Evolution: common ancestor?

[Loudmouth]

But such a definition excludes epigenetics. As such, if one finds epigenetics is a significant source of diversification in populations, one can't just arbitrarily pull epigenetics under the evolutionary umbrella.

Why not? A scientific theory is meant to explain how reality works. If epigenetics plays a significant role in how species change over time, why shouldn't it be a part of the theory meant to explain how species change over time?

Do you apply the same thinking to other theories? At one time, the theory of gravity was defined as an instantaneous force. We then found that gravity propogates at the speed of light, and that it is due to a bending of spacetime. Future theories may describe gravity as folds in extra dimensions. Is this a problem, in your eyes?

At one time, the theory of atoms was defined as units of matter made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Later, people found that atoms are made up of quarks, gluons, and could also be the result of folds in extra dimensions. Is this a problem, too?

So, the desire to keep pulling mechanisms under the evolutionary umbrella must have some other motivation.

The motivation is to have a theory that best fits reality.

To say, "Well, because it's evolution," would be a logical fallacy - a circularity.

That isn't a logical fallacy. Mechanisms that cause species to change over time are mechanisms of evolution by definition. It is no different than including the bending of spacetime in the theory of gravity.

I guess I expect some rigor.

It would seem that you expect scientists to keep evolution out of the their theory of evolution.

 

[Resha Caner]

Years.

Every drop of water. In the lab, you have to spend a lot of time and money to rid your water of RNases, and even then you still have to worry about it.

A good barrier is an evolved cellular membrane which new life would not have.

Thanks for the information. It appears there are other things as well, like leucine-rich repeats, 5' end caps, and 3' end polyadenylation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks for the information. It appears there are other things as well, like leucine-rich repeats, 5' end caps, and 3' end polyadenylation.

DNases, proteases . . . yeah, there's a lot. Heck, even free atmospheric oxygen is problematic for abiogenesis.

To use an analogy, the chances of an abiogenesis event happening today and giving rise to a new and successful lineage of life is about the same as an indigenous tribe of 50 people using stone age weapons to defeat the US Army.

 

[Resha Caner]

You might consider doing some research on the term operational definition. If you have not done this, you are not practicing methodical rigor.

I know what an operational definition is, but I still consider it sloppy use of nomenclature. As I said, I think "descent with modification" is a good, high-level definition. It allows for changes in DNA to be a mechanism of evolution, and allele frequency to be a measure. Further, in no way does it exclude epigenetics or other discoveries as other possible mechanisms. But it does allow one to decide what is not evolution, and that is important to the idea of falsification.

What other motivation? I am not sure of what you are trying to get at here.

It gives an impression (true or not) that people are trying to claim every discovery in biology as evolution. I don't understand why you don't seem to see this. If evolution = allele frequency, then why are other things also evolution? If these other things are also evolution, then "evolution = allele frequency" left something unspoken.

I'm asking why. Why not just put that unspoken piece into the definition. I think "descent with modification" accomplishes that.

I'll try an analogy here (though people seem to hate my analogies). This is how your approach to definitions appears to me:

Adam: What is it called when I have a group of three apples and I place them with another group of two apples to obtain a group of five apples?

Eve: That is called mathematics.

Adam: Do you have a definition of "mathematics"?

Eve: Yes, mathematics is addition, and it is symbolized as 3 + 2 = 5.

Adam: OK, so what is it called when I bring together two groups of three apples each?

Eve: That is called mathematics, and the multiplication of those groups is symbolized as 3 * 2 = 6.

Adam: No. You said mathematics is addition.

Eve: Well, that was just an operational definition.

Adam: But shouldn't you say something more like: Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change?

Eve: That's too vague. Working mathematicians can't use that. I prefer my operational definition.

Adam: Sigh.

- - -

Why is all this important? Because you keep bringing up the claim that no one has ever proposed a valid alternative to evolution. How can they if biologists are allowed to change the definition whenever they please and add any new discovery they please.

Someone could demonstrate rapid emergence, and people would say, "No, that's evolution."

If you expect an alternative to evolution to be proposed, you have to consent to describing what evolution is (and more importantly) what it is not.

 

[Resha Caner]

DNases, proteases . . . yeah, there's a lot. Heck, even free atmospheric oxygen is problematic for abiogenesis.

I guess I wasn't clear, but your response still brings a "Huh?" with it. I was saying that those appear to be mechanisms for inhibiting Rnase from breaking up RNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess I wasn't clear, but your response still brings a "Huh?" with it. I was saying that those appear to be mechanisms for inhibiting Rnase from breaking up RNA.

I was agreeing that life would need to evolve defenses against RNases, something that freshly emerging life would not have.

 

[Loudmouth]

I know what an operational definition is, but I still consider it sloppy use of nomenclature. As I said, I think "descent with modification" is a good, high-level definition. It allows for changes in DNA to be a mechanism of evolution, and allele frequency to be a measure. Further, in no way does it exclude epigenetics or other discoveries as other possible mechanisms. But it does allow one to decide what is not evolution, and that is important to the idea of falsification.

What is not evolution are the mechanisms that do not cause species to change over time.

Why is all this important? Because you keep bringing up the claim that no one has ever proposed a valid alternative to evolution. How can they if biologists are allowed to change the definition whenever they please and add any new discovery they please.

I find this view to be really confusing. Are you saying that scientists should not allow theories to change as new evidence is discovered? On one hand, you seem to criticize science for not considering new information, and yet you criticize science for changing theories because of new information.

If you expect an alternative to evolution to be proposed, you have to consent to describing what evolution is (and more importantly) what it is not.

Evolution is change in species over time. How that happens is the theory of evolution, and that theory is continually changing as we make new discoveries.

 

[Dizredux]

I know what an operational definition is, but I still consider it sloppy use of nomenclature. As I said, I think "descent with modification" is a good, high-level definition. It allows for changes in DNA to be a mechanism of evolution, and allele frequency to be a measure. Further, in no way does it exclude epigenetics or other discoveries as other possible mechanisms. But it does allow one to decide what is not evolution, and that is important to the idea of falsification.

No one said epigenetics could not be a part of evolution just that, at least right now, it isn't. What is the problem? Are proposing that epigenetics should be considered a part of evolution? if so, you would need to be able to support this idea.

It gives an impression (true or not) that people are trying to claim every discovery in biology as evolution. I don't understand why you don't seem to see this.

Because I don't see this

If evolution = allele frequency, then why are other things also evolution? If these other things are also evolution, then "evolution = allele frequency" left something unspoken.

I get the hint that you might think that words have some intrinsic meanings; they don't. Definitions are just communication tools in which parties agree on the meaning of a term so when the subject is being discussed they all know the meaning that is being used.

I'm asking why. Why not just put that unspoken piece into the definition. I think "descent with modification" accomplishes that.

It is a good one but hardly the only one.

I'll try an analogy here (though people seem to hate my analogies). I can see why(grin).

Why is all this important? Because you keep bringing up the claim that no one has ever proposed a valid alternative to evolution. How can they if biologists are allowed to change the definition whenever they please and add any new discovery they please.

But scientists can and do change definitions according to need. A term can have many meanings according to the context. Look at all the different definitions in dictionaries for particular words. Look at all of the definitions for the term "set". Set | Define Set at Dictionary.com Look at all the technical dictionaries which relate to word usage in specific fields such as psychology or engineering. Definitions are just handy tools for communication and nothing more.

You appear to want one definition for evolution that covers everything and I am saying that you are not going to get this.

Someone could demonstrate rapid emergence, and people would say, "No, that's evolution."

Probably they would if it uses the same DNA and the same genetic processes as the rest of known life.

If you expect an alternative to evolution to be proposed, you have to consent to describing what evolution is (and more importantly) what it is not.

This is what I have been trying to explain. The scientific definition involving alleles, can clearly by the current standards, tell us what is not evolution. No population genetic change over time, no evolution. It is that simple. Later on, that could change but for now it or some variation is the definition used by most university level textbooks as the scientific definition for evolution.

In truth, I really do not understand your objections.

Dizredux

 

[Resha Caner]

In truth, I really do not understand your objections.

I'm surprised the issue is so difficult to grasp. I don't think you'll ever be able to meaningfully discuss alternatives to evolutionary theory with anyone until you get this.

It doesn't seem I'll be able to satisfactorily explain it to you, so let's take a different approach. I've tried numerous times to explain that I don't believe biologists are intentionally creating an issue, so don't take my question that way. But let me start by asking what it means to you for someone to move the goal posts?

As a further talking point, let me throw my arithmetic example out there again.

Is it legitimate to say "3+2=5 is an example of addition"?
Is it legitimate to say "The definition has changed, and 3*2=6 is also an example of addition"?

BTW, what would you say to 3+2=6 as legitimate arithmetic?

 

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't seem I'll be able to satisfactorily explain it to you, so let's take a different approach. I've tried numerous times to explain that I don't believe biologists are intentionally creating an issue, so don't take my question that way. But let me start by asking what it means to you for someone to move the goal posts?

Did Einstein move the goal posts when he said that light also had particle-like characteristics?

Did Einstein move the posts again when he said that Newton's equations were not accurate in all conditions, and that gravity propogated at the speed of light instead of being an instantaneous force as described by Newton?

 

[Resha Caner]

Did Einstein move the goal posts when he said that light also had particle-like characteristics?

If Dizredux agrees the scientific study of light would be a better example to use than my arithmetic example, I'm fine with that. But I don't want to be jumping from one example to another. That will make the discussion confusing.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm surprised the issue is so difficult to grasp. I don't think you'll ever be able to meaningfully discuss alternatives to evolutionary theory with anyone until you get this.

It doesn't seem I'll be able to satisfactorily explain it to you, so let's take a different approach. I've tried numerous times to explain that I don't believe biologists are intentionally creating an issue, so don't take my question that way. But let me start by asking what it means to you for someone to move the goal posts?

As a further talking point, let me throw my arithmetic example out there again.

Is it legitimate to say "3+2=5 is an example of addition"?
Is it legitimate to say "The definition has changed, and 3*2=6 is also an example of addition"?

BTW, what would you say to 3+2=6 as legitimate arithmetic?

What sort of unintentional issues do you believe biologists are creating?

 

[Resha Caner]

What sort of unintentional issues do you believe biologists are creating?

Until this conversation with Dizredux, I thought the issue of definitions had been cleared up. But again, rather than splitting off into 3 conversations about the same thing, I'd rather just do this once.

 

[Dizredux]

I'm surprised the issue is so difficult to grasp. I don't think you'll ever be able to meaningfully discuss alternatives to evolutionary theory with anyone until you get this.

So if I don't agree with you, I cannot discuss the subject. That's OK, I am beginning to think you do not understand the nature of definitions and are after something. That would definitely put a kink in discussions. Being a tad high handed here aren't we?

It doesn't seem I'll be able to satisfactorily explain it to you, so let's take a different approach. I've tried numerous times to explain that I don't believe biologists are intentionally creating an issue, so don't take my question that way. But let me start by asking what it means to you for someone to move the goal posts?

As a further talking point, let me throw my arithmetic example out there again.

Is it legitimate to say "3+2=5 is an example of addition"?
Is it legitimate to say "The definition has changed, and 3*2=6 is also an example of addition"?

BTW, what would you say to 3+2=6 as legitimate arithmetic?

In your example you are talking about examples of arithmetic not definitions. That would be support for your not understanding the nature of definitions.

Perhaps it would help if you can explain what you scientists to change, how you want them to do things differently from what they are doing now? I gave you the scientific definition for evolution from the National Academies of Science and you rejected it. What more could you want?

Perhaps you feel that life has had other abiogenetic events. I would not argue with this and feel that it probably has happened and likely is going on now. But to support this you need evidence and not simply wanting to change definitions to accommodate your view.

This is part of what I don't understand that and I am trying hard to figure out your point. While definitions are a part of science, you do not do science by dictionary.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

If Dizredux agrees the scientific study of light would be a better example to use than my arithmetic example, I'm fine with that. But I don't want to be jumping from one example to another. That will make the discussion confusing.

I am trying to get a feel for what you consider "moving the goal posts". From what I have seen, you feel it is wrong for scientists to change a theory in light of new discoveries. Is this true?

 

[Dizredux]

I am trying to get a feel for what you consider "moving the goal posts". From what I have seen, you feel it is wrong for scientists to change a theory in light of new discoveries. Is this true?

Or even worse, changing definitions for specific purposes.

The best I can tell is that he want a single absolutely stable all inclusive definition for all of evolution. If this is the case, and I am not sure it is, he ain't gonna get it. That is not the way science works.

Dizredux

 

[Resha Caner]

I am trying to get a feel for what you consider "moving the goal posts". From what I have seen, you feel it is wrong for scientists to change a theory in light of new discoveries. Is this true?

No.

I gave you the scientific definition for evolution from the National Academies of Science and you rejected it. What more could you want?

I did not. I said it would be fine to use that definition. My objection came when you said the definition might change. I am asking what justifies changing the definition. Here is what I heard:

It is justified to change the definition of evolution when we find other things that are evolution that weren't included in the definition of evolution.

Is that what you said?

In your example you are talking about examples of arithmetic not definitions.

I agree. So is the second statement justifed?

I also, would like to get a feel for what you two consider to be moving the goal posts.

 

[Dizredux]

I did not. I said it would be fine to use that definition. My objection came when you said the definition might change. I am asking what justifies changing the definition. Here is what I heard:

It is justified to change the definition of evolution when we find other things that are evolution that weren't included in the definition of evolution.

Is that what you said?

Reasonably close with the idea that it is evidence that results in that change plus that evidence has to be strong enough to justify the change.

I am curious, can you give some examples of some of these other things you keep discussing that might justify changing the current definitions.

I also, would like to get a feel for what you two consider to be moving the goal posts.

Speaking for myself, sure. Moving the goal posts (from Wiki)

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from soccer or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage.

I don't think we have been doing this. I feel we have been rather consistent in our presentations and I am using very well established goalposts.

I feel that you are the one doing this in a way. You have been presented with a very well accepted definition of evolution as change in allele frequencies. You seem to want to change it to descent with modification which is a very good one but is not considered by most to be the scientific definition.

Again look at the NAS definition. That is about as good a source for a definition as you can get in scientific terms. Why do you want to change it and can you give reasons that might change the mind of the NAS on this?

Dizredux

 

[Resha Caner]

Now we have a definition of moving the goal posts. We'll come back to that later.

You seem to want to change it to descent with modification which is a very good one but is not considered by most to be the scientific definition.

This is incorrect. I was given that definition by a biologist in this forum, and it is what I have used since that time. Therefore, it was the definition I suggested. You suggested something different.

Again look at the NAS definition. That is about as good a source for a definition as you can get in scientific terms. Why do you want to change it and can you give reasons that might change the mind of the NAS on this?

Please stop suggesting that I am trying to change definitions as that is an inaccurate representation of my position. As I have repeatedly said, I will use whatever definition you suggest. All I was doing was asking why you find the one I had used previously to be insufficient.

Reasonably close with the idea that it is evidence that results in that change plus that evidence has to be strong enough to justify the change.

OK. So now let's substitute a different word. Let's use "velocity".

It is justified to change the definition of velocity when we find other things that are velocity that weren't included in the definition of velocity.

Would you care to give a definition of "velocity" so we can test this premise?

 

[Dizredux]

Resha

I am trying hard to understand what you are getting at so I am going to try from a somewhat different direction.

Can you explain what you want scientists to change, how you want them to do things differently from what they are doing now?

That might help.

Dizredux