It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What do you mean by, computers evolve, in relationship to what I posted? I don't think creationists believe computers evolve, like e. coli evolves.
Originally posted by Barcs
There is only 1 scientific definition of evolutionary theory. It is the process of genetic mutations, where the favorable ones are more likely to survive than the unfavorable ones, used to explain the diversity of life on planet earth.
The term "evolve" can be used in everyday life, for example, "Computer technology has evolved incredibly over the past 10 years". That has nothing to do with genetic mutations and natural selection or the scientific theory of evolution. Most of your other definitions are either parts of evolution (speciation, micro, macro), or have nothing to do with it (chemical evolution).edit on 10-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Barcs
If you want to talk about divisions of evolution, it would be more accurate to say:
Evolution:
1. Genetic mutation
2. Natural Selection
3. Speciation
There's really nothing more to it. Speciation is the same thing as macroevolution, it's merely micro evolution on a long term timetable demonstrating big change. Hope this clears it up.[
Speciation is just an effect of one species seperating from an original species. There are many definitions for species, but we'll use this one; an organism that can only viably breed with it's own kind. Macro-evolution, however is where changes happen on a geologic time scale. It is never observed. Contrast that with micro-evolution. It is evolution we can see in our lifetimes, where organisms adapt to their environment.
Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by addygrace
I was just demonstrating the uses of the word. We know computer technology did not actually evolve with genetic mutations. "Evolve" is just used to indicate change over time. It's used like this for numerous concepts, but doesn't mean evolution.
Now explain to me what the difference is between speciation and macroevolution.
Just to restate what micro-evolution is; it's basically adaptation. Microbial evolution is evolution that occurs on the microscopic level, where many more generations can be observed.
Now explain the difference between Microevolution and microbial evolution?
There is. I just typed the differences.
There isn't any difference in it.
I have already stated most evolutionists would argue evolution describes a process after the first common ancestor.
Obviously chemical evolution doesn't belong, and that's where your use of the word "evolution" is not pertaining to biology.
You think by making everything more vague, and being less detailed will help communication between evolutionists and creationists?
If you want to talk about divisions of evolution, it would be more accurate to say:
Evolution:
1. Genetic mutation
2. Natural Selection
3. Speciation
Speciation is not the same thing as macro-evolution. Speciation, in micro-evolution could be seen in a lifetime. Speciation can't be seen in macro-evolution in a lifetime. Macro-evolution, according to evolutionary theory, is on large time-scale. A macro-evolution example would be all the changes that occured from the common ancestor of Tulips and Human's. That's not somethiing you'll see in your lifetime.
There's really nothing more to it. Speciation is the same thing as macroevolution, it's merely micro evolution on a long term timetable demonstrating big change. Hope this clears it up.edit on 11-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
It actually doesn't. It raises the obvious question; what is the evidence they speak of?
Originally posted by BagBing
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
Wiki
I hope the above resolves some of the confusion.
Originally posted by Barcs
There is only 1 scientific definition of evolutionary theory. It is the process of genetic mutations, where the favorable ones are more likely to survive than the unfavorable ones, used to explain the diversity of life on planet earth.
According to this, your definition is wrong.
The reductive relation between microevolution and macroevolution is hotly debated. There are those who, with Dobzhansky, say that macroevolution reduces to microevolution. We can break this down to three claims: within the "universe" of biology, one might say that everything biological is best explained by microevolution (methodological), or that all entities and processes of macroevolution are microevolutionary (usually genetic – this is ontological), or that everything that happens (in biology) is genetic (metaphysical). In the metaphysical case, genes acquire an almost mystical significance, and no serious biologist makes this claim, although opponents accuse some (particularly Dawkins) of doing so.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by SaturnFX
I think he is referring to what Biologists call "abiogenesis".
Originally posted by addygrace
Just to restate what micro-evolution is; it's basically adaptation. Microbial evolution is evolution that occurs on the microscopic level, where many more generations can be observed.
I have already stated most evolutionists would argue evolution describes a process after the first common ancestor.
The counter argument to this view is where is that line drawn. At what point do chemicals become emergent?
If you want to talk about divisions of evolution, it would be more accurate to say:
Evolution:
1. Genetic mutation
2. Natural Selection
3. Speciation
You think by making everything more vague, and being less detailed will help communication between evolutionists and creationists?
The reductive relation between microevolution and macroevolution is hotly debated. There are those who, with Dobzhansky, say that macroevolution reduces to microevolution. We can break this down to three claims: within the "universe" of biology, one might say that everything biological is best explained by microevolution (methodological), or that all entities and processes of macroevolution are microevolutionary (usually genetic – this is ontological), or that everything that happens (in biology) is genetic (metaphysical). In the metaphysical case, genes acquire an almost mystical significance, and no serious biologist makes this claim, although opponents accuse some (particularly Dawkins) of doing so.
According to this, your definition is wrong.
Creationists are constantly arguing against evolution, based on what seems to be differing definitions of evolution.
I have heard 5 different divisions of evolution that I believe would help the communication of discussions in this forum.
1. Chemical evolution
2. Microbiological evolution
3. Speciation
4. Macrobiological evolution
5. Microbial evolution