Distasteful...The Implications Of Evolution Before The Fall

I have met several human adults who were not very intelligent.

1 Like

Domesticating a wild fox isn’t a useful adaptation?

Anecdotal evidence for evolution is the annual new strain of the flu. As virus are single-celled the new strain can’t be due to sexual reproduction.

But they do reproduce and mutate when they do so. That is all that is needed for natural selection to do it’s thing.

1 Like

[Edited for clarity: the phrase “usual term” has been replaced with “preferred term”!]

@bill_wald, A term preferred by some could be “Genetic Replication” … rather than “Sexual Reproduction”. As I have mentioned in other threads, creatures that developed genetic replication to perfection probably went extinct as soon as the Earth’s environment started changing more dynamically.

Life forms that could prosper while allowing a bit of error in replication would have more variation in their gene pool which allowed them to more dynamically respond to ecological/environmental changes.

12 posts were merged into an existing topic: “I’m not interpreting it, I’m just reading it!”

Hoo boy. Um.
*Viruses aren’t cells at all.
*Sexual reproduction is common among single-celled organisms (cf. yeast).
*Sexual reproduction is not necessary to get mutation, genetic diversity, or recombination.

That was a lot of error packed efficiently into a small amount of text!

2 Likes

No, that’s not a phrase used in any biological context, mostly because it’s meaningless. You may be thinking of DNA replication.

1 Like

I, Bill_II, didn’t say a virus was a cell.
I didn’t mention sexual reproduction because they aren’t cells.
I didn’t say sexual reproduction was necessary.

So what are the errors in what I said?

None, I was referring to @bill_wald’s words which you quoted.

I’ve been a biologist for almost 40 years, and never heard those two words used together like that.

In what circles is it a usual term?

2 Likes

My point is that the phrase is general enough to avoid objections like the one above. Replication of genetic material is a universal property of all life forms… and perhaps to a few things that some people don’t really consider is alive!

I won’t take a stand on this particular example, but some have argued that a virus is not a “living” thing.

I accept that you have not heard the term; I assert that it is an acceptable general term.

Let us not forget that not too long ago, the very same tag team of correspondents fell on their swords regarding the fictional nature of the phrase: “Ring Speciation.”

I was pilloried. I was denounced. I was scorned. All in all, a pretty big day or two for me.

And then I produced citations to peer reviewed articles where the phrase “Ring Speciation” was not only used in the narrative - - it was used in the article titles as well.

We all survived it.

Domestic dogs are genetically wolves not foxes. Domestication is not the same as selective breeding to obtain chihuahuas out of wolves. Many dogs bred for certain aesthetic characteristics have less desirable health and survival characteristics like chronic back problems. An adaptation is selected for naturally by environmental and reproductive advantages, it isn’t imposed by a human breeder. Of course breeding leads to desirable traits, that is the whole point of animal husbandry, but it isn’t natural selection at work, so it shouldn’t be used as an example of microevolution.

1 Like

@Christy

Nice!

@bill_wald, think of it this way: Evolutionists talk about

“Natural Selection”.

Animal breeders routinely use

“Man-made Selection”,
or some other such clever phrase.

1 Like

That debate is actually a very fun one to have. One of the first things to recognize is our tendency as humans to see things as black and white, or require reality to fit into neat little categories. The problem is that sometimes reality is a spectrum that doesn’t fit neatly into human made boxes.

On one side of the spectrum you have humans, fish, trees, and bacteria. These are all things that are accepted as living by nearly everyone. On the other end of the spectrum you have transposons, which are little pieces of DNA that can get duplicated and inserted into the host genome. The human genome has millions of transposon insertions. In between the two extremes you varying degrees of host dependence and life histories.

For example, viruses may have once been living organisms similar to bacteria. Even now there are species called “obligate intracellular parasites” that have to live inside of another cell in order to live and replicate (e.g. Chlamydia). It could be that viruses were once obligate intracellular parasites that lost their own genes for replicating their own genome, allowing the host genes to take over those roles. Are obligate intracellular parasites not alive because they can’t live out in the environment all on their own? Most scientists still say that these parasites are alive, even though they could be seen as failing one of the requirements for life.

In the end, the argument over what is living and what is not is nothing more than a semantic argument. It is more interesting to study how these things work and interact.

4 Likes

What you asserted is there in black and white: “The usual term used is “Genetic Replication””. That’s wrong, and it’s unhelpful since the phrase has no clear meaning and is different from terms used millions of times in the scientific (and lay) literature. In other words: the phrase is not the “usual term” for anything at all, and moreover it is confusing. If you are keen to help people understand science, then you should avoid concocting new and unclear phrases and labeling them “usual terms.” Actually reading science is a good antidote to this, in my experience.

@T_aquaticus,

Agreed! Let’s look at a virus. A protein shell surrounding a string of DNA. No mitochondria. No cell membrane. No respiration.

This thing is about as non-alive as anything the YECs would say is not alive. And I don’t see how anyone could argue differently.

Dead dead dead … but armed with genetic weaponry that would send chills down the spine of any human target zone… as if they were a screaming phalanx of sword bearing hoplites!!!

In case a YEC asks… the DNA that goes into the realm of viruses are almost certainly “captive” DNA strands that fell off of living DNA carriers …

Nobody should think that Viruses came first … then cellular life. Without cellular life coming first, there wouldn’t be any way for viruses to replicate their “captive” weaponry.

@sfmatheson,

I have already amended my original posting. I agree that the phrase “the usual term” is incorrect. It’s quite cllear that it is not the “usual term”.

I have revised it to say: “the preferred term”.

But I probably should make that “a phrase preferred by some”. That will be done within 60 or 90 seconds.

1 Like

IMO, that’s an uninteresting semantic “debate.” And regardless, it’s unrelated to evolution.