|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't see any of those people denying that small amounts of evolution constitute evolution, because they are not insane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You would contend that natural selection is an example of evolution - therefore I believe in evolution because I believe natural selection is a fact. So in effect, I am an evolutionist. I would not contend that you are an evolutionist. You are not an evolutionist.
The fact that a creationist like me - who categorically rejects the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell orgaism - can nevertheless be an evolutionist is proof that the definition of evolution as (ab)used in biology is seriously flawed. No, it's proof that your definition of "evolutionist" is seriously flawed, since you wish to apply it to anyone who acknowledges any evolution whatsoever. By your definition, all the major creationist organizations are evolutionists, since they are always ready to say that they don't dispute microevolution.
... which brings me to a new definition of evolution that I' m considering: But you don't get to define scientific terms. You can whine about them, but you can't change them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Clearly you're avoiding the point that different scientific sources give different definitions of evolution. I just looked at the first of your "different scientific sources":
CRR, post #265 writes: Or we could go to Evolution 101 at Berkley.
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. ... The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor Hmm, what used to go where you put the ellipses? Let's have a look.
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). You found a definition of evolution, saw that it proved you wrong, cut out the bit that proved you wrong, and posted what remained as proof you were right. This is not arguing in good faith.
You can't just pick one you like and say "This is THE definition of evolution"; especially since it is such a poor one that even Creationists are willing to adopt it. If creationists agreed with the standard definition of "giraffe" (as I believe they do) would that make it a poor definition too? Do they taint everything they touch? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Clearly you're avoiding the point that different scientific sources give different definitions of evolution. And now let's look at the second of your "different scientific sources" with an allegedly different definition. It says:
The "allele-frequency" definition of evolution has survived to become the "standard" definition in textbooks and discussions about the nature of evolution. You had the whole internet to look at to find a reference proving me wrong. And again you found one that proves me right --- and pretended that it proves me wrong. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And would CRR and Dredge like to tell us what the right word is for evolution, if not "evolution"?
Let us consider a not uncommon evolutionary event. A population of bacteria is exposed to an antibiotic. A mutation arises conferring immunity; it spreads through the gene pool as a result of natural selection. Compensatory mutations occur and are likewise selected for. We end up with a robust healthy population immune to the antibiotic. Any biologist would say that the bacteria have evolved resistance to the antibiotic. 'Cos they have. Then along comes Dredge and says that we can't call that evolution because it does not conflict with his primitive religious dogma --- and the term "evolution" must be reserved only for things that he personally disbelieves in. (Presumably the definition would have to be revised any time he changes his beliefs, and the makers of dictionaries will have to call him up again every time they bring out a fresh edition.) But what, then, should scientists be calling it? Our language has thousands of words from aardvark to zymurgy, and not one of them except "evolved" will sensibly and exactly fill in the blank in the sentence "the bacteria have _______ resistance to the antibiotic". There is no better word. So I would suggest that we let scientists use scientific terms in the established and customary manner, and if creationists want to talk about something other than evolution, they should find another word for it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The article as a whole doe not endorse the "allele frequency" definition; which btw was not your definition. It says it's the standard definition, literally the textbook definition; and it is in fact synonymous with the one I offered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Can you explain please the chronology of your cited "not uncommon evolutionary event"? I'm confused. When did the mutation that confers immunity (to the antibiotic) arise - before the introduction of the antibiotic or after? Obviously either can happen, but in the example I gave the antibiotic came first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The only way to stop creationists like me claiming to be evolutionists is to include the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell-like organism in the defintion of evolution. I am unable to change the definitions of scientific terms; and I am fairly indifferent if you want to make obviously false claims about yourself. For all I care you can claim to be a chocolate-coated revolving umbrella stand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If the antibiotic came first, this means the mutation that confers immunity wasn't present in the original population. So how did any bacteria survive the antibiotic if none of them had the immunity mutation? The effect of an antibiotic depends on its concentration: a concentration which is not universally lethal will still inhibit growth and reproduction, which acts as a selective pressure in favor of mutations conferring immunity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Why am I not an evolutionist? Who knows? Perhaps you were dropped on your head as a child.
What is your definition of an evolutionist? One who adheres to evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Actually this is an uncommon event. Frozen samples retrieved from the remains of the Franklin Expedition showed a small proportion of antibiotic resistant members. This probably IS a mutation but it exists before the bacteria is exposed to antibiotics. The reason it is at such low levels initially is that it is a defect that is detrimental and only gives a net benefit when exposed to antibiotics. Your reasoning is unclear. I said that both can happen: the fact that one has happened on at least one occasion does not mean that the other one is uncommon. If I told you that people can be either male or female, and that it was not uncommon for them to be male, would you try to refute me by triumphantly producing a single example of a woman? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, the "already there resistance" didn't help those 20 million people people who died as a result of the Great Flu... I don't see your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But in reality over time the neutral ones would most likely become deleterious. How? What does this mean?
Four for a gene should be all it takes to provide all the variety we see for any given trait ... I have given you examples about the coat color and markings of dogs where this is not the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Any gene that has collected a huge number of "alleles," most of which of course don't do anything, is one of those parts of the genetic code that is especially prone to mutations. So such mutated "alleles" that get passed on are going to easily accumulate more mutations until finally they do something decidedly unbeneficial to the host. It's inevitable since mutations are inherently destructive. So when you say that neutral mutations can become deleterious, what you mean is that other completely different mutations in the same locus could be deleterious. So it's like saying: "This President could become bad for America, because an election could take place in which he could be replaced by a different President who is".
Your job is to repeat your case. Oh Faith, no. It is not my job to act as a substitute for your memory. When you are shown something that proves you are wrong, it is your "job" to remember it, not to remember your error and forget the evidence. Otherwise we are doomed to have the same conversation over and over again. In which case I would remind you that the conversations we have are not a job. I am not paid. This is a hobby. It is no fun for me to have the same conversations with you over and over again. So this time, please make a note of what I'm saying. Once again, there are at least five alleles of the E series in dogs, which determine the pattern of the coat, and which therefore affect "the variety we see". Please try to remember this. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, what I'm saying is that the accumulation of mutations in one sequence is what leads to destructive effects. That may have been what you meant, but it is not what you said.
I'm sorry but it has been an instruction by Admin that you are to repeat your points. Where did he say that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024