The 5 Divisions of Evolution

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

2 of these divisions are agreed upon by both creationists and evolutionists.
The divisions not agreed upon are in #1, #3, and #4.

In #1 most evolutionists would argue evolution describes a process after the fist common ancestor.
The counter argument to this view is where is that line drawn. At what point do chemicals become emergent?

In #3 the creationists argue their is no clear defined definition of speciation, in which you can test if these organisms are in fact a new species, or not.

In #4 the creationists argue a large scale evolutionary mechanism shouldn't be extrapolated from small scale adaptation that you see in #2.

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).

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)

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.

So really you only have a problem with chemical evolution and computer evolution. One wasn't presented in my OP, and the other, I said you wouldn't accept. Thanx for sharing.

Chemical evolution. thats a new one to me. I however would classify that as the origins of life on earth though.

I seen a rather elegant documentary about the hypothetical emergence of the first basic rna molecule from a sort of mirroring crystal process that goes on...this is really the only point that is still based heavily in hypotheticals for the moment (face is folks, we are all monkeymen). I would classify that as chemical reactions that evolved slowly into some form of replication...which in turn leads to complex replications and finally life.

But I could be off here.

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. Now explain the difference between Microevolution and microbial evolution? There isn't any difference in it. Obviously chemical evolution doesn't belong, and that's where your use of the word "evolution" is not pertaining to biology. 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.

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.[

If we're getting into specifics here, would not speciation then be the end result of genetic mutation and/or natural selection? Not a separate process in it's self.

Also natural selection can also be broken down into:

*Natural selection - aka survival of the fittest and the process we're most familiar with.

*Sexual selection - one sex giving preferences to a mate with a certain set of charateristics, which is why for example we have birds with amazing tails and colors etc.

*Parental selection - Where the parents nurture and protect offspring with a certain set of charateristics over another. This can be seen in animals abandoning the 'runt' of the litter, and has been postulated and one of the leading causes as to why humans became hairless.

Divide and conquer, eh?

All biological evolution is the evolution of genomes.

The word evolution can be applied to non-biological entities, such as chemicals, and it can even be argued that such evolution is driven by natural selection, but the biological theory of evolution by natural selection applies, in the final analysis, only to genetic material.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I think he is referring to what Biologists call "abiogenesis".

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.

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.

Now explain the difference between Microevolution and microbial evolution?

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.

There isn't any difference in it.

There is. I just typed the differences.

Obviously chemical evolution doesn't belong, and that's where your use of the word "evolution" is not pertaining to biology.

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?

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)

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.

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 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.

It actually doesn't. It raises the obvious question; what is the evidence they speak of?
Also with the definition of macro-evolution being changes occurring over geologic times, what kind of lab experiments could you actually do?

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 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.

Argh.

Believers in the scientific paradigm do contemporary evolutionary science no favours by misunderstanding it and arguing in its favour from false, easily refuted premises.

This thread is a decoy and you are all falling for it. Congrats to our pal addygrace, I guess.

Learn how evolution works, for goodness' sake. There is no such thing as macro- or microevolution. There are no varieties of evolution. No group selection, no survival of species. THERE IS ONLY THE EVOLUTION OF GENOMES and everything else is a consequence of that. Until you understand your microbiology don't imagine you understand evolution.

Thank you for paying attention.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I think he is referring to what Biologists call "abiogenesis".

Yes, a nice small word, but why give a single word when you can give an entire paragraph saying the same thing

thanks..word slipped my mind.

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.

No, it is not basically adaptation. It is genetic mutations that add up over time via natural selection. The genetic mutations can be observed. You are mixing up terms because ALL evolution occurs on the microscopic level. The results of that are what we observe in animals and fossils, but they aren't part of the process.

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?

The counter argument is that you are not arguing with evolution. You are talking about abiogenesis. I think this was already mentioned.

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?

Um, I was clearing up the discrepancies in your definitions, and yes, sometimes keeping it simple is the best way to explain things to people who aren't very familiar with it. I explained why your divisions of evolution were wrong. Speciation and macro evolution are merely results of millions and millions of years of micro evolution. They aren't part of the processes, just observations of the results, just as 1littlewolf mentioned.

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.

According to what? Post a source.
That isn't a definition of evolution. What is this metaphysical nonsense?

Astyanax is dead on accurate, though. I think I've been suckered in yet again!

reply to post by addygrace

I was holding off on replying to this thread to see if the OP devolved (no pun intended) into redefining words and concepts to suit their argument and, sure enough, it happened.

Creationists are constantly arguing against evolution, based on what seems to be differing definitions of evolution.

I'd counter that this is partially a function of creationists typically having a poor-to-nonexistent understanding of basic scientific methodology. This leaves them unable to understand the difference between fact, theory, hypothesis, etc.

I have heard 5 different divisions of evolution that I believe would help the communication of discussions in this forum.

Interesting. This hearkens back to the Big Daddy tract by Jack Chick.

1. Chemical evolution

I googled this to see if there were definitions other than nucleosynthesis. It is a synonym for abiogenesis, but a less common one. Though it does look like an abiogenesis research institute is trying to take it back, so to speak. So why not just call it abiogenesis?

2. Microbiological evolution

Which would be, by definition, the evolution of microbes. By way of example, a journal article discussing the microbiological evolution of lactic acid bacteria.

3. Speciation

I'd counter that speciation is only a "division" of evolution if you recognize a difference between microevolution and macroevolution of anything other than scale.

4. Macrobiological evolution

I think the results of the google search for this phrase are telling -- only one page of hits and this thread is the second one. In other words, a fairly meaningless phrase.

5. Microbial evolution

Equivalent to microbiological evolution in meaning.

So what's your motivation behind trying to redefine words and concepts that already have clear meanings and then to essentially coin a new one, in the case of macrobiological evolution, for on that's poorly defined, at least in terms of your OP?

reply to post by addygrace

You should read and comprehend the rest of the page from which you took this quote, especially the conclusions.