Timeline for A better definition of ‘evolution’?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2017 at 19:13 | comment | added | John | except survival is secondary to passing on your genes, that is how things like kin selection and such function. may behaviors drastically reduce survival in return for helping spread genes, you could eliminate survival from the definition entirely. . | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 19:04 | comment | added | Roland | @John, well I agree with that. I very much like how Darwin introduces selection in the origin of species by starting with selective breeding, for example. But those are all selection mechanisms, and I think they are included in the definition I suggested ("individuals that best survive"). | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 15:24 | comment | added | John | @Roland focusing on natural selection is counterproductive, a great way to explain evolution is to compare the mechanisms, natural selection, sexual selection, artificial selection, ect. To use your analogy we don't define thermodynamics as only Conservation of Energy. | |
| Feb 8, 2017 at 2:15 | comment | added | iayork | If you don't actually understand what evolution is, you shouldn't be answering questions about it. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 20:41 | comment | added | Roland | @iayork I don't think this is "actively misleading". I understand that "change in the heritable characteristics over generations" or some such is a more general definition that encompasses modern evolutionary theory, but that wasn't the issue here. I think it is necessary to focus on natural selection first if you want to teach evolution. If you wanted to teach physics, you would start with Newton's mechanics, not general relativity; Newton's is not the most up-to-date theory, but that doesn't mean that teaching it is misleading. Basics first. Refinement comes later. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 20:26 | history | edited | Roland | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Emphasized that my definition is not fully general.
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 15:18 | comment | added | John | Remember to define evolution you are looking for the basic observations that the theory was created to explain. That observations is that the variations in a population change over generations. points for mentioning equivocation, | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 15:13 | comment | added | John | @Roland My mistake your wording was a bit confusing. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 15:13 | comment | added | iayork | If you're going to come up with a definition for a layman, maybe it shouldn't be actively misleading. Your definition here is actively misleading. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:54 | comment | added | Roland | @iayork, I wasn't trying to summarize modern evolutionary theory. (And I don't think I'm the right person to do it.) I was shooting for an easy-to-understand definition that conveys the basic idea to the layman. And to be pedagogical, I think variation + natural selection should be the centerpiece. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:49 | comment | added | Roland | @RunzWitScissors, I think "information" is poorly defined in this context. But it's rather obvious that mutations can create new sequences, and so it provides a mechanism for exploring new genotypes. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:34 | comment | added | RunzWitScissors | @Roland. Also, can you provide me some links refuting their case that mutations do not generate new information? I'd love to pass those along. (I have searched myself some but would like to find better ones). | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:32 | comment | added | RunzWitScissors | @Roland. Good link, will check it out. Regarding no difference between adaptation and evolution: one is a subset of the other. You can have adaptation without any change in existing genetic information. Finch beak adaptation is one example. Yes, creationists are willing to accept what you call 'some consequences': just adaptation. The entire point of their article is that too often 'adaptation' examples are given as examples of a process that can 'turn molecules into men'. And the whole point of my post is to create a better definition of evolution than 'change in gene frequency' | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 13:40 | comment | added | iayork | This is a bad answer. Modern evolutionary theory recognizes natural selection as one of the main drivers of evolution, but by no means is it the only one. Ignoring the past 75 years worth of understanding is a very bad start to a definition. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 | comment | added | Roland | @RunzWitScissors, I have added some comments on the creationist page. If you want to dig deeper, I would recommend Ken Miller's work, millerandlevine.com/km/evol | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 8:19 | history | edited | Roland | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added comments on the creationist site, requested by OP
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 7:37 | comment | added | Roland | @John, I did not mention recombination? | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 2:36 | comment | added | John | If you really want to understand evolution consider explaining artificial selection first, it is basically the simplified version. these videos are very good approach laying everything out very clearly. youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 2:33 | comment | added | John | recombination is not necessary for evolution | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 23:12 | comment | added | RunzWitScissors | I do like that answer. Thank you. BTW, please do share at least some of the bigger errors on that page. An acquaintance gave me that link, and I'd love to point out some of them. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 22:21 | history | answered | Roland | CC BY-SA 3.0 |