Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Is it evolution or creationism?

  1. #1 Is it evolution or creationism? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2
    If I alter specific gene sequences in a species and end up with a viable, self replicating, new species or sub-species is it evolution or creationism?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    You're starting with a pre-existing organism. That's genetic engineering.


    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2
    Should the group of man made 'Genetic Engineering' methods be considered creationism or evolution? Take into consideration naturally occurring methods (Radiological, Chemical, etc.) may result in the same new species or sub-species?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I don't know what you think creationism is, but from my understanding it is the idea that all life was created more or less in the form it is now by a supernatural intelligence, and some creationists will allow that microevolution occurs but certainly not that macroevolution, or speciation occurs. Number 1, humans did not create all life. Number 2, humans are not supernatural intelligences. Number 3, creating a new species is macroevolution and strictly against what creationists believe to be true.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Genuine intelligent design.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Genuine intelligent design.

    Genetic Tinkering.

    The design was already there. You just change a little bit here and there.

    So basically it resembles more evolution.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Most engineering of the non-biological sort is pretty much just tinkering. The engineers still call it design and some of them have pretensions of being intelligent.

    However, I was mainly being facetious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigelowe
    Should the group of man made 'Genetic Engineering' methods be considered creationism or evolution?
    As a point of semantics (though an important one), Creationism is an ideology. If you are asking about acts of Creation then that's one thing, and could be evidence to support the ideology of Creationism, but they're not the same thing.

    Similarly, evolution is simply change (many biologists would say not even progressive change, merely sequential), but one of the key ideas (and it's not an ideology) within the field of evolution is that of natural selection - a mechanism that explains the historical changes in forms and populations that we observe.

    Standardly speaking, Creationism's only stance is that it believes evolution is anti-God, so it has in defence of its God, decided to be anti-evolution. There's nothing scientific about it and everything political, which is why I have described it as an ideology.

    Be aware that humans, being products of evolution through natural selection, the products of these humans are necessarily also products of natural selection, albeit appearing to be at one remove.

    Hope this helps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt

    However, I was mainly being facetious.
    Excellent.


    -----
    General message follows:

    Btw, not Christian should do any bioengineering since you would be messing with God's perfect creation.

    That's a no no. Unless you are the devil's servant.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Evolution is change, and many things evolve as well as living organisms. Human societies evolve, for example.

    Biological evolution can be regarded as evolution by natural selection. This concept was originally worded to make it distinct from the breeding of plants and animals which had already been going on for thousands of years.

    Genetic engineering can be called evolution if it results in new types of plants and animals, but it is not natural selection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Evolution is change, and many things evolve as well as living organisms. Human societies evolve, for example.

    Biological evolution can be regarded as evolution by natural selection. This concept was originally worded to make it distinct from the breeding of plants and animals which had already been going on for thousands of years.

    Genetic engineering can be called evolution if it results in new types of plants and animals, but it is not natural selection.
    Incorrect. Biological evolution is change in the gene frequencies of a population over time. Natural selection is but one mechanism by which biological evolution can occur. So is mutation, drift, bottle necks, and sexual selection.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    OK Paralith. I concede the point.
    However, by that logic, genetic modification has to be part of biological evolution, once it happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith

    Incorrect. Biological evolution is change in the gene frequencies of a population over time.
    Incorrect. That is just one definition of evolution.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith

    Incorrect. Biological evolution is change in the gene frequencies of a population over time.
    Incorrect. That is just one definition of evolution.
    I've never been comfortable with this definition. If I understand it correctly the following is true. I have a population of one thousand. 900 of them have an M version of a gene 100 of them have the N version. (I'm assuming homozygous populations for convenience.) I kill 100 of the M version. By definition I have just caused evolution since I have changed the gene frequencies in the population.

    Am I wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    There isn't really a wrong if you first define evolution with your parameters.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith

    Incorrect. Biological evolution is change in the gene frequencies of a population over time.
    Incorrect. That is just one definition of evolution.
    I've never been comfortable with this definition. If I understand it correctly the following is true. I have a population of one thousand. 900 of them have an M version of a gene 100 of them have the N version. (I'm assuming homozygous populations for convenience.) I kill 100 of the M version. By definition I have just caused evolution since I have changed the gene frequencies in the population.

    Am I wrong?
    Nope. That's evolution. One individual with version M has an offspring with a mutation to create version P. Evolution happened. Through random genetic drift the next generation only has 70 individuals with version M and now 829 individuals have version P. Evolution happened.

    I hesitate to throw all genetic engineering under the definition of evolution because sometimes we're working with just a few isolated animals, or if we do have colonies that breed (like transgenic mice) we're controlling who breeds with who, etc. But I guess that does fit the definition of a population (a group of individuals who interbreed more with each other than they do with individuals outside of the group) so it is evolution by artificial selection with artificially introduced variations.

    Spurious, I'd be happy to hear what other definitions you have of biological evolution. That's the one I've always known and if I'm mistaken it would be good to educate myself.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Of course.

    Change in gene frequency doesn't have any explanatory value above the species level.

    For that you need different definitions and approaches.

    One of which is for instance the one used in evolutionary developmental biology, which seeks out the developmental bases for evolutionary change.

    Quote:

    "A typical research framework has been to compare the developmental mechanisms that underlie differences in development between two or more standard model organisms in their phylogenetic context. These comparisons have led to many basic insights about the genetic and developmental basis for major variations in animal body form."

    A simple mapping of change in gene frequency could be compared with counting the amount of water in a lake.

    Evo-devo would be to compare two different lakes according to their structural differences and content.

    For evo-devo evolution isn't simply a change in gene frequency. For evo-devo evolution is the "developmental bases of phenotypic change at the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scales".

    Ref: Lieberman and Hall. 2006

    Or as Scott Gilbert defined it shortly in his text book as a new model of evolution that integrates developmental genetics and population genetics to explain and define the diversity of life on Earth.

    But as you can see the definition of 'change in gene frequency' is really quite sterile and not really informative if you want to understand evolution.

    You could just as well then define it as the change in form over time and it would actually be more accurate.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    And I don't know if you ever read Hall's 1992 'Evolutionary developmental biology' but Hall argues in this work that if you would like to have a very simple definition of evolution that encompasses micro, macro, and mega evolution you could use Darwin's definition:

    'descent with modification'.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I don't think defining it as a change in form is accurate at all. You can get multitudes of neutral change that don't affect form at all, and you would count that as not evolution?

    Perhaps you and I have a different philosophy of approach on this matter. I don't see why the definition of evolution must, within itself, be explicitly informative for all aspects of evolutionary biology. Of course the definition of evolution on its own cannot stand alone if you want to thoroughly understand all the ways in which it occurs and all the effects it can have on populations of organisms. "A change in the gene frequencies of a population" isn't informative about natural selection either. That phrase says nothing about fitness to the environment. Yet that was not included in your list of issues with the definition.

    I think I'll stick with my definition for now, with the accession that the definition alone will most certainly not tell you everything you need to know about every branch of evolutionary biology. I didn't think I was implying that in my previous uses of that definition, but I'll state it now just to be clear.

    Edit: descent with modification works for me too. I like to use the phrase with gene frequencies though because it connects to the fact that it's the genes we're concerned about; differences due solely to environmental effects and that are not heritable cannot go through the process of evolution at all. Plus "descent with modification" brings to mind for a lot of people things like that illustration that goes from apes to humans, and that's not all evolution is - like I said above, neutral changes with no noticeable effect, or just changes in the proportion of individuals with one trait versus another, are also parts of evolution.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't think defining it as a change in form is accurate at all. You can get multitudes of neutral change that don't affect form at all, and you would count that as not evolution?
    And you can have neutral genetic change that doesn't change form or affect the characteristics of the individual. Why would that then be evolution?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't think defining it as a change in form is accurate at all. You can get multitudes of neutral change that don't affect form at all, and you would count that as not evolution?
    And you can have neutral genetic change that doesn't change form or affect the characteristics of the individual. Why would that then be evolution?
    Because what is netural now in this environment may not be neutral later in another environment. Neutral changes can also accurately reflect population history, can be used to estimate relative times of divergence, etc etc. Populations are constantly changing even if phenotypic change doesn't result. If nothing else the genetic sequences are not the same for the offspring as they are for the parent: descent with modification. Fits quite nicely into a definition you yourself offered.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't think defining it as a change in form is accurate at all.
    As a one time, part time, serving time, palaeontologist this is the only definition we used. It was the only one we could use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't think defining it as a change in form is accurate at all.
    As a one time, part time, serving time, palaeontologist this is the only definition we used. It was the only one we could use.
    Of course. You can't detect neutral change when the only evidence you have is phenotypic. But does that mean you can rule out neutral change from happening just because the bones look the same? And if I recall paleontologists also run into the problem of detecting phylogenetically informative traits, in other words those that are largely genetically determined, from uninformative traits, those that are largely environmentally determined. Just because you have no DNA to work with doesn't mean you can escape the necessary implications of DNA and heredity.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't think defining it as a change in form is accurate at all. You can get multitudes of neutral change that don't affect form at all, and you would count that as not evolution?
    And you can have neutral genetic change that doesn't change form or affect the characteristics of the individual. Why would that then be evolution?
    Because what is netural now in this environment may not be neutral later in another environment. Neutral changes can also accurately reflect population history, can be used to estimate relative times of divergence, etc etc. Populations are constantly changing even if phenotypic change doesn't result. If nothing else the genetic sequences are not the same for the offspring as they are for the parent: descent with modification. Fits quite nicely into a definition you yourself offered.
    Still, population genetics only explain microevolution at the most.

    Pretty useless definition from that perspective.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't think defining it as a change in form is accurate at all. You can get multitudes of neutral change that don't affect form at all, and you would count that as not evolution?
    And you can have neutral genetic change that doesn't change form or affect the characteristics of the individual. Why would that then be evolution?
    Because what is netural now in this environment may not be neutral later in another environment. Neutral changes can also accurately reflect population history, can be used to estimate relative times of divergence, etc etc. Populations are constantly changing even if phenotypic change doesn't result. If nothing else the genetic sequences are not the same for the offspring as they are for the parent: descent with modification. Fits quite nicely into a definition you yourself offered.
    Still, population genetics only explain microevolution at the most.

    Pretty useless definition from that perspective.
    It's a pretty useless definition from a lot of perspectives. But it is the most all-encompassing definition. A definition based on changes in form rules out netural evolution. A definition based on speciation rules out microevolution. A definition based on the most basic level does not rule out any of the other implications, even though, as I've already conceded, it can't in itself explain all possible implications, by far.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I wouldn't really be comfortable with sticking to a definition from the 1940s if something better had come along.

    But that is just me, and lots of other people.

    Because this is really the essential question:

    "..the developmental biologist may ask whether the distinction between genotype and phenotype advances genetics by leaving out development. Does evolutionary genetics provide a sufficient theory of morphological evolution?"

    The answer for many people is no.

    You say it encompasses neutral evolution. I say it encompasses all and nothing.

    Studying gene frequencies isn't going to get you one iota closer to understanding evolution.

    It's merely stamp collecting. (hehe)
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Maybe I'm just naive in this field, but I don't understand how the distinction between genotype and phenotype leaves out development. Genotype doesn't just include the DNA sequences of functional genes, it includes all those regulatory elements in which slight changes can cause large changes in the expression levels of the functional genes, etc. It's all still rooted in the DNA and I don't see how evo-devo somehow divorces evolution from DNA.

    Studying gene frequencies has helped me understand evolution quite a bit. I know that if a given allele exists at a very high frequency in the population and there is a large linkage disequilbrium block around it and few mutations within it, that allele was probably subject to strong positive selection in the recent past. I know that if two alleles both exist at relatively high frequencies and there are many nucleotide differences between them and little evidence of recombination between them then it is likely that they were subject to balancing selection in the recent past. I know that the existence of many alleles all at relatively low frequencies suggests that this locus has been going through neutral evolution for quite some time. I know that loci in humans with high allele diversity in Africa and low allele diversity in China are probably neutral and have the pattern they do based solely on population history. This helps me rule out whether this loci significantly contributes to a trait I know through other evidence has been adaptive in human history.

    Again, perhaps it's my naivete in evo-devo, but I don't see how any of the other definitions you have offered are an improvement over the one I use. If it's a 1940's definition, it still works as far as my understanding of evolution goes.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Explain macro-evolution with your definition.

    Explain form with your definition.

    It's just not possible without redefining your definition.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,085
    Why so concerned over a definition? A definition only needs to be scientifically accurate; it does not need to have any explanatory power at all - that's what the meat and bones of the theory itself is for.

    So, for example, there are no instances of evolution occurring anywhere at anytime that do not involve changes in gene frequencies within a population. In the view of geneticists like Dawkins, an entire genome can be considered as a "gene" as can a whole gene network that regulates a developmental pathway. Thus, a "gene" in the light of the "changes in gene frequency" definitinon is not necessarily just a single nucleotide change, but any stable, inheritable change in the genome. Paralith's definition is accurate in that it can distinguish that which is evolution from that which is not; it also captures the profound influence of drift.

    My favoured definition is simply: "Evolution is a natural process that results in heritable changes in a population over many generations."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Explain macro-evolution with your definition.

    Explain form with your definition.

    It's just not possible without redefining your definition.
    How many times do I have to say, my definition does not in itself explain these things? My definition cannot stand alone if you want to understand everything about evolutionary biology? I have easily admitted this many times already.

    Define form and define macroevolution. Do those definitions violate my definition? Does my definition violate those definitions? That is my argument.

    Note: I noticed sometimes I say gene frequencies, when really I mean allele frequencies. That's what I get for posting this early in the morning. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Note: I noticed sometimes I say gene frequencies, when really I mean allele frequencies. That's what I get for posting this early in the morning. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
    I didn't want to correct you for the same reason. That's why I tried to convey the allele idea with gene type M and gene type N without saying allele. I thought you might have been going somewhere with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko
    Why so concerned over a definition?
    The definition determines whether you will do productive research on the topic or not.

    So it matters for some.

    Not for forums.

    Unless someone requests to be confronted with definitions of evolution that do not equal change in gene frequency. Then we are obliged to provide.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Explain macro-evolution with your definition.
    (Going with the biological species definition.) When two populations are reproductively isolated from each other, their allele frequencies are able to change in divergent ways from each other.

    Explain form with your definition.
    Form is the combined result of genetics and the environment. Different alleles often result in different forms. When one form is more adaptive than the other, the allele for that form will increase in frequency in the population.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Explain macro-evolution with your definition.
    (Going with the biological species definition.) When two populations are reproductively isolated from each other, their allele frequencies are able to change in divergent ways from each other.
    That's not really going to entice much research is it? So you check gene frequencies between populations.

    You find differences.

    End of research.


    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

    Explain form with your definition.
    Form is the combined result of genetics and the environment. Different alleles often result in different forms. When one form is more adaptive than the other, the allele for that form will increase in frequency in the population.

    You must be aware though of the fact that every time someone asks a question on form it is impossible to answer the question most of the times without delving into the developmental biology behind the form.

    If we have learned anything in evo-devo then the statement "Different alleles often result in different forms" is totally empty of meaning.

    Why? because reality works differently. DNA isn't a blueprint. There isn't usually a one one one relationship between form and single genes. Form is dependent on complex interactions of a specific nature, which developmental biology tries to elucidate.


    And all the important lessons we have learned in evo-devo have not, and more importantly COULD HAVE NOT been predicted with the population genetics' definition of evolution.

    And this has to be emphasized. This is exactly why people use different definitions of evolution. It is totally unimportant what individuals think it the best definition of evolution. What matters is that definitions of evolution are productive.

    This is also one of the main criticisms of creationism and ID. It's all fine and dandy what they come up with, but the main problem with creationism and ID is not that they are religious. Science has been based on religion for most of its history after all. The real problem is that they are not productive theories. They don't induce the asking of the right questions.

    Neither does the gene frequency definition. It's such a superficial definition that at the end of the day we still do not understand much on the mechanisms of evolution.

    Interestingly the minute Darwin published his book people actually regained interest in embryology.

    We got on a different track in the 40s with the rise of population genetics and these people managed to dominate the scene for a while.

    This approach is so restrictive that it is actually a miracle that it could dominate for so long. I guess we needed the proper tools to go back to the roots.

    Final quote.

    'All that we call phylogeny is to-day, and ever has been, ontogeny itself. Ontogeny is. then, the primary, the secondary, the universal fact. It is ontogeny from which we depart and ontogeny to which we return. Phylogeny is but a name for the lineal sequences of ontogeny, viewed from the historical standpoint.' Whitman, 1919. From the book 'Evolutionary Developmental Biology' 1992 Brian K Hall.

    Needless to say the evo-devo definition of evolution isn't the only other one. It's merely the one I am most acquainted with.

    What i really would like to emphasize is that looking for a perfect definition that you agree with is not an intellectual pursuit per se. Definitions on an academic level are tools. Tools to further your research.

    This often confuses regular people, as we all know on this forum since we have seen it happening so many times. The non-academics have so much trouble understanding why scientists can't agree with each other, or why they keep changing their minds. They don't really. Scientists are just trying to understand a problem and a single approach is never productive.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    The purpose of the definition isn't to, all on it's own, entice research. The purpose of the definition isn't to say that there is only one possible approach to research. I never said that and I never tried to argue that. But as you failed to show that I required to change my definition in order to accurately define these two concepts, my previous opinion on the matter still stands. Though I will edit my second definition to make it clearer:

    Form is the result of genetics and the environment. When a certain form is adaptive, the allele or alleles of genes and other loci that contribute to the development of that form will increase in frequency in the population.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I really don't know what you are discussing here.

    You were only aware of one definition of evolution.

    I gave another one.

    Then you seemed keen to put forward the idea that your notion on the definition of evolution is still valid.

    Who the fuck cares? Honestly. Give it a rest. There are several definition on evolution currently being used by scientists all over the world for the sole purpose of understanding the theory and adding depth to it.

    You want another definition?

    Did you know that form can be inherited without the benefit of genetic change? Where would that fit in the restricted definition of population biologists? It doesn't.

    We would still be in the 40s with that simple definition..


    Would anyone ever bother to research these questions if you would stick to one definition?

    No!

    It's really not interesting for reality of scientic practice what you think should be incorporated in a definition. What I tried to explain to you is scientific practice. And you may deny all you want that your definition encompasses form, but generations of scientists disagree. Whole articles and books have been written on specifically this topic. Because one definition isn't the other. Because one definition does raise different questions than the other.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman Chisco1389's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't know what you think creationism is, but from my understanding it is the idea that all life was created more or less in the form it is now by a supernatural intelligence, and some creationists will allow that microevolution occurs but certainly not that macroevolution, or speciation occurs. Number 1, humans did not create all life. Number 2, humans are not supernatural intelligences. Number 3, creating a new species is macroevolution and strictly against what creationists believe to be true.
    I am partly a creationist and agree with macroevolution, and speciation. creationsism just states a higher being created the first steps.

    " 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

    24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

    note it doesnt say God made leopards and cheetahs. it says all life. not necissarly what he have. people need to read the genesis account for themselves and stop listening to other people who know just as much as you do.

    also i think it would be evolution. That is if you stick with the definition of evolution as a change in a species over time. All the scientists would be doing is replacing natural selection with artificial selection. especially since creationism is theory for creation of life while evolution is a theory about how life changes. evolution does not explain how life came to be at all. it only explains what happens once we have life. it cannot function on nothing.
    Nothing is certain, but uncertainty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Chisco1389
    I am partly a creationist and agree with macroevolution, and speciation. creationsism just states a higher being created the first steps.
    Would you be open to the possibility, if there were solid evidence to support it, that what God created were the natural laws, the values of the constants and the four forces; that from this initial creation stars, planetary systems, life and eventually humans emerged?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I'm sorry you're irritated with me, Spurious, but nothing you've said to me convinces me that the definition I use would have "kept us in the 40's" or fails to work with form or any of that. I asked what another definition would be because I wasn't aware of any others that were completely accurate, and from what I can see neither are the ones you gave me. I understand that evolution is much more than just allele frequencies, but no matter what happens or how it happens, when evolution happens allele frequencies change.

    But I am interested to know how form can be inherited without any influence of genetics. Though you said how form can be inherited without any genetic change, and that's fine...inheritance isn't dependent on change, but I don't think that's what you meant.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Chisco1389
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't know what you think creationism is, but from my understanding it is the idea that all life was created more or less in the form it is now by a supernatural intelligence, and some creationists will allow that microevolution occurs but certainly not that macroevolution, or speciation occurs. Number 1, humans did not create all life. Number 2, humans are not supernatural intelligences. Number 3, creating a new species is macroevolution and strictly against what creationists believe to be true.
    I am partly a creationist and agree with macroevolution, and speciation. creationsism just states a higher being created the first steps.

    " 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

    24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

    note it doesnt say God made leopards and cheetahs. it says all life. not necissarly what he have. people need to read the genesis account for themselves and stop listening to other people who know just as much as you do.

    Chisco, I appreciate your candor with us but discussions involving supernatural causes for natural phenomenon is not allowed in a science forum. Science is a strictly natural field and it cannot address the supernatural one way or another. If you would like to discuss these types of things I will ask you to move them to Religion, Philosophy, or Pseudoscience. Any further comments in this vein will be removed.
    /moderator mode
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •