Author Topic: Episode #670  (Read 3999 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3115
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2018, 07:11:51 AM »
Can someone define “de-evolve”.

I thought the whole concept was flawed.

Offline Physicity

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2018, 07:51:28 AM »
We'll, evolution is change in a population across generations, so 'de-evolve' must mean not changing?  Which isn't the context it's being used in.  Maybe it means 'to not understand basic evolution'?

Offline brilligtove

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5881
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2018, 07:54:43 AM »
Can someone define “de-evolve”.

I thought the whole concept was flawed.

It's a term like deceleration. In physics there is no such thing. In common use it has meaning. Depending on your context and level of detail devolve is a meaningful term or incoherent. Such is language.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3115
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2018, 08:24:43 AM »
Can someone define “de-evolve”.

I thought the whole concept was flawed.

It's a term like deceleration. In physics there is no such thing. In common use it has meaning. Depending on your context and level of detail devolve is a meaningful term or incoherent. Such is language.

Thanks.

I think "de-evolve" implies that evolution has a direction, which can lead to faulty mental images.

Snakes and whales "losing" legs, blind mole rats "losing" eyes, and numerous other examples are just "evolution", not "De-evolution".

But maybe that's getting a bit pendantic!

Anyway, when I hear the term, the mental image I get is...




Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2018, 11:28:18 AM »
Can someone define “de-evolve”.

I thought the whole concept was flawed.

I agree it’s not a very good term, mainly because it doesn’t exist, and for this reason is a flawed concept.  For a dog to evolve into a cat, it would be necessary for the dog as a species to lose every single feature, making it a dog, from the last common ancestor of dogs and cats, and then acquire every single characteristics making it a cat (which include vertically orientated pupil and retractable claws).  And every single change has to be beneficial or neutral.

A dog can’t evolve directly into a cat.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8668
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2018, 11:34:22 AM »

Snakes and whales "losing" legs, blind mole rats "losing" eyes, and numerous other examples are just "evolution", not "De-evolution".

That's actually an example of how species cannot "devolve." First their legs, etc. were not lost. They remain as vestiges.They evolved as animals with one kind of leg, etc. into animals with another kind of leg. They did not devolve back into the species that didn't have legs, etc. That would be impossible, since those features developed way up the evolutionary chain. To devolve and lose those feature they'd have to evolve back to some very basic life form.

Features could be lost, especially features that developed more recently, but (d)evolving back to a significantly earlier form of life is not possible.

We'll, evolution is change in a population across generations, so 'de-evolve' must mean not changing?  Which isn't the context it's being used in.  Maybe it means 'to not understand basic evolution'?

That's a minimalist definition.

evolution Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Quote
Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear.

This definition does imply direction.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3115
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #66 on: May 17, 2018, 12:04:44 PM »

This definition does imply direction.

By lack of direction, I think it’s generally meant direction towards or away from some imagined goal.

It’s trivially true that it has direction viewed retrospectively over time.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8668
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #67 on: May 17, 2018, 01:21:48 PM »

Snakes and whales "losing" legs, blind mole rats "losing" eyes, and numerous other examples are just "evolution", not "De-evolution".

That's actually an example of how species cannot "devolve." First their legs, etc. were not lost. They remain as vestiges.They evolved as animals with one kind of leg, etc. into animals with another kind of leg. They did not devolve back into the species that didn't have legs, etc. That would be impossible, since those features developed way up the evolutionary chain. To devolve and lose those feature they'd have to evolve back to some very basic life form.

Features could be lost, especially features that developed more recently, but (d)evolving back to a significantly earlier form of life is not possible.

We'll, evolution is change in a population across generations, so 'de-evolve' must mean not changing?  Which isn't the context it's being used in.  Maybe it means 'to not understand basic evolution'?

That's a minimalist definition.

evolution Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Quote
Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear.

This definition does imply direction.

I think the word "new" in the definition implies a movement in a direction, away from old, or previous, or existing.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Physicity

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #68 on: May 17, 2018, 01:37:42 PM »

We'll, evolution is change in a population across generations, so 'de-evolve' must mean not changing?  Which isn't the context it's being used in.  Maybe it means 'to not understand basic evolution'?

That's a minimalist definition.


Yes, it was sufficient to make the point I was trying to make.  I don't believe every post needs to be an exhaustive or complete analysis, minimal can suffice.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8668
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #69 on: May 17, 2018, 05:32:55 PM »

We'll, evolution is change in a population across generations, so 'de-evolve' must mean not changing?  Which isn't the context it's being used in.  Maybe it means 'to not understand basic evolution'?

That's a minimalist definition.


Yes, it was sufficient to make the point I was trying to make.  I don't believe every post needs to be an exhaustive or complete analysis, minimal can suffice.

Wrong.

(A truly minimalist response )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Physicity

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2018, 01:53:09 AM »

We'll, evolution is change in a population across generations, so 'de-evolve' must mean not changing?  Which isn't the context it's being used in.  Maybe it means 'to not understand basic evolution'?

That's a minimalist definition.


Yes, it was sufficient to make the point I was trying to make.  I don't believe every post needs to be an exhaustive or complete analysis, minimal can suffice.

Wrong.

(A truly minimalist response )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why am I wrong?  Did I not make my point that de-evolve is an unhelpful term?  I didn't need to go into a complex definition of evolution to do that.  Your response, at 11 words, is brief but not minimal.  You haven't provided any justification for your statement that I am wrong.  Nor even said which bit of my response you think is wrong.  Maybe you think I dont believe every post needs an exhaustive analysis of minutiae?

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8668
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2018, 11:40:57 AM »

We'll, evolution is change in a population across generations, so 'de-evolve' must mean not changing?  Which isn't the context it's being used in.  Maybe it means 'to not understand basic evolution'?

That's a minimalist definition.


Yes, it was sufficient to make the point I was trying to make.  I don't believe every post needs to be an exhaustive or complete analysis, minimal can suffice.

Wrong.

(A truly minimalist response )



In so many ways.

First, you use a reductive definition of evolve which relies on only part of it's description, then use that minimalist definition to define de-volve, in a way that is not how it's being used in any context.  Then use the misunderstanding you created to insult those who disagree with you.

Quote
Did I not make my point that de-evolve is an unhelpful term?


No. You muddied the conversation and your point seemed to be that people who used devolve aren't as knowledgeable as you.

Quote
I didn't need to go into a complex definition of evolution to do that. 

And this is the false dichotomy fallacy. The options are not to use a minimalist, reductive definition of evolve to make your point or a complex definition of evolution. There's plenty of middle ground.

Quote
Your response, at 11 words, is brief but not minimal. 

My response was five words. You're counting the signature Tapatalk adds to each post made from my iPhone.

Brief and minimal are not mutually exclusive. My response was brief and minimal.

Quote
You haven't provided any justification for your statement that I am wrong.  Nor even said which bit of my response you think is wrong.


That was the point

Quote
Maybe you think I dont believe every post needs an exhaustive analysis of minutiae?

Again, with the false dichotomy.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 01:06:29 PM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3115
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2018, 12:00:48 PM »

Offline seamas

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2221
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2018, 02:18:01 PM »
Any word whether they were able to record a show this week?
I know they all lost power due to tuesday's storm (as did I for about 6 hours)
I am in the neighboring county (to the west), and got hit with the same storm. Pretty damned impressive storm. The tree damage in the area is comparable to a Hurricane, which is amazing considering the storm was in and out in about two hours.

Offline Physicity

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2018, 02:46:59 PM »

We'll, evolution is change in a population across generations, so 'de-evolve' must mean not changing?  Which isn't the context it's being used in.  Maybe it means 'to not understand basic evolution'?



[/quot

First, you use a reductive definition of evolve which relies on only part of it's description, then use that minimalist definition to define de-volve, in a way that is not how it's being used in any context.  Then use the misunderstanding you created to insult those who disagree with you.


Utter drivel, carbshark.  I didn't create any misunderstanding,nor did I insult anyone.  People who talk about de-evolving are showing they don't understand evolution.  It's nothing to do with agreeing with me or not, it's about evolution and understanding what evolution is and is not.  You make dumb connections and misunderstand what is being said.

Here's the last post I will make to you.  You are not fun to talk with, and you are not interested in discussing things, only in trying to look clever.  Is totally ignoring you sufficiently minimalist?  (For clarity, that's rhetoric, I really won't read any response you make)

 

personate-rain
personate-rain