My evolutionary challenge, what does evoution actually mean?

[Brother-Mike]

Did someone tell you that? Tell him or her that he or she is an idiot.

You beat me to it Bradskii (well, I also wouldn’t have used the term “idiot”) - I was going to point out that “no one can consider” is maybe a little overreaching. i.e. it’s valid to explore abiogenesis (or apsychogenesis* for that matter) from a purely random perspective but then you’re up against what, a ~4B year runway to have even basic molecular formation?

Possible? Sure. Probable given our current understanding? Increasingly unlikely given the more that the computational biology and information-theory boys delve deeper into the problem.

Anyway, looking forward to an abiogenesis thread.

* PS. I’ve yet to come across a term for the formation of consciousness so have henceforth dubbed it “apsychogenesis” - would love to be corrected

 

[Bradskii]

* PS. I’ve yet to come across a term for the formation of consciousness so have henceforth dubbed it “apsychogenesis” - would love to be corrected

I believe it evolved as well. From basic automatic responses to developing some sort of storage capacity (memory) and then some basic conditional loops (IF, WHEN etc). Hence I don't think there was a time when we moved from unconscious to conscious in the same way we moved from non life to life.

 

[Brother-Mike]

I believe it evolved as well. From basic automatic responses to developing some sort of storage capacity (memory) and then some basic conditional loops (IF, WHEN etc). Hence I don't think there was a time when we moved from unconscious to conscious in the same way we moved from non life to life.

You could be right

I would think that both memory and basic conditionals would however require some kind of computational substructure to precurse it - or maybe brain evolution just got really lucky and co-mutated these systems along with the computational hardware needed to seed further development. Again, possible but this would be further increasing the complexity and thus diminishing the chances that the current model has the creative capability to express within the 4B-year runway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway, looking forward to an abiogenesis thread.

My Abiogenesis Challenge

 

[Mountainmike]

Hey, do you want to discuss evolution or abiogenesis? They are two different subjects. Like making a piano and writing a symphony. You can't do the latter without the former having been completed. But you don't need to know how a Steinway is made to discuss Beethoven.

So how about you stick to evolution - and you've had more than enough responses to answer your question.

Or start a thread about abiogenesis. It'll be interesting. We don't have too many on it.

I am after precise definition of terms.
which is what this thread is about.

so
1/ Using the Harvard/ nasa definition of life as a function “ self evolving,self replicating”

2/ The definition of abiogenesis as the step(s) from non living to living finishing with the first living cell.

3/ evolution as all that took place after abiogenesis.

Then since we know our minimum known cell is far too complex to be a random chance meeting of chemicals.

There must have been plenty of “ evolution” between 2/ and our first known cell, and NOTHING is recorded or known of that journey.

So not enough is spoken of
1/ The inevitable irreducible complexity of the first cell(s) - by virtue of defining life as a function. What structure did it have? Which is the end point of abiogenesis


2/ So the “dark ages “ of evolution is from there to what we know.
is a massive part of the puzzle. That is evolution NOT abiogenesis.
And it is airbrushed out of the puzzle, mainly because it is a largely blank other than speculation, and the lack of knowledge of 1/ is why it is blank.

I am a mathematician by training, I like precision of definitions, hence this thread.

But yes I might start a thread. ….

 

[Hans Blaster]

@Hans Blaster dodges the question to an extent with this - indeed it is not a theory.
"The systematic explanatory framework for understanding the diversification of life and the adaption to new environments of populations through (biological) Evolution."

He notes "an explanatory framework", without stating precisely what it is. So it is thereby untestable so not a theory in its own right. There are various theories and hypotheses within the framework which need definition to the extent of testability..

You asked for a concise definition and I provided one.

Evolution (like all of biology) is complex. There are many aspects to it. There are sub-theories (or component theories) such as "common descent" and mechanisms (like "natural selection"), but these are not exclusive components of evolutionary theory.

I'm sorry you find this to be a dodge. Evolution is complex and messy and I tried to reduce it to the bare minimum. I don't think my definition was out of the mainstream. I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this thread was. Did you want to get some understanding of what we mean by evolution or did you have something else in mind?

 

[Mountainmike]

You asked for a concise definition and I provided one.

Evolution (like all of biology) is complex. There are many aspects to it. There are sub-theories (or component theories) such as "common descent" and mechanisms (like "natural selection"), but these are not exclusive components of evolutionary theory.

I'm sorry you find this to be a dodge. Evolution is complex and messy and I tried to reduce it to the bare minimum. I don't think my definition was out of the mainstream. I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this thread was. Did you want to get some understanding of what we mean by evolution or did you have something else in mind?

My goal was in essence to show what is presented as "evolution" or "theory of evolution" are generally sweeping statements made from a hopeless imprecise definition.

And that "the theory of evolution" is actually none of the sort. It is not a single theory.
So in precise terms your definition of it as a "framework" invalidates it as a "theory"
And there are many aspects of it assumed as the theory, which in reality are on a sliding scale from theory to hypothesis to pure conjecture.

It is as you say messy. So the attempt to reduce it to simple definitions that can stand scrutiny is an excercise in reductio ad absurdum.

I despair as I hope you do, of such as Dawkins presenting - what is not even a single theory - as a scientific fact. I think dawkins is a very bad advocate for science. Much of what he says is what he believes, but he does not draw the proper distinction between his belief and what he can say from science.

So in summary all I hoped was all would agree the phrase "the theory of evolution" is actually a meaningless phrase, and as such it is certainly not a fact!

People need to be far more precise about how they define "theory of evolution" to make any deduction from it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is as you say messy. So the attempt to reduce it to simple definitions that can stand scrutiny is an excercise in reductio ad absurdum.

It looks to me that your OP, which asked people to provide the shortest possible definition of evolution, set your little program up for failure at the start.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My goal was in essence to show what is presented as "evolution" or "theory of evolution" are generally sweeping statements made from a hopeless imprecise definition.

And that "the theory of evolution" is actually none of the sort. It is not a single theory.
So in precise terms your definition of it as a "framework" invalidates it as a "theory"
And there are many aspects of it assumed as the theory, which in reality are on a sliding scale from theory to hypothesis to pure conjecture.

All scientific theories are "frameworks", some are just more easily written as a single equation. I'm not sure what the problem with evolution theory as a "framework" is here.

It is as you say messy. So the attempt to reduce it to simple definitions that can stand scrutiny is an excercise in reductio ad absurdum.

As you stated recently, your training is in mathematics. A field that deals with theorems and proofs. They uncertainties in all scientific fields might seem messy and uncomfortable in contrast. This is why I do physics instead of biology. There are many aspects of biology I love, but there are too many free variables.

I despair as I hope you do, of such as Dawkins presenting - what is not even a single theory - as a scientific fact. I think dawkins is a very bad advocate for science. Much of what he says is what he believes, but he does not draw the proper distinction between his belief and what he can say from science.

I don't care about Dawkins, I'm not sure why anyone should.

So in summary all I hoped was all would agree the phrase "the theory of evolution" is actually a meaningless phrase, and as such it is certainly not a fact!

People need to be far more precise about how they define "theory of evolution" to make any deduction from it.

This is why I had two definitions of "evolution" -- the theory and the process. The process is clearly demonstrated. (It is the "fact" of which is spoken.) The theory provides explanations for how the process gives results. It is not meaningless and if someone is telling you that the theory and the fact are the same either they are wrong or you are misunderstanding them.

 

[Bradskii]

My goal was in essence to show what is presented as "evolution" or "theory of evolution" are generally sweeping statements made from a hopeless imprecise definition.

And that "the theory of evolution" is actually none of the sort. It is not a single theory.
So in precise terms your definition of it as a "framework" invalidates it as a "theory"
And there are many aspects of it assumed as the theory, which in reality are on a sliding scale from theory to hypothesis to pure conjecture.

It is as you say messy. So the attempt to reduce it to simple definitions that can stand scrutiny is an excercise in reductio ad absurdum.

I despair as I hope you do, of such as Dawkins presenting - what is not even a single theory - as a scientific fact. I think dawkins is a very bad advocate for science. Much of what he says is what he believes, but he does not draw the proper distinction between his belief and what he can say from science.

So in summary all I hoped was all would agree the phrase "the theory of evolution" is actually a meaningless phrase, and as such it is certainly not a fact!

People need to be far more precise about how they define "theory of evolution" to make any deduction from it.

So you ask for a definition and encourage people to be succinct when giving it and then you want to complain that the definitions are too reductionist?

Unsubscribing. This has been a complete waste of everyone's time.

 

[Brother-Mike]

So you ask for a definition and encourage people to be succinct when giving it and then you want to complain that the definitions are too reductionist?

Unsubscribing. This has been a complete waste of everyone's time.

I would expect evolution-oriented threads on a Christian forum to typically prove frustrating for all parties in the same way threads about the Resurrection would on an Atheist forum.

The real question you should be considering is whether believers like MountainMike and myself are deliberately creating honey-pot threads to keep the resident atheists distracted enough to hang around and contribute to ad-revenue and tire them out from Debbie Downer’ing the rest of the site

Kidding of course… we wouldn’t do that.

Grace, peace and love,
Brother-Mike

PS. or would we?

 

[Bradskii]

I would expect evolution-oriented threads on a Christian forum to typically prove frustrating for all parties in the same way threads about the Resurrection would on an Atheist forum.

The resurrection is a religious matter. Evolution isn't. The problem some people have is to try to make it a religious matter.

If you said 'Hey, check out the theory of evolution. I've discovered how God did it!' then there isn't an atheist on this forum who would argue with you. The only people who would try to take you to task are the local fundamentalists.

There are only two camps. Those who understand and accept the ToE. And those who don't. There are Christians in both but no atheists in the second.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would expect evolution-oriented threads on a Christian forum to typically prove frustrating for all parties in the same way threads about the Resurrection would on an Atheist forum.

The real question you should be considering is whether believers like MountainMike and myself are deliberately creating honey-pot threads to keep the resident atheists distracted enough to hang around and contribute to ad-revenue and tire them out from Debbie Downer’ing the rest of the site

Yes, evolution threads can be very frustrating, which is why I mostly kept to the parent "P&LS" section at first. This is largely because there are no real new ideas in "creationism" and nearly everything is just newbies posting tired arguments for creationism and long-term creationists that seem immune to even understanding the opposing arguments. (I'm not saying I expect them to be convinced, but I would expect them to eventually learn something about the thing they argue against. `Tis very frustrating.) This is why I had high hopes for this thread based on the narrowness of the title (despite the creator and his apparent compulsion to discuss everything at once) and answered the question narrowly and didn't get distracted by the ramblings of the OP itself.

As for ad revenue -- I see no ads and make no other financial contributions, so your attempts to "honeypot" on behalf of a commercial enterprise will make them no money from me. I can't contribute to half of this site anyway so I ignore it.

 

[Mountainmike]

So you ask for a definition and encourage people to be succinct when giving it and then you want to complain that the definitions are too reductionist?

Unsubscribing. This has been a complete waste of everyone's time.

I wanted the minimum definition that stands scrutiny.
It’s a fair question, when you say “ evolution “ or “ theory of evolution “ and then you declare “it explains life” - some say “ it is a fact” to define it.

I am asking What do YOU mean.
A reductionist definition does not explain the development of life.
What is the definition that does?

And I observe the nomenclature “theory of evolution” means different things to different people. I dispute it is a single theory. You don’t necessarily agree with each other.

i hope you don’t agree with Dawkins saying the “ theory of evolution “ is a “ scientific fact”, on a matter of definition without which you cannot determine the principle.

 

[essentialsaltes]

i hope you don’t agree with Dawkins saying the “ theory of evolution “ is a “ scientific fact”

What he actually said is that because certain people are unable or unwilling to grapple with what a scientific theory is, it would be better to describe it to these people as a fact.

 

[Mountainmike]

What he actually said is that because certain people are unable or unwilling to grapple with what a scientific theory is, it would be better to describe it to these people as a fact.

What he said was wrong.

A lot of his books is fanciful nonsense outside his core expertise. Which is bad for an academic, it should be instant sacking for anyone whose role is paid for “ public understanding of science”

Since there is no single “ theory of evolution”
ergo it cannot be a “ fact”.

Dawkins is too “weak minded “ and “ ignorant” to understand the limitations of his own knowledge.

This thread explores the lack of unanimity over what the theory of evolution is. There is no such unified theory - there are multiple theories hypotheses and conjectures concerning development of life.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This thread explores the lack of unanimity over what the theory of evolution is.

Not really. This thread was you asking people to provide their own concise definitions. And now you're taking some bizarre victory lap because different people gave you different answers.

 

[Astrophile]

Sadly it fails.. I will cite ceolocanth as an exception, that didn't change over time.

This is wrong; coelacanths (note the spelling) have a long fossil record, from the Lower Devonian to the Upper Cretaceous, and they did change during that time - Coelacanth - Wikipedia . The modern coelacanth (genus Latimeria) belongs to a different genus from all extinct coelacanths, and the youngest recorded fossil coelacanths (Megalocoelacanthus dobiei and Axelrodichthys megadromos) belong to different families (Latimeriidae and Mawsoniidae). The Latimeriidae comprise eleven genera and the Mawsoniidae nine.

I think that this is enough to show that the statement that coelacanths 'didn't change over time' is inaccurate. I should add that coelacanths are not a single species or even a single genus but an order (Actinistia), on the same taxonomic level as Primates. This implies that coelacanths of the Latimeriidae and the Mawsoniidae were no more closely related than, for example, apes and lemurs.

 

[Brother-Mike]

I should add that coelacanths are not a single species or even a single genus but an order (Actinistia), on the same taxonomic level as Primates.

“Order of the Coelacanth” was my favorite recent Dan Brown novel… so much better than “The Lemur Code”.

 

[Astrophile]

Since there is no single “ theory of evolution”
ergo it cannot be a “ fact”.

This is like saying that there is no single theory of astronomy, therefore stars do not exist!