RE: Are there things that don't evolve?

Debbie Mann wrote:

>In response to Pim van Meurs
><I would disagree that suns do not evolve. Certainly losing energy may not
><be a defining factor of 'evolving'. In fact most suns go through quite a
><nice evolution. So I have to disagree with your obviousness statement
><when it comes to suns and evolving.
>
>Then define 'evolution'. If it is 'change' then virtually everything
>changes. Rocks are eroded, pears decay, our bodies turn to dust eventually.
>The universe itself expands. Perhaps diamonds don't change without human or
>catastrophic intervention - but then again, they are being pelted with
>atomic and subatomic particles such that on some level they do change. Our
>bodies are completely replaced atomicly every couple of years.
>
>
Indeed, it is therefor helpful to understand how the term evolution is
used by scientists. Talkorigins.org is generally a very helpful resource
although it appears to be offline for the last few days.

Claim CA212:
Evolution is defined ambiguously, and claims that it is fact are based
on the ambiguity. It is usually defined as "change in heritable
characteristics in a population over time" (often expressed as "change
in allele frequencies"), which everyone accepts as fact, but that does
not mean that macroevolution or common descent are fact.
Luckily there is also the NCSE
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/1610_defining_evolution_12_30_1899.asp

Evolution

    * Originally, a synonym for ontogeny....
    * According to Lamarck and his contemporaries, the unfolding of
      (evolutionary) potentials as each species ascends the /scala
      naturae/.
    * From 1809 on, the transformation of one species into another;
      phyletic evolution.
    * According to many geneticists..., changes in the gene frequencies
      of populations.
    * Anagenesis plus cladogenesis. Phylogeny and the changes in gene
      frequencies that produce phylogenetic change.

Also What is Evolution? Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

    M ost non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise
    definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large
    part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to
    the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves
    about how to define such an important term. When discussing
    evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of
    evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And
    when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have
    a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when
    they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps
    have evolved from a common ancestor?

    One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined
    biological evolution as follows:

    "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is
    all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all
    evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of
    populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single
    individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered
    evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in
    populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
    inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the
    next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
    everything from slight changes in the proportion of different
    alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types)
    to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
    protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

    - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

    It is important to note that biological evolution refers to
    populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be
    passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

    Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a
    population spread over many generations.

    This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that
    can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes
    that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution
    can be found in many textbooks:

    "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
    frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
    next."

    - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
    Publishers, p.974

    One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have
    often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence
    of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have
    observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in
    the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is
    inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When
    biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common
    ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes
    in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

>Evolution has to be defined more narrowly than change or basically the
>question has no meaning.
>
>
>
Agreed and that's why science has indeed defined the term more narrowly

>When Darwin described it (at least as I remember learning it), the new
>species evolved when the creature could no longer procreate with the old.
>
That's speciation but also an incomplete description of speciation since
'could no longer procreate' need not be a physical inability.

A cursory search on the internet can address the many questions you may
have. Hope this helps
Received on Sat Mar 25 23:10:47 2006