution occurs. You would, however, be hard pressed to find anyone who denies that micro-evolution occurs.

Though the theory of Evolution, may appear to be a simple matter of a single definition, or two -- it's in fact made up of five theories. I suspect you'll be able to Google this too, but for now I think that should be enough to get you going.

 

[Mainframes]

I know. If scientists didn't do that we wouldn't be here debating it
so much.

Unfortunately scientists use this little thing called evidence and testing to verify findings......

 

[Zosimus]

That's lovely, but I think what you might need is a simple definition of Evolution. Here's one provided by the Berkley website:

'The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.'

Moving on to Macro-evolution:

'It is not necessarily easy to "see" macro-evolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.'





Though the theory of Evolution, may appear to be a simple matter of a single definition, or two -- it's in fact made up of five theories. I suspect you'll be able to Google this too, but for now I think that should be enough to get you going.

You know, it's customary when someone posts a quote to provide a link to said quote. You merely said, "From the Berkley (sic) website."

It's Berkeley, by the way. Fortunately I know how to use Google and I quickly found your your quote on the page entitled An introduction to evolution.

I immediately saw why you didn't want to include a link to the page. It starts:

The definition
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).

So when you say that we need "a simple definition of Evolution", you might try the one on the webpage you misquoted from. It's the one right after the words:

The definition

 

[florida2]

I know. If scientists didn't do that we wouldn't be here debating it
so much.

Of course creation 'scientists' would never make anything up

 

[bhsmte]

As my thread has become somewhat of a loading bay for wannabee theorists, I thought I might give this poster a punt.

EVOLUTION ACCORDING TO ZOSIMUS

That's Mr. Logic for you.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Fortunately I know how to use Google

It seems that all your so-called science, has been acquired that way -- pretty much explains this:

You see, I don't deny the possibility that all life is descended from one single-celled organism that arose purely by chance billions of years ago in some strange mix of nucleotides even though nucleotides are not known to occur in nature outside of living cells. It just strikes me as rather unlikely. When I come on a forum such as this one, most Darwinists take the attitude that anyone who doesn't think as they do is an idiot of some sort.

I'm sorry but when I hear the argument: "The frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation therefore all life shares a common ancestor" I think that I must be missing something. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, you see. Furthermore, I can't even deduce the assumption that the argument is based on. Accordingly I consider the argument not compelling.

So far on this forum I have only heard lots of Darwinists defending the idea that a sufficient number of logical fallacies leads to knowledge of the truth. I, however, remain skeptical.

 

[[serious]]

That's lovely, but I think what you might need is a simple definition of Evolution. Here's one provided by the Berkley website:

'The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.'

Moving on to Macro-evolution:

'It is not necessarily easy to "see" macro-evolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.'





Though the theory of Evolution, may appear to be a simple matter of a single definition, or two -- it's in fact made up of five theories. I suspect you'll be able to Google this too, but for now I think that should be enough to get you going.

Well, he's starting in the right place. In fact, I posted a similar bit in response to a poster claiming evolutioin was poorly defined. He even formatted his post like mine, bolding similar portions.

Where he departs though is right here:

Anyone who tries to tell you that evolution has to do with fossils, or abiogenesis, or apes turning into humans, or whether God created life, or whether science has disproved God's existence simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

Now, I'll agree that abiogenesis can be decoupled from evolution, but the divergence of of populations into different species is driven by changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time. Since evolution is changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time, that means speciation is quite definitely related to evolution. Fossils reveal phenotypic characteristics of life from long ago. Since changes in phenotypes depend on the changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time, fossil record is also related to evolution.

He also seems to have conflated modern synthesis with universal common descent. Modern synthesis is the marriage of Darwin's descent with modification with Mendel's laws of segregation and independent assortment (and a few other bits from others)

Wikipedia has a good summation of it's components:

1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrast with the saltation theory of Bateson (1894).[6]
3. Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
4. The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
5. Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
6. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know. If scientists didn't do that we wouldn't be here debating it so much.

Scientist don't make up the answer when they don't know. That's what the religious do. Scientists roll up there sleeves and go to work to try and find answers to their questions.

And in the meantime, they have no problem admitting ignorance.

 

[Zosimus]

Well, he's starting in the right place. In fact, I posted a similar bit in response to a poster claiming evolutioin was poorly defined. He even formatted his post like mine, bolding similar portions.

Now, I'll agree that abiogenesis can be decoupled from evolution, but the divergence of of populations into different species is driven by changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time.

Speculation.

Since evolution is changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time, that means speciation is quite definitely related to evolution.

Speciation is not known to occur.

Fossils reveal phenotypic characteristics of life from long ago. Since changes in phenotypes depend on the changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time, fossil record is also related to evolution.

It may seem to be nitpicking, but the fossil record is only useful to the extent that it reveals the history of evolution, not evolution itself.

He also seems to have conflated modern synthesis with universal common descent. Modern synthesis is the marriage of Darwin's descent with modification with Mendel's laws of segregation and independent assortment (and a few other bits from others)

Now you're nitpicking. I remind you that I refer to the beliefs of those on this forum, beliefs that generally mirror those of Richard Dawkins, as neo-Darwinism. Not coincidentally, this is the name that Richard Dawkins has used for his own beliefs.

Wikipedia has a good summation of it's components:

1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrast with the saltation theory of Bateson (1894).[6]
3. Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
4. The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
5. Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
6. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.

Irrelevant. I know what you believe. I just don't believe that you have good reason for believing it.

 

[[serious]]

Speculation.


Speciation is not known to occur.

It's actually been extensively observed in plants, both in the wild and through breeding. I can give you lists on lists of plant examples of speciation. Bacteria, due to being asexual, have a different meaning of species, so we'll set them aside.

So let's move on to animals. We've got bunches of examples there as well. Several fruit fly experiments, house flies, parasitic worms, and lots of others.

But let's shift the goal posts some. Let's say that plants don't count, and lab results don't count, and even demand a vertebrate example. Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.

More shifting! show us a land animal! Anolis lizards in the Caribbean.

No! a mammal! Faeroe Island house mouse has us covered. They were introduced to the island about 250 years ago and have since become a separate species.

There are lots more examples likely to arise in the future. Want a bigger animal? The domesticated silver fox is being bred and if it continues to be strictly reproductively isolated, will eventually lose the ability to reproduce with it's ancestral population. We also have bunches of ring species that are just a die off of connecting populations away from new species status.

It may seem to be nitpicking, but the fossil record is only useful to the extent that it reveals the history of evolution, not evolution itself.

Ok, I agree there. I feel like I'm missing your larger point there though.

Now you're nitpicking. I remind you that I refer to the beliefs of those on this forum, beliefs that generally mirror those of Richard Dawkins, as neo-Darwinism. Not coincidentally, this is the name that Richard Dawkins has used for his own beliefs.


Irrelevant. I know what you believe. I just don't believe that you have good reason for believing it.

I'm clarifying the generally accepted meaning of a term. If others on the forum are also misusing the term modern synthesis, they too should be made aware of the actual meaning of the word.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Speciation is not known to occur.

So that's why you screwed with my thread. You saucy little devil.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Scientist don't make up the answer when they don't know. That's what the religious do. Scientists roll up there sleeves and go to work to try and find answers to their questions.

And in the meantime, they have no problem admitting ignorance.

That is very, very, very funny!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Thank you, we are finally on-topic. ( Lines of Evidence )

It's actually been extensively observed in plants, both in the wild and through breeding. I can give you lists on lists of plant examples of speciation. Bacteria, due to being asexual, have a different meaning of species, so we'll set them aside.

So let's move on to animals. We've got bunches of examples there as well. Several fruit fly experiments, house flies, parasitic worms, and lots of others.

But let's shift the goal posts some. Let's say that plants don't count, and lab results don't count, and even demand a vertebrate example. Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.

More shifting! show us a land animal! Anolis lizards in the Caribbean.

No! a mammal! Faeroe Island house mouse has us covered. They were introduced to the island about 250 years ago and have since become a separate species.

There are lots more examples likely to arise in the future. Want a bigger animal? The domesticated silver fox is being bred and if it continues to be strictly reproductively isolated, will eventually lose the ability to reproduce with it's ancestral population. We also have bunches of ring species that are just a die off of connecting populations away from new species status. Ok, I agree there. I feel like I'm missing your larger point there though.

 

[EternalDragon]

Scientist don't make up the answer when they don't know. That's what the religious do. Scientists roll up there sleeves and go to work to try and find answers to their questions.

And in the meantime, they have no problem admitting ignorance.

Men from apes, birds from dinosaurs, common ancestors? None of that
has been observed or tested. It is assumed, guessed at, etc. all on the
back of.....similarities.

The same for the formation of planets, the moon, the interior of the earth,
etc. And most only go after a naturalistic explanation, discarding anything
else.

 

[Split Rock]

Men from apes, birds from dinosaurs, common ancestors? None of that
has been observed or tested. It is assumed, guessed at, etc. all on the
back of.....similarities.
.

Inferred

Inferred

Inferred

Inferred

Not guessed.

Not assumed.