Re: Evolution confuses an observation with a theory


"backspace" <sawireless2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1179763491.303423.78200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution "In biology, evolution is
the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
change or how they did so in the past.

You are confusing the process of evolution - the change and proliferation of
species over time - and the theory of evolution which explains that change.

Lets take gravity for example. We observe objects falling to the
ground. Telling me that the Theory of Gravity predicts that objects
will fall to the ground is just restating the observation.

As with evolution, you are confusing gravitational force with the theory of
gravity that explains how that force works.

The actuall
theory derived by a human being states that the pull between two
objects is inversly proportional to the radius squared.

Actually, that would be the a law of gravity: a relationship that has always
been found to be true.

This theory
was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we know exactly who
established it. In contrast I still don't know who is this peson that
established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
Well obviously there is no such person, since that statement merely
equivocates the observation with an adhoc invented word "evolution".
We might be able to track down the first publication of it though, and
it will probably be an arbitrary decree by that person's authority as
Darwin's great defender. In contrast Newton did'nt establish his laws
by his "authority", he at the very least provided a well reasoned
description.

Genes determine the outward appearance of an individual or species. Based
upon the fossil record, we know that the outward appearance of many species
has changed over time. Thus, the genetic makeup of these species must have
changed as well.

Personally, I don't think the definition of evolution as a change in gene or
allele frequencies is adequate. To produce the physical changes that most
of us associate with evolution requires a change in the function of the
genes within a species. Otherwise, there really are limits to how far a
species can change. However, you objection only serves to expose the
difficulty of transitioning from a physical definition of evolution to a
genetic definition.

The word "gravity" is a word that we use to state the observation of
objects falling to the ground. But there is no confusion about this
word.

Oddly enough, you seem to be confused about gravity. Gravity is a force,
and it acts on an object even when it is not falling.

In "The Theory of Evolution" we have confusion with the word
"evolution" since its antonym is "devolution" implying some sort of
consciouss directionality to the process we observe: allele
frequencies and population changes. And then ofcourse a whole
fruitsalad of words gets mixed in "natural", "selection", "micro",
"macro" with this obvious observation that populations change. But why
do they change? Because they survived? Well if they did'nt survive
they would'nt be there in the first place. Survival is an effect. The
theory must explain why they survive. Darwin stated that "Natural
Selection" is "Survival of the Fittest", just restating the obvious
fact that creatures have survived.

Scientists define fitness in terms of heritable characteristics such as
size, speed, camouflage, rate of reproduction. It is these characteristics
that allow individuals and species to survive (to reproduce). Evolution
explains how species are able to adapt to new and changing environments.

And to be able to at least start specifying the problem we need to use
the correct tools and that will be the language that genes code for.
The genes molecule are seperate from the language it expresses.

Huh?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To the real anthropologists (you know who you are)
    ... genes are marked off, ... can't define the term "species," and couldn't if their asses ... interests in human evolution. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: To the real anthropologists (you know who you are)
    ... genes are marked off, ... can't define the term "species," and couldn't if their asses ... Evolution - and what it has COME to symbolize in action and deeds, ... is ALSO subject to religious-type dogma - via ideologies. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: From Russia (and adman) With Love:
    ... There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate ... that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. ... nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader ... possessed genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: From Russia (and adman) With Love:
    ... There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate ... that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. ... nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader ... of previously existing genes - not because of mutations. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: From Russia (and adman) With Love:
    ... There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate ... that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. ... issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why ... previously existing genes - not because of mutations. ...
    (talk.origins)