|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can the creationist model explain the data? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... But since that acts to preserve the current allele frequencies it does not result even in microevolution! If it causes a change in the frequency of alleles then microevolution occurs. Selection for stasis is still evolution.
But the Theory of evolution requires much more. Since it hypothesizes ascent from a microbial ancestor ... Wrong, and this is the kind of error one makes when one starts with a wrong definition for the ToE. Note that I am referring to your definition for the ToE in Message 7:
quote: All the ToE (scientific version) says is that mutations occur and cause variation in the inheritable traits, and selection operates on those variations by allowing the individuals with traits that are a better fit for the ecological challenges and opportunities to survive and reproduce. When that ecology is static and the population has reached an equilibrium fitness, selection will work to maintain a stasis in the population.
... the evidence must show that beneficial mutations that increase the genome can occur in a cumulative manner within the time available. Deleterious changes do not support that at all. Actually all the evidence needs to show is that inheritable traits change over time, that anagenesis and cladogenesis do actually occur ... and it does.
Darwin had sufficient evidence to propose this as a hypothesis but the evidence since then is predominantly against it. And I have no idea where you are getting this false information/idea. All scientific studies of evolution confirm evolution occurring, you can see it in every generation of every species currently living. Again, you appear to be working with your problematic (misleading) definition of the ToE that "ascent" must occur, evolution must climb a ladder, when this is not what the ToE (scientific version) says. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
CRR writes: But the Theory of evolution requires much more. Since it hypothesizes ascent from a microbial ancestor with a minimal genome (which appeared by unspecified magical means) the evidence must show that beneficial mutations that increase the genome can occur in a cumulative manner within the time available. First . . . Do you consider the evolution of humans from a common ancestor shared with other apes to be macroevolution. If so . . . Of the genetic differences between humans and chimps, which of those are you saying that evolution could not produce?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
All the ToE (scientific version) says ...
Reference required to the official definition of the TOE (scientific version).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
All the ToE (scientific version) says ...
Reference required to the official definition of the TOE (scientific version). There is no single "official" definition, but I can show you how it is taught at one of the major universities that teaches biology and evolution:
quote: quote: The link to the third lecture no longer works (it repeats the second lecture above). Definition 1 is what results from process of evolution in a breeding population, while definition 2 is what results from the processes of anagenesis and cladogenesis, which are the long term, multigenerational, accumulation of the results of the process of evolution in a breeding population. These are pretty standard definitions, and you can find similar definitions on other university websites.
quote: As you can (or should be able to) see these two sources provide the same basic definition. You can also compare these to my definition:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level. If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis. If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
CRR writes: Reference required to the official definition of the TOE (scientific version). "We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."Just a moment...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Thanks for that information from Universities of Michigan and Berkley, it’s most interesting.
I agree with you that There is no single "official" definition of the Theory of Definition. Definitions 1 & 2 given in the first quote are definitions of the process of micro and macroevolution respectively. Neither is a definition of the Theory of Evolution. As you say Definition 1 is what results from process of evolution in a breeding population, while definition 2 is what results from the processes of anagenesis and cladogenesis, which are the long term, multigenerational, accumulation of the results of the process of evolution in a breeding population. From Michigan we getUniversal Common Ancestry, Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor. Abiogenesis, Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms. This is an assumption prior to rather part of the process of evolution. Microevolution, Definition 1: Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation. [this] definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. Macroevolution, Definition 2: The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity. [this] emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution. Similarly from BerkleyUniversal Common Ancestry, Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. Abiogenesis, they include as an event in Important events in the history of life, Unicellular life evolves. So according to Berkley and Michigan all life evolved from a common microbial ancestor that arose naturally from non-living matter. Microevolution, is evolution on a small scale within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life. Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population. Macroevolution, generally refers to evolution above the species level. So both sources appear to agree with what is included in the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
CRR writes: Thanks for that information from Universities of Michigan and Berkley, it’s most interesting. So are we past this whole "define evolution" question? Can we focus on the actual evidence now?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024