Re: The correct definition.

[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
What should be the correct definition for evolution?

"The processes that allows life to continue despite the
conditions on the earth. These conditions allow adaptations to
take place in a linear fashion thereby allowing the original
kind to survive and have many sub-kinds that are each one after
their original kind"
That's the worst definition I've seen yet. For one thing,
according to that definition, breathing is evolution. For
another, it's full of bizarre and unnecessary embedded
assumptions: "in a linear fashion", "original kind", "sub-kind",
each largely undefined and unintelligible. But mostly "despite
the conditions"? Weird.
Nothing "Weird" about it.

1) It meets survival of the fittest
No it doesn't, and at any rate "survival of the fittest" has
nothing to do with the definition of evolution.

2)It meets what the bible says "Each after his own kind"
Also irrelevant to a definition of evolution.

3)It meets what has been observed.
In order to determine that, we would first have to make sense of
the definition, and this is not possible.

Your version needs a level of rationalization that borders on
fantasy to even be believable.
You haven't heard my version, so how do you know that?

A fish eventually became a man because there was enought time
involved? come on people... get real
That's not a definition. Do you in fact know what the word
"definition" means?
it is not /me/ that thinks man came from fish

that would be /you/

True. But it's not a definition of evolution. Do you understand that
"a definition of evolution" and "something about evolution that I
claim to be true" are not at all the same thing? Apparently not. You
and me coming from fish is not part of the definition of evolution,
though it does happen to be true.
So evolution is not a process? It does not explain adaptations that
take place? My defination mentions both.
You misspelled "defamation". Evolution is a large set of processes,
not one process. Natural selection is one of those processes, and
yes, it does account for adaptation. But though natural selection is
evolution, not all evolution is natural selection.

BTW, exactly how much time would it take a fish to evolve into man?
Meaningless question. It seems to have taken about 300 million years.
But of course that fish didn't just evolve into a man. (And it wasn't
"a fish", it was a whole population of fish.) It evolved into all
modern tetrapods (and all extinct ones). But that was an
idiosyncratic process that depended on particular series of
environments, mutations, and other events. Notice also that of all
the species of fish, presumably thousands at least, around 300
million years ago, only one of them was ancestral to humans. If the
others have any descendants, they're still fish. So given the
evidence we have, most of the time a fish won't evolve into a man at
all, no matter how long you wait. These are just a few of the ways in
which your question makes no sense.

Idiosyncratic? Well, there ya go. When asked, the answer is always dubious.

Ah, more words whose definitions you don't know.

What exactly takes place for a population of fish (as you describe above) to eventually and over time generate a completely new species that is nothing like the original species?

Magic? Of course this never happens. New species are always quite a bit like previous species. Even you are quite a bit like a fish in many ways.

Consider that you just said "most of the time fish won't evolve into a man at" *But* before *THAT* you said "one of them was ancestral to humans"?

Yes. How is that a problem?

Since i am SO dumb and all...Let's move one step at a time and agree on exactly what takes place for evolution to work . Ok?

Based on your description above, and starting with "a whole population of fish" (as you describe above), evolution claims:

An "idiosyncratic process" takes place along with a "particular series of mutations, natural selection and environment" that will allow one of those fish to eventually give rise to a group of species such as tetrapods which will give rise to another group of species and so on in a chain that eventually led to humans. And that this process really means nothing because "most of the time a fish won't evolve into a man at all". But some of the time it does because man has a fish for an ancestor?

Would you say that is Correct?

No. You are incapable of reading for comprehension, and therefore incapable of paraphrasing.

The path of evolution is a crooked one, especially if you follow a single lineage to a preferred end point. But we do have a great many intemediates to show us what that path looks like. Many of them have been pointed out to you on TO. You always ignore them. Of all the species of fish living 300 million years ago, only one was ancestral to tetrapods. Of all the species of amniote living 250 million years ago, only one was ancestral to mammals. Of all the species of mammal living 50 million years ago, only one was ancestral to humans. This should come as no surprise, because that's how descent with modification and branching works. Some of those other species went extinct without leaving descendants. Some gave rise to other living lineages.

It's not the process that means nothing. It's your question.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... according to that definition, breathing is evolution. ... But of course that fish didn't just evolve into a man. ... eventually and over time generate a completely new species that is nothing ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Double Standard
    ... descent from an ancestor which lived about a couple billion years ago. ... There are so many gaps in evolution it beggarrs ... these hominids suggest a progression to man. ... There are close to 6 million species of air- ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... according to that definition, breathing is evolution. ... But though natural selection is ... But of course that fish didn't just evolve into a man. ... eventually and over time generate a completely new species that is nothing ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... according to that definition, breathing is evolution. ... But of course that fish didn't just evolve into a man. ... What exactly takes place for a population of fish to eventually and over time generate a completely new species that is nothing like the original species? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... These conditions allow adaptations to ... according to that definition, breathing is evolution. ... But of course that fish didn't just evolve into a man. ... eventually and over time generate a completely new species that is nothing ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading