Questioning The Evolutionary Process

Units of measure (feet, pounds, etc.) are arbitrary.Hence, the metric system v. the English system.Fitness is not arbitrary.It is a measurement of a physical fact: allele frequency. Would you have the same "philosophical" trouble with "the nonempirical world of mathematics" if I were to say "There are 12 crows in my front yard"?The crows are there. I counted them.Allele frequencies are there. We count them. Fitness is not synonymous with evolution.Fitness and evolution are 2 different things. You'll notice that both fitness and natural selection are concepts within evolutionary theory.A new trait arises thru mutation.The new trait is acted on by the environment.The new trait spreads thru a population.That changes the allele frequency of the new trait.What, exactly, don't you understand about this very simple idea?

I'll leave the rest of your post to RAZD. I just want to ask one question. You doubt mutation?

Good idea.Why don't you address my last two posts? Mutations are usually spontaneous, yes.But the ToE ≠ genetic determinismism.That said, some traits are one gene-one trait and some traits are polygenic.I'm sure you're aware that eye color is polygenic. So, yes, eye color is "genetically determined".Most traits, however, are too complex to be linked to one (or even several) gene(s). Well, yes. It isn't a linear process (as you suggested earlier). I think it's fair to describe evolution as a crapshoot. After all, you are born with a particular genetic make up. You didn't have any choice in the matter.There are "rules", however. Among them, selection.But there are no "goals".Several people have already mentioned antibiotic resistance as an easily understood example of selection.Do you have a problem with antibiotic resistance as an example of selection?

Neither.Before I try to continue this discussion, please address my upthread posts.

It's not hard to figure why.

No. I am not. In other words, an allele is a stretch of DNA.To repeat: Allelic frequncy is a percentage. It is a measure of how many individuals in a population have a particular allele. You seemed to have missed the point of the analogy.An inch is an abstract concept. There is no such thing as an "inch".We came up with it so we might have a way to talk about length.Counting, whether it's the number of crows in my front yard or the number of alleles in a population, is not an abstract concept.It is a physical fact.There are 12 crows in my front yard.12% of the population has the allele for red hair.Fitness is a measure of a physical fact (the presence or absence of a particular allele) used to determine (among other things) gene flow. It's used by biologists. Therefore it is considered "biology".btw. 12 molecules in a solution is a measure of molarity ... and it's chemistry, not biology.Using your line of (faulty) reasoning, molarity isn't chemistry, it's mathematics. And that is just plain silly. What other sort is there?You never did answer the Lamarck question put to you earlier.Are you a Lamarckian? If population A has 12% red hair and population B has 50% red hair and 50% of population B interbreeds with population A, there is a formula that will determine the number of progeny with red hair in the new (A + 1/2 B) population.If red hair has some effect on the ability to reproduce (say, for example, red hair makes it easier for a predator to find and eat the progeny), then the measure of the allelic frequency for red hair most certainly has something to tell us about reproductive success of red haired progeny. In your mind, perhaps.Fitness and selection are related, not synonymous.Fitness has an effect on the reproductive success of an individual. No. You are confused. Again.Fitness is determined by genotype + phenotype.The environment can act on fitness in any number of ways. That is, there are many different sorts of selective pressures in an environment.But there is only one genotype + phenotype for an individual (or group of individuals with a given genotype + phenotype). Given your confusion about the definitions of both fitness and selection, I don't think I was mistaken.You can't reject something you plainly do not understand.And you have yet to address the question of antibiotic resistance.It is a very simple, very easy to understand, example of selection.Perhaps you'd care to explain how antibiotic resistance is not an example of selection.Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

"Spontaneous generation" has a very specific meaning in biology.It means: life arising from nonlife.I think you meant to say "spontaneous mutation".And mutation -- which is most certainly random and spontaneous -- is a large part of evolution.I am assuming you find it highly unlikely that a random mutation could lead to an organism's survival (or death).How do you explain antibiotic resistance then?

Hang on there, Nem.We need to get Elmer over the "mutation" hump first.He doesn't seem willing to admit that a random, spontaneous mutation can contribute to an organism's survival.We'll deal with the question of "species" after we get Elmer up to speed.

Crash, I wouldn't hold my breath.Elmer has yet to answer even the simplest of questions.ELMER. I REPEAT:WHAT ABOUT ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE?Answer the question!Your contribution so far, after 12 posts, is: "Huh-uh!"Or: "Cause I said so!"ANSWER THE GD QUESTION.

Well put, Percy.Thank you.btw.I did offer Elmer the wiki definition over 30 posts ago. Twice, as a matter of fact.To no avail, I'm afraid.

RAZD, I have always admired your patience and tenacity. Anyone who can take on Murkywaters in a Great Debate gets a gold star in my book.Be forewarned, tho.Creationists are one thing. Teenage creationists quite another.Best of luck.

RAZD's just getting warmed up, buster.You're in for a wild ride.

...at least make sure that proving you a liar isn't one google away. The third hit. Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution.Seriously, Elmer.