The creationism-friendly definition of "evolution."

[Peter Nyikos]

It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
a very good definition by Futuyma, Moran takes out one
little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
in a population spread over many generations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
Here is what a very influential creationist wrote about that:

There is a tremendous amount of variational potential
within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct
individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but
nevertheless precluding the evolution of new *kinds!*
-- Henry M. Morris, _The Genesis Record_, Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 63-64

That "but" clause goes beyond Moran's favorite definition --
but so would any clause that says just the opposite. Hence
the title of this thread.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
> a very good definition by Futuyma, Moran takes out one
> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
>
> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> in a population spread over many generations.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>
> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.

Actually "most" was an understatement. I can't think of any
creationist who wouldn't be comfortable with it, once
the concept of "a population" is explained to him.

Moran, perhaps unwittingly, made pretty much the same point
when he wrote near the end of the FAQ:


The real problem is that the public, and creationists,
do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's
definition of evolution was very different from the common
scientific definition and as a consequence he was
unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant.
This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe"
in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that
evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes
in a population spread over many generations" it seems a
little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

To say the least: if evolution were simply the thing in quotes,
it would be silly to pretend that this excludes even such an
extreme creationist as Ray Martinez claims to be.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

[John Harshman]

On 9/7/16 2:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran.

Are you unable to compose a single sentence without attaching an
adjective or adverb intended to demonstrate to readers what they should
think about the described item?

> After quoting
> a very good definition by Futuyma,

That definition, in its entirety, is "change in the properties of
populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single
individual", pretty much the same as what Larry said. There are various
other things surrounding that definition, but none of them are part of
the definition.

> Moran takes out one
> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:

Yes, and that's because it was the part that was the definition. Larry
and Futuyma are in agreement here.

> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> in a population spread over many generations.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>
> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
> Here is what a very influential creationist wrote about that:
>
> There is a tremendous amount of variational potential
> within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct
> individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but
> nevertheless precluding the evolution of new *kinds!*
> -- Henry M. Morris, _The Genesis Record_, Baker Book House,
> Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 63-64

Actually, very few creationists think that "kind" = population. Most
commonly they think it's something vaguely averaging a family (in the
taxonomic sense). Why, some of them even allow that whales and hippos
may be the same "kind".

> That "but" clause goes beyond Moran's favorite definition --
> but so would any clause that says just the opposite. Hence
> the title of this thread.

No surprise here. Some creationists allow for a limited amount of
evolution. So? You present no alternative definition here that no
creationist would accept. Put one out and I'll show you what's wrong
with it.

[John Harshman]

On 9/7/16 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
>> a very good definition by Futuyma, Moran takes out one
>> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
>> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
>>
>> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
>> in a population spread over many generations.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>>
>> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
>> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
>> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
>> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
>> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
>
> Actually "most" was an understatement. I can't think of any
> creationist who wouldn't be comfortable with it, once
> the concept of "a population" is explained to him.

Not that I care, but how about Ray?

> Moran, perhaps unwittingly, made pretty much the same point
> when he wrote near the end of the FAQ:
>
>
> The real problem is that the public, and creationists,
> do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's
> definition of evolution was very different from the common
> scientific definition and as a consequence he was
> unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant.
> This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe"
> in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that
> evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes
> in a population spread over many generations" it seems a
> little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!
>
> To say the least: if evolution were simply the thing in quotes,
> it would be silly to pretend that this excludes even such an
> extreme creationist as Ray Martinez claims to be.

It's really silly to lay all this on the definition of evolution. Many
creationists claim not to reject evolution (though they strangely tend
to object to any real examples, even checkered moths). I see no problem
with this. It isn't the definition that needs to be changed. It's your
idea of where the disagreement between science and creationism lies. It
isn't in the definition, it's in the history of life. That history
involves evolution, more than they're willing to allow. The definition
is irrelevant.

[John Stockwell]

How about:
Origin of species through descent with modification and natural
selection.

[John Harshman]

So it isn't evolution unless it results in speciation?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/7/16 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
> >> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
> >> a very good definition by Futuyma,

I was using the word "definition" loosely, thinking that it encompasses
various *meanings*, like the Merriam-Webster way of defining "definition"
by listing multiple meanings. Unfortunately, none of the meanings it gives
for "definition" allow for that dictionary entry being called "a"
definition. Rather, it is a listing of several definitions for the
word "definition."

Anyway, below I single out something Futuyma writes and think it
could be worked into a definition that really does justice to the
word "evolution."

> >> Moran takes out one
> >> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
> >> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
> >>
> >> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> >> in a population spread over many generations.
> >>
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
> >>
> >> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
> >> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
> >> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
> >> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
> >> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
> >
> > Actually "most" was an understatement. I can't think of any
> > creationist who wouldn't be comfortable with it, once
> > the concept of "a population" is explained to him.
>
> Not that I care, but how about Ray?

Why didn't you scroll back up and delete this question after seeing the
answer below?

> > Moran, perhaps unwittingly, made pretty much the same point
> > when he wrote near the end of the FAQ:
> >
> >
> > The real problem is that the public, and creationists,
> > do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's
> > definition of evolution was very different from the common
> > scientific definition and as a consequence he was
> > unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant.
> > This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe"
> > in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that
> > evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes
> > in a population spread over many generations" it seems a
> > little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!
> >
> > To say the least: if evolution were simply the thing in quotes,
> > it would be silly to pretend that this excludes even such an
> > extreme creationist as Ray Martinez claims to be.
>
> It's really silly to lay all this on the definition of evolution.

Yes, Moran sure was silly to do it, wasn't he?

But why do you say "the" definition? I think Futuyma was on
the right track towards a fine definition when he wrote:

Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
within a population (such as those determining blood types)
to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

> I see no problem
> with this. It isn't the definition that needs to be changed. It's your
> idea of where the disagreement between science and creationism lies.

No, it's Moran's idea that needs changing. I know exactly where
the difference lies, and you are supporting something that I've
been harping on myself:

> It isn't in the definition, it's in the history of life. That history
> involves evolution, more than they're willing to allow.

What on earth made you think I don't endorse this to the hilt?

> The definition
> is irrelevant.

Tell that to Moran, who thought it highly relevant (see excerpt above). He
respects you enough to make changes in that FAQ if you approach him the
right way. Or does he?


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer

[Ray Martinez]

As long as any micro-change is accomplished by an unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent cause, it's evolution---ary.

I could reference Darwin to Dawkins in support.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Glad you're here, Ray. Could you clarify whether you believe evolution,
if it's defined as "allele frequency change in populations", actually
happens in the world?

[John Harshman]

On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/7/16 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
>>>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
>>>> a very good definition by Futuyma,
>
> I was using the word "definition" loosely, thinking that it encompasses
> various *meanings*, like the Merriam-Webster way of defining "definition"
> by listing multiple meanings.

> Unfortunately, none of the meanings it gives
> for "definition" allow for that dictionary entry being called "a"
> definition. Rather, it is a listing of several definitions for the
> word "definition."

Why is that unfortunate? The same word can have multiple meanings, which
call for multiple definitions.

> Anyway, below I single out something Futuyma writes and think it
> could be worked into a definition that really does justice to the
> word "evolution."

Go for it. I'll be happy to critique your attempt.

>>>> Moran takes out one
>>>> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
>>>> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
>>>>
>>>> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
>>>> in a population spread over many generations.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>>>>
>>>> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
>>>> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
>>>> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
>>>> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
>>>> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
>>>
>>> Actually "most" was an understatement. I can't think of any
>>> creationist who wouldn't be comfortable with it, once
>>> the concept of "a population" is explained to him.
>>
>> Not that I care, but how about Ray?
>
> Why didn't you scroll back up and delete this question after seeing the
> answer below?

I think you're wrong. It does indeed exclude Ray.

>>> Moran, perhaps unwittingly, made pretty much the same point
>>> when he wrote near the end of the FAQ:
>>>
>>>
>>> The real problem is that the public, and creationists,
>>> do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's
>>> definition of evolution was very different from the common
>>> scientific definition and as a consequence he was
>>> unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant.
>>> This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe"
>>> in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that
>>> evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes
>>> in a population spread over many generations" it seems a
>>> little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!
>>>
>>> To say the least: if evolution were simply the thing in quotes,
>>> it would be silly to pretend that this excludes even such an
>>> extreme creationist as Ray Martinez claims to be.
>>
>> It's really silly to lay all this on the definition of evolution.
>
> Yes, Moran sure was silly to do it, wasn't he?

Was that an attempt at irony? A poor one, if so.

> But why do you say "the" definition? I think Futuyma was on
> the right track towards a fine definition when he wrote:
>
> Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
> everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
> within a population (such as those determining blood types)
> to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
> protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
would merely introduce pointless verbiage.

>> I see no problem
>> with this. It isn't the definition that needs to be changed. It's your
>> idea of where the disagreement between science and creationism lies.
>
> No, it's Moran's idea that needs changing. I know exactly where
> the difference lies, and you are supporting something that I've
> been harping on myself:
>
>> It isn't in the definition, it's in the history of life. That history
>> involves evolution, more than they're willing to allow.
>
> What on earth made you think I don't endorse this to the hilt?

Your claim that it's the definition of evolution that leaves out
explicit reference to the long history of life that's a problem, for
that reason.

>> The definition
>> is irrelevant.
>
> Tell that to Moran, who thought it highly relevant (see excerpt above). He
> respects you enough to make changes in that FAQ if you approach him the
> right way. Or does he?

I don't see how the quote from Larry supports anything you claim or
disagrees that the definition is irrelevant to our disagreement with
creationists.

[RSNorman]

Adaptation to the environment is not evolution if it occurs within one
species? Why did Darwin spent an awful lot of time talking about
variation under domestication describing the different types of
pigeons. After "Origin of Species" (which as many people point out
really doesn't cover the process of speciation) he published "The
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" (1868). This was
very important evidence about the power of artificial selection,
providing great support for the notion that natural selection could
produce similar large changes in morphology within one species.

[RSNorman]

Somehow in the years since the 1940's-1950's when the population
genetics emphasis was introduced into the theory of evolution,
creationists have had little problem still objecting to the theory.

So many creationists accept microevolution -- change within a species?
So what? That still is an important part of biological evolution.
Creationists accept that the mammalian heart has four chambers.

Adaptation to the environment has always been a very important part of
evolution. A newer "revolution" in evolutionary thinking has been the
introduction of neutral change and the major importance of genetic
drift which the molecular biological revolution has provided. That,
too, is evolution.

And no course in evolutionary biology will stop at microevolution.
Speciation and the origin of the higher taxonomic ranks (although we
tend to avoid adhering strictly to the Linnean ranks because we know
of so many branching points in any one lineage) is and always will be
a major part of the subject. The foundation of "genetic change within
a population" provides the foundation to put our understanding of
macroevolution on a firm foundation.

John Harshman rightly points out that many biologists think that
macroevolution involves some newer concepts -- species sorting for
example. Some argue that periodic ecological and geological
catastrophes play a major role in establishing the major groups we see
today. Still, the individual organisms go on mating and reproducing
and the gene pools of each population go on changing. That is a
constant, a given. It cannot be ignored or dismissed.

[Ray Martinez]

I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst Mayr, may I remind, said no.

My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes cannot be evolutionary.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:15:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/7/16 2:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
> > and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran.
>
> Are you unable to compose a single sentence without attaching an
> adjective or adverb intended to demonstrate to readers what they should
> think about the described item?

You know damn well the answer is "No," and by asking this question
you are pandering to the worst elements in talk.origins.

You are also seriously underestimating the independent-mindedness
of the talk.origins participants. They are perfectly capable of reading
what Moran wrote and telling me that they disagree about him
having been aggressive and/or illogical.

So why didn't you do that when you had Moran's words right there
in front of you, in my second post to this thread? Why do you
bellyache about my choice of words instead of trying to refute them?

> > After quoting
> > a very good definition by Futuyma,
>
> That definition, in its entirety, is "change in the properties of
> populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single
> individual",

I agree that this was the only definition that was explicitly made
to read like a definition; but there is a far better implicit definition
near the end of the Futuyma quote, which I quoted in my reply to your other, earlier post.

On the other hand, you have seen many times a "definition" which
actually was three successive and very different definitions,
from one of the most successful texts of biology for beginning
bio majors:


evolution: Descent with modification; the idea that living
species are descendants of ancestral species that were
different from present-day ones; also defined more
narrowly as the change in the genetic composition
of a population from generation to generation.
-- Campbell, Reece et.al., _Biology_ 8th ed.,
Pearson Education, 2008 Glossary at end of book, p. G-14

On the thread where I first posted this, you could not see any
difference between the first and third definitions:

Descent with modification;

vs.
the change in the genetic composition
of a population from generation to generation.

Can you see one now?

<snip of things to be dealt with in separate reply>

> > That "but" clause goes beyond Moran's favorite definition --
> > but so would any clause that says just the opposite. Hence
> > the title of this thread.
>
> No surprise here. Some creationists allow for a limited amount of
> evolution. So? You present no alternative definition here that no
> creationist would accept.

I already did on that other thread, see above. Why don't you
show any awareness of that here?

> Put one out and I'll show you what's wrong
> with it.

You tried on that other thread, with spotty and sometimes comical
results. Care to try and do better here?

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer

Univ. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Very good points.

Darwin established the existence of micro-evolution or basic mutability THEN the entire macro-theory became true, or was seen as true, automatically.

I make this point in reference to Alan Kleinman.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

Naive question. If you had bothered to think about what you
quoted from Ray, HIS answer has to depend on whether that allele frequency
change was due to intelligent (usually divine) design or whether it was due
to blind, undirected causes.

By including "evolution, if it's defined as" you are clouding
the issue, since Ray seems to use "evolution" a lot of the time
for the blind, undirected changes. See the very words you
quote from him above.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer

U. of South Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

Believe it or not, Ray, I posted my reply to Harshman before I
saw this reply of yours. It's nice to have this little confirmation
that I am far better at reading comprehension than he is.

The BIG confirmations are elsewhere, including some on this very
thread. But even bigger ones are Harshman's persistent
reading of "a population" as though it were "populations" in the thread
where I first realized what a crying need it was for me to start a thread
like this one.

Anyway, I'm glad you are here and are confirming that the
definition of "evolution" used by Moran, Harshman and Norman
[not to be confused with YOUR definition] is quite acceptable
to you. It is fully compatible with divine guidance of changes
within populations.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics

Univ. of S. Carolina

[John Harshman]

Your constant need to build yourself up by tearing others down is sad.

> The BIG confirmations are elsewhere, including some on this very
> thread. But even bigger ones are Harshman's persistent
> reading of "a population" as though it were "populations" in the thread
> where I first realized what a crying need it was for me to start a thread
> like this one.
>
> Anyway, I'm glad you are here and are confirming that the
> definition of "evolution" used by Moran, Harshman and Norman
> [not to be confused with YOUR definition] is quite acceptable
> to you. It is fully compatible with divine guidance of changes
> within populations.

Agreed. Ray's objection is not to the definition, but to the word it
defines.

[John Harshman]

On 9/7/16 5:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:15:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/7/16 2:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
>>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran.
>>
>> Are you unable to compose a single sentence without attaching an
>> adjective or adverb intended to demonstrate to readers what they should
>> think about the described item?
>
> You know damn well the answer is "No," and by asking this question
> you are pandering to the worst elements in talk.origins.
>
> You are also seriously underestimating the independent-mindedness
> of the talk.origins participants. They are perfectly capable of reading
> what Moran wrote and telling me that they disagree about him
> having been aggressive and/or illogical.
>
> So why didn't you do that when you had Moran's words right there
> in front of you, in my second post to this thread? Why do you
> bellyache about my choice of words instead of trying to refute them?

I merely attempt to point out one of your bad habits so that you may
notice it and try to correct it. If people are able to decide for
themselves whether Larry is illogical, there's no need for you to point
it out every time you mention it. And the same for all your other
countless characterizations.

>>> After quoting
>>> a very good definition by Futuyma,
>>
>> That definition, in its entirety, is "change in the properties of
>> populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single
>> individual",
>
> I agree that this was the only definition that was explicitly made
> to read like a definition; but there is a far better implicit definition
> near the end of the Futuyma quote, which I quoted in my reply to your other, earlier post.

I deny that it was a definition, implicit or otherwise.

> On the other hand, you have seen many times a "definition" which
> actually was three successive and very different definitions,
> from one of the most successful texts of biology for beginning
> bio majors:
>
>
> evolution: Descent with modification; the idea that living
> species are descendants of ancestral species that were
> different from present-day ones; also defined more
> narrowly as the change in the genetic composition
> of a population from generation to generation.
> -- Campbell, Reece et.al., _Biology_ 8th ed.,
> Pearson Education, 2008 Glossary at end of book, p. G-14

The first and third are more or less identical. The second is not a good
definition for a number of reasons, first among them that it doesn't
allow for evolution that doesn't result in speciation.

> On the thread where I first posted this, you could not see any
> difference between the first and third definitions:
>
> Descent with modification;
>
> vs.
> the change in the genetic composition
> of a population from generation to generation.
>
> Can you see one now?

No. Perhaps you can explain what the difference is.

> <snip of things to be dealt with in separate reply>
>
>
>>> That "but" clause goes beyond Moran's favorite definition --
>>> but so would any clause that says just the opposite. Hence
>>> the title of this thread.
>>
>> No surprise here. Some creationists allow for a limited amount of
>> evolution. So? You present no alternative definition here that no
>> creationist would accept.
>
> I already did on that other thread, see above. Why don't you
> show any awareness of that here?

Which definition are you referring to? "The idea that living species are

descendants of ancestral species that were different from present-day

ones"? A great many, perhaps most, creationists would accept that too.
They just would limit evolution to within-family or thereabouts.

>> Put one out and I'll show you what's wrong
>> with it.
>
> You tried on that other thread, with spotty and sometimes comical
> results. Care to try and do better here?

There you are again with the adjectives. First you need to make clear
what definition you are putting out.

[Ray Martinez]

I believe this is the first tangle you've had with John since coming back from your sabbatical. Since both of you are Atheists, I don't see why things have to be so adversarial?

>
> The BIG confirmations are elsewhere, including some on this very
> thread. But even bigger ones are Harshman's persistent
> reading of "a population" as though it were "populations" in the thread
> where I first realized what a crying need it was for me to start a thread
> like this one.
>
> Anyway, I'm glad you are here and are confirming that the
> definition of "evolution" used by Moran, Harshman and Norman
> [not to be confused with YOUR definition] is quite acceptable
> to you. It is fully compatible with divine guidance of changes
> within populations.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor of Mathematics
> Univ. of S. Carolina

You just bragged how your reading comprehension skills were superior, yet you failed to notice that I said changes accomplished by a Divine or supernatural agent cannot be evolutionary.

Ray

[John Harshman]

He said no such thing. You are confused. Go ahead, trot out the quote
and I'll explain why it doesn't mean that his answer to my question, as
asked, would be "no".

> My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized
> complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are
> designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes
> cannot be evolutionary.

The fact that there are changes is good enough. No need to go into
causation. It appears that Pete was right about this point.

[Ray Martinez]

Clarification:

Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.

I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.

Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Thanks. I conclude that you don't like the definition I present above,
because it fails to mention that evolution must be due to natural
causes, and that divine causation of allele frequency changes must never
be called evolution. Right?

[Ray Martinez]

"What Evolution Is" (2001)

"Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations,
with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies'" (p.xiv).

>
> > My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized
> > complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are
> > designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes
> > cannot be evolutionary.
>
> The fact that there are changes is good enough. No need to go into
> causation. It appears that Pete was right about this point.

You could not be anymore wrong: existence of change is not at issue. At issue is cause. If by an undirected agent then change is evolutionary. If by a directed agent then change is designed. Note the fact that both explanations are mutually exclusive.

Since you accept mutual exclusivity, I invoke your view as refuting your view here.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Your definition assumes or presupposes unguided causation, as does any definition produced by a Darwinist. And I'm not sure what the issue between you and Peter is here. I'm, as you observed, somewhat confused, answering questions blindly, but truthfully, of course.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/7/16 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

In my first reply to this post of yours, Harshman, I made a snip which
I had inadvertently left unmarked. I now address the snipped text
below.

But first, I am repeating the quote by Moran. You, Harshman, evidently
did not bother to read it carefully, as you will see.

> > The real problem is that the public, and creationists,
> > do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's
> > definition of evolution was very different from the common
> > scientific definition and as a consequence he was
> > unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant.
> > This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe"
> > in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that
> > evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes
> > in a population spread over many generations" it seems a
> > little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!
> >
> > To say the least: if evolution were simply the thing in quotes,
> > it would be silly to pretend that this excludes even such an
> > extreme creationist as Ray Martinez claims to be.
>
> It's really silly to lay all this on the definition of evolution.

You didn't seem to believe that I was being serious here, John,
when I agreed that it WAS silly of Moran to lay all that he did
on the definition. It never occurred to me that you could be
so blindly loyal to Moran that you could not see that he is doing
just that.

The only difference between his treatment and mine is that I
modified his conclusions from that definition by substituting
"creationism" for "religion." So, to give you the benefit of the
doubt, I am assuming that your loyalty to Moran kept you from
reading what he wrote with the same critical eye that you displayed
towards what I wrote.

And now, here is the part I snipped with full intent to reply
to it in a separate post -- this one.

> Many
> creationists claim not to reject evolution (though they strangely tend
> to object to any real examples, even checkered moths).

Nothing strange about it: some of the savvy ones wrote about some of
the finagling [e.g. taping down the specimens so that they couldn't
escape the birds that swooped down on them] that went into making that
example seem more impressive than it actually was.

I'd like to see you give even one example where variation/change within
a population was claimed to be "intolerably evolutionist" or
words to that effect.

Note that Ray has no objection IF that variation/change was divinely
guided. Only when someone claims that it was due to blind
undirected causes, will he get his hackles up.

Most importantly, note that Larry Moran's words make no reference
to just what causes the variation/changes:

"a process that results in heritable changes
in a population spread over many generations"

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics

The original USC, Columbia, SC

[John Harshman]

Right. That was a disagreement with the definition. It wasn't, given the
definition, a statement that allele frequencies do not change, which is
what "no" would have meant.

>>> My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized
>>> complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are
>>> designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes
>>> cannot be evolutionary.
>>
>> The fact that there are changes is good enough. No need to go into
>> causation. It appears that Pete was right about this point.
>
> You could not be anymore wrong: existence of change is not at issue.
> At issue is cause. If by an undirected agent then change is
> evolutionary. If by a directed agent then change is designed. Note
> the fact that both explanations are mutually exclusive.

> Since you accept mutual exclusivity, I invoke your view as refuting
> your view here.

That's nice. Bye.

[John Harshman]

How do you know that?

> And I'm not sure what the issue between you and Peter is here. I'm, as you observed, somewhat
> confused, answering questions blindly, but truthfully, of course.

Believe me, everyone already knows you're confused.

[John Harshman]

Yes, I thought you were saying something like "I know you are but what
am I?" What I meant by "all this" is not what you mean.

> The only difference between his treatment and mine is that I
> modified his conclusions from that definition by substituting
> "creationism" for "religion." So, to give you the benefit of the
> doubt, I am assuming that your loyalty to Moran kept you from
> reading what he wrote with the same critical eye that you displayed
> towards what I wrote.

Nope. You persist in making everything about cliques and in-groups,
loyalty and conspiracy.

> And now, here is the part I snipped with full intent to reply
> to it in a separate post -- this one.
>
>> Many
>> creationists claim not to reject evolution (though they strangely tend
>> to object to any real examples, even checkered moths).
>
> Nothing strange about it: some of the savvy ones wrote about some of
> the finagling [e.g. taping down the specimens so that they couldn't
> escape the birds that swooped down on them] that went into making that
> example seem more impressive than it actually was.

You are once more strangely credulous about creationist claims.

> I'd like to see you give even one example where variation/change within
> a population was claimed to be "intolerably evolutionist" or
> words to that effect.

No, that doesn't happen. What happen is that many creationists find
reasons (as you do above) to reject pretty much every example of natural
selection. There really is nothing wrong with the peppered moth data,
whatever you may have heard.

> Note that Ray has no objection IF that variation/change was divinely
> guided. Only when someone claims that it was due to blind
> undirected causes, will he get his hackles up.

Actually, Ray doesn't accept that definition precisely because he
imagines that there is blind, undirected causation hidden within it
somehow. Ray objects to the word "evolution" being attached to any real
phenomenon, because he believes that the word intrinsically and
unavoidably means blind, undirected change.

> Most importantly, note that Larry Moran's words make no reference
> to just what causes the variation/changes:
>
> "a process that results in heritable changes
> in a population spread over many generations"

Why is that important? It isn't to Ray, because he thinks the reference
is there, between the lines.

[Ray Martinez]

Do you agree one could cite Mayr in support of a claim that says evolution "is not a change in gene frequencies"? If not, why does he specifically mention phenotypes, populations, species?

> >>> My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized
> >>> complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are
> >>> designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes
> >>> cannot be evolutionary.
> >>
> >> The fact that there are changes is good enough. No need to go into
> >> causation. It appears that Pete was right about this point.
> >
> > You could not be anymore wrong: existence of change is not at issue.
> > At issue is cause. If by an undirected agent then change is
> > evolutionary. If by a directed agent then change is designed. Note
> > the fact that both explanations are mutually exclusive.
>
> > Since you accept mutual exclusivity, I invoke your view as refuting
> > your view here.
>
> That's nice. Bye.

Your "reply" indicates much.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

It's a completely valid assumption. Mainstream Evolutionists argue in a context that presupposes natural causation. Most of us here claim an ability to understand complicated scientific, philosophical, and historical arguments found in scholarly journals, but suddenly one of us is unable to comprehend a basic frame of reference?

>
> > And I'm not sure what the issue between you and Peter is here. I'm, as you observed, somewhat
> > confused, answering questions blindly, but truthfully, of course.
>
> Believe me, everyone already knows you're confused.

Again, I'm not sure about the issue of contention between you and Peter in this thread?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

It's overt. Since when does "evolution" mean anything else?

> Ray objects to the word "evolution" being attached to any real
> phenomenon, because he believes that the word intrinsically and
> unavoidably means blind, undirected change.

That's an objective fact of history. If change is un-directed, unguided, or un-intelligent then Darwinism or evolution is being espoused. If change is directed, guided, or intelligent then Creationism is being espoused.

You couldn't produce one scholarly cite in contradiction, not even one. In fact, like I already observed, based on your acceptance of causation mutual exclusivity, I could cite you in support.

>
> > Most importantly, note that Larry Moran's words make no reference
> > to just what causes the variation/changes:
> >
> > "a process that results in heritable changes
> > in a population spread over many generations"
>
> Why is that important? It isn't to Ray, because he thinks the reference
> is there, between the lines.

Answered in all previous replies.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Yes, of course I agree. That's just what he said. But that has nothing
to do with the question, as I have already explained. The question
posits a particular definition, and it's irrelevant to the answer
whether you or Mayr agree or not that the definition is a good one.

[John Harshman]

That's what I love about you Ray. You don't let the meanings of words
get in your way. Words like "definition", for example.

>> Ray objects to the word "evolution" being attached to any real
>> phenomenon, because he believes that the word intrinsically and
>> unavoidably means blind, undirected change.
>
> That's an objective fact of history. If change is un-directed,
> unguided, or un-intelligent then Darwinism or evolution is being
> espoused. If change is directed, guided, or intelligent then
> Creationism is being espoused.

> You couldn't produce one scholarly cite in contradiction, not even
> one. In fact, like I already observed, based on your acceptance of
> causation mutual exclusivity, I could cite you in support.

You can do anything you like, and you will anyway. The facts are another
thing you won't let get in your way.

>>> Most importantly, note that Larry Moran's words make no reference
>>> to just what causes the variation/changes:
>>>
>>> "a process that results in heritable changes
>>> in a population spread over many generations"
>>
>> Why is that important? It isn't to Ray, because he thinks the reference
>> is there, between the lines.
>
> Answered in all previous replies.

I wasn't actually asking you, if you will note.

[John Harshman]

So, to summarize: you know because it's like, just obvious, you know?

>>> And I'm not sure what the issue between you and Peter is here. I'm, as you observed, somewhat
>>> confused, answering questions blindly, but truthfully, of course.
>>
>> Believe me, everyone already knows you're confused.
>
> Again, I'm not sure about the issue of contention between you and Peter in this thread?

You also aren't sure about when question marks or periods are
appropriate. Don't worry. You have contributed your bit to the degree
necessary, and are now free to pursue other opportunities.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> >> On 9/7/16 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
> >>>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
> >>>> a very good definition by Futuyma,
> >

> > I was using the word "definition" loosely, thinking that it encompasses
> > various *meanings*, like the Merriam-Webster way of defining "definition"
> > by listing multiple meanings.
>
> > Unfortunately, none of the meanings it gives
> > for "definition" allow for that dictionary entry being called "a"
> > definition. Rather, it is a listing of several definitions for the
> > word "definition."
>
> Why is that unfortunate? The same word can have multiple meanings, which
> call for multiple definitions.

You aren't referring to the part I labeled "Unfortunately," but to
the sentence that follows it. The point is that I would like it if
"definition" were to encompass all the meanings of a word. As it
is, "definition" and "meaning" are just two different words for
the same concept.

> > Anyway, below I single out something Futuyma writes and think it
> > could be worked into a definition that really does justice to the
> > word "evolution."
>
> Go for it. I'll be happy to critique your attempt.

>
> >>>> Moran takes out one
> >>>> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
> >>>> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
> >>>>
> >>>> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> >>>> in a population spread over many generations.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
> >>>>
> >>>> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
> >>>> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
> >>>> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
> >>>> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
> >>>> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
> >>>

> >>> Actually "most" was an understatement. I can't think of any
> >>> creationist who wouldn't be comfortable with it, once
> >>> the concept of "a population" is explained to him.
> >>
> >> Not that I care, but how about Ray?
> >
> > Why didn't you scroll back up and delete this question after seeing the
> > answer below?
>
> I think you're wrong. It does indeed exclude Ray.

I think you are finding out otherwise.

<snip of something I dealt with in reply to another post here>

> > But why do you say "the" definition? I think Futuyma was on
> > the right track towards a fine definition when he wrote:
> >
> > Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
> > everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
> > within a population (such as those determining blood types)
> > to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
> > protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
>
> That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
> you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
> would merely introduce pointless verbiage.

You think wrong. Here is my first attempt:

All heritable changes that have taken place in the biota,
and any subset thereof.

Note that it talks about biological evolution that takes place
in the real world, and not about the theory
that tries to explain its mechanisms, nor about computer
simulations of population genetics.

Note that it doesn't say "the biota of earth." I briefly
toyed with "the biota of a planet" but that would exclude
the possibility of biological evolution on non-planets, like the
moon Europa of Jupiter.


> >> I see no problem
> >> with this. It isn't the definition that needs to be changed. It's your
> >> idea of where the disagreement between science and creationism lies.
> >
> > No, it's Moran's idea that needs changing. I know exactly where
> > the difference lies, and you are supporting something that I've
> > been harping on myself:
> >
> >> It isn't in the definition, it's in the history of life. That history
> >> involves evolution, more than they're willing to allow.
> >
> > What on earth made you think I don't endorse this to the hilt?
>
> Your claim that it's the definition of evolution that leaves out
> explicit reference to the long history of life that's a problem, for
> that reason.

If you think this supports your claim that I don't know where the
disagreement lies, there is something seriously wrong with your
reasoning ability.

> >> The definition
> >> is irrelevant.
> >
> > Tell that to Moran, who thought it highly relevant (see excerpt above).
> > He respects you enough to make changes in that FAQ if you approach him the
> > right way. Or does he?
>
> I don't see how the quote from Larry supports anything you claim

Name something I claim about it that it doesn't support. You aren't
holding out for explicit agreement with what I say about it, are you?

> or disagrees that the definition is irrelevant to our disagreement with
> creationists.

That's only because he used the word "religion" instead of "creationism",
isn't it?

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[quoting Futuyma:]

> > > Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
> > > everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
> > > within a population (such as those determining blood types)
> > > to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
> > > protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
> >
> > That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
> > you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
> > would merely introduce pointless verbiage.
>
> You think wrong. Here is my first attempt:
>
> All heritable changes that have taken place in the biota,
> and any subset thereof.

Oops. Amend that to "All heritable changes that have taken place,
are taking place, and will take place in the biota, and any subset thereof."

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/7/16 6:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 9/7/16 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> > >>>> Glad you're here, Ray. Could you clarify whether you believe evolution,
> > >>>> if it's defined as "allele frequency change in populations", actually
> > >>>> happens in the world?
> > >>>
> > >>> Clarification:
> > >>>
> > >>> Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.

Earlier, Ray, you did a great job of answering the question as
stated, taking full account of the "if" clause and not letting
the mere mention of the word "evolution" confuse you.

Here, you are letting the fact that Harshman is an atheist
confuse you into making an assumption that goes beyond the
actual words that he wrote.

> > >>> I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.
> > >>>
> > >>> Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both.

The issue is: either designed, or undesigned. Earlier, you
realized that changes in allele frequencies could be designed.
Don't lose sight of that realization.

> > >> Thanks. I conclude that you don't like the definition I present above,
> > >> because it fails to mention that evolution must be due to natural
> > >> causes, and that divine causation of allele frequency changes must never
> > >> be called evolution. Right?
> > >
> > > Your definition assumes or presupposes unguided causation, as does
> > > any definition produced by a Darwinist.
> >
> > How do you know that?
>
> It's a completely valid assumption.

If Gene Scott had written the same exact words, would you have
made the same claim? Don't get hung up on the source of the
definition.

> Mainstream Evolutionists argue in a context that presupposes natural causation.

That depends on how you define "Mainstream Evolutionist." Unlike
militant atheists (Harshman, Norman, etc.) I am open to the
possibility of supernatural design, especially of the physical
laws that hold in our universe.

> Most of us here claim an ability to understand complicated scientific, philosophical, and historical arguments found in scholarly journals, but suddenly one of us is unable to comprehend a basic frame of reference?

I comprehend it but I also am able to look at questions *as* *stated*
without worrying about the militant atheism of the person stating it.

> > > And I'm not sure what the issue between you and Peter is here.

The issues go deep into that earlier thread. Since you haven't
participated there lately, I won't go into them, but you can
see lots of issues right here on this thread.

> > > I'm, as you observed, somewhat
> > > confused, answering questions blindly, but truthfully, of course.
> >
> > Believe me, everyone already knows you're confused.

You became confused when you amended your earlier perspicacious answer,
for which I commended you.

> Again, I'm not sure about the issue of contention between you and Peter in this thread?

Harshman and I have a peculiar love-hate relationship that goes all the
way back to a day after I resumed posting in talk.origins in December
of 2010. The "hate" element on John's side surfaced on that day,
mine only began over a month later, IIRC.

On my side it has nothing to do with scientific issues, and everything
to do with Harshman's unscrupulous nature. I'm not sure what it is
on his side -- it could be a mixture of paranoid suspicions that I
am a closet creationist, and resentment over how I keep catching
him behaving irresponsibly.

The "love" element is most evident in sci.bio.paleontology.
We keep giving each other interesting information about
life on earth. That is also true here to a lesser extent.
Plus, each of us is the person most likely to
stick with issues in an effort to resolve them with the other one.
John was even saying in the middle of last month that he didn't
have much to talk about here lately; that has changed tremendously.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 9/8/16 5:19 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/16 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
>>>>>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
>>>>>> a very good definition by Futuyma,
>>>
>>> I was using the word "definition" loosely, thinking that it encompasses
>>> various *meanings*, like the Merriam-Webster way of defining "definition"
>>> by listing multiple meanings.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, none of the meanings it gives
>>> for "definition" allow for that dictionary entry being called "a"
>>> definition. Rather, it is a listing of several definitions for the
>>> word "definition."
>>
>> Why is that unfortunate? The same word can have multiple meanings, which
>> call for multiple definitions.
>
> You aren't referring to the part I labeled "Unfortunately," but to
> the sentence that follows it. The point is that I would like it if
> "definition" were to encompass all the meanings of a word. As it
> is, "definition" and "meaning" are just two different words for
> the same concept.

So you wish that the word "definition" meant something other than what
it does. What's unfortunate is that you have that wish, not that words
have restricted, agreed meanings.

>>> Anyway, below I single out something Futuyma writes and think it
>>> could be worked into a definition that really does justice to the
>>> word "evolution."
>>
>> Go for it. I'll be happy to critique your attempt.
>>
>>>>>> Moran takes out one
>>>>>> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
>>>>>> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
>>>>>> in a population spread over many generations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
>>>>>> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
>>>>>> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
>>>>>> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
>>>>>> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually "most" was an understatement. I can't think of any
>>>>> creationist who wouldn't be comfortable with it, once
>>>>> the concept of "a population" is explained to him.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I care, but how about Ray?
>>>
>>> Why didn't you scroll back up and delete this question after seeing the
>>> answer below?
>>
>> I think you're wrong. It does indeed exclude Ray.
>
> I think you are finding out otherwise.

It's more complicated than that. Ray does agree that there are allele
frequency changes in populations. But he also isn't comfortable with
that definition of evolution, for what are apparently reasons of
word-magic. He thinks the word "evolution" is inextricably attached to
atheism, so every definition must also be so attached. There is no
definition of evolution under which Ray would be willing to say
"evolution happens".

>>> But why do you say "the" definition? I think Futuyma was on
>>> the right track towards a fine definition when he wrote:
>>>
>>> Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
>>> everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
>>> within a population (such as those determining blood types)
>>> to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
>>> protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
>>
>> That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
>> you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
>> would merely introduce pointless verbiage.
>
> You think wrong. Here is my first attempt:

[I have replaced it with your second attempt]

> All heritable changes that have taken place, are taking place, and

> will take place in the biota, and any subset thereof.

Urk. That's the sort of thing a mathematician or a lawyer might say, but
it's hideous and clumsy. First, heritable changes don't take place in
"the biota"; they take place in populations. Do you have a
counterexample? Second, it isn't necessary to add the past, present, and
future; without qualification, it would be assumed to apply universally.
Third, it doesn't even achieve what you want, which is to talk
explicitly about the big changes that have happened over hundreds of
millions of years, i.e. what creationists don't like. A creationist who
accepted the standard definition would find nothing problematic about
accepting this definition.

> Note that it talks about biological evolution that takes place
> in the real world, and not about the theory
> that tries to explain its mechanisms, nor about computer
> simulations of population genetics.

Note that the definition you want to replace does the same.

> Note that it doesn't say "the biota of earth." I briefly
> toyed with "the biota of a planet" but that would exclude
> the possibility of biological evolution on non-planets, like the
> moon Europa of Jupiter.

Note that the definition you want to replace does the same.

>>>> I see no problem
>>>> with this. It isn't the definition that needs to be changed. It's your
>>>> idea of where the disagreement between science and creationism lies.
>>>
>>> No, it's Moran's idea that needs changing. I know exactly where
>>> the difference lies, and you are supporting something that I've
>>> been harping on myself:
>>>
>>>> It isn't in the definition, it's in the history of life. That history
>>>> involves evolution, more than they're willing to allow.
>>>
>>> What on earth made you think I don't endorse this to the hilt?
>>
>> Your claim that it's the definition of evolution that leaves out
>> explicit reference to the long history of life that's a problem, for
>> that reason.
>
> If you think this supports your claim that I don't know where the
> disagreement lies, there is something seriously wrong with your
> reasoning ability.

Then why are you complaining about the definition of evolution being
creationism-friendly, if that isn't the problem? Shouldn't you stop
complaining?

>>>> The definition
>>>> is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Tell that to Moran, who thought it highly relevant (see excerpt above).
>>> He respects you enough to make changes in that FAQ if you approach him the
>>> right way. Or does he?
>>
>> I don't see how the quote from Larry supports anything you claim
>
> Name something I claim about it that it doesn't support. You aren't
> holding out for explicit agreement with what I say about it, are you?

You claim that the definition of evolution is problematic because
creationists might accept it. Larry claims that creationists should have
no problem with it, not that they do accept it (which, in the main, they
don't), and he never says that creationists accepting the definition of
evolution would be a bad thing.

>> or disagrees that the definition is irrelevant to our disagreement with
>> creationists.
>
> That's only because he used the word "religion" instead of "creationism",
> isn't it?

No.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-4, RSNorman wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:11:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
> >and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting

> >a very good definition by Futuyma, Moran takes out one

> >little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
> >he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
> >
> > Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> > in a population spread over many generations.
> >
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
> >
> >If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
> >creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
> >The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
> >broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
> >are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.

> >Here is what a very influential creationist wrote about that:
> >
> > There is a tremendous amount of variational potential
> > within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct
> > individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but
> > nevertheless precluding the evolution of new *kinds!*
> > -- Henry M. Morris, _The Genesis Record_, Baker Book House,
> > Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 63-64
> >
> >That "but" clause goes beyond Moran's favorite definition --
> >but so would any clause that says just the opposite. Hence
> >the title of this thread.
> >
>

> Somehow in the years since the 1940's-1950's when the population
> genetics emphasis was introduced into the theory of evolution,
> creationists have had little problem still objecting to the theory.

Is there any other reason besides the one Ray gave to John (that
the theory supposedly banishes God from having any influence on
life as we know it)?

> So many creationists accept microevolution -- change within a species?
> So what? That still is an important part of biological evolution.

Too bad the definition, which you mistakenly claim to be the one
held by biologists, confines evolution to taking place within
populations, not even within the broader context of species.

> Creationists accept that the mammalian heart has four chambers.

And Darwin knew about changes in traits; he just didn't have
the biochemical knowledge to identify the cause of them to be "alleles".

And the way Moran defined it, it didn't even mention "alleles":

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in
a population spread over many generations.

Vintage 1859, this definition, except that I'm not sure
Darwin would have said "a population"; he probably would have used a
broader category.

So much for your red herring on the other thread, confusing this
issue with the whole modern evolutionary synthesis!

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later. Duty calls.

Peter Nyikos

[rsNorman]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:

I find this whole discussion exceptionally bizarre. It is mind
boggling to think that you would consult a creationist to decide
how best to define a scientific concept in the field of biology.
But then I seem to be easily boggled.

Now you say that the whole issue of defining evolution should be
separated from the developments in the field of evolutionary
biology in the past 75 years. More boggle.

You say Darwin knew about traits but not about alleles. It is
worse than that. Darwin knew about phenotypes but not about
genotypes. Yet Darwin knew that it was only hereditary changes
in traits that were important. Heredity, something passed on
from generation to generation, is the heart of evolution. The
"modern" definition now ancient puts the theory of evolution on a
sound scientific basis. How do you quantify "change"? How do
you even know what constitutes real change? That this bump on a
bone looks different? The 'modern synthesis' is specifically the
integration of Darwin's ideas with the discoveries of cell
biology and genetics. And the discovery of the genome only
firmly cemented the notion that evolution was inextricably tied
to changes in the genome. Biology as taught in introductory
courses in the 1950's and even into the 1960's did not reflect
those ideas. Biology as practiced in the 1930's and even into
the 1940's did not reflect those ideas. We are now in the
2010's. Things have changed.

The word "allele" is not absolutely necessary. If you say
"change in the inheritance characters" then everyone should
immediately ask "what are those characters". Oh, the genes which
are the basis of inheritance. What do you mean by "change in
genes". Well, one gene is replaced by another rather similar
but of slightly different form. Why not simply admit that it is
necessarily alleles we are talking about. The more common
"standard" definition is "change in the genetic composition".
OK, changes in the genome outside the classical "genes" might not
technically be allele changes. That, I don't think, is the
problem you are worrying about. It is rather the emphasis on
changes to the genome within a population.

And your fussing about the word "population" is simply wrong.
Every individual in the biome belongs to a population. The
definition is not restricted to one population even though the
fundamental changes necessarily happen within a population. Each
and every evolutionary change (in the sense you like to talk
about) is merely the ensemble of genetic changes to each
population where change is detected. The process of sexual
reproduction means that multiple individuals must be considered
in looking at heredity. It is essential to consider separately
geographically isolated populations of a single species because
differential changes between these isolated populations are a
primary source of origin of new species -- allopathic speciation.
Ultimately enough change can happen, each change within one
population, so the two populations are very distinct and have
just the kind of "evolutionary change" that you think is the key.
But, again, that change is simply the result of change in the
genetic composition of populations. Each population has evolved
in the "standard" biologic sense. The ensemble of populations
then exhibits the evolution in the sense you like to talk
about.


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/8/16 5:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [quoting Futuyma:]
>>>> Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
>>>> everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
>>>> within a population (such as those determining blood types)
>>>> to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
>>>> protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
>>>
>>> That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
>>> you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
>>> would merely introduce pointless verbiage.
>>
>> You think wrong. Here is my first attempt:
>>
>> All heritable changes that have taken place in the biota,
>> and any subset thereof.
>
> Oops. Amend that to "All heritable changes that have taken place,
> are taking place, and will take place in the biota, and any subset thereof."

Does that include cultural changes? After all, things such as a
family's net worth and whether they speak Yiddish are heritable.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Ray Martinez]

Since you agree, as seen in your first sentence, then you're also obliged to agree that Mayr thinks the definition is bad. Mayr demanded evolution be defined morphologically. But the preceding is irrelevant. What's relevant or under consideration is "a particular definition" which I think is a valid definition among several others (including mine). After all many genetic changes could occur that have no effect on morphological change, and without morphological change evolution has not occurred.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/8/16 5:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > [quoting Futuyma:]
> >>>> Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
> >>>> everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
> >>>> within a population (such as those determining blood types)
> >>>> to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
> >>>> protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
> >>>
> >>> That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
> >>> you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
> >>> would merely introduce pointless verbiage.
> >>
> >> You think wrong. Here is my first attempt:
> >>
> >> All heritable changes that have taken place in the biota,
> >> and any subset thereof.
> >
> > Oops. Amend that to "All heritable changes that have taken place,
> > are taking place, and will take place in the biota, and any subset thereof."
>
> Does that include cultural changes? After all, things such as a
> family's net worth and whether they speak Yiddish are heritable.

"biota" implicitly speaks of biological changes. It's actually
better than what goes on in the definition that Moran adopted:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
in a population spread over many generations.

The word "population" does not give away its biological definition.
You have to get it from context of wherever the definition is quoted.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina

[Ray Martinez]

You didn't answer my question. The remainder of your reply, if one could call it that, is an air ball.

The word being defined is "evolution." Whatever the definition the content must presuppose natural agency because evolution has never been accepted by science as anything other than non-supernatural or undirected. And the author or authors of the allele change definition were Darwinists who rejected the concept of design existing in nature. You, undoubtedly, would reject any teleological usage of the allele change definition. So you can't have it both ways. You now have no valid reason to reject any observation or argument that says the definition under consideration does, in fact, presuppose undirected agency.

> >> Ray objects to the word "evolution" being attached to any real
> >> phenomenon, because he believes that the word intrinsically and
> >> unavoidably means blind, undirected change.
> >
> > That's an objective fact of history. If change is un-directed,
> > unguided, or un-intelligent then Darwinism or evolution is being
> > espoused. If change is directed, guided, or intelligent then
> > Creationism is being espoused.
>
> > You couldn't produce one scholarly cite in contradiction, not even
> > one. In fact, like I already observed, based on your acceptance of
> > causation mutual exclusivity, I could cite you in support.
>
> You can do anything you like, and you will anyway. The facts are another
> thing you won't let get in your way.

Blatant evasion; we all know what that means.

>
> >>> Most importantly, note that Larry Moran's words make no reference
> >>> to just what causes the variation/changes:
> >>>
> >>> "a process that results in heritable changes
> >>> in a population spread over many generations"
> >>
> >> Why is that important? It isn't to Ray, because he thinks the reference
> >> is there, between the lines.
> >
> > Answered in all previous replies.
>
> I wasn't actually asking you, if you will note.

Ray

[rsNorman]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:

> You have to get it from context of wherever the definition is quoted.

As long as we are picking on details of definitions instead of
whether the genetic definition is really what biologists mean
when talking about the theory of evolution...

The word "population" used in the context of defining biological
evolution is used in context as a technical word. I explained
long ago that defining that is part of the job.


Also part of the job is defining what is meant by "genetic
composition" or even "heritable". You failed to comment on the
one point that Mark made: "heritable" can mean culturally
heritable. Your mention of "biota" completely fails to give away
its biological context. Humans are part of the biota and have
cultural inheritance. There are other animals who also transmit
important biological information outside the genome: bird song
in some species for example. Once you have "biological
inheritance" you automatically refer to the genome, the heritable
factor transmitted from generation to generation. So once we
learned about molecular biology, "heritable changes" are
necessarily "changes in the genetic compositon".

Your definition also suffers from the serious problem that it
means that a mutation in the germ cell line of any one individual
counts as evolution. It is evolution even if that individual
immediately dies without any offspring. A heritable change did
occur in the biota. Ergo: evolution!

I could also quibble about that "have taken place, are taking
place, and will take place." What else is there? That is just
silly. You define evolution as a heritable change in some one or
more living organism. That in no way encompasses that
magnificent tree of life you think to be so important, does
it?

[John Stockwell]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/7/16 3:30 PM, John Stockwell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-6, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
> >> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
> >> a very good definition by Futuyma, Moran takes out one
> >> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
> >> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
> >>

> >> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> >> in a population spread over many generations.
> >>

> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
> >>
> >> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
> >> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
> >> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
> >> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
> >> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
> >> Here is what a very influential creationist wrote about that:
> >>
> >> There is a tremendous amount of variational potential
> >> within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct
> >> individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but
> >> nevertheless precluding the evolution of new *kinds!*
> >> -- Henry M. Morris, _The Genesis Record_, Baker Book House,
> >> Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 63-64
> >>
> >> That "but" clause goes beyond Moran's favorite definition --
> >> but so would any clause that says just the opposite. Hence
> >> the title of this thread.
> >
> > How about:
> > Origin of species through descent with modification and natural
> > selection.
>
> So it isn't evolution unless it results in speciation?

In a global sense there are species that appear all to be related,
evolution is why. As to ongoing processes, then you need to talk
about specific mutation mechanisms that result in the observed
generational change in allele frequencies.

[John Harshman]

It would be hard to overemphasize the degree to which I do not care.

[christi...@brown.edu]

Peter just wants to declare that he's smarter than Larry Moran, and that he knows evolutionary biology better than he does.

Not only that, but he wants others to agree with him.

Good luck with that.

[John Harshman]

Mayr, being dead, thinks nothing. I will agree that he thought the
definition was bad. But that has nothing to do with how he would have
answered the question. He would have answered "yes", same as you did.

[Ray Martinez]

Based on what I said, yes. You're actually denying your own position and arguing that evolution is not known to be natural when in fact evolution is widely known to be undirected.

>
> >>> And I'm not sure what the issue between you and Peter is here. I'm, as you observed, somewhat
> >>> confused, answering questions blindly, but truthfully, of course.
> >>
> >> Believe me, everyone already knows you're confused.
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure about the issue of contention between you and Peter in this thread?
>
> You also aren't sure about when question marks or periods are
> appropriate. Don't worry. You have contributed your bit to the degree
> necessary, and are now free to pursue other opportunities.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Did you happen to see Peter's preferred definition of evolution? Good
for a snort or two.

[John Harshman]

Certainly true, but that didn't answer the question. If you define
evolution as "origin of species", then anything that isn't origin of
species isn't evolution. I doubt you want that.

> As to ongoing processes, then you need to talk
> about specific mutation mechanisms that result in the observed
> generational change in allele frequencies.

You don't have to talk about processes in a definition of evolution,
just the result of change in allele frequencies.

[Ray Martinez]

Contradiction: Mayr thought the definition was bad and yes/good/happens. It happens but it's not evolution (Mayr).

I'm not a scientist. And scientists say allele change happens. So how could I deny? The only issue: is said change evolutionary? Again, these same scientists say it is. And how do they know?

I know allele change is designed because results are highly organized and complex.

And John has chopped text without indicating.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Then why reply at all?

And once again you've chopped crucial text without indicating.

And you're evading refutation and/or uncomfortable admissions via quitting.

If truth is on your side then you would not have engaged in these types of behavior.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 6:40:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 9/7/16 6:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >> On 9/7/16 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > >>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > > >>>> Glad you're here, Ray. Could you clarify whether you believe evolution,
> > > >>>> if it's defined as "allele frequency change in populations", actually
> > > >>>> happens in the world?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Clarification:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.
>
> Earlier, Ray, you did a great job of answering the question as
> stated, taking full account of the "if" clause and not letting
> the mere mention of the word "evolution" confuse you.
>
> Here, you are letting the fact that Harshman is an atheist
> confuse you into making an assumption that goes beyond the
> actual words that he wrote.
>

Since when is evolution anything other than natural or undirected? Of course my question is rhetorical. John asked a straightforward question and I gave a straightforward answer. To use my answer in service to a different question or issue is invalid or even shady.

> > > >>> I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both.
>
> The issue is: either designed, or undesigned. Earlier, you
> realized that changes in allele frequencies could be designed.
> Don't lose sight of that realization.
>

Never said could.

> > > >> Thanks. I conclude that you don't like the definition I present above,
> > > >> because it fails to mention that evolution must be due to natural
> > > >> causes, and that divine causation of allele frequency changes must never
> > > >> be called evolution. Right?
> > > >
> > > > Your definition assumes or presupposes unguided causation, as does
> > > > any definition produced by a Darwinist.
> > >
> > > How do you know that?
> >
> > It's a completely valid assumption.
>
> If Gene Scott had written the same exact words, would you have
> made the same claim? Don't get hung up on the source of the
> definition.
>

Ridiculous. It matters greatly who wrote the definition. I think even a dunce would agree that an anti-evolution scholar did not produce a definition of evolution that says certain genetic changes are automatically evolutionary. Darwinists, as it has been pointed out very many times, are attempting to define themselves correct.

Would you like a taste of your own medicine?

All evolution scholars agree that organized complexity exists. I define "design" to mean "organized complexity."

>
> > Mainstream Evolutionists argue in a context that presupposes natural causation.
>
> That depends on how you define "Mainstream Evolutionist." Unlike
> militant atheists (Harshman, Norman, etc.) I am open to the
> possibility of supernatural design, especially of the physical
> laws that hold in our universe.
>

Open to the possibility is NOT a positive position. In theory ALL Darwinists claim openness to the possibility (even though we know they are lying).

You, Peter, accept Naturalism interpretive philosophy therefore you're an Atheist. You completely reject the concept of design existing in nature.

> > Most of us here claim an ability to understand complicated scientific, philosophical, and historical arguments found in scholarly journals, but suddenly one of us is unable to comprehend a basic frame of reference?
>
> I comprehend it but I also am able to look at questions *as* *stated*
> without worrying about the militant atheism of the person stating it.
>

I didn't initiate Atheism in any way, shape or form, IN this thread. I simply observed that the word "evolution" has always presupposed natural or undirected causation. So the allele change definition implicitly says invisible Director is not involved.

> > > > And I'm not sure what the issue between you and Peter is here.
>
> The issues go deep into that earlier thread. Since you haven't
> participated there lately, I won't go into them, but you can
> see lots of issues right here on this thread.
>

JH wants me to leave. I've noticed that he hates to talk about causation mutual exclusivity. Yet he himself accepts the fact.

> > > > I'm, as you observed, somewhat
> > > > confused, answering questions blindly, but truthfully, of course.
> > >
> > > Believe me, everyone already knows you're confused.
>
> You became confused when you amended your earlier perspicacious answer,
> for which I commended you.
>
> > Again, I'm not sure about the issue of contention between you and Peter in this thread?
>
> Harshman and I have a peculiar love-hate relationship that goes all the
> way back to a day after I resumed posting in talk.origins in December
> of 2010. The "hate" element on John's side surfaced on that day,
> mine only began over a month later, IIRC.
>
> On my side it has nothing to do with scientific issues, and everything
> to do with Harshman's unscrupulous nature. I'm not sure what it is
> on his side -- it could be a mixture of paranoid suspicions that I
> am a closet creationist, and resentment over how I keep catching
> him behaving irresponsibly.
>
> The "love" element is most evident in sci.bio.paleontology.
> We keep giving each other interesting information about
> life on earth. That is also true here to a lesser extent.
> Plus, each of us is the person most likely to
> stick with issues in an effort to resolve them with the other one.
> John was even saying in the middle of last month that he didn't
> have much to talk about here lately; that has changed tremendously.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Yes, John has been absent lately. You've gotten him to surface. But don't forget his ability to get under the skin? I've been absent lately as well. The group knows why.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

I strongly dislike the fundamentals of memetics and we get into real
convoluted semantic territory when we unleash Dawkins's/Dennett's pet
"theory" beyond the confines of LOLCats where it belongs.

> There are other animals who also transmit
> important biological information outside the genome: bird song
> in some species for example. Once you have "biological
> inheritance" you automatically refer to the genome, the heritable
> factor transmitted from generation to generation. So once we
> learned about molecular biology, "heritable changes" are
> necessarily "changes in the genetic compositon".
>
> Your definition also suffers from the serious problem that it
> means that a mutation in the germ cell line of any one individual
> counts as evolution. It is evolution even if that individual
> immediately dies without any offspring. A heritable change did
> occur in the biota. Ergo: evolution!
>
> I could also quibble about that "have taken place, are taking
> place, and will take place." What else is there? That is just
> silly. You define evolution as a heritable change in some one or
> more living organism. That in no way encompasses that
> magnificent tree of life you think to be so important, does
> it?

There's a semblance of Darwinian processes going on in the vertebrate
immune system, with genetic variants amongst immunocytes being tested
against antigens and being "selected" if they match well, thus surviving
later in "memory" (immunocyte pool?) so to speak. Is *that* evolution?
Better than "memes" since there's a distinguishable there there.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/07/2016 08:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:15:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

>> On 9/7/16 2:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
>>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran.
>>

>> Are you unable to compose a single sentence without attaching an
>> adjective or adverb intended to demonstrate to readers what they should
>> think about the described item?
>
> You know damn well the answer is "No," and by asking this question
> you are pandering to the worst elements in talk.origins.

You rang?

> You are also seriously underestimating the independent-mindedness
> of the talk.origins participants. They are perfectly capable of reading
> what Moran wrote and telling me that they disagree about him
> having been aggressive and/or illogical.

Why would we disagree with Moran about *that*. His article is done well.
The only issue I have where I prefer explicit mention of "allelic
frequency change" over merely "heritable" is that if not strongly
implied by context that heritable means tied to the gene pool or
population genetics, the memeticists might get too optimistic about
their chances with an alleged alternative transmission mode in human
populations. I doubt Larry would intend this, but the textbook
definitions are pretty close to his given in the article you cite.

Moran is a biochemist and textbook author currently writing a book about
junk, that should be called _The Cluttered Genome_. You are a
topologist. I think I will defer to Moran on matters pertinent to
molecular evolutionary process and how a good definition of evolution is
required to reflect alternatives to the adaptionist delusions Mayr was
working under (cite Ray on this thread).

> So why didn't you do that when you had Moran's words right there
> in front of you, in my second post to this thread? Why do you
> bellyache about my choice of words instead of trying to refute them?

>
>>> After quoting
>>> a very good definition by Futuyma,
>>

>> That definition, in its entirety, is "change in the properties of
>> populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single
>> individual",
>
> I agree that this was the only definition that was explicitly made
> to read like a definition; but there is a far better implicit definition
> near the end of the Futuyma quote, which I quoted in my reply to your other, earlier post.
>
> On the other hand, you have seen many times a "definition" which
> actually was three successive and very different definitions,
> from one of the most successful texts of biology for beginning
> bio majors:
>
>
> evolution: Descent with modification; the idea that living
> species are descendants of ancestral species that were
> different from present-day ones; also defined more
> narrowly as the change in the genetic composition
> of a population from generation to generation.
> -- Campbell, Reece et.al., _Biology_ 8th ed.,
> Pearson Education, 2008 Glossary at end of book, p. G-14
>
> On the thread where I first posted this, you could not see any
> difference between the first and third definitions:
>
> Descent with modification;
>
> vs.
> the change in the genetic composition
> of a population from generation to generation.
>
> Can you see one now?
>
> <snip of things to be dealt with in separate reply>

>
>
>>> That "but" clause goes beyond Moran's favorite definition --
>>> but so would any clause that says just the opposite. Hence
>>> the title of this thread.
>>

>> No surprise here. Some creationists allow for a limited amount of
>> evolution. So? You present no alternative definition here that no
>> creationist would accept.
>
> I already did on that other thread, see above. Why don't you
> show any awareness of that here?
>
>> Put one out and I'll show you what's wrong
>> with it.
>
> You tried on that other thread, with spotty and sometimes comical
> results. Care to try and do better here?

>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer

> Univ. of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/08/2016 04:19 PM, christi...@brown.edu wrote:
> Peter just wants to declare that he's smarter than Larry Moran, and that he knows evolutionary biology better than he does.

Peter probably knows much more in his field of set point topology than
Moran. But Moran has made pointed criticisms of ENCODE on his blog, is
currently writing a book (or so he has said) about junk DNA, is a
biochemist and textbook author and has a reputation that precedes him on
this newsgroup for being hardhitting, knowledgeable and detailed. I had
disagreed with him a bit on his take on structuralism (from his blog) in
the past recently on this group, but my respect remains intact.

Will love to read his book when published. Should be a treat.

> Not only that, but he wants others to agree with him.
>
> Good luck with that.

Count me out.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/07/2016 09:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/7/16 5:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

>>>> On 9/7/16 3:30 PM, John Stockwell wrote:

>>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-6, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively

>>>>>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
>>>>>> a very good definition by Futuyma, Moran takes out one
>>>>>> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
>>>>>> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
>>>>>> in a population spread over many generations.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this were all there is to evolution, just about every
>>>>>> creationist in the world would be an "evolutionist."
>>>>>> The Biblical idea of "kind" in Genesis is at least as
>>>>>> broad as the definition of a population, and most creationists
>>>>>> are quite comfortable with the idea of variation IN a population.
>>>>>> Here is what a very influential creationist wrote about that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a tremendous amount of variational potential
>>>>>> within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct
>>>>>> individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but
>>>>>> nevertheless precluding the evolution of new *kinds!*
>>>>>> -- Henry M. Morris, _The Genesis Record_, Baker Book House,
>>>>>> Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 63-64
>>>>>>

>>>>>> That "but" clause goes beyond Moran's favorite definition --
>>>>>> but so would any clause that says just the opposite. Hence
>>>>>> the title of this thread.
>>>>>

>>>>> How about:
>>>>> Origin of species through descent with modification and natural
>>>>> selection.
>>>>
>>>> So it isn't evolution unless it results in speciation?
>>>
>>> As long as any micro-change is accomplished by an unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent cause, it's evolution---ary.
>>>
>>> I could reference Darwin to Dawkins in support.
>>

>> Glad you're here, Ray. Could you clarify whether you believe evolution,
>> if it's defined as "allele frequency change in populations", actually
>> happens in the world?
>
> Clarification:
>
> Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.
>

> I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.
>
> Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both.

So god(s) created the universe 13.7 billion ya and eventually the Earth
4.5 billion ya then put spark of life in abiogenic broth then unveiled
populational allelic frequency changes to yield the diversity we see
now? Then when proper time arrived they eventually ensouled humans as
the chosen species?

Or thousands of years ago your God created all species more or less as
they are now, but admitted imperfection thus needed allelic frequency
changes to continually tweak the results?

So when friendlier wolves chose humans as a source of poo-food and
garbage and eventually coevolved with us as hunters and companions to
the point where humans unconsciously then deliberated shaped the breeds
via selective processes *that* was Godd as a micromanager? He didn't
delegate the domestication of livestock, pets and crop plants to us?

And when humans deliberately change the genetic makeup of populations
using molecular techniques, that's God too?

Ever think maybe a deistic thingy unveiled a coarsely tuned universe and
delegated the rest to natural laws? Humans wound up in a Goldilocks
zone. Thus god's not a micromanager? How can you refute?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Upppp...there he goes again.

[*Hemidactylus*]

When's Moran set to publish his junk book?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Evasion? Oh the irony!

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/07/2016 09:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

>>>> Glad you're here, Ray. Could you clarify whether you believe evolution,
>>>> if it's defined as "allele frequency change in populations", actually
>>>> happens in the world?
>>>

>>> I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst Mayr, may I remind, said no.
>>
>> He said no such thing. You are confused. Go ahead, trot out the quote
>> and I'll explain why it doesn't mean that his answer to my question, as
>> asked, would be "no".
>
> "What Evolution Is" (2001)
>
> "Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations,
> with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies'" (p.xiv).

Mayr's showing his adaptionist biases (or delusions) here. He hated
"bean bag" geneticism because it inevitably takes the wind out of his
adaptationist sails. Thus, Mayr is wrong on definition. Very wrong as he
deliberately minimizes neutral evolution, referring to it as "noise" on
page 199.

BUT Mayr was as hardcore an evolutionist as they have come down the
pike, so your usage of his quibble is nothing more than ironic. Your pal
rehabilitated Haeckel's views on recapitulation admirably as the
"somatic program" as Mayr was tuned into the developments in evo-devo
before his passing. This reflects one of my biases that ontogeny causes
phylogeny (sensu Garstang). But that particular understanding that
development of complex multicellular organisms is important to evolution
does not discount IMO the underwhelming importance of adaption in
molecular evolution. That's where I part ways with Mayr.

>>
>>> My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized
>>> complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are
>>> designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes
>>> cannot be evolutionary.
>>
>> The fact that there are changes is good enough. No need to go into
>> causation. It appears that Pete was right about this point.
>
> You could not be anymore wrong: existence of change is not at issue. At issue is cause. If by an undirected agent then change is evolutionary. If by a directed agent then change is designed. Note the fact that both explanations are mutually exclusive.
>
> Since you accept mutual exclusivity, I invoke your view as refuting your view here.

Depends on what is meant. Deism refutes you as does theistic evolution.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/08/2016 01:44 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/8/16 5:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> [quoting Futuyma:]
>>>>> Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
>>>>> everything from slight changes in the proportion of different
>>>>> alleles
>>>>> within a population (such as those determining blood types)
>>>>> to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
>>>>> protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
>>>> you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
>>>> would merely introduce pointless verbiage.
>>>
>>> You think wrong. Here is my first attempt:
>>>
>>> All heritable changes that have taken place in the biota,
>>> and any subset thereof.
>>
>> Oops. Amend that to "All heritable changes that have taken place,
>> are taking place, and will take place in the biota, and any subset
>> thereof."
>
> Does that include cultural changes? After all, things such as a
> family's net worth and whether they speak Yiddish are heritable.

Taken out of context Larry definition innocently enough *might* allow
for cultural changes in populations over time to be deemed evolutionary,
albiet undergirded by a different unit isolated from the gene pool via
Weismann's barrier. This speculative (being overly kind and generous)
unit could potentially impact gene frequencies if it sets up a new
selective regime such as in dairy farming. William Durham may have
explored this relationship. This unit though is *very* problematic.
Dawkins toyed with it and has used it to bash religion where others have
taken it really seriously, as if cultural antropology, social
psychology, and memory research never existed until Dawkins had a
magical revelation.

In its more atomistic aspects (does memory map that way?) memetics is
reified hype. Julian Huxley anticipated it. The grandfather of sociology
gave us socifacts and cultural representations decades before. Semon and
Lashley gave us memory units. So did JZ Young.

[rsNorman]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:

Yes there are all sorts of things that suggest some level of
cultural "inheritance" or "transmission" many of which are of
questionable value. However the specific cases cited, family
name and family fortune -class-caste are most definitely handed
down from parent to offspring. Certainly not absolutely but
then neither are genes. Cetaceans, monkeys and other apes,
birds, even some fish show behaviors passed through generations
in social groups.

As to immunology, does passing through mitosis count as heredity?
Are selected immunocytes passed to another generation? Actually
I have no idea but I would guess not. So no luck there.


I do think that is some vestige of truth in the notion of memes,
though, although their mode of transmission is so diffuse and
vague as to beggar the imagination comparing it with classical
genetics.

[jillery]

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Is there heredity when a bacterium splits in two? Bacteria can pick up
stuff via plasmids and phages, but aren't as elaborate as vertebrate
immunocytes as to their intra-genomic genetics. Cut me some slack, it's
been almost two decades since my undergrad immunology, but the scales
fell from my eyes when I realized what Tonegawa had wrought with his
Nobel coupled with later workers in the field.

The analogy to population genetics and evolution is strained, but the
shuffling and hypermutation in immunocytes can be considered adaptive
(at least within organism change during lifetime in response to
envronmental factors). This is a bit more than typical phenotypic range
as the are true blue genetic changes in asexually reproducing immunocytes.

> Are selected immunocytes passed to another generation? Actually
> I have no idea but I would guess not. So no luck there.

I don't think so. That's where the analogy falters. Ed Steele tried to
follow this route where the genuine genetic changes that are
intraselected in pools of immunocytes challenged by antigens are passed
through the germline barrier via retrovectors. His views were
fascinating, but probably incorrect.

But I'm comparing immunocytes to bacterial populations. In a human
lifetime do immunocytes "evolve" and thus do their job, but die off like
a population series of isolated bacteria that get fried in an autoclave
or otherwise eliminated from the earth after they did do something that
was evolution?

A very contentious question asked out of curiosity and boredom.

> I do think that is some vestige of truth in the notion of memes,
> though, although their mode of transmission is so diffuse and
> vague as to beggar the imagination comparing it with classical
> genetics.

As Dan Sperber argues, true replication is exception to rule and
cultural stuff converges upon attractors. Durkheim probably got it kinda
right, though he argued too much for socifacts and cultural
representations being *sui generis* in mode. I wouldn't argue for strict
sociobiology or ev psych, but there are some constraints bequeathed to
the structure of our mindbrains by our deeper ancestry. Plus biology is
relevant to the neuroscience of our memories. Yet cultural institutions
have some sovereignty.

[rsNorman]

Snip memes. The sociological context is your domain, not mine. I
don't care for them but don't despise them at your
level.

I did not at all mean to cast aspersions on the evolution by
natural selection of populations of immunocytes. There are more
than enough multicellular thingies that reproduce asexually, or
go freely between asex and sex. It is a nice metaphor albeit
every person acts like a new universe for those cells to strive
to achieve only to come to a very bad end when the host
dies.

[Glenn]

<christi...@brown.edu> wrote in message news:ae2474f2-b7cf-4393...@googlegroups.com...

> Peter just wants to declare that he's smarter than Larry Moran, and that he knows evolutionary biology better than he does.
>
> Not only that, but he wants others to agree with him.
>
> Good luck with that.
>

Trade that crystal ball into a pair of reading glasses, troll scientist.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 09/07/2016 08:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:15:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/7/16 2:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively
> >>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran.
> >>
> >> Are you unable to compose a single sentence without attaching an
> >> adjective or adverb intended to demonstrate to readers what they should
> >> think about the described item?
> >
> > You know damn well the answer is "No," and by asking this question
> > you are pandering to the worst elements in talk.origins.
>
> You rang?

No, I was thinking of people whose canards are due to malice
rather than psychological problems. You know, canards like
"Peter attacks everyone who disagrees with him" and like
the one Harshman is promoting.

In the thread that showed me the need for this one,
I hinted at the existence of six who are worse than Harshman
as far as malice goes, but there are a few others on his level
and others whom I run into infrequently enough to know
whether they are malicious or just having psychological problems.

You know, like your problem of your head feeling like it is ready
to explode on twice reading a few things I write about Aristotle's
insights into "the political man."

> > You are also seriously underestimating the independent-mindedness
> > of the talk.origins participants. They are perfectly capable of reading
> > what Moran wrote and telling me that they disagree about him
> > having been aggressive and/or illogical.
>
> Why would we disagree with Moran about *that*. His article is done well.

Well, it would probably get the highest score (6) on the SAT writing
test because of its style and organization. One of the standard books
that are supposed to prepare students for the SAT gave examples of
essays whose scores ranged from 2 (low) to 6 (highest). There was
a general topic (deception, if memory serves) that all the samples
treated. The one for the highest score gave "examples" from the American
Civil War which were very inaccurate in at least two places.

> The only issue I have where I prefer explicit mention of "allelic
> frequency change" over merely "heritable" is that if not strongly
> implied by context that heritable means tied to the gene pool or
> population genetics, the memeticists might get too optimistic about
> their chances with an alleged alternative transmission mode in human
> populations. I doubt Larry would intend this, but the textbook
> definitions are pretty close to his given in the article you cite.
>
> Moran is a biochemist and textbook author currently writing a book about
> junk, that should be called _The Cluttered Genome_. You are a
> topologist. I think I will defer to Moran on matters pertinent to
> molecular evolutionary process and how a good definition of evolution is
> required to reflect alternatives to the adaptionist delusions Mayr was
> working under (cite Ray on this thread).

Careful in using "delusions." You know, pot, kettle, glass houses, stones, ...

By the way, might you be confusing Mayr with Stephen Meyer, of "Darwin's
Doubt" fame? In that case, your use of "delusions" is understandable.

> > So why didn't you do that when you had Moran's words right there
> > in front of you, in my second post to this thread? Why do you
> > bellyache about my choice of words instead of trying to refute them?

Interesting...you didn't actually try to refute my implication that
it was illogical of Moran to try to paper over disagreements between
creationists and "evolutionists" by using a definition of "evolution"
that creationists can endlessly hit their opponents over the head with.

Harshman still doesn't see how that can happen because he is morphing
the "population" concept into some weird concept that allows for every
species of vertebrate to be in the same population as the LCA of
all vertebrates.

He's doing it on another thread, where he is quite safe from prying
eyes, thanks to Eddie's habit of disappearing from a thread shortly
after I try to give him feedback on things he's written.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:30:04 AM UTC-4, rsNorman wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:

> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-4, RSNorman wrote:

> >> Somehow in the years since the 1940's-1950's when the population
> >> genetics emphasis was introduced into the theory of evolution,
> >> creationists have had little problem still objecting to the theory.
> >
> > Is there any other reason besides the one Ray gave to John (that
> > the theory supposedly banishes God from having any influence on
> > life as we know it)?
> >
> >> So many creationists accept microevolution -- change within a species?
> >> So what? That still is an important part of biological evolution.
> >
> > Too bad the definition, which you mistakenly claim to be the one
> > held by biologists, confines evolution to taking place within
> > populations, not even within the broader context of species.
> >
> >> Creationists accept that the mammalian heart has four chambers.
> >
> > And Darwin knew about changes in traits; he just didn't have
> > the biochemical knowledge to identify the cause of them to be "alleles".
> >
> > And the way Moran defined it, it didn't even mention "alleles":

> >
> > Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in
> > a population spread over many generations.
> >

> > Vintage 1859, this definition, except that I'm not sure
> > Darwin would have said "a population"; he probably would have used a
> > broader category.
> >
> > So much for your red herring on the other thread, confusing this
> > issue with the whole modern evolutionary synthesis!
> >
> > Remainder deleted, to be replied to later. Duty calls.
> >
>
> I find this whole discussion exceptionally bizarre.

Do you? Or are you just grandstanding?

> It is mind
> boggling to think that you would consult a creationist to decide
> how best to define a scientific concept in the field of biology.

This is priceless. It is as though you were compensating for all
the times Harshman talked about "populations" when discussing
a definition that said "a population." You are converting a
statement that is just doubly wrong into something that's triply
wrong by writing "a creationist" instead of "creationists."

The only things I "consulted" for my definition were what Moran
quoted from Futuyma (1986) and the book _Evolution of the Vertebrates_
by Colbert (1955).

At this point, you may have the urge to make catcalls to the effect
that I am stuck in the 1950's [or at least the 1980's], but I suggest
you read further before yielding to the temptation.

> But then I seem to be easily boggled.

Nah, you only are easily tempted into indulging in what I
call The Phantom Error Correction Scam. [description on request]

> Now you say that the whole issue of defining evolution should be
> separated from the developments in the field of evolutionary
> biology in the past 75 years. More boggle.

You mean the field of population genetics. You can keep your
precious definition, just don't claim that it is THE definition
that all biologists use. And don't let Harshman confuse you
about what "population" means. See my reply to Hemidactylus this
morning.

>
> You say Darwin knew about traits but not about alleles. It is
> worse than that. Darwin knew about phenotypes but not about
> genotypes. Yet Darwin knew that it was only hereditary changes
> in traits that were important.

So now we know what causes them. So what? When you make a definition
of something, you don't get into causes. Moran certainly didn't
in his definition of evolution.

You seem to read into that definition everything to which the definition
can be connected, no matter how remotely. You're like someone saying
that mathematics should be defined as the study of consequences
of the Zermelo-Fraenkel [ZF] axioms, with the addition of the Axiom
of Choice.

Actually it is worse than that, because your beloved definition
confines itself to what goes on in *A* population, so you are
doing something more nearly analogous to saying that mathematics is
a process that results in verifiable statements in geometry.

> is the process Heredity, something passed on
> from generation to generation, is the heart of evolution. The
> "modern" definition now ancient puts the theory of evolution on a
> sound scientific basis.

A basis that is like using set theory as a basis for mathematics.
Physicists and engineers got along just fine without paying
any attention to set theory, as did calculus students, as did
the vast majority of research mathematicians. And that still
holds true, and can be expected to hold true forever. And by "theory"
I don't mean set-builder notation, which is frequently handy
nowadays, but the ZFC axioms.

To continue the analogy, we've never talked about population
genetics in sci.bio.paleontology, and I doubt that Harshman
finds any need for it in systematics, which is his line of research.

> How do you quantify "change"?

Indeed. Is a point mutation in a hox gene to be given the same
weight as a gene that affects eye color? How about a point
mutation that results in normal humans giving birth to
a child with achondroplasia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achondroplasia

In a colony on a planet with twice the gravity of earth,
the phenotype [1] associated with achondroplasia might become
"the new normal" since stumbling and falling is much less
likely to cause injuries for those that have such short legs.
Should the people of the colony still give it the same weight there
as they give a mutation for a different eye color?

[1] A human homozygote for achondroplasia is not viable, so a different
mutation, like the one for dachshunds, affecting a different gene,
would be needed for a colony of short-legged humans.


I've deleted the rest, which is really preaching to the choir
about the various causes of evolution, but focused on populations
instead of reproducing individuals or pairs of individuals,
which are the "atoms and molecules" of evolution.

Mark Isaak could have a field day with your favorite definition, had he
(and you) not bonded so much with Harshman over the last decade
and more. [I'm talking about social bonding, not some sort of
conspiracy. After people have bonded sufficiently, their natural
instinct becomes to lend aid to each other, or at least remain mum,
when they see the other ones arguing with someone they dislike.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
Specialty: set-theoretic topology

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/8/16 12:43 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/8/16 5:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>> [quoting Futuyma:]
>>>>>> Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
>>>>>> everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
>>>>>> within a population (such as those determining blood types)
>>>>>> to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
>>>>>> protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
>>>>> you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
>>>>> would merely introduce pointless verbiage.
>>>>
>>>> You think wrong. Here is my first attempt:
>>>>
>>>> All heritable changes that have taken place in the biota,
>>>> and any subset thereof.
>>>
>>> Oops. Amend that to "All heritable changes that have taken place,
>>> are taking place, and will take place in the biota, and any subset thereof."
>>
>> Does that include cultural changes? After all, things such as a
>> family's net worth and whether they speak Yiddish are heritable.
>
> "biota" implicitly speaks of biological changes.

No, it does not. It speaks of where you are looking, not what you are
looking at. And if you are looking at biotas, then culture is a part of
that.

> It's actually
> better than what goes on in the definition that Moran adopted:
>

> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> in a population spread over many generations.

In terms of including or excluding cultural change, neither definition
is better or worse than the other.

> The word "population" does not give away its biological definition.

The word "population" has the advantage of specifying the fundamental
object being measured. I agree that a nitpicker such as myself might
like to see "heritable *biological* changes" in either definition if one
wants to exclude cultural evolution. I also allow that either
definition might have "biological" implied by context, although Moran's
moreso than yours because culture is not strongly identified with
populations.

It is worth mentioning also that some may not *want* to exclude culture
from biological evolution. For some symbioses, for example, there's no
clear dividing line between one and the other.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Peter Nyikos]

Ah, Christine, nice to hear from you again. Do you miss me over in that
Amazon blog of comments on Prothero's "review" of _Darwin's Doubt_?
Don't worry, I shall return.

You are making the same category error that Harshman's chief benefactor,
Richard Norman, made: equating a definition taken from population
genetics with the whole field of evolutionary biology.

I don't expect you to reply to this; after all, you chose a post by
Harshman to which to jump off from, and you didn't even see fit
to quote anything from him.

And I certainly don't expect you reply to Glenn, who seems to
have your posting persona pretty well pegged, and who also replied
directly to this post of yours.

For that matter, you probably won't even reply to Harshman; after
all, he showed far more independence from Prothero than you are
ever likely to show. And since he didn't treat Godfather Prothero
with sufficient respect, The Godfather axed all but two of his
many posts to The Godfather's private blog, and banned Harshman
from the blog without even notifying Harshman (or anyone else,
at least publicly) about the ban.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 9:40:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:25:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > On 9/7/16 5:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > >> On 9/7/16 3:30 PM, John Stockwell wrote:

> > > > >>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-6, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > >>>> It is the one in the TalkOrigins Archive aggressively

> > > > >>>> and illogically championed by Laurence A. Moran. After quoting
> > > > >>>> a very good definition by Futuyma, Moran takes out one
> > > > >>>> little bit of it and elevates it to THE definition that
> > > > >>>> he runs with in the rest of the FAQ:
> > > > >>>>

> > > > >>>> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> > > > >>>> in a population spread over many generations.
> > > > >>>>

> > > My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes cannot be evolutionary.
> > >

> > > Ray
> >
> > Believe it or not, Ray, I posted my reply to Harshman before I
> > saw this reply of yours. It's nice to have this little confirmation
> > that I am far better at reading comprehension than he is.
>
> I believe this is the first tangle you've had with John since coming back from your sabbatical.

You are wildly wrong in that belief.

> Since both of you are Atheists, I don't see why things have to be so adversarial?

Since "Atheists" means that I am not convinced that God exists, but
would love it if were so, and John is a militant atheist, and a highly
unscrupulous one to boot, the answer should be clear to you.

I think John even agrees with Mikhail Bakunin, who famously turned
Voltaire on his head and wrote, "If there were a God, it would
be necessary to abolish him."

What puzzles ME is the lack of any overt antagonism between you
and John. If you were an atheist pretending to be a Christian,
I could readily see why that would be true, of course.

And sometimes I do have suspicions that you are just that.
They alternate with suspicions that you are the kind of
Christian who believes that if one is a Christian, one
can do anything he wants and be automatically forgiven for
it ahead of time.

>
> >
> > The BIG confirmations are elsewhere, including some on this very
> > thread. But even bigger ones are Harshman's persistent
> > reading of "a population" as though it were "populations" in the thread
> > where I first realized what a crying need it was for me to start a thread
> > like this one.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm glad you are here and are confirming that the
> > definition of "evolution" used by Moran, Harshman and Norman
> > [not to be confused with YOUR definition] is quite acceptable
> > to you. It is fully compatible with divine guidance of changes
> > within populations.

> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor of Mathematics

> > Univ. of S. Carolina
>
> You just bragged how your reading comprehension skills were superior,
> yet you failed to notice that I said changes accomplished by a Divine or
> supernatural agent cannot be evolutionary.

I noticed it, but I figured you realized that your definition of
"evolution" did not match John's; that's because, in a burst of lucidity,
you took full note of the "if" clause in "if evolution is defined..."

I explicitly wrote about your burst of lucidity later on, but
you don't seem to have seen that.

Peter Nyikos

[John Stockwell]

Ok. Then just say:

The phenomenon of evolution is common descent, and the theory
is descent with modification and natural selection.

[John Harshman]

That seems like a considerable hash to me. I can't make much sense of
it. Was it an attempt at a definition?

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> On 9/7/16 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/7/16 5:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> >>> As long as any micro-change is accomplished by an unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent cause, it's evolution---ary.
> >>>
> >>> I could reference Darwin to Dawkins in support.
> >>
> >> Glad you're here, Ray. Could you clarify whether you believe evolution,
> >> if it's defined as "allele frequency change in populations", actually
> >> happens in the world?
> >

> > Clarification:
> >
> > Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.
> >

> > I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.
> >
> > Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both.
>

> Thanks. I conclude that you don't like the definition I present above,
> because it fails to mention that evolution must be due to natural
> causes, and that divine causation of allele frequency changes must never
> be called evolution. Right?

Right on your last point. If God is involved in allele change then said changes cannot be described as evolutionary, but designed.

The preceding point is wrong because everyone knows evolution speaks of natural or un-directed agency.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:05:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/7/16 7:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> >>> Your definition assumes or presupposes unguided causation, as does
> >>> any definition produced by a Darwinist.
> >>
> >> How do you know that?
> >

> > It's a completely valid assumption. Mainstream Evolutionists argue in
> > a context that presupposes natural causation. Most of us here claim

> > an ability to understand complicated scientific, philosophical, and
> > historical arguments found in scholarly journals, but suddenly one of
> > us is unable to comprehend a basic frame of reference?
>

> So, to summarize: you know because it's like, just obvious, you know?
>
> >>> And I'm not sure what the issue between you and Peter is here. I'm, as you observed, somewhat

> >>> confused, answering questions blindly, but truthfully, of course.
> >>
> >> Believe me, everyone already knows you're confused.
> >

> > Again, I'm not sure about the issue of contention between you and Peter in this thread?
>

> You also aren't sure about when question marks or periods are
> appropriate.

Yes, I've struggled with that concerning one particular thought. Note the fact that said admission doesn't harm any argument I've made in this topic or elsewhere.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Fine, no problem; it's the first I'm aware of.

>
> > Since both of you are Atheists, I don't see why things have to be so adversarial?
>
> Since "Atheists" means that I am not convinced that God exists, but
> would love it if were so, and John is a militant atheist, and a highly
> unscrupulous one to boot, the answer should be clear to you.

Your subjective definition of "Atheists" noted.

>
> I think John even agrees with Mikhail Bakunin, who famously turned
> Voltaire on his head and wrote, "If there were a God, it would
> be necessary to abolish him."
>
> What puzzles ME is the lack of any overt antagonism between you
> and John. If you were an atheist pretending to be a Christian,
> I could readily see why that would be true, of course.

So ridiculous. Simply scroll up thread and see his disdain. A long time prior to your great return here at Talk.Origins, John and I agreed that a huge gulf exists separating our thought----that it's almost completely useless to have discussion with one another because we think so differently from one another.

Nothing has changed. I'm completely brainwashed by the Bible, Protestant thought, and Paley. John is completely brainwashed by Atheism, Naturalism/secularism, and Darwinian thought.

>
> And sometimes I do have suspicions that you are just that.
> They alternate with suspicions that you are the kind of
> Christian who believes that if one is a Christian, one
> can do anything he wants and be automatically forgiven for
> it ahead of time.

I'm not----not by any means. When a Christian thinks like that it's because they don't fear God. And when one doesn't fear God it's because God has most likely given up on that person and let them go----that's why they THINK they can use the grace of God like a doormat.

>
> >
> > >
> > > The BIG confirmations are elsewhere, including some on this very
> > > thread. But even bigger ones are Harshman's persistent
> > > reading of "a population" as though it were "populations" in the thread
> > > where I first realized what a crying need it was for me to start a thread
> > > like this one.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'm glad you are here and are confirming that the
> > > definition of "evolution" used by Moran, Harshman and Norman
> > > [not to be confused with YOUR definition] is quite acceptable
> > > to you. It is fully compatible with divine guidance of changes
> > > within populations.
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor of Mathematics
> > > Univ. of S. Carolina
> >
> > You just bragged how your reading comprehension skills were superior,
> > yet you failed to notice that I said changes accomplished by a Divine or
> > supernatural agent cannot be evolutionary.
>
> I noticed it, but I figured you realized that your definition of
> "evolution" did not match John's; that's because, in a burst of lucidity,
> you took full note of the "if" clause in "if evolution is defined..."
>
> I explicitly wrote about your burst of lucidity later on, but
> you don't seem to have seen that.
>
> Peter Nyikos

I saw it and found it condescending, patronizing, so I ignored.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> > Clarification:
> >
> > Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.
> >
> > I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.
> >
> > Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both.
>
> Thanks. I conclude that you don't like the definition I present above,
> because it fails to mention that evolution must be due to natural
> causes, and that divine causation of allele frequency changes must never
> be called evolution. Right?

Do you agree that allele frequency changes must never be called evolutionary if caused by a supernatural agent? Do you agree that IF a supernatural agent is involved with biological production then the same has always been called, and should be called, Creationism?

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

It is arguable that mere lack of belief qualifies as atheism, but more
positive disbelief is usually connoted.

>>
>> I think John even agrees with Mikhail Bakunin, who famously turned
>> Voltaire on his head and wrote, "If there were a God, it would
>> be necessary to abolish him."
>>
>> What puzzles ME is the lack of any overt antagonism between you
>> and John. If you were an atheist pretending to be a Christian,
>> I could readily see why that would be true, of course.
>
> So ridiculous. Simply scroll up thread and see his disdain. A long time prior to your great return here at Talk.Origins, John and I agreed that a huge gulf exists separating our thought----that it's almost completely useless to have discussion with one another because we think so differently from one another.
>
> Nothing has changed. I'm completely brainwashed by the Bible, Protestant thought, and Paley.

Wow we are making a potential breakthrough here. You are admitting to
being deluded by the Bible and Paley?

> John is completely brainwashed by Atheism, Naturalism/secularism, and Darwinian thought.
>
>>
>> And sometimes I do have suspicions that you are just that.
>> They alternate with suspicions that you are the kind of
>> Christian who believes that if one is a Christian, one
>> can do anything he wants and be automatically forgiven for
>> it ahead of time.
>
> I'm not----not by any means. When a Christian thinks like that it's because they don't fear God. And when one doesn't fear God it's because God has most likely given up on that person and let them go----that's why they THINK they can use the grace of God like a doormat.

God in his foresight predicted that outcome yet let it happen anyway.
Maybe he hardened our hearts deliberately to give his co-conspirator in
the game of ultimate evil souls to burn forever. Your God is a very evil
person. What was the Romans cloaking device because we gave him the
finger argument again?

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The BIG confirmations are elsewhere, including some on this very
>>>> thread. But even bigger ones are Harshman's persistent
>>>> reading of "a population" as though it were "populations" in the thread
>>>> where I first realized what a crying need it was for me to start a thread
>>>> like this one.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I'm glad you are here and are confirming that the
>>>> definition of "evolution" used by Moran, Harshman and Norman
>>>> [not to be confused with YOUR definition] is quite acceptable
>>>> to you. It is fully compatible with divine guidance of changes
>>>> within populations.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>> Professor of Mathematics
>>>> Univ. of S. Carolina
>>>
>>> You just bragged how your reading comprehension skills were superior,
>>> yet you failed to notice that I said changes accomplished by a Divine or
>>> supernatural agent cannot be evolutionary.
>>
>> I noticed it, but I figured you realized that your definition of
>> "evolution" did not match John's; that's because, in a burst of lucidity,
>> you took full note of the "if" clause in "if evolution is defined..."
>>
>> I explicitly wrote about your burst of lucidity later on, but
>> you don't seem to have seen that.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> I saw it and found it condescending, patronizing, so I ignored.

Yet you read it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think you are begging John for validation for your epistemic troubles
as an act of desperation here. But we are making a breakthrough. You
have basically admitted that evolution happens. It troubles you greatly
as you cannot admit to yourself that theistic evolutionism is just
around the corner. Maybe AAQ can give you guidance on your path away
from claiming you will destroy evolutionists in a paper/book. It's
inevitable that you will break now. Your paper will be your admission
that you were wrong about your characterizations of evolution all these
years.

You are starting to unravel the notion of god being a micromanager and
leaning toward delegation to natural processes. You just aren't all the
way toward admitting this inconvenient fact to yourself yet. Cognitive
dissonance is a bitch.

[Ray Martinez]

Unanswered questions do not indicate anything negative in regard to my view.

> But we are making a breakthrough. You
> have basically admitted that evolution happens.

Ridiculous.

John Harshman thought I would deny the allele change definition due to a commitment to fixism. He was wrong. The main problem with the allele change definition is the fact that it defines evolution as true if one accepts the changes as occurring. Equivalent to defining design as "organized complexity."
Darwinists accept existence of organized complexity but they do not, of course, accept existence of design. So the only issue, in both cases, is causation, and mutual exclusivity; hence exactly why John Harshman has suddenly disappeared (his epistemic troubles).

I do acknowledge acceptance of the allele change definition as problematic for a person like myself because it defines "evolution." But I've tried to be very careful in explaining that I accept said changes as designed. So my position is ripe for quote-mining and misunderstanding.

> It troubles you greatly
> as you cannot admit to yourself that theistic evolutionism is just
> around the corner. Maybe AAQ can give you guidance on your path away
> from claiming you will destroy evolutionists in a paper/book. It's
> inevitable that you will break now. Your paper will be your admission
> that you were wrong about your characterizations of evolution all these
> years.
>
> You are starting to unravel the notion of god being a micromanager and
> leaning toward delegation to natural processes. You just aren't all the
> way toward admitting this inconvenient fact to yourself yet. Cognitive
> dissonance is a bitch.

These observations, like I just said, are based on quote-mining and misunderstanding of my position.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Peter Nyikos]

From what you say below, the following would be acceptable to you:

All heritable biological changes that have taken place,

are taking place, and will take place in the biota,
and any subset thereof.

> > It's actually
> > better than what goes on in the definition that Moran adopted:
> >
> > Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> > in a population spread over many generations.
>
> In terms of including or excluding cultural change, neither definition
> is better or worse than the other.

Incorrect, see below.

> > The word "population" does not give away its biological definition.
>
> The word "population" has the advantage of specifying the fundamental
> object being measured.

Only as long as we are clear on what a population is. For instance,
it could refer to the following usage:

The populations of many villages were wiped out
by the Mongol hordes.

[Look up "population" in any good dictionary.]

Even within biology, it makes a huge difference whether one uses
the definitions one sees in biology textbooks and peer reviewed papers,
or one uses John Harshman's definition, according to which all descendants
of the first sexually reproducing eukaryote are in the same
population as that first sexually reproducing eukaryote itself.

That includes all plants, animals and fungi, and quite a lot
of protists.

> I agree that a nitpicker such as myself might
> like to see "heritable *biological* changes" in either definition if one
> wants to exclude cultural evolution. I also allow that either
> definition might have "biological" implied by context, although Moran's
> moreso than yours because culture is not strongly identified with
> populations.

You obviously haven't seen how culture varies from the population
of one village to that of the next in many parts of the world, including
Transylvania.

>
> It is worth mentioning also that some may not *want* to exclude culture
> from biological evolution. For some symbioses, for example, there's no
> clear dividing line between one and the other.

For example?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

The original USC (in Columbia, SC)
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[rsNorman]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:

I already commented on this. It is pretty bad.

>> > It's actually
>> > better than what goes on in the definition that Moran adopted:
>> >
>> > Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
>> > in a population spread over many generations.
>>
>> In terms of including or excluding cultural change, neither definition
>> is better or worse than the other.
>
> Incorrect, see below.
>
>> > The word "population" does not give away its biological definition.
>>
>> The word "population" has the advantage of specifying the fundamental
>> object being measured.
>
> Only as long as we are clear on what a population is. For instance,
> it could refer to the following usage:
>
> The populations of many villages were wiped out
> by the Mongol hordes.
>
> [Look up "population" in any good dictionary.]
>

I believe when I first mentioned the biological definition of
evolution I said that you had to understand it in terms of the
technical words used. "Population" in biology is not at all what
it means in ordinary language.

> Even within biology, it makes a huge difference whether one uses
> the definitions one sees in biology textbooks and peer reviewed papers,
> or one uses John Harshman's definition, according to which all descendants
> of the first sexually reproducing eukaryote are in the same
> population as that first sexually reproducing eukaryote itself.
>
> That includes all plants, animals and fungi, and quite a lot
> of protists.
>

This is a totally ridiculous misinterpretation of what
"population" really means. Just as it refers only to organisms
capable of interbreeding living in the same geographic region, it
means organisms also living at the same time and so can
interbreed. I referred to evolution from land mammals to whales
as occurring within populations of a lineage. At each stage,
changes accumulate within a population. But the population way
back when is not at all the same population as now. The
"population" is like George Washington's hatchet, the very one he
used to chop down that cherry tree except the handle has been
changed three times and the head twice. The "population" is like
your own skin. You have the "same" skin you always did even
though all the cells have changed. The "population" running from
Pakicetus to modern whale has constantly changed but at every
stage things only happened within the population.

Incidentally, different populations of one species merge and
separate. They might be likened to a braided stream. That keeps
all the populations of any one species on the same keel, so to
speak. They exchange genes and alleles to keep all the
populations synchronized. At the same time, the streams can
diverge, split into two distinct lines in such a way that
interbreeding is interrupted. From then on, these two lines
necessarily remain distinct. You have new species. Still, at
any one time you have things happening within a population.

>> I agree that a nitpicker such as myself might
>> like to see "heritable *biological* changes" in either definition if one
>> wants to exclude cultural evolution. I also allow that either
>> definition might have "biological" implied by context, although Moran's
>> moreso than yours because culture is not strongly identified with
>> populations.
>
> You obviously haven't seen how culture varies from the population
> of one village to that of the next in many parts of the world, including
> Transylvania.
>
>>
>> It is worth mentioning also that some may not *want* to exclude culture
>> from biological evolution. For some symbioses, for example, there's no
>> clear dividing line between one and the other.
>
> For example?
>

[John Harshman]

You can however extend the concept over time. A population certainly
continues for some duration, and you would say that the population of
yellow-billed magpies today is the same population as that of
yellow-billed magpies 20 years ago. I would say that this can be
extended much further, over evolutionary time. We generally refer to
this as a lineage, but a lineage is just a succession of generations of
a population.

Now of course this means that, given a time machine, we would clearly
find that the lineage at time X might not be able to interbreed with the
lineage at time Y. That's evolution for you, a gradual transformation of
a population.

And yes, the lineage from the common ancestor of plants, animals, and
fungi to humans would share certain segments with the lineage from the
common ancestor of plants, animals, and fungi to the common bolete.

> I referred to evolution from land mammals to whales
> as occurring within populations of a lineage. At each stage,
> changes accumulate within a population. But the population way
> back when is not at all the same population as now.

This leads us to the problem of deciding where in time a population is
no longer the same population it used to be.

> The
> "population" is like George Washington's hatchet, the very one he
> used to chop down that cherry tree except the handle has been
> changed three times and the head twice. The "population" is like
> your own skin. You have the "same" skin you always did even
> though all the cells have changed. The "population" running from
> Pakicetus to modern whale has constantly changed but at every
> stage things only happened within the population.

So, in a reasonable sense, it's still the same population, just like the
hatchet is still the same hatchet.

[Ray Martinez]

You just described variation, not evolution; whatever evolution is it isn't variation, and whatever variation is it isn't evolution. Two different concepts.

So we have much genetic change with little or no morphological change. No need to wonder why Ernst Mayr said allele frequency changes were not evolutionary.

Ray


[....]

[Ray Martinez]

Let me cite doctor of evolutionary biology, John Harshman, in support:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/_EBJi_F2AgAJ

"So, in a reasonable sense, it's still the same population, just like the
hatchet is still the same hatchet."

Ray

[John Harshman]

In support of what? You really don't understand most of what you read.

[*Hemidactylus*]

But related:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_17

> So we have much genetic change with little or no morphological change.

Nor adaption. See neutral alleles. Much evolution happens at the
molecular level and is beyond your 18th-19th century understanding.

> No need to wonder why Ernst Mayr said allele frequency changes were not evolutionary.

That you concede said allele frequency changes occur means you concede
evolution. You're done here. Checkmate. You cannot hide behind Mayr. Nor
your sophistic word play about designed allelic frequency changes.
Evolution happens. Fact. Tap out.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 5:55:04 PM UTC-4, rsNorman wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 2:55:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 9/8/16 12:43 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> >> On 9/8/16 5:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> >>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> >>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 9/7/16 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [quoting Futuyma:]
> >> >>>>>> Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
> >> >>>>>> everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles
> >> >>>>>> within a population (such as those determining blood types)
> >> >>>>>> to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
> >> >>>>>> protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> That isn't a definition. You could try to turn it into a definition if
> >> >>>>> you wanted, but you would have to alter it radically, and I think you
> >> >>>>> would merely introduce pointless verbiage.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> You think wrong. Here is my first attempt:

<snip to get to my latest attempt>

> > From what you say below, the following would be acceptable to you:
> >
> > All heritable biological changes that have taken place,
> > are taking place, and will take place in the biota,
> > and any subset thereof.
>
> I already commented on this. It is pretty bad.

It is a perfectly reasonable definition of "evolution," and
Harshman has brought it into line with the creationism-friendly
definition. He did this by coming up with his own concept of
"a population" which is, by his own admission, something
"nobody" [read: no biologist in published material]
talks about.

It's a concept about which you made some remarkable comments below.

> >> > It's actually
> >> > better than what goes on in the definition that Moran adopted:
> >> >
> >> > Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> >> > in a population spread over many generations.
> >>
> >> In terms of including or excluding cultural change, neither definition
> >> is better or worse than the other.
> >
> > Incorrect, see below.
> >
> >> > The word "population" does not give away its biological definition.
> >>
> >> The word "population" has the advantage of specifying the fundamental
> >> object being measured.
> >
> > Only as long as we are clear on what a population is. For instance,
> > it could refer to the following usage:
> >
> > The populations of many villages were wiped out
> > by the Mongol hordes.
> >
> > [Look up "population" in any good dictionary.]
> >
>
> I believe when I first mentioned the biological definition of
> evolution I said that you had to understand it in terms of the
> technical words used.

As if I hadn't already known that for decades.

> "Population" in biology is not at all what
> it means in ordinary language.

More of the same kind of condescension, better directed
at Mark than at me.

> > Even within biology, it makes a huge difference whether one uses
> > the definitions one sees in biology textbooks and peer reviewed papers,
> > or one uses John Harshman's definition, according to which all descendants
> > of the first sexually reproducing eukaryote are in the same
> > population as that first sexually reproducing eukaryote itself.
> >
> > That includes all plants, animals and fungi, and quite a lot
> > of protists.
> >
>
> This is a totally ridiculous misinterpretation of what
> "population" really means.

Unfortunately for you, Harshman posted the following endorsement
of this "totally ridiculous misrepresentation" four hours
AFTER he replied to this same post of yours to which I am replying now:

+++++++++++++++++ excerpt from reply by Harshman to me +++++++++++

> You are saying, in effect, that "in the same population as" is not
> transitive. Is it symmetric? IOW, do you claim that every organism
> on earth is in the same population as every single one of its descendants?

Yes. Why do you disagree? You've never actually said.

================================== end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/y4J7-CAM5k0/EjOGmJWBAgAJ
Subject: Re: The Reason the Theory of Evolution is Not True
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:39:11 -0700
Message-ID: <TpKdnWg7jbVM-0rK...@giganews.com>

> Just as it refers only to organisms
> capable of interbreeding living in the same geographic region, it
> means organisms also living at the same time and so can
> interbreed.

Yes, but that is not what John calls "the same population."

> I referred to evolution from land mammals to whales
> as occurring within populations of a lineage.

OTOH Harshman, on the thread from which the above is taken,
tried to make "a population" and "a lineage" mean the
same identical thing. He even lied that I seem not to
know elementary things about lineages, so confident was he that
he would be able to make this equating stick.

And, given what a cesspool talk.origins is, he might be able
to do just that as far as the public statements of regulars,
including yourself, go.

> At each stage,
> changes accumulate within a population. But the population way
> back when is not at all the same population as now. The
> "population" is like George Washington's hatchet, the very one he
> used to chop down that cherry tree except the handle has been
> changed three times and the head twice. The "population" is like
> your own skin. You have the "same" skin you always did even
> though all the cells have changed.

So far, so good. But below, you actually seem to be headed
towards the very thing you called "a totally ridiculous misinterpretation":

> The "population" running from
> Pakicetus to modern whale has constantly changed but at every
> stage things only happened within the population.

With your aptitude for mathematics, you should have no trouble
extrapolating to the very statement of mine that you
called "a totally ridiculous misinterpretation".

> Incidentally, different populations of one species merge and
> separate.

Harshman would disagree even with that. He regards feral
populations of dromedaries in Australia to be of the
same population as the ones living on other continents,
not different populations of the same species.

But that's a molehill compared to the mountain of revelations
you see up there.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of S. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[rsNorman]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> Wrote in message:

It turns out that George Washington's hatchet handle was replaced
by a much longer piece and the head with a heavy mass so it
turned into a sledge until somebody hammered down the head into a
thin sheet and it became a shovel but then it developed grooves
and turned into a rake. Still it was the "same"
hatchet.

After enough change you can say that the population morphed into
something very different from the original at which time you
simply stop referring to the new one as being the same as the
old. Exactly the same problem is determining just when the new
population is really a different species. I would say these two
questions could easily be merged -- when the new population would
be conceptually (unless we build a time machine) incapable of
interbreeding with the old then you have a very different
population as well as a different species. Interbreeding is an
essential part of the evolutionary notion of "population",
referring simply to a locally isolated subgroup of a species.


You can talk about extending the concept of population to include
that total lineage but then we are just playing with words,
teasing each other and any bystanders while completely agreeing
with each other.

[rsNorman]

I don't mean to ignore you but I really don't see anything
reasonable to respond about. John Harshman did refer to the
entire chain of the lineage as conceptually being a continuous
population but one ever changing. Using the specific word
"population" to refer to the whole thing is a cute linguistic
gimmick, much like insisting that people are really fish or that
strawberries and blackberries are not berries but that bananas
and tomatoes are.

Fortunately, none of that relates to whether the population
genetic developments in the "modern synthesis" of evolution are
the proper way to define just what evolution is. Biological
evolution has many aspects and no definition will encapsulate
them all but what they all share is a change in the heritable
characteristics of living things.

[John Harshman]

You have touched upon the problem of chronospecies, which are
meaningless divisions of a continuum. Species only make sense when
compared within a single time-slice. There is no good dividing line
between chronospecies, and there is no good dividing line between
populations separated in time.

[erik simpson]

Even at some specified time, 'species' can be a slippery concept. I am
reminded of "ring" species such as Larus gulls or Ensatina(?) salamanders.
The variation around the geographic 'ring' is continuous until the ring is
closed.

[John Harshman]

Actually, there are no known examples of ring species. Neither Larus nor
Ensatina nor the other common example, Phylloscopus, fits the scenario.
But ring species aren't necessary to your point. The fact is that we see
all variations along a continuum from no separation to complete separation.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 4:40:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> On 9/8/16 1:19 PM, christi...@brown.edu wrote:
> > Peter just wants to declare that he's smarter than Larry Moran, and that he knows evolutionary biology better than he does.
> >
> > Not only that, but he wants others to agree with him.
> >
> > Good luck with that.
> >

> Did you happen to see Peter's preferred definition of evolution? Good
> for a snort or two.

Of cocaine? :-)

But seriously, you didn't really expect an answer out of Christine, did
you? She's a "long-term comet" who flashes into the orbit of talk.origins
usually flashes back out again before you even reply to what she wrote.
The only exception was in May when she did a highly atypical five posts
before leaving. The post to which you are replying is her first post to
talk.origins since then, and I don't expect another for months.

Anyway, you have enough on your hands, trying to minimize the damage
caused by Richard Norman carelessly calling something you fully
endorsed by the following words:

a totally ridiculous misinterpretation of what
"population" really means"

Richard buried his head in the sand when I revealed this to him.
He's adapted a typical polemical tactic of yours (or did you
adapt yours from him?) by writing:

I don't mean to ignore you but I really don't see anything
reasonable to respond about.

In a twisted way that is true: there is nothing reasonable in the
way either of you have handled your "totally ridiculous misrepresentation".

In Norman's case, he's made a statement which leads inexorably to HIM
endorsing it:

___________________________excerpt_______________________

> The "population" running from
> Pakicetus to modern whale has constantly changed but at every
> stage things only happened within the population.

With your aptitude for mathematics, you should have no trouble
extrapolating to the very statement of mine that you
called "a totally ridiculous misinterpretation".

================= end of excerpt ==========================


Another example of "nothing reasonable" was your behavior that
I recounted earlier in the post from which I took that excerpt:

_________________second excerpt____________________________________

> I referred to evolution from land mammals to whales
> as occurring within populations of a lineage.

OTOH Harshman, on the thread from which the above is taken,
tried to make "a population" and "a lineage" mean the
same identical thing. He even lied that I seem not to
know elementary things about lineages, so confident was he that
he would be able to make this equating stick.

And, given what a cesspool talk.origins is, he might be able
to do just that as far as the public statements of regulars,
including yourself, go.

============================ end of second excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/SK1D3N-oAgAJ
Subject: Re: The creationism-friendly definition of "evolution."
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 07:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <15ec5947-8691-4977...@googlegroups.com>

And, from Richard and your POV, there is "nothing reasonable" in
my revealing how dishonest and/or hypocritical you can be.
You are both supremely self-righteous people who feel perfectly
entitled to denigrate other participants, even without a smidgin
of evidence.

But your "what's good for us is just plain good" attitude sees
"nothing reasonable" when others denounce you; and the more
we are able to document what we say, the more you see "nothing
reasonable" in what we are doing.

Hence my paragraph with "cesspool" in the second excerpt.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:--udnR_lVLbbqkXK...@giganews.com...
>snip

>>
> Actually, there are no known examples of ring species.
>

"Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[Glenn]

"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:23e05aa4-68da-42a3...@googlegroups.com...

Speaking of contradictions,

"To absorb and sustain science’s many refutations of their dogma, evolutionists equivocate on evolution and redefine it as the unfalsifiable concept of change over time. Consequently all new findings, no matter how contradictory, are simply interpreted as some new form of evolution, no matter how absurd."
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/10/evolutionists-now-claim-directed.html