Dover Penn ID trial

[Mercutio]

Did you expect your silly example Teddy Bear example to spark such an interesting conversation, Mercutio?
It has, every time I have used it before...


:cool:

[PatKelley]

Your point is valid there, but I think the problem is more with the wording than with the definition. It seems to me that their intent is to imply that the structures resulting from adaptation are within the organism and can be replicated by the organism.

Of course, there's a only fine line between machines and organisms these days. It wouldn't be beyond our capability to build a machine that self-replicates and is capable of adapting or responding to its enviornment in some way.

Did you expect your silly example Teddy Bear example to spark such an interesting conversation, Mercutio?
Actually, I forgot to mention that copyright law is the artificial mutagen in this case: one wants to replicate as close as possible without actually crossing the line into outright copying. Kind of an artificial mechanism to prevent self-crossing in memes.

[Melendwyr]

Please read the one and only definition of that word and note that it most certainly is required. If you find another definition which you can quote from an authorative source, then we'll talk. Ahem: here is the biological definition of the phrase: "The hypothesis that genotype environment interactions occurring at the phenotypic level lead to differential reproductive success of individuals and hence to modification of the gene pool of a population."

From http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=natural+selection

Reproduction is pretty much the only way that organisms can ensure that their traits can persist, since they have limited lifespans. What's important is the persistance of the traits, not reproduction in itself. Reproduction matters in the biological definition of natural selection because reproduction preserves traits.

In systems where there is no reproduction, there can still be the continuity of traits. Interaction with the environment produces differential viability of those traits, leading to persistance of the most viable. The objects don't need to actually reproduce.

The nature of the selection is the same. The changes of the trait distribution in the population are the same. Reproduction is logically irrelevant to the concept except that it preserves traits.

Randomly taking white and black marbles out of an urn does not lead to the evolution of the marble population. If the white marbles were denser, they'd tend to sink to the bottom. Since the marbles near the top are more likely to be taken out, the supposedly "random" selection would be exerting a selection pressure on the population, and the population would evolve.

Repeating the truly random selection experiment many times, we'd see that the results would average out: the times more blacks were removed than whiles would be roughly equal to the times more whites were removed than blacks. Even if there were a temporary statistical aberration, as the number of trials increased, it would tend to be smoothed out.

With the density difference, we'd get a fairly consistent change in the distribution. The more trials we carried out, the clearer this difference would be.

It's natural selection acting upon an unliving population.

[Dr Adequate]

I'm sure Dr. Adequate meant to credit this piece to Samuel Butler in 'Erehwon'. It necessary to do so, because having read other contributions by DR. A., it's wit, charm, detail and poetry might easily be mistaken as his own. I'm blushing. But no, though it galls me to admit it, I didn't write Erewhon.

The quotation is actually from the Canterbury Pieces (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext02/cantp10.txt): Butler recycled the idea in Erewhon.
______________________________

Delphi --- Erewhon is available here (http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=1906), though arguably the first edition is superior to the second, if you can find it.

The section on Musical Banks (Chapter XV) has to be the best satire on religion ever written.

[delphi_ote]

Ahem: here is the biological definition of the phrase: "The hypothesis that genotype environment interactions occurring at the phenotypic level lead to differential reproductive success of individuals and hence to modification of the gene pool of a population."

From http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=natural+selection

Reproduction is pretty much the only way that organisms can ensure that their traits can persist, since they have limited lifespans. What's important is the persistance of the traits, not reproduction in itself. Reproduction matters in the biological definition of natural selection because reproduction preserves traits.

In systems where there is no reproduction, there can still be the continuity of traits. Interaction with the environment produces differential viability of those traits, leading to persistance of the most viable. The objects don't need to actually reproduce.

The nature of the selection is the same. The changes of the trait distribution in the population are the same. Reproduction is logically irrelevant to the concept except that it preserves traits.

Randomly taking white and black marbles out of an urn does not lead to the evolution of the marble population. If the white marbles were denser, they'd tend to sink to the bottom. Since the marbles near the top are more likely to be taken out, the supposedly "random" selection would be exerting a selection pressure on the population, and the population would evolve.

Repeating the truly random selection experiment many times, we'd see that the results would average out: the times more blacks were removed than whiles would be roughly equal to the times more whites were removed than blacks. Even if there were a temporary statistical aberration, as the number of trials increased, it would tend to be smoothed out.

With the density difference, we'd get a fairly consistent change in the distribution. The more trials we carried out, the clearer this difference would be.

It's natural selection acting upon an unliving population.

Reproduction is in the definition you cite. You can try to dance around that fact by calling it irrelevant. It is actually highly relevant. Please show me a definition which does not include reference to organisms, genes, or reproduction. You are still making up your own words. As I said before...

(Please note that your word does not count as an authorative source. Repeating this mantra is not going to convince me.)

[Mercutio]

Reproduction is in the definition you cite. You can try to dance around that fact by calling it irrelevant. It is actually highly relevant. Please show me a definition which does not include reference to organisms, genes, or reproduction. You are still making up your own words. As I said before...

(Please note that your word does not count as an authorative source. Repeating this mantra is not going to convince me.)
[minor quibble] Genes, if memory serves, were not known when Darwin proposed Natural Selection. The modern synthesis includes them (again, flying without notes here, so if my vocabulary is off, I apologize in advance), but they are not a necessary part of the theory. Reproduction with heritability is necessary; genes happen to be our particular mechanism. [/minor quibble]

[delphi_ote]

[minor quibble] Genes, if memory serves, were not known when Darwin proposed Natural Selection. The modern synthesis includes them (again, flying without notes here, so if my vocabulary is off, I apologize in advance), but they are not a necessary part of the theory. Reproduction with heritability is necessary; genes happen to be our particular mechanism. [/minor quibble]

You're absolutely correct, but some definitions I've found in modern textbooks directly refer to genes instead of reproduction with heritability. I just wanted to make a broad enough statement to cover every definition I know for the term.

[Melendwyr]

Reproduction is in the definition you cite. Well, yeah. I have to count on your ability to understand that the concept is broader than just biology, even though biology speaks of it in terms of the things it studies.

I can demonstrate that a thing looks like a duck, acts like a duck, smells, tastes, and feels like a duck, has the chemical composition of a duck, and possesses all of the physical and biological properties of a duck. You're the one who has to acknowledge it's a duck.

Clearly that is not going to happen.

[Mercutio]

Well, yeah. I have to count on your ability to understand that the concept is broader than just biology, even though biology speaks of it in terms of the things it studies.
This continues to be your assertion, in the face of even your own cited definition.

I am very serious that I would like to see a source for a definition as broad as yours. Absent that, we have a total of one source--you--making this claim.

[Melendwyr]

This continues to be your assertion, in the face of even your own cited definition. That definition is from the context of biology! The field excludes everything non-living.

I am very serious that I would like to see a source for a definition as broad as yours. Absent that, we have a total of one source--you--making this claim. Please, explain to me why an environmental pressure that impacts upon certain traits more than others and results in a change in the trait distribution of a population should not be called an instance of natural selection. You're the one saying that the duck should be called a moose, and demanding an authoritative source to explain why the quacking, feathered, aquatic bird shouldn't be called a moose.

[delphi_ote]

That definition is from the context of biology! The field excludes everything non-living.

That's the only field (to my knowledge) that has defined the term. That's what the word means.

Gravity brings two things together. Addition brings two things together. Gravity is addition. QED.

You can't just apply a technical word anywhere you want because you've found a loose analogy between two concepts.

[Eos of the Eons]

For example, I don't think any scientist believes that mutations arising at random at some sort of background frequency are sufficient to explain the rise of life on Earth at its current level of diversity. Such mutations occur, of course, but the true picture is much more complicated than that. There appear to be significant interactions among genes, including catalytic reactions at the biochemical level, and these greatly increase the probability of certain types of change. This does not require intelligent design, any more than the assembly of the highly ordered structure of a crystal.

Modern evolution, both fact and theory, is not "Darwinism", because, of course, Darwin knew nothing about genes. It is the cumulative result of tens of thousands of pieces of research carried out since Darwin's time, and represents the current state of a continuously developing body of theory and observation. Those who wish to refute it have a vast amount of material to rebut.

Further, as far as history is concerned, the reference to Lamarck was surely not intended to suggest that he was "suppressed" by Darwin or anyone else. Evolution as an idea had been around for many years before either Darwin or Lamarck came up with it; even Darwin's grandfather published his own version of it. Lamarck and Darwin, unlike earlier writers, came up with mechanisms for how evolution could work. Lamarck's ideas, however, simply did not match the evidence and were rapidly disproved. Darwin's, on the other hand, were supported by a vast amount of evidence, much of it assembled by Darwin himself (though Darwin's own work represents but a minute fraction of the amount of evidence in support of evolution by natural selection available today). If anyone was "shoveled under" by Darwin's fame, it was Alfred Russell Wallace, who came up with practically the same basic theory as Darwin almost simultaneously with him, but failed to support it with the detailed evidence that the extremely meticulous Darwin had assembled before publishing (hardly a criticism of Wallace, who was ill with fever in the East Indies at the time!).

For an excellent and very readable short history of the development of evolutionary theory, may I recommend "Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory" by Edward J. Larson (Modern Library 2004). For a very clear explanation of the state of things today, with lots of pictures (!), read "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer (HarperCollins 2001).

And, of course, there is nothing to prevent anyone from believing that there is an intelligence behind anything in our universe, but establishing this belief as a scientific theory (as opposed to a philosophical or religious conviction) will require something better than simply stating that you cannot imagine how it could be otherwise. The universe is not limited by the scope of human imagination.

Ronald Orenstein

[Melendwyr]

You can't just apply a technical word anywhere you want because you've found a loose analogy between two concepts. What about a strong analogy? What about cases where concepts are exactly alike except for some very minor differences?

[chipmunk stew]

What about a strong analogy? What about cases where concepts are exactly alike except for some very minor differences?Life vs. not-life is a very minor difference? I think you'd have trouble showing anyone (not just those of us on JREF) that pebbles exhibit "natural selection" in any technical sense. This about sums up your argument for me: :dig:

[teacher]

Evolution is just a term to coin an advanced subdivision of the natural 'order or randomness' (interchangeable here, or order caused by randomness) caused or determined by natural laws. With enough comprehensive or God-like knowledge of every intricate detail, all could in theory be predicted. Free-will could be another term within this field if you accept that this has ultimnately developed (or evolved) from atoms.

Is there any great reason that evolution cannot be applied to inorganic things, given that we apply the term to man made objects, eras etc. and life came/evolved from inorganic things? We even hear, 'the universe evolved..." So maybe it's not strictly true (o is it?) but we could really talk about evolution from the big bang couldn't we?

And I'm a theist!

[delphi_ote]

What about a strong analogy? What about cases where concepts are exactly alike except for some very minor differences?

Then you'd have something like Mercutio's example. His analogy was strong because it incorporated all aspects of the definition including reproduction. You'd have to come up with some way of explaining how your stars and pebbles reproduce and pass on characteristics of themselves to their offspring. It is critical to the concept at hand. Otherwise, "natural selection" just means "change over time."

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is there any great reason that evolution cannot be applied to inorganic things, given that we apply the term to man made objects, eras etc. and life came/evolved from inorganic things? We even hear, 'the universe evolved..." So maybe it's not strictly true (o is it?) but we could really talk about evolution from the big bang couldn't we?
The reason not to call these other things "evolution," without any qualifiers, is because it is misleading. The Creationists are already misleading people; there is every reason to try not to follow suit.

Also, as Delphi noted, just because two disciplines use the term foo does not imply that they mean the same thing by the term. All the more reason to be careful.

~~ Paul