Timeline for A better definition of ‘evolution’?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://biology.stackexchange.com/ with https://biology.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 19:38 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 15, 2017 at 3:04 | |||||
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:23 | answer | added | MmmHmm | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:09 | history | edited | RunzWitScissors | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added question at the end regarding the down-vote.
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 10:34 | comment | added | James | "Evolutionists"... I'm not sure that I like that term. How about "members of the general public that understand reason". But more seriously, this should go on meta, not the main site. It seems to be more about if we, as a community, should be more careful when defining evolution. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 3:32 | comment | added | RunzWitScissors | @swbarnes: True, but that doesn't see to deter them. BTW, your bacterial resistance example quite frankly is one example of what they would call a bait-and-switch. See here. and here. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 2:31 | comment | added | John | @RunzWitScissors the problem is the continued generation of new genetic material is not actually necessary for evolution, so there is absolutely no reason to add it in to the definition. If starting right now no mutations at all occurred ever, life would still continue to evolve for quite a long time. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 1:37 | comment | added | Ankur Chakravarthy | "Change in allele frequency" also encompasses mutations. The occurrence of a new mutation increases the frequency of that variant from 0 to whatever percent of the population the organism that carries it comprises. Similarly, the frequency of all the other variants at that locus decreases by the same percentage. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 1:20 | comment | added | jamesqf | @RunzWitScissors: Well, the operative phrase there is "creationists fully believe". It's a religious belief, and no amount of fact or logic is going to change that. The most you can get them to do is weasel around the idea, with their "adaptation". | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 22:55 | comment | added | swbarnes2 | And the issue is, of course there is no evidence of all this "pre-existing" variation. When a bacterial sample evolves resistance, it's due to a DNA change. There was no resistance allele hiding, it didn't exist until the mutation. Creationists are just wrong about the facts here. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 22:48 | comment | added | swbarnes2 | It is pointless to say that "Creationists believe adaption" without knowing what they mean by it. It is not at all clear that they are using the term to mean hereditary changes to the DNA. Also, not being tethered by the evidence, some Creationists might mean something very very different from other Creationists. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 22:21 | answer | added | Roland | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 22:20 | history | edited | RunzWitScissors | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed the vague 'they' to 'Berkeley, for better clarification.
|
| Feb 6, 2017 at 21:42 | comment | added | RunzWitScissors | (cont). The important ‘distinction’ I’m looking for: is one that includes the creation of new genetic information, which as I understand it to be, is via mutation. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 21:42 | comment | added | RunzWitScissors | @jamesqf: As I read it (and I have read a lot of their material), creationists fully believe in adaptation, speciation, and natural selection. In their minds, these mechanisms are built into life’s design. Animals where created with plenty of built-in variety, seen as adaptation via natural selection. As rabbit spread the globe, some became desert rabbits, some arctic rabbits. All done via a ‘change in (PRE-EXISTING) allele frequency over time’. So when we use that phrase as our definition of evolution, it just confirms to them their own stance. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 20:58 | answer | added | John | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 19:48 | comment | added | jamesqf | But they're the ones using sloppy language. Evolution IS adaptation which takes place over generations. The mechanism by which the adaptation happens is mostly change in allele frequency, though other things like mutations, viruses inserting bits of genetic material, or wholesale co-opting of different life forms (e.g. mitochondria) play their parts too. But we could observe the fact of evolution without knowing anything about the underlying genetic mechanisms. As Darwin & Wallace actually did. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 19:20 | comment | added | bpedit | I agree with the Berkeley statement and your assertation. "Change in allele frequency over time", by itself, is not sufficient. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 19:19 | comment | added | Seeds | You might try over at T.O. ... talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 18:38 | history | asked | RunzWitScissors | CC BY-SA 3.0 |