Neither Evolution nor Creation are

Greetings:Ah! yes - thank you Joz I understand your point now and I hope I did not frustrate you too much with my thickheadedness!"Recent" in evolutionary terms could be millions of years I guess. So I assume that there is no current evidence of where horse (A) and donkey (B) came from? Some missing link that has eluded evolutionists after 150 years of looking? Or, has this missing link been found?A lion and a tiger are both considered "cats". Yet a "Liger" is just as sterile as the mule. Close association producing (predominately)sterile offspring does not necesarily "prove" a "recent" branching off from one another. If they did produce a (predominately) fertile offspring then I would truly be amazed, and my respect for evolution would go up a notch.However, you cannot argue from possiblities when you are stating that evolution is a definite scientific fact.Again, sorry for my seeming dimwittedness.Robert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Those alleles which are necessary for between species change are unable to change whereas those alleles which are capable of changing are not responsible for between species change...Variation between species is impossible.

---

Please provide evidence for these statements. If you CAN provide evidence for it (nobody has so far), then congratulations, you will turn modern biology completely on its head. And you'll very probably win a Nobel Prize. And - sorry to tell you this, but - "we've never seen it happen" does not equate to evidence that it cannot happen.

​

[This message has been edited by toff, 02-27-2002]

I've joined this thread rather late, but I'll put in my two cents' worth, anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Evolution is a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.

---

No, it's not. Evolution is a process by which living organisms change. It has nothing to do with how life began. That is no part of evolutionary theory. [b] [QUOTE] Physicists did not lose their jobs because of Einstein? That is because Einstein's theory did not completely debunk Newtonian physics, but simply led it in a different direction. If someone came along and showed that Newton and Einstein were both wrong and that physics cannot explain the basic properties of the physical universe, then a lot of physicists would loose their jobs? No? I think that your naive views of human nature would break down at this point and the "scientists" would act in self-preservation. An example of this would be the recent PBS miniseries on Evolution. The highly-biased views of the producers and scientists involved were evident in the way they mangled the creationist arguments.
[/b][/QUOTE]I see no basis at all for your assertion. No matter what sciences where turned on their head by new discoveries, scientists would not lose their jobs - as 'normal' physicists didn't when quantum physics came along. They would merely change their opinion (when swayed by evidence) and support the new position (or, in some cases, no doubt, refuse to believe the new position, in which case they woudl slowly fade into obscurity). There is certainly no basis to think that biologists promote evolution just because it keeps them their jobs. As has been pointed out before, the biologist who managed to DISprove evolution would doubtless get a Nobel Prize and have the world of science at their feet.And YOU say that a certain TV series 'mangled' the creationist arguments...no offence, but being a creationist, you would say that. The fact of the matter that any objectively scientific exercise that examines evolution and creationism might appear (to a creationist) to be 'mangling' creationist arguments...because creationism has no scientific support whatsoever. [b] [QUOTE]The problem, Allison, is that I see no (copious) evidence for the Theory of Evolution. I am asking you for evidence which you are steadfastly denying me!
[/b][/QUOTE]If you truly see no evidence for the theory of evolution, i can only assume you have read nothing in the field (I don't mean creationist books, I mean REAL science books). To ask for evidence of evolution in a thread like this is nonsensical...you expect someone to distill a century of scientific research for you in a forum like this? Do some research. Read about biology. Even popular authors like Gould and Dawkins. Read, for example, some of Dawkins' works, and then come back and argue that none of them contain any evidence for evolution. Then, at least, your statement would have some credibility.
[/B][/QUOTE][b] [QUOTE]Finally, Your quotation of Steve Allen is not very appropriate. There have been many scientists both Evolutionists and non-Evolutionist who are not creationists - as well as scientists who are creationists - who have harshly criticized evolutionary theory. Since I am going to quote many others later on I will give you one as an example:
[/b][/QUOTE]There is a vast difference between 'harshly criticising' something and demonstrating it to be wrong. I have many times harshly criticised christianity as a doctrine; I do not pretend that I can prove it wrong.
[b] [QUOTE] Evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury writes:
Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls. A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4E1000 different forms. Using a little algebra we can see that 4E1000 = 10E600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure "1" followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.-Article entitled, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher.
His point is that life is far too complex to be explained by the overly simplistic model that synthetic evolution provides.
[/b][/QUOTE]I'm glad you point out what his 'point' is - since it's a point he doesn't make anywhere in the quote given. Nor can it be inferred from what he did say. All he said, in essence, is that life is more complex than we realise. So it is. So is a bridge game. The number of possible bridge hands is also a number so large as to be completely beyond our comprehension. Does that mean nobody can play bridge?
[b] [QUOTE] Here are facts, Allison, disproving Evolution! Where are all your high-minded scientists jumping around and congratulating him on his proof?
[/b][/QUOTE]Umm....where? What facts disproving evolution? You haven't provided any. Actually, apart from one ambiguous quote, all you've provided are opinions. And Salisbury's quote is not a 'proof' of anything - as I'm sure even he would agree. No offense, but your thinking it is suggests you don't know what a scientific 'proof' (there is really no such thing - in science, 'proof' just means the preponderance of evidence) even is. [b] [QUOTE] Since Darwin many scientists have remained skeptical about the validity of evolution, and they have even occasionally voiced their opinions aloud. Your quotation of Steve Allen, Allison, could legitimately be applied to you - because you refuse to hear their voices!
[/b][/QUOTE]Yes, they have. The problem - and the reason they are not heard - is that none of them has based their skepticism on the scientific method. If they did, and could substantiate reasons for that skepticism based on the scientific method...Nobel Prize on its way, rather than getting laughed at, like Mr Behe, with his Black Box.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

I am glad to receive your kind response, and I can say that I mean no deliberate dishonesty in using the definition that I have used. However, I must disagree slightly with your post on the following ground.

​

Given as a hypothesis to the scientific method I would heartily agree with you that the theory of evolution can be considered scientific. But, is that how the theory is treated by most scientists? The American Association for the Advancement of Science has come out and said that evolution is a fact. Such a statement has put it beyond the realm of a simple hypothesis. The PBS series that I have referred to before has also made such a statement. Dawkins and Gould - the men at the highest pinnacle of evolutionary thought - have also stated that evolution is a fact.

​

In light of all of this I believe that the definition I use is not out of context, but a necessary test of evolutionary thought. In examining evolution from both "sides" (I think there are actually about 3 or 4 sides if you include non-creationists and theistic evolutionists as well) I have found evolution neither scientific nor factual.

​

This conclusion comes from a former evolutionist who has unbiasedly read the arguments from all of the sides involved.

​

Thank you for the clarification of your point. I hope I was as clear as you were.

​

Robert

---

Robert,I only wanted to show that the ToE is scientific, by sciences own standards. I also wanted to show you what we all think of scientific theories is true of the ToE. That you can exclude the ToE with some definitions means little, because the moment you start talking about scientific theories, the ToE is included again. "Evolutionists" claim the definition as I mean it, which incidentally is the hardest of all the definitions to fulfill. Also saying the ToE isn't science using one definition, when everybody else is using another is semantics. The most important, relevant definition of science would be one that fits all scientific theories, since that is the relevant context.Wouldn't you agree a dictionaries layman definition would miss the point, if you then started talking about scientific theories in general?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:

​

Mark again!

​

I am skeptical that macroevolution can be proved either by observation or demonstration in my lifetime since I have often been told that it takes millions of years for it to happen. However, I am openminded on this issue and would entertain any such proof you have to offer me.

​

What I am really looking for is the actual process that a single-celled animal undergoes in order for it to "transmogrify" (if I can use a Calvin and Hobbes reference) into a multi-celled animal.

​

I am looking forward to reading your reply

​

Robert

---

Robert, http://www.sdu.dk/Nat/Molbiol/research/exact/exact4.html"Multicellular development in M.xanthus: fruiting body morphogenesisThe grand theme in our research is "intercellular communication by signal molecules in the induction and coordination of multicellular development and cellular differentiation". We have focused on understanding how a particular intercellular signal molecule in the Gram negative bacterium Myxococcus xanthus induces a set of different responses during starvation induced development, including changed motility patterns, sporulation and altered gene expression. M. xanthus undergoes one of the most astonishing prokaryotic developmental programs upon starvation. Within 4 to 8 hrs after initiation of starvation, the cells begin to aggregate by gliding to foci where 105 cells build a fruiting body. Inside a fruiting body, the rod-shaped, motile cells differentiate into spherical, non-motile spores by approximately 24 hrs. Aggregation and sporulation are temporally separated, and sporulation does not occur until cell migration have led to the assembly of a fruiting body. So, initiation of sporulation represents a developmental checkpoint at which cellular differentiation is coupled to the morphogenesis of a multicellular structure."This is an example prokaryotes (& is all the more remarkable for it), which I don't advance as a "transitional" for eukaryotic multicellular evolution. I DO advance it as how multicellularity may have come about via colonial behaviour.The example above shows that under certain circumstances, organisms that usually live their lives purely as single cells, are able to find an advantage in a colony, to the point where there are cells responsible for reproduction.This is prokaryotes, if it occurred like this in sexually reproducing eukaryotes, the body would have specialised sex cells. If this body proved more successful than the single celled variety, the single free living cell could be dispensed with, leaving a body of cells capable of reproducing sexually.So, via a colonial intermediate a true multicellular organism can arise from a single celled existance. This is simplistic. To be sure, theres a lot of extra specialisation to evolve, but it is plausible. The hormone cascades that produce this specialisation already exist in SINGLE CELLED PROKARYOTIC BACTERIA!I understand the desire to see the process occur in a test tube, so to speak, but it just ain't gonna happen. This is why I ask you, instead of this, what would you accept as a single to multi cellular transitional? I wanted to avoid giving examples up front, as the people I have posted to before simply say "that's no good", so you see my desire to get you to state your own requirements.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:

​

In response to Gene I will reiterate the definition of evolution that I have given before:

​

Evolution is a process whereby life arose from non-living matter, and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.

​

---

I'll offer a different definition.Evolution is the changing of allele frequencies over time.This definition, without explaining mechanisms, covers all so called micro & macro evolution.The problem with your definition is that it includes abiogenesis. Biological Evolution can only act on living things, so the question of how that first living thing(s) arose isn't covered by the ToE. As such you need to strike "a process whereby life arose from non-living matter" from your definition.See Quetzals "Abiogenesis - Or Better Living Through Chemistry " thread.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Ah! yes - thank you Joz I understand your point now and I hope I did not frustrate you too much with my thickheadedness!

​

"Recent" in evolutionary terms could be millions of years I guess. So I assume that there is no current evidence of where horse (A) and donkey (B) came from? Some missing link that has eluded evolutionists after 150 years of looking? Or, has this missing link been found?

​

A lion and a tiger are both considered "cats". Yet a "Liger" is just as sterile as the mule. Close association producing (predominately)sterile offspring does not necesarily "prove" a "recent" branching off from one another. If they did produce a (predominately) fertile offspring then I would truly be amazed, and my respect for evolution would go up a notch.

​

Robert

---

Good now we are getting somewhere....Well Equus only turned up in the last 2 million years so probably closer to the order of 10`s or 100`s of thousands....Maybe you`ll find this interesting:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htmIt may be slightly out of date (I think that one of the species involved might now be attributed as a proto-giraffe) but it shows a morphological progression to modern Equines...I think what you really wanted was a fossil record of horses splitting from donkeys and I`ll look for something like that, however this shows philohippus et al as common ancestors and evolutionary cousins.....If they produced predominantly fertile offspring they would most likely be the same species...The fact that they can produce any offspring when other closely morphological species (Chimps and Orangutangs) don`t implies that lines diverge and untill a minimum ammount of changes occur can still hybridize to produce infertile young.....If not why can horses and donkeys produce mules, lions and tigers produce ligers but Chimps and Orangs not produce Orangazees?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:
I'm glad you point out what his 'point' is - since it's a point he doesn't make anywhere in the quote given. Nor can it be inferred from what he did say. All he said, in essence, is that life is more complex than we realise. So it is. So is a bridge game. The number of possible bridge hands is also a number so large as to be completely beyond our comprehension. Does that mean nobody can play bridge?

---

Hey Toff neat little freeware bridge game...
http://www.gamehippo.com/category/5_title_2.shtmlIts second from bottom named easy bridge....

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Hey Toff neat little freeware bridge game...
http://www.gamehippo.com/category/5_title_2.shtml

​

Its second from bottom named easy bridge....

---

Sorry, I'd like to check it out, but since each bridge hand is so unlikely, it proves that either bridge is impossible or that each hand is designed by someone...and what's the fun in playing if someone works out in advance what cards you'll get?

I've only just noticed this thread, and it's peaked my interest.People have already mentioned my favourites, so ... well I'll
just add my reasoning in

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:

​

Ah! yes - thank you Joz I understand your point now and I hope I did not frustrate you too much with my thickheadedness!

​

"Recent" in evolutionary terms could be millions of years I guess. So I assume that there is no current evidence of where horse (A) and donkey (B) came from? Some missing link that has eluded evolutionists after 150 years of looking? Or, has this missing link been found?

​

A lion and a tiger are both considered "cats". Yet a "Liger" is just as sterile as the mule. Close association producing (predominately)sterile offspring does not necesarily "prove" a "recent" branching off from one another. If they did produce a (predominately) fertile offspring then I would truly be amazed, and my respect for evolution would go up a notch.

---

You've asked for evidence ... but you still need to think on that
evidence.Horses and Donkeys ARE closely related.They cannot (or very rarely) produce fertile offspring.If we go back into the fossil record we find a time when no modern
horses or donkeys have been found.Those are the facts.
What could it mean ?1) Horses and Donkeys were spontaneously created sometime in the
recent (geologically) past.2) Populations of some previous horse/donkey-like animal were
separated, and natural selection lead to speciation.3) ....As I understand it even young earth creationists accept speciation.
In fact some of them rely on it to explain the numbers of animals
on Noah's Ark, and on the lack of modern day 'types' in the
fossil record.1) Cannot even be tested.2) Evolutionists and Creationists accept this as a possibility.Clearly the divergence of these species has led to a situation in
which the populations almost-but-not-quite inter-breed.Something within the genetic data of the populations has changed
such that offspring are (mainly) unable to breed.My Conclusion:: Further genetic changes (and mutations DO occur
too) could result in horse/donkey populations that cannot inter-breed.If they produce pre-dominately fertile offspring they would not
be separated by much, and would cast no illumination onto the
mechanisms for evolution. Cross-breeds are no more likely to
lead to a new species that a pure-breed. Natural selection due
to environmental conditions does that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

However, you cannot argue from possiblities when you are stating that evolution is a definite scientific fact.

​

Again, sorry for my seeming dimwittedness.

​

Robert

---

"Argument from possibility" is called Hypothesising ... and it's
how scientific enquiry often begins.1) We observe some phenomena, and wonder how it came to be.
2) We create some scenarios.
3) We test the scenarios against evidence.
4) IF we find evidence contrary to the scenario we reject it & goto 2)
5) IF we find evidence to support the scenario we go back to 3)There is evidence that horses and donkeys are closely related.
There is evidence that they are NOT AS closely related as
a horser is to another horse (say).
There is evidence that they are MORE closely related than chimps
are to orangutans.These evidences support the idea that horses and donkeys are in the process of diverging.More on 'macro'-evolution::There are genes (alleles if you prefer) in modern day chickens, that
if active would cause the chicken to have a tail and teeth much
more like (say) a dinosaur or lizard.Some process has, over time, favoured individuals in which these
genes are 'switched off'.Result:: Genetic engineering could produce a back-step from chickens
to a lizard-like creature (possibly a dinosaur).OK ... I haven't cited anything to support this, but I have seen
some geneticists on documentary programs who claim this to the case.Single-Multi-Celled::Have you heard of slime mould ?Effectively this is a colony of single celled organisms which
so-operate to survive. They even show a primitive form of
group intelligence (do a yahoo search on "slime mould" for some
articles).They have characteristics of plants AND animals.Colony behaviour like this could be a clue to the step from
single to multi-celled life.Natural selection could even be the nechanism for cell specialisation,
if we take the 'colony' to be the environmental driving force to
change. (Cells in the centre of the colony have different environment
to those on the outside edges, and so one would expect different
mutatations to be considered beneficial in different regions of
the colony).THIS IS SUPPOSITION ON MY PART, and I do not apologise for that.This is evidence which suggests a possible route to multi-celled
life and is consistent with the concepts of 'micro/macro'
evolution.

[QUOTE][b]There are genes (alleles if you prefer) in modern day chickens, that if active would cause the chicken to have a tail and teeth much more like (say) a dinosaur or lizard.[/QUOTE][/b]This is a whopper the way it is stated, but I think I can help you a little on it.Chicken teeth are gone, to the best of my knowledge, but some of the genes that are responsible to tooth production in embryonic chickens remain and can be artificially incited through introduction of mammalian hormones that incite tooth generation in embryonic mice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10954731&dopt=AbstractI can also vouch for spontaneous evolutionary atavisms in aves in the form of wing claws and digits but as for tails you're on your own.I also think that while we are discussing hybirds and speciation, maybe we should have discussed sympatric vs. allopatric speciation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:
Sorry, I'd like to check it out, but since each bridge hand is so unlikely, it proves that either bridge is impossible or that each hand is designed by someone...and what's the fun in playing if someone works out in advance what cards you'll get?

---

Well forcing their bidding up to a slam then doubling and taking 3 tricks is always fun......Ultimately unless the designed hands favor one partnership very heavily it still comes down to how you play your hand(s)...The really nice features of easy bridge are multiple bidding systems, the ability to deal specific types of hands (slams, games in various suits, etc) (I know dangerously close to "designing" a hand) and the ability to replay hands and tricks if you feel you can do better...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
I may be missing a bit about how you define "relationship of species": I do not think that such could be a demonstrated truth of evolution.

---

I'm not saying relationship is a demonstrated truth of evolution: I'm saying relationship is a demonstrated truth. That scientists use this and other demonstrated truths in combination with observations and trustworthy techniques is what makes evolution scientific.
[b] [QUOTE]A demonstrated truth, in my opinion, would be an actual showing of how the evolutionary process works without recourse to "millions of years and natural selection."[/b][/QUOTE]So, to complete my earlier point, to be scientific in the definition you proposed, we do not need a demonstrated truth of evolution for the study of evolution to be scientific.[b] [QUOTE]Nebraska Man, who was entered into the record as proof of evolution in the Scopes trial, was found to have been conjured up from a 20 year old dead pig![/b][/QUOTE]It's such an old example of a fraud, hardly worthy mentioning. There are plenty of fraudulent fossils out there today, especially on the chinese market, and I found some moroccan "trilobites" for sale in Seattle at the weekend. These fossil frauds are, in the main, exposed by evolutionists - precisely because they are examining the taxonomy so minutely.[b] [QUOTE]Much of the debate over the fossil record that I have read is based entirely on the subjective view of the scientist who is examining the evidence. The debate over Ambulocetus, for example, is characteristic of this inane arguing about something that existed long ago, cannot be observed swimming or walking about now, but is "obvious proof" of a transitional form. It is all in the interpretation, and interpretation is heavily influenced by one's own presuppositions.[/b][/QUOTE]I think you are mistaken about the nature of intepretation, or how interpretation is conducted in science.
Firstly, interpretation is used in all sciences - even the most rigorous, repeatable experiment needs its results interpreted to understand what went on during the process under examination. The argument "it is just interpretation" is no argument at all - except for those who wish to pursue an extreme skpetical position about any inferential claims.
Secondly, it is one of the joys of paleontology and, to a lesser extent, biology, that every interpretation is open to a barrage of critical scrutiny. Perhaps you could read some of the recent work on early hominids: you will find that it is not a question of one scientist saying "this is a transitional form which signifies X" and the community applauds and sits back satisfied. The claim will be countered, rival interpretations posited, the very nature of "X" called in to question, the competence of the dating queried, the integrity of the finder, every scratch on the bone interpreted and challenged. I like this process - it is rigorous, demanding, always open to reinterpretation (the analysis of fossil evidence is very often revisited to test for its fit for new hypotheses) and its often stressful for those involved.
I don't think the jibe, "it's only intepretation" does justice to it.
[b] [QUOTE]I do not have a problem if you consider evolution simply as a hypothesis to be proved. I have a problem when people try to shove it down my throat without providing proper reasons for doing such an act.[/b][/QUOTE]I would object to someone shoving it down my throat even if it was perfectly and incontrovertibly provable! Being raised in a traditional presbyterian community I know all about having dogma imposed and, believe me, the teaching of evolution is far less oppressive. But tell me, how is evolution "shoved down your throat" - how does the teaching of evolution, for example, differ from the teaching of other subjects in the scientific field, or subjects in the humanities?
[b] [QUOTE]I retract my statements concerning social darwinism and humbly beg your forgiveness.[/b][/QUOTE]No problem. Thanks for the apology.[b] [QUOTE]I would not say that they think their opponents "less than human" but to criticize someone as "non-scientific" simply because he/she disagrees with your theory is a part of the fundamentalistic mindset.[/b][/QUOTE]The word "simply" here is an example of what Antony Flew calls the Fallacy of the Quasi-refuting Description. Clearly if the only basis for rejecting a view as scientific was because it was different then science couldn't proceed at all. But the reason for rejecting some creationist arguments as unscientific isn't "simple" and isn't to do with the fact of disagreement - it is the nature and grounds for the disagreement which can lead to the label "unscientific."
Of course, there are many shades of creationism so we shouldn't be using too broad a brush here. Let's try to be more specific: creationism tends to become unscientific when it fails to build upon the definition of science you presented earlier - demonstrated truths, accordance with general laws, trustworthy techniques, observations and demonstrations.
For instance, an "a priori" appeal to scriptural infallibility is unscientific if it requires a literal interpretation of the creation passages, because their explanations cannot be brought under general laws.
Scripture may be correct in every detail - but to assume it is correct and therefore reject any evidence which would contradict it is not scientific. My reading of the statement of principle on the Answers in Genesis website is that they do take such a view, and as such their approach is not scientific. Is that an unfair application of the term?
On the other hand, there may be scientific approaches which are mistaken - sometimes hopelessly so. Bad science, perhaps, can still be science.[b] [QUOTE]Alot of the arguing between evolutionists and creationists can be boiled down to this:Evolutionist: You are non-scientific
Creationist: You are an atheistThe difference is only in the phraseology.
[/b][/QUOTE]Not quite. And again you are sneaking in an "only" when in fact the linguistic difference between the two phrases is complex.
One can be scientific purely by the rigorous application of techniques without giving up any transcendental beliefs, so asking a creationist to take a scientific approach is possible and - when discussing matters scientific - reasonable.
Being a believer is not a matter of technique, but of faith. Faith cannot be turned on and off, or conscioulsy adopted, in the way a scientific approach can be.Nice exchange, BTW. Thanks.

Mr P raised a good point here:

quote:

---

....how does the teaching of evolution, for example, differ from the teaching of other subjects in the scientific field, or subjects in the humanities?

---

Does this objection to ramming down throats apply only to evolution or do you propose to make ALL education an elective pursuit?

Greetings:To toff:I did provide the reference you seek when I answered joz. Here it is again:Geneticist John McDonald writes:The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those (genes) that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.from an article entitled, "The Molecular Basis of Adaptation" Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics vol. 14, pg. 93.CheersRobert