Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
misha
Member (Idle past 4627 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


(1)
Message 6 of 205 (545792)
02-05-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-03-2010 10:23 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
I like the American Heritiage Dictionary's definition
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
I believe it has all the necessary components and doesn't leave much room for obfuscation.
So let's break it down.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations
This is an essential component. We must have successive change to the DNA over generations. These changes should be passed down by reproduction. The reproductive rates of the parent generation determine the statistical saturation of these changes in the offspring generation.
as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals
Notice, evolution is stated as the result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals. Evolution is a consequence of the reproductive rates of the parent generation holding these genetic variations. The reproductive rates are a consequence of the organisms' ability to reach reproductive maturity and to produce offspring while challenged by natural selective pressures. By understanding evolution as a consequence rather than a goal we can see that there is no requirement to move to increased complexity. In some cases simplicity may be more advantageous.
and resulting in the development of new species.
Of course, this is where most creationists will be held up. They will claim that small changes are incapable of developing new species.
However, the idea of a new species is entirely based on boundaries instituted by the scientific community. Linnaean Taxonomy is largely qualitative. It is the collaboration of scientists studying these organisms which determines classification. Now, there are guidelines, but the classification of species has always been a qualitative human endeavor.
As in any qualitative classification system, there will always be some overlap and heated discussions on the deliniations within this overlap. It happens in music, it happens in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2010 7:44 PM misha has not replied
 Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 02-06-2010 3:31 AM misha has not replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4627 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 58 of 205 (546501)
02-11-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kaichos Man
02-09-2010 6:53 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Does mutation create a new species? Yes it does. It is observed. Does it create an eye? No. Not in a gogillion years, in a million different universes at once.
Could mutation produce a light sensitive cell in a multicellular organism? And could this be beneficial to an organism?
Could mutation cause that organism to produce two light sensitive cells? And could this be more beneficial than an organism with one light sensitive cell?
Could mutation cause an organism with two light sensitive cells to produce a third? And could this be more beneficial than an organism with two light sensitive cells?
What is the maximum number of light sensitive cells that a mutlicellular organism could produce?
Could mutation cause these cells to be more efficient?
Could mutation cause some of these cells to be more sensitive than others to different kinds of light? And could this be more benificial to the organism?
Maybe you should request a new thread about possible evolution of the eye.
Edited by misha, : edited for formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 6:53 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024