Martin,
Should we give our children vaccinations? How about an annual flu shot? If so, we are tacitly accepting that evolution is fact.
False. This is like saying that if a lion eats a child, or a shark eats a fish, we are tacitly accepting that evolution is a fact. Ridiculous.
We should accept evolution and not let our children near the lions nor sharks. And we should vaccinate our children to protected them from viruses that mutate.
[quote=âPatrick, post:142, topic:3512â]
we should vaccinate our children to protected them from viruses that mutate.
[/quote]âŚ
Yes, and also from those viruses that do not mutate. But mutation is not evolution.
Please explain.
It has often been explained, even on these threads. But once again, mutations merely open up genetic variation within a population. They are only a small part of a necessary requirement for evolution on the scale that is significant. Mutations are not evolution when they cause defects and death within organisms. They are not evolution when they merely activate or deactivate existing sequences. They are not evolution by themselves, and require changes that are significant to change one kind of thing into one kind of another thing. Mutations without natural selection would not be evolution. Mutations with natural selection, but without significant changes in genome or organism would still not be evolution. Mutations with significant changes, and with natural selection, but with merely deleterious changes or harmful changes or neutral changes would not be evolution. If mutations were evolution, then we would not need to use the word âmutationâ. Clearly there is a distinction, and you ought to be aware of it.
John,
There are multiple causes for Evolution. One of the causes is GENETIC DRIFT. This is, essentially, mutation.
If you go to Dictionary.com, you will see that ANY change in the gene pool of a life form IS Evolution (either from Genetic Drift, differential survival rates or differential fertility).
George
1 Like
Weâve had this discussion before. Did you miss it? Genetic drift is not mutation. Mutation might allow genetic drift to occur, but they are not the same thing. The dictionary definition is misleading. It attributes a small portion of the evolutionary theory as a definition for the whole theory, which is invalid. It would be like saying that caucasians are the human race. Or the definition of humans is natives.
Eddie, you never disappoint. You donât think Genetic Drift embodies mutation of the genetic code?
Okay⌠letâs go to the dictionary. Dictionary.com is far less mysterious than you are, Eddie. It states:
". . . random changes in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool, usually of small populations. "
Since this definition doesnât specify whether the changes in frequency is due to differential survival, differential fertility, or just a mutation, I will accept your stipulations.
In any case, I think John will have to accept that Mutation is definitely ONE kind of Evolution.
The Biological definition for Evolution is:
". . . . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. "
George
Eddie,
I am pleased that my annual flu shot is doctrinaire neo-Darwinism. Glad there was no copay.
micro/macro evolution, atheistic/theistic evolution, Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution. There are so many types of evolution, I am having a hard time keeping track so I am just going to refer to the Earthly biological process as evolution.
1 Like
Eddie, my dearest boon companion, you must be great fun at parties.
If you read my post again, you will see that I accept your criticism. And I listed the two dictionary definitions to replace my original position.
I realized, specifically because of your comments, that I was wrong in what I had originally posted.
Try not to have a heart attackâŚ
George
Eddie, Letâs try this one more time:
The DEFINITION of Evolution is:
". . . . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. "
EVOLUTION happens to a gene pool.
If we are looking at the specifics of mutation âŚ
âMUTATION is a change to a single gene or chromosome.â
To the extent that mutation affects a whole gene pool, is the degree to which the gene pool has evolved.
George
To check if a definition works, or if it is valid, you need to check it against the possibilities included within it. So genetic drift⌠if you have a variety of wolves that interbreed and live together, and then due to mutations tend to become more homogeneous, ie. smaller, more hairy, and grey, we have genetic drift. There is a change in the gene pool, which was induced by mutations and maintained by selection, by breeding, and by fit to the environment. Yet, we have no real evolution, since the wolves are still wolves, and could easily breed with the original pack.
Some would call this evolution on a small scale. But this is a misnomer. We must realize that evolution does not do anything, it is the result of things. It can only happen to the limits of its conditions. It is controlled by its conditions, and does not change those conditions. The loss of genetic options due to selection is not evolution. Only when new options appear, and when selection increases the viability of a new option, and when the new option is significant, do we have evolution. This does not mean selection against something, but selection for something. Selection against something would reduce or prevent evolution. If we had a whale with a leg instead of a flipper, then the selection that eliminated that whale is not the same as the selection that gave that whale the possibility of chasing seals on the ice. Thus there are many things that are called evolution, that are not.
Let me have this opportunity to once again say that you are wrong about that. ANY change in the gene pool is Evolution⌠it is change in the gene pool over time. Note the eye-catching graphic from Dictonary.com:
This is not the first time Iâve presented you with the definition. And yet you continue to repeat the same error. This is why I donât like discussing most any topic with you. If you can invest so much energy and zeal on erroneously maintaining a point that doesnât even materially influence your conclusions . . . then, really, whatâs the point in trying to discuss something that would actually affect the outcome religious or scientific analysis?
George
P.S. I made that image just for you, @johnZ
1 Like
I think you missed the point that I donât necessarily agree with the definition you keep bringing up, even in its revised state. It also seems you have not really read, nor understood the point in my previous post. Which leads me to give up. By that definition, even if the world was only 6000 years old, you would say that evolution has occurred. If you do that, then you cannot condemn creationists for explaining the present variation within species and kinds on the basis of mutations and variations, even while they wonât agree that microbes evolved to man.
If God created ten species on earth (lets take the hypothetical), and after 100 years, only five species were left, you would maintain evolution had occurred. (by this definition) After all, there is a change in the gene pool, there were probably mutations, and selection removed five species, and the other five species now have only one color of hair. Really?