What is Evolution ?

Good point. More details of evolutionary theory is needed to explain this. But in a nutshell, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is attained under a very special set of assumptions: No selection, No mutation, and No migration. This does not happen in many species. In fact, I am not sure if there are any example at the species level. But, there is a now well known example at the gene level.

In 1975, Race and Sanger reported the typing results from 1279 individuals in London. They calculated the proportions of alleles for the MN blood group locus in the London population and pretty much obtained exactly what would be expected under the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. This proved that the conditions of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium were met in the human population, but for a very specific locus.

Now, I am not sure if it is possible for an actual population of species to meet the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium conditions. If anybody can think of one, please let me know.

praetor605:

I am not sure why you do not consider definitions 2.1 and 2.2 to not be evolution. They do refer to the history of evolution, but that is perfectly fine since we have evidence to show its history. One of the definitive aspects about evolution is that is can be used to explain how life cam about on this planet. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

Well, you have to take the whole article into perspective. What I was trying to do here was to provide a proper scientific definition for the fact of evolution. While both these definition seem to provide an "okay" definition of what is evolution, I think they portray more what the result of evolution is (That's what I meant by history of evolution and not fact of evolution). What I mean is that they do not provide any easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. It's a small nuance, but I feel like it is an important one. Especially when you want to debate questions involving evolution and know what you are talking about.

As for your comment on gradualism and PE, well I understand what you mean but the two theories are a little bit different. They probably differ more at their definition of speciation. We might want to discuss this when I defined what speciation is in a later installment. Thanks for your constructive comments. Good discussing with people who know what they are talking about. Keep the comments coming!

What I believe you are trying to do (and correct me if wrong) is to define the way evolution works via genetics to define evolution as fact (I would say "virtual" fact). This foundation could then be used to move into the results of evolution if you wished.

Yes. Exactly. I am trying to scientifically define what evolution is. There is subtle distinction, which I hope (and think) you get, that I wanted to point out. What I (and other scientists in evolutionary theory) refer to when we speak of evolution is what I have defined in the first definitions. The two other definitions are not scientific definitions and should not be used when debating evolution.

Don't get me wrong. They are "okay" definitions, but you cannot scientifically describe evolutionary theory, as I intend to do, by using them. Anyways, hope I am not confusing everybody now :-) It will probably become clearer why I define it as I do in the next installments.

Micrastur, you could be right. Maybe you are thinking of micro-evolution and macro-evolution. In this case, what I describe would be micro-evolution. But even then, I wanted to define evolution in the most simple and scientific way possible. Definitions 1.1 and 1.2 are scientific and very simple. Definition 2.1 and 2.2 are not. I guess they could be seen as macro-evolution, but I didn't even want to do that distinction. I wanted something more general and simple. Does that make sense ?

Mykola:
Not to worry. I find it funny to read some of your comments :) Ha ha. Although, that last one from Ansab was a little too graphic for me. Just to think that you can actually write down things like that make me kinda feel weird inside. So, Ansab, could you please restrain from writing stuff like that, in my articles at least, - a simple "I could have killed a mother while her children watch" would have been enough to prove your point (even though it has nothing to do with the subject of this post).

Anyways, I will definitively use the "vinesci" tag. Thanks Mykola.

Great! Not to worry. Just felt like I should let you know :-)

Yeah, it's a very interesting book, especially when you think of the time he wrote it. It was very controversial. Anyways. The book does not refer to evolution per say, I mean most of the concepts we talk about these days in evolution (in this article anyways) are very modern. They came about with discovery of DNA in the 50's by Watson and Crick, and developed with our understanding of molecular biology.

However, the book does refer to natural selection and variation in populations. He explicitly talk about mechanisms of transitions of organic beings (his words!). So he definitively had the idea that species evolved through small changes into new organisms and so on. The main thing is that he did not refer to any particular mechanism (expect the very vague concept of natural selection) because we did not know as much biology as we do now. I wonder what he would think of Biology if he was still alive now. We know so much more than in the 1800's. You should definitively read the book (You made me want to reread it now! Ha ha.).

Another good book to read would be The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, by Stephen Jay Gould. This is definitively on my to-read list. Cheers

At any rate, it does not matter whether she deserves the Nobel with Watson and Crick; she definitely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Watson and Crick when concerning the structure of DNA.

Thanks for the info. You are definitively right on this one and will make sure to not exclude her in my next comments on the structure of DNA. I should actually read a little more on this, any suggestions ?

If you want to convince a non-scientist that ID is not science and should not be taught in public schools, then you have to convince the layperson through simple facts that may include things in definitions 2.?.

Again, you are probably right. But the idea behind this article was not necessarily to provide you with tools for your next debate, although I would hope that it did a little. It was simply to inform people on a subject that I know quite well and is not well understood these days. I guess I do hope that understand the difference between the fact of evolution, the process (or theory) of evolution, and the origin of life. Very different things which could potentially change some of today's debates.

Working on the next installment of this series and should be ready pretty soon. However, I still have to watch the World Cup tomorrow as one of my teams is playing against Argentina! ;-)

Thanks a lot. Will check it out.