Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 14, 2024, 1:34 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
#31
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
(December 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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?
Reply
#32
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
I'll accept that these 'changes' or adaptations are part of what is believed to be the evolutionary process.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#33
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
Those "changes", as I stated earlier, are, by definition, evolution:

Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers (2002):

Quote: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):

Quote:...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):

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

Curtis & Barnes (1994):

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

Drickamer, Vessey & Jakob (2002):

Quote: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.
Reply
#34
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
(December 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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?
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Reply
#35
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
(December 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:
(December 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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 Smile
Reply
#36
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
(December 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:
(December 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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.
(December 21, 2008 at 12:45 am)bodhitharta Wrote: 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?
HuhA man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Reply
#37
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
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
Reply
#38
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
Bodhitharta, where did you go?
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#39
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
(December 27, 2008 at 3:33 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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...
Reply
#40
RE: Destroying the theory of evolution in one post
(December 27, 2008 at 4:21 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
(December 27, 2008 at 3:33 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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 Smile

Kyu
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Theory of Evolution, Atheism, and Homophobia. RayOfLight 31 5908 October 25, 2017 at 9:24 am
Last Post: Brian37
  We gave Narcan to one particular addict 20 times in one month vorlon13 6 1290 October 4, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Panspermia theory? mediocrates 28 5838 May 24, 2017 at 9:05 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Test My Theory: Macro evolution DOES happen? Gawdzilla Sama 44 14462 December 20, 2016 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: RoadRunner79
  Giulio Tononi's Theory of Consciousness Jehanne 11 3939 September 18, 2016 at 6:38 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  The simple body test that proves the theory of evolution TubbyTubby 17 3295 March 22, 2016 at 5:50 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false Rob216 206 46244 November 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Dolorian 10 4453 October 12, 2014 at 10:52 am
Last Post: Chas
  Selfish Gene Theory Mudhammam 18 7409 February 1, 2014 at 10:11 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
  A change in evolution theory we come from sponges? Gooders1002 5 2352 December 13, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Last Post: Justtristo



Users browsing this thread: 9 Guest(s)