Describe your understanding of evolution.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since there's a lot of threads lately from pitabread about trying to get creationists to explain their positions (without a lot of success sadly) with regards to evolution, I thought I'd try something which I feel does need to be touched on slightly.

To those who accept theory of evolution and to those who do not, please can you explain what you think of when someone says evolution?

I'm not talking about if you have a degree in science and what you know about it, I'm not talking about a diatribe or religious screed on it. I'm not interested in a discussion about macro vs microevolution. I just mean the bare bones definition in your mind that comes up when you hear/read the word 'evolution'.

My person definition is: the change in alleles in a population in response to a change in the environment. Simple as that.

 

[disciple Clint]

Since there's a lot of threads lately from pitabread about trying to get creationists to explain their positions (without a lot of success sadly) with regards to evolution, I thought I'd try something which I feel does need to be touched on slightly.

To those who accept theory of evolution and to those who do not, please can you explain what you think of when someone says evolution?

I'm not talking about if you have a degree in science and what you know about it, I'm not talking about a diatribe or religious screed on it. I'm not interested in a discussion about macro vs microevolution. I just mean the bare bones definition in your mind that comes up when you hear/read the word 'evolution'.

My person definition is: the change in alleles in a population in response to a change in the environment. Simple as that.

I think that anyone who wants to believe the they have relatives that were apes is entitled to their opinion, my family tree does not include a monkey.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that anyone who wants to believe the they have relatives that were apes is entitled to their opinion, my family tree does not include a monkey.

Okay, I'll say that does sort of answer my question as a personal definition of evolution.

 

[Larniavc]

Since there's a lot of threads lately from pitabread about trying to get creationists to explain their positions (without a lot of success sadly) with regards to evolution, I thought I'd try something which I feel does need to be touched on slightly.

To those who accept theory of evolution and to those who do not, please can you explain what you think of when someone says evolution?

I'm not talking about if you have a degree in science and what you know about it, I'm not talking about a diatribe or religious screed on it. I'm not interested in a discussion about macro vs microevolution. I just mean the bare bones definition in your mind that comes up when you hear/read the word 'evolution'.

My person definition is: the change in alleles in a population in response to a change in the environment. Simple as that.

Mine’s very similar. Change in allele frequency over time.

 

[SigurdReginson]

My understanding is tiny, since I didn't grow up learning evolution in a school setting. Everything I've learned has been recent, and it's been on my own time when I feel like it.

My understanding is that certain environmental pressures favor some mutations more than others. This could range from avoiding predators better, hunting prey better, attracting mates better, or other pressures. The mutations that allow for better propagation mean that things with those mutations multiply more consistently.

If a new predatory bird with keen eyesight were to start spreading to a new island, and on this island little green lizards were already living there, you might find that over time the lizards who's colors might match their environment better stay alive long enough to reproduce more. Same with lizards that have certain behaviors, like being more still and secluded rather than hanging out in the open.

It's interesting that certain mutations seem to be favored in a consistent way depending on the environment, like what can be seen in convergent evolution.

 

[fwGod]

I think that anyone who wants to believe the they have relatives that were apes is entitled to their opinion, my family tree does not include a monkey.

Exactly my view as well.

Evolution is the pseudo science magic that claims changes of species from one to another over billions of years though there are not any intermediate fossils to prove it. That's why they use charts and manipulate what data there is in their attempts to prove it. Evolution is a religion of belief that doesn't have any evidential facts to it at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Exactly my view as well.

Evolution is the pseudo science magic that claims changes of species from one to another over billions of years though there are not any intermediate fossils to prove it. That's why they use charts and manipulate what data there is in their attempts to prove it. Evolution is a religion of belief that doesn't have any evidential facts to it at all.

I do have to say that I think that you are horribly, uniformly and categorically wrong, but this thread isn't about the acceptance or rejection of evolution just the personal definition of evolution people have, so I will say that this does fall under that criteria.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Changes in allele frequency over time in populations of organisms.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[disciple Clint]

I do have to say that I think that you are horrible, uniformly and categorically wrong, but this thread isn't about the acceptance or rejection of evolution just the personal definition of evolution people have, so I will say that this does fall under that criteria.

how can you say someone is horrible for expressing their opinion, just because someone does not share your beliefs does not make them a horrible person. I suggest you apologize to fwGod

 

[ViaCrucis]

how can you say someone is horrible for expressing their opinion, just because someone does not share your beliefs does not make them a horrible person.

I suspect they meant "horribly" not "horrible", as in they are horribly wrong, not that they are a horrible person.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

how can you say someone is horrible for expressing their opinion, just because someone does not share your beliefs does not make them a horrible person.

Viacrucis was right, I meant horribly not horrible. Typing on autopilot can be a real pain.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Tiktaalik. I think of Tiktaalik. But also, "change in allele frequency over time." That's probably the most succinct definition one could give.

 

[pitabread]

I have a short version and a long version.

Short version

Biological evolution is an observable process by which populations of organisms change over time. The phrase "change in allele frequencies over time" refers to the changes in gene variations over time in said populations.

The Theory of Evolution is the body of scientific knowledge that seeks to explain this process we observe. It includes descriptions of both the mechanisms of the process and descriptions of the natural history of life on Earth as shaped by the same process.


Longer version

The process of evolution is the same now as in the past

The process of evolution over time hasn't changed. As long as you have populations of organisms that reproduce, the process of evolution will always continue.

Evolution occurs in populations

Since evolution is a change in populations over time, evolution takes place at the population, not individual level.

All modern organisms are equally "evolved"; evolution has no "levels"

There is no ladder of evolutionary progress by which organisms are predestined to evolve through.

Rather, all modern organisms are equally evolved. The only real measure in this context is time. And since all lineages go back to the same starting point, all organisms are effectively equal in that respect.

Evolution is like a recursive process

I conceptualize the process of evolution as similar to a recursive process. Essentially the output of one generation becomes the input of the next. Thus there is no real starting point or baseline when talking about the process (save for the origin of life itself). The baseline is constantly changing.

I also recognize that all of the biological categories we assign to organisms are strictly artificial. Species designations and other taxonomical assignments are human invented categories. We do it because it makes organisms easier to talk about. But the actual organisms are not biologically confined to a particular "type" or category in that manner.

I think this represents a fundamental difference with how creationists conceptualize biology and the process of evolution. Creationists seem to conceptualize organisms as having these fixed types and therefore organisms are confined to these types in the context of the process of evolution. However, these types do not exist in nature (which is why you can never get a consistent definition of "kind" from creationists).

Evolution produces genetic information

The process of evolution is constantly producing new genetic information. Studying the process at the molecular level reveals that virtually every type of change to genomes, including the production of novel protein functions is possible. By any definition of information as applicable to genetics, it's demonstrable that evolution produces genetic information through variation during reproduction.

Evolution produces complexity

Evolution produces complexity through functional dependence. This especially seems to be the case with functional specialization that can occur through loss of function. E.g. if you have a multi-functional protein with redundancy, removal of that redundancy creates greater functional dependence. Learning about protein function and how proteins can serve multiple purposes was a revelation in understanding evolution of complexity. Similarly with functional organs, since many organs serve multiple purposes. Studying the history of organ evolution shows how functions can change and become more specialized over time.

Evolution is not a religion or a belief

In the context of the scientific theory of evolution, there is no way to qualify it as a religion or belief (unless one adopts an extremely loose definition of those words). I suspect that people who invoke such claims are not familiar with the scientific theory of evolution and thus not describing it in such a context.

The Theory of Evolution is an applied science

This is an unequivocal fact. The knowledge derived as part of the scientific theory of evolution is applied in various areas for the purpose of problem solving in biology. Most fascinating to me is the application of evolution to underpinning modern genomics, which in turns has applications in fields like medical research and agriculture.

There are various applications; application of evolution to pathogen tracking is also quite fascinating and quite relevant given the current pandemic.

I suspect those who deny this are again not referring to the scientific theory of evolution in that context. Or are possibly not familiar with the concept of a scientific application.

 

[fwGod]

I do have to say that I think that you are horribly, uniformly and categorically wrong, but this thread isn't about the acceptance or rejection of evolution just the personal definition of evolution people have, so I will say that this does fall under that criteria.

What I said is not my personal opinion but came from the science information that atheists call wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What I said is not my personal opinion but came from the science information that atheists call wrong.

We're not here to talk about that. This thread is purely about asking what people's personal definitions of evolution are. That's it.

 

[fwGod]

We're not here to talk about that. This thread is purely about asking what people's personal definitions of evolution are. That's it.

Your particular response to what I said opened the door for it. What I responded in return is in line with what I initially said. So I see no reason why you have given the impression that I've posted something other than your wishes for this thread.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your particular response to what I said opened the door for it. What I responded in return is in line with what I initially said. So I see no reason why you have given the impression that I've posted something other than your wishes for this thread.

You said that your response comes from 'the science information that atheists call wrong'. Now, I'm not stating is a direct comment to you, but more of a general statement to anyone reading that this thread is not to discuss the validity or invalidity of the science behind the theory of evolution. I'm just asking what people's personal definitions of evolution are.
What I said was:
"I do have to say that I think that you are horrible, uniformly and categorically wrong, but this thread isn't about the acceptance or rejection of evolution just the personal definition of evolution people have, so I will say that this does fall under that criteria."
Notice the bolded part of that post and the italicized part of the post.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A theory that that lacks critical details.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A theory that that lacks critical details.

Okay, now this is the sort of statement that really cannot be left alone by itself.

What critical details is the theory of evolution lacking to you? Bare in mind, I do think I remember you saying that you aren't someone who does read a lot of sciencey stuff.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Okay, now this is the sort of statement that really cannot be left alone by itself.

What critical details is the theory of evolution lacking to you? Bare in mind, I do think I remember you saying that you aren't someone who does read a lot of sciencey stuff.

Changes at the molecular and even the atomic level are needed for evolutionary change. These are never satisfactorily explained. The gaps in the theory are so wide you could throw a cat through them.