What is Evolution? Lets define it

[Bear Wild]

Perhaps I misunderstand what you have posted here. You say it includes the biological mechanism but excludes description of the force. I don't discriminate between the two. As I understand it, the mechanism and the force are the same under the name natural selection.

Natural selection is the driving force changing the frequency of alleles but it can be physical or biological

 

[Torchbearer33]

These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

Evolution by natural selection is true, but only up to a point. Darwin's theory postulates that genes are the units of heredity that are effected over the generations and subsequently pass character traits down the lines.
But we've come to a point now where genes appear to be becoming superseded. The theory is that memes, or units of consciousness that we can take control of and selectively choose for ourselves, rather than allowing nature to do the choosing for us, are epigenetically superior to genes, in that genes react to the memes--beliefs and associated behaviours--rather than the other way around.

Torchbearer

 

[metis]

But what makes it go?

Different people have different "answers" to that question, and my response to that question can be found at the bottom of my posts.

 

[Audie]

Different people have different "answers" to that question, and my response to that question can be found at the bottom of my posts.

The cause of the universe is what drives evolution?

I think "money changes everything" is about as close,
if you think of money being, as it is at heart, energy.

 

[metis]

The theory of evolution encompasses the mechanisms that cause the changes. Some changes are not driven by evolution. Oysters change from one sex to another and back again based upon their environment. That is not evolution. Trees change their size, shape, number of branches, number of leaves over time. That is not evolution. Caterpillars change into butterflies. That is not evolution.

As a scientific theory, the ToE includes myriads of axioms, theorems, and hypotheses, and you are correct that the examples you give above are not examples of evolution even though oysters, trees, and caterpillars are all products of evolution.

 

[metis]

The cause of the universe is what drives evolution?

IMO, probably, but most cosmologists now tend to feel we are most likely part of a multiverse, thus there's a good possibility that there were somethings prior to the BB. To put it another way, everything seems to be in motion, and now a majority of cosmologists now drift in the direction of this always being the case.

As for me, it's beyond my pay-grade to know.

 

[Audie]

As a scientific theory, the ToE includes myriads of axioms, theorems, and hypotheses, and you are correct that the examples you give above are not examples of evolution even though oysters, trees, and caterpillars are all products of evolution.

could you list some of those axioms and theorems?

 

[metis]

could you list some of those axioms and theorems?

Better yet, this: Evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

Better yet, this: Evolution - Wikipedia

Name one theorem among the myriad?

 

[metis]

Name one theorem among the myriad?

Sorry, but I have not the time nor the interest as the link provides all one really needs to know to basically answer your question. OTOH, if you have a point to make, please make it.

 

[Audie]

Better yet, this: Evolution - Wikipedia

Better still...and to my not-necessarily-credit, I nver thought
of "theorem" as being applicable to science, as I think of theorems
as being about proof.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/690937

Sorry, but I have not the time nor the interest as the link provides all one really needs to know to basically answer your question. OTOH, if you have a point to make, please make it.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, but I have not the time nor the interest as the link provides all one really needs to know to basically answer your question. OTOH, if you have a point to make, please make it.

Just thought if there are so many you could name one.

 

[metis]

Theorem (one definition): a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.

 

[metis]

@Audie, sorry for being so dismissive as I now think I had the wrong impression of your motive. Please accept my apology.

 

[Audie]

@Audie, sorry for being so dismissive as I now think I had the wrong impression of your motive. Please accept my apology.

Nah, no prob. Im no pachyderm, but, Im not that
think skinned!

You see what I mean, tho, as science is not really
on the business of "truth" and "proof".

 

[leroy]

Well, the point here is that most molecules in biology react to light to some degree. Light can, for example, stimulate catalysis of important reactions. All that is required is a molecule that changes conformation when hit by a photon (and there are a lot of such) where that conformational change induced a change in other chemical reactions. Then, if the production of that chemical is localized to one part of the cell, you have an eyespot.

My question would be,

How did an organism that is unable to detect / react to light evolved in to an organism that can react to light? Is there a path?

 

[leroy]

Yes, but that was not the subject. Thanks for admitting that you were wrong by trying to move the goal posts.

If I already admitted that I was wrong, then why is it wrong to ask another question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I already admitted that I was wrong, then why is it wrong to ask another question?

I was pointing out a dishonest argument by you. The proper action would have been to apologize for attempting to move the goal posts.

 

[Audie]

My question would be,

How did an organism that is unable to detect / react to light evolved in to an organism that can react to light? Is there a path?

You are asking a question about an organism that did
not and could not have ever existed.

Think of it this way. Do you feel there is a difference
here between "detect", and, "react to"?

I will say in this case, there is no difference.


A microscopic organism cannot "detect" in the way
you would; it has no mind, for one thing. But they
sure do react.

Your skin cells have no mind, but they "detect", react
to ultraviolet light.

Light is pretty powerful stuff, and it affects (is detected by?)
all living things.

And a lot of things that are not alive.

And anything that might be in the fuzzy transition from
"organic molecule" to "some sort of life".

A living thing that could not "detect" light never
could have existed.

 

[Audie]

I was pointing out a dishonest argument by you. The proper action would have been to apologize for attempting to move the goal posts.

uh subzie, your asking for an apology is unreasonable

 

[Audie]

If I already admitted that I was wrong, then why is it wrong to ask another question?

I see an "if". Did you accept* it that you were wrong?
If so, that is a point in your favour! Few can do it.

*I dont like "admit". It means, to "reluctantly confess"