BoGoWo wrote:can't accept that at all; too many implications that are incorrect.
comments:
Einherjar wrote:Einherjar wrote:Evolution, short version.
1. A population of individuals exist.
[fairly obvious]
2. The genetic makeup differs between the individuals.
[ditto, ignoring the important point 'why'!] [Mutations are mentioned in 6.]
3. This [their interaction, sexually] [Wrong, "this" reffers to differing genetic makeup] results in differences in behavior and physical makeup between the individuals.
[not necessarily, but yes, usually] [In terms of a whole population, always]
4. Individuals with some (beneficial) genetically determined characteristics will as a result of these characteristics successfully bring up more offspring than individuals without them. (And individuals with other (harmful) genetically determined characteristics will successfully bring up less offspring)
['beneficial' is a value judgment, unrelated to genetics; even survival is not necessarily a positive thing, lets leave out the 'ethical' choices from a mechanical system; and the individuals simply survive to procreate, not necessarily 'raise' their offspring, and definitely no guarantee of 'success'! - if the offspring occur, the genes have been passed on; end of story.] [Beneficial here defined as contributing to increased number of raised offspring, harmful as the opposite.]
5. Genes are passed on to offspring, and as a result genes with beneficial effects would be more common in a generation than in the generation which preceded it. (If it were not for mutations)
[remember reproduction takes two (to tango), recessive genes will not necessarily be more prevalent in the 'next' generation, even though 'present'. And again lets not editorialize on the 'value' of the gene/mutated, or not.] [Recessive genotype will be more widespread, phenotype might not be. Beneficial defined above.]
6. Mutations randomly create new genetic code in the new generation, not passed along by the preceding generation.
[so they do, and remember, 99% of them render the subject unable to survive to reproduction; it is the other 1% (approx. - of course) that affect all the changes (i did not say improvements!)]source!
7. repeat from step 2.[including comments]
Over numerous generations harmful genes are weeded out [dropped; weeded out implies a 'direction' And your point is?, and beneficial ones become more common. [nonsense; genes that permit the individual to survive, also survive; ones that do not, do not - simple!] Reproduction not survival is the crux of the argument. Beneficial and harmfull are defined accordingly Mutations provide an endless [minute - endless over huge eons of time, but tiny to any specific individual] Wasn't that sort of obvious? supply of new genetic material, minor adjustments to the design, to be put to the test of natural selection. Selective pressure may guide a species to an equilebrium, aproximating an ideal[reproductively successful] YES, you're getting it! model, [most] mutations being harmful. [Correct] Changes in selective pressure, making previously harmfull genes beneficial and vica versa, can then cause evolution to take a different path.
[the effects of genes will vary in a specific invironment, but there is no 'beneficial' or 'harmful', only success, and failure.] [The phenotype resulting from the genotype will usually not be effected by environment, only selective pressures change] [I call genes causing reproductive success beneficial, and ones causing reproductive faliure harmfull]
A species isolated in two geographically separated locations can[will] evolve in different directions, [perhaps]resulting in speciation.
[Why did you see the need to substitute "can" with "will perhaps"?]
Lets all rally around this,
[opting out, except as noted]and see what bib comes up with.
Either come up with an actual dissagreement (rather than intentionally misinterpreting my post) or pledge your support.
The promising beginning to a possibly not too bad biology joke. I never expected anything good to come out of this thread.
(I hope that no one has thought of this before).
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:Ros: OK then, let's take Einherjar's definition on post #1051179 (Monday, 6 December 2004) as your commonly agreed definition for evolution.
=====================================
According to ebrown: "All of us agree that evolution is a scientific fact..."
Einherjar's definition #1: "A population of individuals exist."
I have a question...
Q1. How did such a population come to exist - what process brought them into being?
Abiogenesis is not covered by the theory of evolution.
Einherjar wrote:
Abiogenesis is not covered by the theory of evolution.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I suggest a new thread. Why don't you call it...
... "Abiogenesis- Who wants to KNOW?"
And perhaps in 15 pages it will actually get somewhere.
Einherjar wrote:Abiogenesis is not covered by the theory of evolution.
Try explaining this to the millions of people who believe, as taught by evolutionists, that life "evolved from non-life."
Is there a split in the "Evolution" camp now on this issue?
Abiogenesis definition:
"The scientific study of how life originally arose on the planet, presumably from nonliving things and the presence of nonliving organic matter."
Biological evolution simply says that the modern species developed from earlier species. As we have said, there is overwhelming evidence for this, and it has been accepted by the scientific community.
Abiogenesis is a different topic altogether. I suspect that many of us agree that there is ample reson to believe that it is true.
But one easily could believe in evolution, but not in abiogenesis (at least on earth). For example, you could believe that a diety seeded the earth with life and then it evolved from there. You would then of course be stuck with questions of where the life and the deity came from.
One could also believe in the development of life from non-living matter, but not in evolution. I believe that followers of LaMarke fall into this camp (although there arn't many of them left).
Factually the Biblical story of creation is an example of a belief in abiogenesis. God created man from the dust of the Earth.
Evolution and Abiogenesis are two different issues. A split in the evolution camp about abiogenesis is as significant as a split about the mass of neutrinos.
That being said, I don't think there is much of a split about how life began either. However, I think it is safe to say that evolution is much more certain that any theory of how life began.
We all agree that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for the beginning of life is based more on conjecture.
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:Einherjar wrote:Abiogenesis is not covered by the theory of evolution.
Try explaining this to the millions of people who believe, as taught by evolutionists, that life "evolved from non-life."
[I question your use of the word evolved]
Is there a split in the "Evolution" camp now on this issue?
Abiogenesis definition:
"The scientific study of how life originally arose on the planet, presumably from nonliving things and the presence of nonliving organic matter."
Do you admit that the theory of evolution as presented is sound? If you do we can move on to abiogenesis, if you do not, we should cover evolution first. This thread is dedicated to evolution after all.
We're experiencing evolution right here on this thread; this subject is morfing into something else. LOL
No way, this thread stays on evolution untill bib surrenders. An "Abiogenesis - Who wants to know" thread can be set up sepparately if need be.
Oh, and I think we are actually experiencing abiogenesis here on this thread. A subject arising from non subject.
OK try this one,
A pool of primordial ooze goes into a bar and says, "I'll have a beer" ...
ebrown_p wrote:OK try this one,
A pool of primordial ooze goes into a bar and says, "I'll have a beer" ...
Bartender hears something, but doesn't see anyone, so wipes up the ooze on the bar and washes it down the sink.
ebrown_p wrote:Einherjar wrote:
Abiogenesis is not covered by the theory of evolution.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I agree also.
Evolution has implications for how Abiogenesis may have happened, but it doesn't address Abiogenesis directly.
For those of us that never hoid of Abiogenesis before now.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
I would remind bib that there is far more unanimity regarding the nature of "evolution" than there is regarding the nature of "god." If a lack of unanimity means that there is no such thing as "evolution," then I suggest that the existence of "god" is even more questionable.
Einherjar's evolution definition, seems to be some sort of "loop" - unfortunately he wasn't too happy with BoGoWo's dissection of it, but anyhow, let's move on...
Einherjar's evolution definition loop, which ebrown and Ros agree with (apparently), goes as follows:
2. The genetic makeup differs between the individuals.
3. This results in differences in behavior and physical makeup between the individuals.
4. Individuals with some (beneficial) genetically determined characteristics will as a result of these characteristics successfully bring up more offspring than individuals without them. (And individuals with other (harmful) genetically determined characteristics will successfully bring up less offspring)
5. Genes are passed on to offspring, and as a result genes with beneficial effects will be more common in this generation than in the generation which preceded it. (If it were not for mutations)
6. Mutations randomly create new genetic code in the new generation, not passed along by the preceding generation.
So, according to those who accept this "loop" as the definition of evolution, then flowing from #6 to #2 is the cause of how the "genetic makeup differs between the individuals." ?
Is this a fair summation of your evolution definition loop?
Bib, Go back to your study of the bible. You'll have better luck there.
The primordial ooze goes into a bar.
"gimme a beer it says"
"OOze that talking?" says the bartender
CI: no luck required here, my friend.
Irish Legal Technique with a touch of the Leprechaun :wink:
