"Real" ringworlds

[Krsqk]

The problem lies in how the word "evolution" is used. One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species. As such, it is closely related to hypotheses of spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, and the origin of life itself. You can restrict the term "evolution" to strictly mean microevolution, but the vast majority of those discussing and debating it on both sides use it to mean any and/or all aspects of the theory/hypotheses, often switching freely between definitions (sometimes even mid-sentence).

[edit]Fyron, this post isn't necessarily directed at you. You, at least, are usually fairly consistent in how you use a word (sometimes annoyingly so). However, evolution has come to mean much more in popular parlance than the limited scope which you place on it.

[ May 17, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Phoenix-D]

"One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species."

But not the origin of life, which is a different and much stickier problem.

[StarBaseSweeper]

Micro-Evolution: T(n+1)=T(n)+1

Origin of life: T(0)=0

Macro evolution: T(n)=n ?

[Primogenitor]

So what were getting at is this:

Evolution (of any sort) can only apply once you have an (living?) organism that can copy itself almost perfectly (doesnt have to be a cell or anything we recognise today)

Micro evolution is short term, such as differences between wild and tame farm animals. It is evolution within the same "species"

Macro evolution is evolution over long term, such as differences between birds and mammals, plants and animals. Evolution between "species"

NB: I dont like the word "species", its not very accurate over evolutionary time. But i cant think of a better term.

[Primogenitor]

Heres a poser then:

Can non-living things evolve? E.g. Computer programs. What is actually needed for evolution?

[StarBaseSweeper]

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
Heres a poser then:

Can non-living things evolve? E.g. Computer programs. What is actually needed for evolution?

Of Course, else how could you have MC III from MC II ?

[EDIT] Amd even more important, by who would the shrike have been created?

[ May 17, 2003, 08:37: Message edited by: StarBaseSweeper ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

troops. evolution also means manuvers with troops.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species."

But not the origin of life, which is a different and much stickier problem.

Exactly. Krsqk just likes lumping all of biology together so he can dismiss it more easily. j/k

[dogscoff]

Gah! It's the evolution debate again!

*dogscoff runs screaming from the thread...

[Krsqk]

Yes, biology is a demonic branch of science, geology is blasphemous, and astronomy is an attempt to corrupt young minds and open them to the evils of astrology. I don't reject macroevolution and abiogenesis because they are the same; there are enough other reasons to toss them. I was griping about the tendency of debaters and pseudoscientists to "prove" macroevolution via microevolution, and then take abiogenesis as a given--after all, they just proved macroevolution, so that proves the entire theory. In other words, evolution is presented for public consumption as a seamless theory starting with a big bang and ending with us. It's almost as if the public couldn't handle the knowledge that scientists don't have everything worked out. If evolutionists were more interested in public understanding of their theory, they would work a little harder at clearing up common public misconceptions of it.

*joins dogscoff in running and screaming--six miles later, stops and wonders exactly why and where we're running*

[ May 19, 2003, 14:06: Message edited by: Krsqk ]