Mutations, bad not good (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 25, 2011, 00:02 (4871 days ago) @ dhw

I might also ask what you mean by 'instituted'. That too could = 'occurred', or perhaps 'was pre-programmed'. I agree with you ... it's nit-picking!
> -I believe in a UI. For me, when talking about the very beginning of things, despite what mechanics are studied, the word 'instituted' is for fitting, as regardless of the mechanics I see it a matter of design. -> Of course we cannot know the ultimate truth, but in order to continue the quest, why MUST we define a term which has been invented by humans to cover distinctions that ultimately seem impossible to cover? All the experts cite example after example to support their arguments on these subjects. Then let us focus on the process and the mechanisms illustrated by the examples. Do the answers to such fundamental questions really depend on whether we call the wolf and the coyote "species" or "subspecies" or "varieties"? 
> -To answer these in order..We must define the term because it puts everything else into perspective. I have read countless articles were researchers arbitrarily say a creature evolved one innovation or another, or that their common ancestor did this or that. This is pure assumption, which is bad enough. What's worse though, is the insidious effect that this has on the minds of people reading their papers. Using phrases like those constantly and doggedly impress the idea that these things are fact, when in fact, they are not. The answer to these fundamental question will not change what we call a coyote and the wolf, but it will change whether we call the canine and the ursine species cousins. -> I proposed that we define evolution as "the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier forms." You suggest: "the process by which living organisms change over the course of generations", as this does not "presume a process or mechanism that we have not defined." I think both definitions do precisely this, as each entails changes in organisms, and change must automatically involve a process and mechanisms that remain the subjects of ongoing investigation. Otherwise, though, our definitions are very different. Mine looks back to a line from the respective present to the past, whereas yours is ambiguous to say the least, and could mean that no form of organism ever remains the same over the course of generations. Perhaps we should have another look at this, but what are the objections to my definition?
> -My problem is with the phrase 'from earlier forms'. It, like my own failed attempt, is impossibly vague and includes hypotheses that have not been proven, like speciation/common ancestry. -> I'm touched by the comments you and DragonsHeart have made about the website. I regard it as a privilege to be involved in discussions like ours, and although inevitably we often find ourselves going over familiar ground, I'd like to think that each return visit yields enough new insights to make it worth everyone's while. Mercifully, we've been lucky enough to escape any permanent attention from those who prefer slanging matches to genuine exchanges of views.-Good companionship and excellent intellectual discussions are always a privilege.