Simply Minimal

[Glenn]

"saying that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" is a way of simplifying discussions about evolution.

Note that I have described the minimal scientific definition of biological evolution. Nobody believes that this is all there is to evolution. There are other processes, such as speciation for example, that are clearly important parts of the process of evolution. [Macroevolution]"

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html

So evolution is "a" process, or "the" (singular) process.
The definition of evolution is a *minimal* scientific definition.
There are "other" processes "important" to 'the" process of evolution, which can be regarded as "parts" of the process of evolution.

Why not say "the processes that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations"?

Is Natural Selection, for example, not a necessary process in evolution, but only simply "important"? How important?

[John Harshman]

I sorry that all this confuses you. Evolution is often considered to
encompass both the processes and the results of those processes. Natural
selection is not a necessary process in evolution; evolution can happen
without natural selection, and in fact most genomic evolution is neutral.

[Glenn]

What do you mean by "evolution"? What does "often considered" mean? Not always?

"In this essay I'm more concerned about my fellow evolutionists who go to great lengths to eliminate chance and accident from all discussions about the fundamental causes of evolution. This is my attempt to convince them that evolution is not as predictable as they claim."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2019/08/evolution-by-accident.html

He refers to "adaptionists": 'If adaptationists were being really honest, they would take the time to make their point very clear."

Do you not have a fairly good suspicion that not everyone shares your definition of evolution that can happen without natural selection?

Honesty...

I think he, as well as you, are aware that not all in the scientific community agree with your claims, one in particular at the moment is "evolution can happen without natural selection". Do you refer to "evolution" as Larry describes as "being more" than the "minimal" definition?

You may not be aware that in another recent thread that jillery claimed "Mutation is necessary to evolution in the long term." Is that your own belief? If not, do you have no reason to correct posters that make such claims?

Lawyer Dagett claimed in another recent thread that "evolution does not require new mutation." Actually, you have made such a claim more than once. Again, state your definition of evolution and say whether that is accurate, misleading or wrong.

Just be honest and minimal here. Has natural selection never been necessary from the first living cell to your cat?

[John Harshman]

On 9/25/22 12:05 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 11:25:22 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/25/22 11:13 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>> "saying that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" is a way of simplifying discussions about evolution.
>>>
>>> Note that I have described the minimal scientific definition of biological evolution. Nobody believes that this is all there is to evolution. There are other processes, such as speciation for example, that are clearly important parts of the process of evolution. [Macroevolution]"
>>>
>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html
>>>
>>> So evolution is "a" process, or "the" (singular) process.
>>> The definition of evolution is a *minimal* scientific definition.
>>> There are "other" processes "important" to 'the" process of evolution, which can be regarded as "parts" of the process of evolution.
>>>
>>> Why not say "the processes that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations"?
>>>
>>> Is Natural Selection, for example, not a necessary process in evolution, but only simply "important"? How important?
>>>
>> I sorry that all this confuses you. Evolution is often considered to
>> encompass both the processes and the results of those processes. Natural
>> selection is not a necessary process in evolution; evolution can happen
>> without natural selection, and in fact most genomic evolution is neutral.
>
> What do you mean by "evolution"? What does "often considered" mean? Not always?

I mean both. You have offered a definition that considers only
processes, while the one Larry cited considers only the result.

> "In this essay I'm more concerned about my fellow evolutionists who go to great lengths to eliminate chance and accident from all discussions about the fundamental causes of evolution. This is my attempt to convince them that evolution is not as predictable as they claim."
> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2019/08/evolution-by-accident.html
>
> He refers to "adaptionists": 'If adaptationists were being really honest, they would take the time to make their point very clear."
>
> Do you not have a fairly good suspicion that not everyone shares your definition of evolution that can happen without natural selection?

Not everyone, but almost all evolutionary biologists. "Neutral
evolution" would be a contradiction in terms otherwise.

> Honesty...
>
> I think he, as well as you, are aware that not all in the scientific community agree with your claims, one in particular at the moment is "evolution can happen without natural selection". Do you refer to "evolution" as Larry describes as "being more" than the "minimal" definition?

No.

> You may not be aware that in another recent thread that jillery claimed "Mutation is necessary to evolution in the long term." Is that your own belief? If not, do you have no reason to correct posters that make such claims?

Yes to the first question.

> Lawyer Dagett claimed in another recent thread that "evolution does not require new mutation." Actually, you have made such a claim more than once. Again, state your definition of evolution and say whether that is accurate, misleading or wrong.

Whether what is accurate?

> Just be honest and minimal here. Has natural selection never been necessary from the first living cell to your cat?

Not sure what you mean by "necessary". It's certainly happened.
Adaptation is, in the main, the result of selection. I'm not sure you
have a clear notion of much about evolution other than that you don't
like it or the scientists who study it. But see how I answer your
questions? Why can't you do that?

[Lawyer Daggett]

I'm not sure where to offer this comment of mine, but this might be as good as anywhere.
There exists a great deal of frustration with Glenn. I can commensurate. It is frequently asked,
"what's your point?". I again feel your pain. Yet I believe I have the answer.

To at least one approximation, he doesn't have a point, at least not in the sense people
presuppose someone should have, especially not respective to his myriad challenges
to the scientific consensus of both the theory and the fact of evolution. His point is other.

His point is that he doesn't believe that "we" (sensu the scientific community, the orthodoxy,
the majority posting to talk.origins, and some amorphous group of 'they' that promote the
facthood and compelling nature of evolutionary theory) know anything at all. His general
assertion is that "we" know nothing. He asserts that we are ignorant and don't know it,
or acknowledge it.

This does not mean that he thinks he knows the ultimate metaphysical truth, just that he
thinks we don't, and indeed that at least most, if not all, don't know. He asserts that we are
arrogant in our assertion of knowledge, without asserting that he possesses the allied
knowledge, but rather that "nobody knows". Further, the required knowledge is a perhaps
unattainable, and there is deep arrogance in asserting knowledge of many of the concepts
and facts surrounding evolution. One might consider it a form of intellectual nihilism. Or,
one might reduce it to "I don't know but neither do any of you."

As such, his "point" is rarely that he knows something, it is that "we don't".
Of course, I could be completely wrong.

[erik simpson]

You may be completely wrong, but I'll bet you're essentially right. In addition to his "point",
I'd add an additional malicious intent to ridicule and make anyone who replies look foolish.
Whether or not this makes him look foolish as well is of no importance to him.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/25/22 12:05 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 11:25:22 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/25/22 11:13 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> "saying that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" is a way of simplifying discussions about evolution.
> >>>
> >>> Note that I have described the minimal scientific definition of biological evolution. Nobody believes that this is all there is to evolution. There are other processes, such as speciation for example, that are clearly important parts of the process of evolution. [Macroevolution]"
> >>>
> >>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html
> >>>
> >>> So evolution is "a" process, or "the" (singular) process.
> >>> The definition of evolution is a *minimal* scientific definition.
> >>> There are "other" processes "important" to 'the" process of evolution, which can be regarded as "parts" of the process of evolution.
> >>>
> >>> Why not say "the processes that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations"?
> >>>
> >>> Is Natural Selection, for example, not a necessary process in evolution, but only simply "important"? How important?
> >>>
> >> I sorry that all this confuses you. Evolution is often considered to
> >> encompass both the processes and the results of those processes. Natural
> >> selection is not a necessary process in evolution; evolution can happen
> >> without natural selection, and in fact most genomic evolution is neutral.
> >
> > What do you mean by "evolution"? What does "often considered" mean? Not always?
> I mean both. You have offered a definition that considers only
> processes, while the one Larry cited considers only the result.

You didn't answer the question of what you mean by evolution.
What you did say is rather confusing. Some people consider evolution a certain way, others a different way. Is that what you really intend to say?
I offer no definition. There exists within the scientific community numerous definitions of evolution, and as you well know, place different emphasis on different concepts within.

> > "In this essay I'm more concerned about my fellow evolutionists who go to great lengths to eliminate chance and accident from all discussions about the fundamental causes of evolution. This is my attempt to convince them that evolution is not as predictable as they claim."
> > https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2019/08/evolution-by-accident.html
> >
> > He refers to "adaptionists": 'If adaptationists were being really honest, they would take the time to make their point very clear."
> >
> > Do you not have a fairly good suspicion that not everyone shares your definition of evolution that can happen without natural selection?
> Not everyone, but almost all evolutionary biologists. "Neutral
> evolution" would be a contradiction in terms otherwise.

Do you really believe that claim should hold any weight, all by itself shivering in the cold?

> > Honesty...
> >
> > I think he, as well as you, are aware that not all in the scientific community agree with your claims, one in particular at the moment is "evolution can happen without natural selection". Do you refer to "evolution" as Larry describes as "being more" than the "minimal" definition?
> No.

So you do not define evolution as being anything more than "a change in allele frequency in a population over time". Got it.

> > You may not be aware that in another recent thread that jillery claimed "Mutation is necessary to evolution in the long term." Is that your own belief? If not, do you have no reason to correct posters that make such claims?
> Yes to the first question.

Yet you have repeatedly argued that mutation is not required. "Evolution does not require mutation".

> > Lawyer Dagett claimed in another recent thread that "evolution does not require new mutation." Actually, you have made such a claim more than once. Again, state your definition of evolution and say whether that is accurate, misleading or wrong.
> Whether what is accurate?

Um, your definition of evolution, and whether "evolution does not require new mutation" is accurate, misleading or wrong.

> > Just be honest and minimal here. Has natural selection never been necessary from the first living cell to your cat?

> Not sure what you mean by "necessary". It's certainly happened.
> Adaptation is, in the main, the result of selection. I'm not sure you
> have a clear notion of much about evolution other than that you don't
> like it or the scientists who study it. But see how I answer your
> questions? Why can't you do that?

"Like"? Sorry, that would be your problem, as well as not directly answering the question.
Perhaps you expect your choir to accept that natural selection has never been necessary.

[Glenn]

There is an element of truth in that. It matters not to me whether others here see me as being foolish, or try to paint me as such. I'm certainly not so foolish as to expect that any of you evolutionists would ever admit to anything I say or expose. And I'm certainly not foolish enough to expect that you are being honest and objective about my "malicious intent" in particular, especially in talk.origins, allegedly created for the purpose of keeping the "loons" out of the science groups.

[John Harshman]

On 9/25/22 3:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/25/22 12:05 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 11:25:22 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/25/22 11:13 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> "saying that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" is a way of simplifying discussions about evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that I have described the minimal scientific definition of biological evolution. Nobody believes that this is all there is to evolution. There are other processes, such as speciation for example, that are clearly important parts of the process of evolution. [Macroevolution]"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html
>>>>>
>>>>> So evolution is "a" process, or "the" (singular) process.
>>>>> The definition of evolution is a *minimal* scientific definition.
>>>>> There are "other" processes "important" to 'the" process of evolution, which can be regarded as "parts" of the process of evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not say "the processes that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Natural Selection, for example, not a necessary process in evolution, but only simply "important"? How important?
>>>>>
>>>> I sorry that all this confuses you. Evolution is often considered to
>>>> encompass both the processes and the results of those processes. Natural
>>>> selection is not a necessary process in evolution; evolution can happen
>>>> without natural selection, and in fact most genomic evolution is neutral.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "evolution"? What does "often considered" mean? Not always?
>> I mean both. You have offered a definition that considers only
>> processes, while the one Larry cited considers only the result.
>
> You didn't answer the question of what you mean by evolution.

Yes I did: "I mean both", and by that I clearly referred to process and
result.

> What you did say is rather confusing. Some people consider evolution a certain way, others a different way. Is that what you really intend to say?
> I offer no definition. There exists within the scientific community numerous definitions of evolution, and as you well know, place different emphasis on different concepts within.

No, that isn't what I intend to say. And you did in fact offer a
definition, though you may not claim it.

>>> "In this essay I'm more concerned about my fellow evolutionists who go to great lengths to eliminate chance and accident from all discussions about the fundamental causes of evolution. This is my attempt to convince them that evolution is not as predictable as they claim."
>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2019/08/evolution-by-accident.html
>>>
>>> He refers to "adaptionists": 'If adaptationists were being really honest, they would take the time to make their point very clear."
>>>
>>> Do you not have a fairly good suspicion that not everyone shares your definition of evolution that can happen without natural selection?
>> Not everyone, but almost all evolutionary biologists. "Neutral
>> evolution" would be a contradiction in terms otherwise.
>
> Do you really believe that claim should hold any weight, all by itself shivering in the cold?

Yes.

>>> Honesty...
>>>
>>> I think he, as well as you, are aware that not all in the scientific community agree with your claims, one in particular at the moment is "evolution can happen without natural selection". Do you refer to "evolution" as Larry describes as "being more" than the "minimal" definition?
>> No.
>
> So you do not define evolution as being anything more than "a change in allele frequency in a population over time". Got it.

As is so often the case, you got it wrong. I don't think you're
interested in getting it. You just want to grab onto something to
ridicule, and whether that something is really there or not is
unimportant to you.

>>> You may not be aware that in another recent thread that jillery claimed "Mutation is necessary to evolution in the long term." Is that your own belief? If not, do you have no reason to correct posters that make such claims?
>> Yes to the first question.
>
> Yet you have repeatedly argued that mutation is not required. "Evolution does not require mutation".

Notice the qualifier that you you ignore: "in the long term". If your
goal were not just to find contradiction even if you have to invent it,
perhaps you would have noticed already.

>>> Lawyer Dagett claimed in another recent thread that "evolution does not require new mutation." Actually, you have made such a claim more than once. Again, state your definition of evolution and say whether that is accurate, misleading or wrong.
>> Whether what is accurate?
>
>
> Um, your definition of evolution, and whether "evolution does not require new mutation" is accurate, misleading or wrong.

It's accurate enough for most purposes. And it's not misleading or wrong.

>>> Just be honest and minimal here. Has natural selection never been necessary from the first living cell to your cat?
>
>> Not sure what you mean by "necessary". It's certainly happened.
>> Adaptation is, in the main, the result of selection. I'm not sure you
>> have a clear notion of much about evolution other than that you don't
>> like it or the scientists who study it. But see how I answer your
>> questions? Why can't you do that?
>
> "Like"? Sorry, that would be your problem, as well as not directly answering the question.
> Perhaps you expect your choir to accept that natural selection has never been necessary.

Again, it's unclear what you mean by necessary. Necessary for what? It
isn't necessary in order for evolution to happen. It is necessary in
order to produce most adaptation, but much evolution is not adaptive.
How is this in any way unclear?

[Glenn]

So that is not your definition of evolution? A simple yes or no would suffice.

> >>> You may not be aware that in another recent thread that jillery claimed "Mutation is necessary to evolution in the long term." Is that your own belief? If not, do you have no reason to correct posters that make such claims?
> >> Yes to the first question.
> >
> > Yet you have repeatedly argued that mutation is not required. "Evolution does not require mutation".
> Notice the qualifier that you you ignore: "in the long term". If your
> goal were not just to find contradiction even if you have to invent it,
> perhaps you would have noticed already.

Actually you have taken "in the long term" out of your argument for the meaning of and definition of "evolution". For example, you regard the existence of allele to be a given, and
have argued that a definition of evolution need not identify the origins of those alleles.

> >>> Lawyer Dagett claimed in another recent thread that "evolution does not require new mutation." Actually, you have made such a claim more than once. Again, state your definition of evolution and say whether that is accurate, misleading or wrong.
> >> Whether what is accurate?
> >
> >
> > Um, your definition of evolution, and whether "evolution does not require new mutation" is accurate, misleading or wrong.
> It's accurate enough for most purposes. And it's not misleading or wrong.
> >>> Just be honest and minimal here. Has natural selection never been necessary from the first living cell to your cat?
> >
> >> Not sure what you mean by "necessary". It's certainly happened.
> >> Adaptation is, in the main, the result of selection. I'm not sure you
> >> have a clear notion of much about evolution other than that you don't
> >> like it or the scientists who study it. But see how I answer your
> >> questions? Why can't you do that?
> >
> > "Like"? Sorry, that would be your problem, as well as not directly answering the question.
> > Perhaps you expect your choir to accept that natural selection has never been necessary.
> Again, it's unclear what you mean by necessary. Necessary for what? It
> isn't necessary in order for evolution to happen. It is necessary in
> order to produce most adaptation, but much evolution is not adaptive.
> How is this in any way unclear?

Why should evolution be adaptive? And what is the relevance of "much"?

You don't seem to want to acknowledge that it depends on how you regard and define "evolution" and why. As far as words such as "necessary", they fly around like flies on a gut wagon. "Most", "much", "in the main", "to happen"...there are tons more. Like tons. "Fundamentally". And "almost all" evolutionary biologists".

[John Harshman]

Yeah, you clearly aren't interested in getting it.

>>>>> You may not be aware that in another recent thread that jillery claimed "Mutation is necessary to evolution in the long term." Is that your own belief? If not, do you have no reason to correct posters that make such claims?
>>>> Yes to the first question.
>>>
>>> Yet you have repeatedly argued that mutation is not required. "Evolution does not require mutation".
>> Notice the qualifier that you you ignore: "in the long term". If your
>> goal were not just to find contradiction even if you have to invent it,
>> perhaps you would have noticed already.
>
> Actually you have taken "in the long term" out of your argument for the meaning of and definition of "evolution". For example, you regard the existence of allele to be a given, and
> have argued that a definition of evolution need not identify the origins of those alleles.

You seem to have no idea what definitions are even for. Probably don't
care either.

>>>>> Lawyer Dagett claimed in another recent thread that "evolution does not require new mutation." Actually, you have made such a claim more than once. Again, state your definition of evolution and say whether that is accurate, misleading or wrong.
>>>> Whether what is accurate?
>>>
>>>
>>> Um, your definition of evolution, and whether "evolution does not require new mutation" is accurate, misleading or wrong.
>> It's accurate enough for most purposes. And it's not misleading or wrong.
>>>>> Just be honest and minimal here. Has natural selection never been necessary from the first living cell to your cat?
>>>
>>>> Not sure what you mean by "necessary". It's certainly happened.
>>>> Adaptation is, in the main, the result of selection. I'm not sure you
>>>> have a clear notion of much about evolution other than that you don't
>>>> like it or the scientists who study it. But see how I answer your
>>>> questions? Why can't you do that?
>>>
>>> "Like"? Sorry, that would be your problem, as well as not directly answering the question.
>>> Perhaps you expect your choir to accept that natural selection has never been necessary.
>> Again, it's unclear what you mean by necessary. Necessary for what? It
>> isn't necessary in order for evolution to happen. It is necessary in
>> order to produce most adaptation, but much evolution is not adaptive.
>> How is this in any way unclear?
>
> Why should evolution be adaptive? And what is the relevance of "much"?

You don't care.

> You don't seem to want to acknowledge that it depends on how you regard and define "evolution" and why. As far as words such as "necessary", they fly around like flies on a gut wagon. "Most", "much", "in the main", "to happen"...there are tons more. Like tons. "Fundamentally". And "almost all" evolutionary biologists".

You really don't care. Like I said, you don't read for comprehension;
you just scan for things you think you can ridicule.

[Glenn]

You're right that I don't care. It isn't my theory, it is yours.

So, is Natural Selection necessary...


"Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features."

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

Central mechanism, responsible for the evolution of adaptive features.

Without the mechanism responsible for adaptive features, whatta you have.
What happens when individuals can't adapt, John?

Sounds necessary to me. You're mileage seems to vary with the wind.

[John Harshman]

If there's anyone else reading this, and you want to explain anything to
Glenn, go right ahead. I had a go at it, but of course he isn't
interested in understanding anything.

[Glenn]

Not true, but of course you aren't interested in understanding anything, and as well like to dress up in women's underwear and sing soprano.