Destroying the theory of evolution in one post

[solidsquid]

Lilphil, moths changing colour is surely not 'evolution', rather adaptation. A new species hasn't been formed. Have you a better example?

Yes, it is evolution. You're thinking of speciation. There need not be a speciation event for a species to evolve - the change in allele frequency is by definition, evolution.

And as far as the evolution of sex, I've gone over this previously with Bodhi - we talked about exchange of genetic information increasing diversity and aiding in the ability of the population to survive selective pressures, we showed examples of bacterial pili, we went into the complexity thing and gene duplication and rise of novel genes and subsequent proteins with examples...and on and on. But appparently it got us nowhere. Why should this time be any different?

[CoxRox]

I'll accept that these 'changes' or adaptations are part of what is believed to be the evolutionary process.

[solidsquid]

Those "changes", as I stated earlier, are, by definition, evolution:

Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers (2002):

evolution: the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next. (pp. G-9)

Alters (2002):

...the process of change over time by which existing populations of organisms develop from ancestral form through modification of their characteristics. (pp. G-10)

Freeman & Herron (2004):

Currently defined as changes in allele frequencies over time (pp. 772)

Curtis & Barnes (1994):

Changes in the gene pool from one generation to the next (pp. G-8).

Drickamer, Vessey & Jakob (2002):

A change in the frequency of alleles in a population over generations (pp. 394)

Yep, the moth example or "adaptation" as you referred to it does fit those definitions of evolution and is further categorized as microevolution which is defined as "evolution at or below the species level" (Mayr, 2001, pp. 287).

References:

Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding life. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on Earth. (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Curtis, H. and Barnes, N. (1994). Invitation to Biology. (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Drickamer, L., Vessey, S. & Jakob, E. (2002). Animal behavior: Mechanisms, ecology, evolution. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Freeman, S. & Herron, J. (2004). Evolutionary Analysis. (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

[lilphil1989]

I'll accept that these 'changes' or adaptations are part of what is believed to be the evolutionary process.

They are not part of it. They ARE it. Really that's it. The theory of evolution is wonderful in it's simplicity.

Just out of interest, what's your position on evolution?

[Tiberius]

I'll accept that these 'changes' or adaptations are part of what is believed to be the evolutionary process.

They are not part of it. They ARE it. Really that's it. The theory of evolution is wonderful in it's simplicity.

Just out of interest, what's your position on evolution?

She's learning about it

[bozo]

I'll accept that these 'changes' or adaptations are part of what is believed to be the evolutionary process.

They are not part of it. They ARE it. Really that's it. The theory of evolution is wonderful in it's simplicity.

Just out of interest, what's your position on evolution?

CR's desire is that " god " created everything. She has expressed this wish in previous posts.

---

The first living organism would have had to be able to have the following functions in order for evolution to occur:



Metabolism

Waste management

Replication/reproduction capacity/capability



If these three functions were met at the onset of life they could not have evolved to get to this point.

What does a Progressive revelationlist mean please?

[Giff]

To the person who created this thread:

Here is some wikipedia links about evolution. The first one describe the evoltution in biology, the second is- as it says- a introduciton to evoltuin and a more acceseble non-technical artical and the last explains the phrase "evolution is both a theory and a fact". Enjoy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_a...y_and_fact

[CoxRox]

Bodhitharta, where did you go?

[Tiberius]

Bodhitharta, where did you go?

I hate people who leave when they get proved wrong about stuff. They should at least admit to their errors...oh wait, we're talking about creationists here...

[Kyuuketsuki]

Bodhitharta, where did you go?

I hate people who leave when they get proved wrong about stuff. They should at least admit to their errors...oh wait, we're talking about creationists here...

Apparently God wasn't willing

Kyu