Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: "Zachriel" <angelmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Apr 2006 12:37:54 -0700
BROKEN LADDER wrote:
Hardy-Weinberg founded what we call population genetics in 1908 with a very
simple arithmetic result, p² + 2pq + q² = 1. If
1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population
then evolution will not occur. They clearly included migration (gene flow).
If there is migration (and the populations differ), then there is evolution.
That applies even in the absence of selection.
This only bears any relevance when you are talking about a specific
population that is a sub-set of the entire population. Migration might
be evolution if you define the population in terms of its physical
locality. But that's just one of an infinite number of ways to define
populations. I could define a population as all those members of the
species over a certain mass, regardless of location. In that case,
losing mass could cause an individual to leave that population, and
that would be evolution. Fine with me if that's how you want to play.
Macroevolution usually refers to the processes involved in speciation, that
is, when a single population divides into two non-interbreeding populations.
This can occur due to either geographic or behavioral divergences.
In that case, macroevolution would be to microevolution what two people
going on a walk is to one person going on a walk. And in this case,
macroevolution wouldn't be important in discussing the emergency of new
species, but just the _increase_ in the number of species.
There is not always a distinct dividing line when two populations become two
species. The on-going process may involve gene flow between the populations
(migration or hybridization), and interbreeding may ebb and flow for any
number of reasons. However, it is a real process that has been observed both
in nature and in the lab.
I'm not debating that evolution happens in the slightest bit. I'm just
saying that the terms microevolution and macroevolution are virtually
devoid of meaning or significance. Macroevolution is just a chain of
microevolution occuring with two or more groups for so long as it takes
for them to genetically diverge.
There is no such thing as climate. There's just weather. Sometimes it's
sunny. Sometimes it's rainy. Some places are sunnier than others, but
that's just weather. Why would anyone separate weather in different
geographic regions? What is climate but just a bunch of weather in
Microwalking is when a person walks away from me until I can't see him
anymore. Microwalking is when two people walk away from me in
divergent paths until they can't see each other anymore, regardless of
whether I can see either of them. Okay. Fascinating.
Actually, now that you mention it, there's only microweather; wind, sun
and raindrops. Storms are just a bunch of microweather.
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: BROKEN LADDER
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: DC Howlerfest April 15?
- Next by Date: Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
- Previous by thread: Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Mendel refutes evolution