I might also ask what you mean by 'instituted'. That too could = 'occurred', or perhaps 'was pre-programmed'. I agree with you ... it's nit-picking!
> -I believe in a UI. For me, when talking about the very beginning of things, despite what mechanics are studied, the word 'instituted' is for fitting, as regardless of the mechanics I see it a matter of design. -> Of course we cannot know the ultimate truth, but in order to continue the quest, why MUST we define a term which has been invented by humans to cover distinctions that ultimately seem impossible to cover? All the experts cite example after example to support their arguments on these subjects. Then let us focus on the process and the mechanisms illustrated by the examples. Do the answers to such fundamental questions really depend on whether we call the wolf and the coyote "species" or "subspecies" or "varieties"? 
> -To answer these in order..We must define the term because it puts everything else into perspective. I have read countless articles were researchers arbitrarily say a creature evolved one innovation or another, or that their common ancestor did this or that. This is pure assumption, which is bad enough. What's worse though, is the insidious effect that this has on the minds of people reading their papers. Using phrases like those constantly and doggedly impress the idea that these things are fact, when in fact, they are not. The answer to these fundamental question will not change what we call a coyote and the wolf, but it will change whether we call the canine and the ursine species cousins. -> I proposed that we define evolution as "the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier forms." You suggest: "the process by which living organisms change over the course of generations", as this does not "presume a process or mechanism that we have not defined." I think both definitions do precisely this, as each entails changes in organisms, and change must automatically involve a process and mechanisms that remain the subjects of ongoing investigation. Otherwise, though, our definitions are very different. Mine looks back to a line from the respective present to the past, whereas yours is ambiguous to say the least, and could mean that no form of organism ever remains the same over the course of generations. Perhaps we should have another look at this, but what are the objections to my definition?
> -My problem is with the phrase 'from earlier forms'. It, like my own failed attempt, is impossibly vague and includes hypotheses that have not been proven, like speciation/common ancestry. -> I'm touched by the comments you and DragonsHeart have made about the website. I regard it as a privilege to be involved in discussions like ours, and although inevitably we often find ourselves going over familiar ground, I'd like to think that each return visit yields enough new insights to make it worth everyone's while. Mercifully, we've been lucky enough to escape any permanent attention from those who prefer slanging matches to genuine exchanges of views.-Good companionship and excellent intellectual discussions are always a privilege.

TONY: The problem of innovation and speciation, however, which to me are separate but related issues, are far more relevant to, not only the creationism, but also to the definition of evolution and the progress of that scientific method. If scientist KNEW that speciation could or could not occur, they would be better able to focus their research.->As I've said before, we know that some creatures are radically different from others and cannot interbreed, so I don't think anyone would question that speciation has occurred, no matter how we define "species". -Actually, and I hesitate to say it because it is really knit-picking language, one of the differences between the Fundamentalist and Evolutionist is exactly about whether speciation 'occurred'. And this is one of the points I have been trying to hammer on with my incessant rambling about speciation. Did speciation occur, or are the fundamentalist right, and speciation was instituted from the beginning. In order to answer or argue that question the definition of 'species' and the mechanism by which it occurs MUST be defined. -
>As for a definition of evolution and its progress, my own view is that we should stick to the simplest possible formulation, e.g. "the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier forms". -Can we modify that to say, "the process by which living organisms change over the course of generations." I think this more neutral definition does not presume a process or mechanism that we have not defined. ->Once that is accepted, we can discuss all the details, like gradualism, innovation, adaptation, heredity, distinguishing between varieties and species, the role of NS etc., concerning all of which I share your curiosity. I'm also immensely grateful to you, David, Matt and everyone else who keeps us up to date with the latest findings on these subjects, including DragonsHeart, who has drawn our attention to "new insights on the brain".-And I am likewise grateful to all of you. I had actually considered starting a thread the other day just to say thank you, but real life pulled me away. AG.web, and all of its contributors have definitely been appreciated by me, not just for the information that's shared, but for the enlightened conversation and arguments that help me refine my own views.

Dhw: Since we have now established that you reject fundamentalist creationism and the theory that God created all species separately, and you agree that there WAS such a progressive movement, the fact that we do not have (and never have had) a clear delineation between terms is not in my view a problem.
> -> TONY: I am searching for an answer to this just like everyone here. Fundamental creationist do take things too far with their 6 days and every single species created individually, I think. However, the 'according to their kind' statement does beg some investigation, in my opinion, even if it does not mean precisely what the fundamentalist think it does. 
> I do not claim to know how it was accomplished. I do not even necessarily see that there needs to be a disparity between creationism (even in a sense relatively close to the fundamentalist view) and evolution (in the sense of adaptation). I do not think that there is enough data or that we have enough understanding to categorically deny any eventuality at this point, other than that every single species, as we know them at this time, were not created individually.
> 
> It seems then that you are looking for a way to reconcile the biblical version of events with the evolutionary, and the compromise would be that some species evolved as per Darwin and Co, but some ... or possibly just one? ... was specially created by God. The one, of course, is man, because Genesis is unequivocal on this. Would I be wrong in inferring that your preoccupation with "species" centres on this particular point? The relationship between man and chimpanzee is already a problem, and that between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man really muddies the waters. If you can cast doubt on whatever links people think they have found, this will help the case that God created our particular form of human independently of all other forms of life.
> -
I believe in a God, a UI, a being greater than humanity or anything that we know of, whatever you like to call it. I do not deny nor apologize for that. The puzzle you think you found is no real puzzle at all. Whether the UI created the rules and let the chips fall where they may, or created the pro-generators of each phyla, or created every early creature directly, I do not know, nor make any claim as to which one I believe to be the case. This is why I say there is no direct conflict between evolution and creation. The direct conflict is actually between creationism and abiogenesis, which is another topic altogether. I am vastly curious about how the process occurred, what methods were used, what order things happened in, and why. The matter of adaptation is actually of little concern to me as far as defining my views. We all know adaptation occurs, and I see it is good forward thinking on the part of a designer. (Don't you wish your car could automatically adapt to the environment and available fuel?) The problem of innovation and speciation, however, which to me are separate but related issues, are far more relevant to, not only the creationism, but also to the definition of evolution and the progress of that scientific method. If scientist KNEW that speciation could or could not occur, they would be better able to focus their research.

Since we have now established that you reject fundamentalist creationism and the theory that God created all species separately, and you agree that there WAS such a progressive movement, the fact that we do not have (and never have had) a clear delineation between terms is not in my view a problem.-You misrepresent me. I did not say that reject anything. I said:->I do not equate fundamentalist creationism with ID. ID, in my opinion, simply means that there was intelligence, planning, and order to the DESIGN and implementation of the 'life, the universe, and everything'.-I am searching for an answer to this just like everyone here. Fundamental creationist do take things too far with their 6 days and every single species created individually, I think. However, the 'according to their kind' statement does beg some investigation, in my opinion, even if it does not mean precisely what the fundamentalist think it does. -I do not claim to know how it was accomplished. I do not even necessarily see that there needs to be a disparity between creationism (even in a sense relatively close to the fundamentalist view) and evolution (in the sense of adaptation). I do not think that there is enough data or that we have enough understanding to categorically deny any eventuality at this point, other than that every single species, as we know them at this time, were not created individually.

TONY: While I can appreciate that Darwin himself did not try to make a clear demarcation between one species and another, I think that it does affect the discussion. If we have no clear delineation between one species and the next, then how can we even begin to discuss evolution proper as a progressive movement from common ancestor to our current state of variety. At some point, there has to be a cut off between the ability to breed between one group and the next, and the point is critical, and I would say central, to the case of Evolution vs. ID. 
> 
> Before we go any further, I think we need to agree on what we mean by ID. This has become so tainted with Creationism that the words Intelligent Design have lost their meaning. (I've rightly been taken to task over references to this in the "Brief Guide", which is in need of a second revision.) If you mean that life is the product of design, I don't see speciation or evolution as a problem. If you mean that each species was created separately by God, then all species came into being originally without parenthood, and despite the vast range of similarities there is no connection between any of them. Clearly that is in conflict with evolution, and we dive into murky waters. 
> 
> As I see it, the key to all this is change. If we suppose that every so often changes take place in existing forms of life and continue to take place over millions of years in those forms existing at the time, through adaptations and innovations perhaps stimulated by different environments, it seems reasonable to infer that the process will lead to a wide variety of different creatures. Some will go extinct, some remain the same, some become unrecognizably different. "Species", "sub-species", "varieties" are words we use to categorize, but as Darwin made clear, there are no firm borderlines. If we decide that the borderline is formed by the inability to interbreed, we can argue that eventually ... perhaps over thousands/millions of years ... the changes simply become too radical to allow for interbreeding. It's difficult to imagine a tabby having sex with a tiger, even though they're both felids. In the case of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, since apparently they did interbreed, clearly the changes were not so radical, and whether we call them species, sub-species or variations doesn't make any difference to the overall argument. If current scientific findings are to be trusted, early forms of life did not reproduce sexually, did not have wings or legs or eyes or ears or teeth. These innovations could have accumulated over millions of years in many different shapes, sizes and combinations. Atheists may say they came about through adaptations or random mutations, theists may say they came about through God's direct intervention or through a creative mechanism devised by God. And so the choice is not between evolution and design, which are perfectly compatible, but between evolution and the separate creation of species, and maybe of sub-species and varieties. I'd say that a "cut-off " point for interbreeding (ouch, that sounds painful!), when changes have become too radical, would be far less difficult to believe in than creatures which appear fully formed without any act of breeding at all. Wouldn't you?-I do not equate fundamentalist creationism with ID. ID, in my opinion, simply means that there was intelligence, planning, and order to the DESIGN and implementation of the 'life, the universe, and everything'.->We agree that adaptation has to be fast enough to ensure survival, which as I said may = "extremely rapid". Our problem is to account not for species that survive but for the emergence of NEW species.-Errmm.. My original post was directed at just this point. In order to account for 'the emergence of NEW species', you have to have two things: 1) a definitive answer for what exact qualifications are needed to be considered a new species, and 2) a defined transition point between old species and new species.

"No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species."
> 
> "Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species [...] or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences."
> 
> "If a variety were to flourish so as to exceed in numbers the parent species, it would then rank as the species, and the species as the variety; or it might come to supplant and exterminate the parent species; or both might co-exist, and both rank as an independent species." (Interesting in the context of the Neanderthals.)
> 
> This is indeed another problem that has still not been solved, though it doesn't affect the discussion on how the mechanisms of evolution actually work.
> -While I can appreciate that Darwin himself did not try to make a clear demarcation between one species and another, I think that it does affect the discussion. If we have no clear delineation between one species and the next, then how can we even begin to discuss evolution proper as a progressive movement from common ancestor to our current state of variety. At some point, there has to be a cut off between the ability to breed between one group and the next, and the point is critical, and I would say central, to the case of Evolution vs. ID. If such a mechanism does indeed exist, we should be able to isolate it. While it would not, in and of itself, definitively prove one over the other, the lack of such a mechanism would actually prove to be a strong notch in the ID supporters belt. In other words, if we can't prove that evolution, of its own accord, can provide a sustainable variety that is incapable of breeding with its predecessor, or evolutionary cousins, then how do we account for the variety of life which is unable to cross that boundary.-
> DAVID: Since there are no fossil series that show Darwin's tiny gradual steps, I agree that PE is the main mechanism, whatever that means. 
> 
> I don't see PE as a mechanism at all, but simply a historical description. There are long periods of equilibrium in which species remain relatively stable, and these are punctuated by bursts of activity, with extinctions, innovations etc. These bursts may be associated with major events affecting the environment. Tony questions "how fast these changes are actually able to happen" and wonders why we have not witnessed more of them, "particularly after the drastic changes man has made to the environment". Even the Cambrian Explosion took millions of years (though different sources give wildly varying figures of how many millions). How fast is "fast"? However, if there is a sudden event like, say, a massive eruption or a collision with a meteorite, I would have thought changes would be extremely rapid. Adaptation would certainly need to be swift, but adaptation need not lead to innovations and new species.
> -If a organism took a million years, a thousand years, or even a century, to adapt to an environment suddenly turned hostile, I can not conceive how the species would survive long enough to adapt. To slightly altar your question above, "How fast is fast enough?"-> DAVID: In medicine, if we didn't understand a process, we gave it a name and everyone felt better.
> 
> A wonderful revelation! But actually it's a very serious point. By naming things, we give them authenticity, authority, and eventually perhaps even familiarity. Think of "random mutations", "dark energy", "multiverse", "God".-Agreed!!


> According to the earlier discussion, speciation is defined by the two species not being able to breed. Yet this article provides incontrovertible proof that Neanderthals, supposedly a different species, did breed with modern humans. So are they a different species, or not?-I agree with your discussion that I have deleted, but thought I'd add a comment or two about this paragraph, with which I agree.-We know certain species interbreed but the offspring are sterile. On the other hand wolves and dogs are really the same species and can breed with offspring that can breed. We have lots of wolf-dogs in Texas. Very logical; they are the same species with great modifications by human breeders. Of course Neanderthals and humans bred, most likely by rape, as DNA still present in us proves. Probably not different species, just variations on the hominid line of evolution. I'm sure Homo habilis developed from Homo erectus, or the other way around, both co-existed and interbred. I'm sure that species that modify enough to seem different, can interbreed and produce off-spring that interbreed.- Since there are no fossil series that show Darwin's tiny gradual steps, I agree that PE is the main mechanism, whatever that means. In medicine, if we didn't understand a process, we gave it a name and everyone felt better. PE is the same way, recognized but not understood.

I feel we are moving ever closer now. It might be useful if you were to compile a simple list of these "assumptions", but I'll put in my own pennyworth first. Areas of the current theory which I find to be suspect include: 1) innovations; 2) time scales; 3) gradualism (punctuated equilibrium seems far more convincing to me); 4) the obsession with Natural Selection as a creative force, which it clearly is not. More common ground here?-
Innovations is a major sticking point for me, particularly as we unravel greater complexity in biology. -The time scales also, particularly in light of mounting evidence against them. -I see gradualism as a grand fallacy, simply because there are far too many interdependent systems for a single major system to be half-cocked much less more than one. Punctuated equilibrium is far more likely, yet, I must question how fast these changes are actually able to happen, and if it is so quickly, why have we not witnessed more of them, particularly after the drastic changes man has made to the environment.-We certainly agree on NS. -I know this has been a topic of much conversation for me of late, but I want a clear, irrefutable definition of so-called speciation, because evolutionist seem to be contradicting themselves.-"Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, and became extinct (due to climate change or interaction with humans) and were replaced by H. sapiens moving into its habitat beginning around 80,000 years ago.[57] Competition from H. sapiens probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction.[58] Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict and displacement."
-
The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago.-Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html#ixzz1SIm0OmrA-
According to the earlier discussion, speciation is defined by the two species not being able to breed. Yet this article provides incontrovertible proof that Neanderthals, supposedly a different species, did breed with modern humans. So are they a different species, or not?

There are no assumptions here, and I am only concerned with the overall pattern, not with the details. I now have two questions for you: 1) Can you find fault with this pattern? 2) Can you suggest another that fits in equally well with the three sets of experiences and observations I have listed above?-To the general patterns, I do not now, nor have I ever had any real argument against them. That is not the fault I find in evolutionary theory, and never has been. I find that the idea makes sense on many fundamental levels. As I said, though, I think the current paradigm makes far, far too many assumptions. By the same token, I put no more stock in the current wave of fundamentalist creationism than I do in the current Theory of Evolution.