The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well, based on everything else you wrote in this post, it sounds like you do subscribe to neutral evolution, which holds that random genetic drift is more important than natural selection. Bear in mind that evolutionary psychology is NOT accepted by a majority of biologists.

Assuming I correctly understood what you wrote in the balance of your post, which I have excised for brevity, I think I agree with you.

Neutral evolution is semantically absurd. It's like motionless speed. But, otherwise we are in agreement I think.

Evolutionary psychology is an apparently valid discipline. I've never heard Dawkins dis Pinker, for example.

Neutral evolution is the thesis that at the molecular level most mutation is caused by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral. "Neutral" in this context means mutations that don't affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce; i.e., the mutations are neither beneficial nor deleterious.

Says who?
The point I was making is that evolution means progress.
So, although we are on the same page my objection is semantic.

[davidm]

Neutral evolution is semantically absurd. It's like motionless speed. But, otherwise we are in agreement I think.

Evolutionary psychology is an apparently valid discipline. I've never heard Dawkins dis Pinker, for example.

Neutral evolution is the thesis that at the molecular level most mutation is caused by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral. "Neutral" in this context means mutations that don't affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce; i.e., the mutations are neither beneficial nor deleterious.

Says who?
The point I was making is that evolution means progress.
So, although we are on the same page my objection is semantic.

Evolution does not mean progress. Evolution is a mindless process that has no target. It's just change over time.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Neutral evolution is the thesis that at the molecular level most mutation is caused by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral. "Neutral" in this context means mutations that don't affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce; i.e., the mutations are neither beneficial nor deleterious.

Says who?
The point I was making is that evolution means progress.
So, although we are on the same page my objection is semantic.

Evolution does not mean progress. Evolution is a mindless process that has no target. It's just change over time.

No. natural selection is a mindless process. "Evolution" is a word used by humans to describe a progression and many sorts, not just biological evolution.
Thus, when domesticated dogs change varieties this is not evolution, but diversification, dispiration, but they are not actually evolving as they are not under any restraint to survive. In fact many varieties of dogs collect negative traits such as hip dysplasia. No one calls that evolution.
When I asked "Says who?" I meant it literally in the sense of people such as biologists who are using the term.

[davidm]

In replay to the “says you,” the description I gave of neutral evolution is the one used by biologists.

I think this is just a terminological dispute of no great significance. Darwin introduced the word “evolution” to describe his theory — I believe it was actually in the final paragraph of his great work.

For him, that meant natural selection. But for modern biologists, evolution refers to all the processes that cause speciation — natural selection, but also genetic drift, neutral evolution, sexual selection and just plain accidents, like a giant meteor slamming the earth and killing off the dinosaurs.

For modern biologists, “evolution” in all of its manifestations is non-progressive. It’s just change.

Other, non-biological uses of the word “evolution” or “evolve” might involve progress — “he evolved from a nitwit to a smart man” — but those uses of the word are by definition outside the biological understanding of the word.

Just to be clear if it is not already, “neutral” evolution does not imply some kind of non-changing stasis. It just means that via genetic drift and pure accident mutations that are neither beneficial to a species nor harmful to it get fixed in populations. This is in contrast to natural selection, in which “selected” mutations are by definition beneficial.

[thedoc]

Evolution is a biological process, any other application is a misuse of the term.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Evolution is a biological process, any other application is a misuse of the term.

I'd go further...
It is the end result of a set of biological processes. The result of these processes, not as some seem to offer a cause, but an effect.

[thedoc]

Evolution is a biological process, any other application is a misuse of the term.

I'd go further...
It is the end result of a set of biological processes. The result of these processes, not as some seem to offer a cause, but an effect.

The cause is the environment, if the environment doesn't change there is no change to the organism. (An environment also includes whatever predator prey relationship there is.)

[Arising_uk]

The cause is the environment, if the environment doesn't change there is no change to the organism. (An environment also includes whatever predator prey relationship there is.)

Not true, mutations occur regardless if the environment changes or not and they can cause a reproductive advantage even if the environment hasn't changed. To think otherwise is to assume a teleology that is not in natural selection.

[thedoc]

The cause is the environment, if the environment doesn't change there is no change to the organism. (An environment also includes whatever predator prey relationship there is.)

Not true, mutations occur regardless if the environment changes or not and they can cause a reproductive advantage even if the environment hasn't changed. To think otherwise is to assume a teleology that is not in natural selection.

A mutation that causes a reproductive advantage would be a change in the environment. The environment includes everything, external and internal.

[Dubious]

No. natural selection is a mindless process.

...it’s one of the mechanisms of evolution. In a nutshell, it’s main function is to cull the bad mutations from the good ones and since nature is a bloody bitch it usually makes the failed organisms suffer a miserable death before it can spread itself. To nature these deficient organisms are viruses meant to be expunged. What’s left carries on for as long as it can make ends meet.

That being said, the process of culling the bad from the good mutations would be an excellent thing to have on philosophy forums.

[thedoc]

nature is a bloody bitch it usually makes the failed organisms suffer a miserable death before it can spread itself.

Have you ever seen a video of Lions feeding on an Antelope that was still alive? Nature is not always as sanitary as Disney portrays in it's animations.

[thedoc]

Only humans care that they kill the prey cleanly and completely, animals in nature don't care and will often eat a prey animal while the prey is still alive, and yet some people complain about hunting but not about the natural taking of prey.

[Dubious]

nature is a bloody bitch it usually makes the failed organisms suffer a miserable death before it can spread itself.

Have you ever seen a video of Lions feeding on an Antelope that was still alive? Nature is not always as sanitary as Disney portrays in it's animations.

I haven't seen that but I have seen other instances of it. Not for the squeamish, that's for sure!

What I find much more disturbing is what poachers do to animals as in cutting off the horns of a rhino with a chain saw. Half of its face was missing but still alive! What I wouldn't do to those sub-humans doesn't exist in whatever numbers necessary and in full public view. Vlad the impaler's methodologies is a good way to begin and I don't mean that figuratively.

[thedoc]

nature is a bloody bitch it usually makes the failed organisms suffer a miserable death before it can spread itself.

Have you ever seen a video of Lions feeding on an Antelope that was still alive? Nature is not always as sanitary as Disney portrays in it's animations.

I haven't seen that but I have seen other instances of it. Not for the squeamish, that's for sure!

What I find much more disturbing is what poachers do to animals as in cutting off the horns of a rhino with a chain saw. Half of its face was missing but still alive! What I wouldn't do to those sub-humans doesn't exist in whatever numbers necessary and in full public view. Vlad the impaler's methodologies is a good way to begin and I don't mean that figuratively.

I agree, Vlad the Impaler was tame to what I could think of as what to do with those who disfigure an animal for stupid unsupported ideas. Shark fin soup is another one, human trafficking is another and it all comes from the same place.

[Dubious]

nature is a bloody bitch it usually makes the failed organisms suffer a miserable death before it can spread itself.

I haven't seen that but I have seen other instances of it. Not for the squeamish, that's for sure!

What I find much more disturbing is what poachers do to animals as in cutting off the horns of a rhino with a chain saw. Half of its face was missing but still alive! What I wouldn't do to those sub-humans doesn't exist in whatever numbers necessary and in full public view. Vlad the impaler's methodologies is a good way to begin and I don't mean that figuratively.

I agree, Vlad the Impaler was tame to what I could think of as what to do with those who disfigure an animal for stupid unsupported ideas. Shark fin soup is another one, human trafficking is another and it all comes from the same place.

Nearly 5000 years of history, in which they accomplished nearly nothing, overpopulation and they still believe rhino horns and suchlike are aphrodisiacs. How they treat animals - we all know what they do to dogs and cats - is beyond description. They're also known as one of the most arrogant people on the planet and yet the West made this disgusting, decrepit "civilization" into a super power.