|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Kill that infidel, Bouroune! He blasphemes against our god of evolution! Science isn't religion. You guys burn heretics; we laugh at fools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
2) the gene pool of the original population has been seriously diminished as a result of the effect of the toxin - which is DEVOLUTION not evolution! Faith, Dredge, the two of you need to talk. Wait 'til I get a big bucket of popcorn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Dredge has a different approach to these things than I do but I understand what he's saying and agree with him even if I have my own different angle on it and some terminology needs to be sorted out to show our agreement. Laughing out loud here.
So, he's right to call this "devolution" because producing the population of redheads requires the elimination of an enormous number of other phenotypes ... ... which is your definition of evolution, Faith.
When I call this "evolution" what I mean is that this is what is usually considered to be evolution ... No, it's one of the things that is considered to be evolution. It's the only thing that you'll admit is evolution, but when literally anyone but you is doing the considering, lots of other things are considered to be evolution too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I would extend this to say that speciation is step towards extinction. Well, that's odd. Why would you do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Do those mutations arise in response to antibiotic use ... No.
How does this tie in with the results from the Franklin Expedition? I know no discovery on the part of Franklin and his crew that would support Lamarckism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Here's an example. Enjoy.
Experimental evolution of resistance to an antimicrobial peptide - PMC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Pardon my ellipsis. Samples of bacteria obtained from the frozen remains of the Franklin Expedition, well before medical antibiotic use, showed that a very small proportion of the bacteria already had resistance to several antibiotics. Similar results have been found with other preserved samples of pre antibiotic era bacteria. On the other hand where an antibiotic is discontinued the bacteria gradually lose resistance. Then if you were aware that evolution is not Lamarckian, why did you ask if it was? There is enough genuine ignorance among creationists without you feigning ignorance on one of those occasions when you actually possess knowledge.
When are you going to post YOUR definition of evolution? On the 27th of last month; though of course it is not "my" definition, it is the one used by everyone who can remember their middle-school biology classes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So you did, although it is dated 28/3/17. We are in different time zones.
That's good. There is nothing in that definition that I, as a Young Earth Creationist, would object to. I should hope not. You people have got to learn that it's not within your power to change the meanings of scientific terms.
If that's all evolution is you can call me an evolutionist. I cannot, since the term "evolutionist" is generally reserved for people who accept the evidence for large quantities of evolution, whereas you, as I understand it, ignore the evidence and deny the inference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It shows the trivial nature of your definition. Again, it's not my definition, it's science's definition. That's the meaning of the term. If you want to discuss a different concept, for example common ancestry, I suggest that you use a different term, for example, ooh, I dunno, how about "common ancestry"? That might just work.
Adding a black ram to a flock of white sheep will produce heritable changes in the population. That's not a change in the population, that's a change of the population. You wouldn't say, would you, that it would be evolution if you drove all the sheep out of the field and replaced them with cows?
Demonstration of a heritable change in a population does not prove evolution. A heritable change in a population is evolution. By definition. If you mean that that doesn't prove common ancestry, then, ooh, let's think about how you might express that concept. Hmm, tricky one. Wait, I have an idea! Perhaps you could say "That doesn't prove common ancestry". Though it would be superfluous to say so, since no-one claims that it does.
You could change it to a definition of microevolution; that works. No it doesn't. A definition of microevolution would be "a small amount of heritable change in a population". Because in the word microevolution the prefix "micro", meaning small, qualifies the word "evolution", meaning heritable change in a population. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A highschool-level of biology, some common sense, a nose for bs, respect for scientific rigour and a dose of honesty is all one needs to realise that ToE is, at the very least, a very suspect theory. Are you under the impression that those are qualities you possess? Oh my dear chap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am a Bible-bashing, God-bothering, science-hating, fundamentalist, Jesus-freak, "creationist loon" ... and according to Dr. Adequate's definition of "evolution", I'm an evolutionist too! Imagine that - one can reject the theory of evolution and still be an evolutionist. Amazing! According to the good doctor's definition, all those creationists who reject ToE are evolutionists, for no creationist will deny that that "Heritable changes in a population" is a fact. Here - at long last - is a practical use for ToE (the one and only): Medicine is definitely useful and laughter is the best medicine. So thank you, Doc, for this medicine! If you've quite finished making a fool of yourself, you could read post 219. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Before Darwin and his theory came along, I doubt if my alien/redhead scenario would have been called "evolution". But nowadays, evolutionists call it "evolution" because they consider it evidence that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. No they don't.
The idea that this misleading terminology wants to convey is, If natural selection is a fact, then ToE is a fact - that is to say, it is a fact that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. It is not misleading, nor is that what it is intended to convey.
If this fallacious spiel is repeated long enough, dogmatically enough and ubiquitously enough, a lot of folks start to believe it. "A lot"? Then perhaps you could find just one person outside of the vivid absurd fantasy world in your head who says that "If natural selection is a fact then it is a fact that all life evolved from a single-cell organism."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps for clarity we should call the Doc's definition Creationist Evolution to distinguish it from other definitions. That willful and disingenuous obfuscation would not in fact produce clarity. And, again, it is not my definition. It is the definition used in this branch of science called "biology", I wonder if you've heard of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, that is a definition used in some places by some scientists; and quite a poor one as I have said. You don't speak for "science". How about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, can they speak for science? 'Cos they say:
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms. Just as one example Jerry Coyne gives a quite different definition in "Why Evolution is True". Population genetics uses a different definition. Oh really?
Population geneticists usually define ‘evolution’ as any change in a population's genetic composition over time.
Population Genetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The change in the genetic makeup of a population over time, usually measured in terms of allele frequencies, is equivalent to evolutionary change. http://www.biologyreference.com/...netics.html#ixzz4eSzR4K00
Allele frequency change over time is simply a definition of evolution. So population genetics is that branch of genetics that is concerned with the evolutionary processes of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, migration, and non-random mating. http://www.life.illinois.edu/ib/201/lectures/PopGen.pdf
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
In the case of the Peppered Moth it appears the dark variety was initially beneficial since its numbers increased and it became the dominant variety, but then the numbers decreased so that the white variety became most common, in which case the mutation became detrimental. Or perhaps it was neutral and we just observed genetic drift. Have you never bothered to read up on this? The environment changed. I suppose you could frame that as "the mutation became detrimental", but it sounds really odd: if I drowned, would you say "The mutations which produced land-dwelling tetrapods from fish suddenly became detrimental to him?"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024