Re: Evolution confuses an observation with a theory

backspace wrote:
On May 22, 8:35 am, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are confusing the process of evolution - the change and proliferation of
species over time - and the theory of evolution which explains that change.
What theory? What is your theory of evolution. What is this theory
that you keep on refering to as "evolution"?


At this point in time scientific consensus explanation for
how life develops and diversifies on the planet is known
as the Modern Synthesis, commonly referred to as the "Theory
of Evolution".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis>



<http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/aphasia.jsp>






Where is this theory that provides us with a mechanistic description
of life itself? Please provide me with the theory of evolution
without restating the observation that things have survived.

Scientists define fitness in terms of heritable characteristics such as
size, speed, camouflage, rate of reproduction. It is these characteristics
that allow individuals and species to survive (to reproduce).
Again you are equivocating your observatoin of size, speed and
reproduction with an arbitrary word "fitness". And obviously the
characteristic of "reproduction" allows a species to reproduce. This
is a tautology.

Evolution explains how species are able to adapt to new and changing environments.
Explained where? You have restated your observation that creatures
survive and they have to survive or they would'nt be here in the first
place. What is your theory as to why they survive?

Each specific organism?


In colder climates, those that inherited the long-hair genes survived
in greater percentages than the short-haired ones due to the increased
ability to retain heat, and can live longer to breed more often.

In pine cone areas, crossbills birds which inherited bill shapes with
just the right twist have an easier time with their food supply than
birds with a less efficient twist, and thus make more baby birds.

On a savanna with predators, antelopes which inherit speedier combinations
of genes than their herdmates are more likely to escape predation and
live longer to breed more often.

Insects whose hatching cycles come closest to the timing/criteria
of the whole population are less likely to be prematurely eaten
because their numbers outrun their predators' appetites, and
live to produce the next generation.

In a highly fished environment, the members of a fish species which
inherit a smaller adult size which can escape a fishing net are
more likely to contribute their size-related genes to the next
generation.

Wheat plants which produce marginally more cholesterol in their
cell membranes are more likely to survive cold weather, and
produce a greater proportion of the next generation of wheat.

Turkey vultures which inherit the tendency to poop more acidic
droppings on their own feet are less likely to suffer bacterial
infections from the carrion they feed on. Healthier vultures
contribute more babies to the next generation.

Should I email you another 400 zillion reasons why genes
which improve the chances that an organism will survive,
thrive and reproduce in a given environment become a greater
percentage of the population of succeeding generations?



Presently it seems
to be: They survived because they survived and those that did'nt
survive are dead. This is the truth ofcourse but it does'nt explain to
me why they survived.

Their gene combinations outbred the competing gene combinations
in their ecosystem. Even tiny increases in probability of
survival can make a difference over many generations, like
compound interest in the bank.


Noelie

--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 47 years."



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... who openly question the theory of evolution. ... problem with evolution is that the fossil record does not honestly ... Gould was referring to was stasis in individual species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why cooled testicles?
    ... know from our own planet's animal evolution and applying it to the ... As for your alien species, Peter, is it originally unisexual, or is it ... see in gametes owe directly to bisexual reproduction; ... male and female sexual organs, so they would fit my description (and ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Macroevolution FAQ 2.1D
    ... Macroevolution - its definition, philosophy and history ... "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is ... evolutionary change at or above the level of species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A New Species of Man? => Whom will we be the hoary ancestors ?
    ... >> Our conjecture is that a new species of human being is emerging, ... >> of our own breakneck progress in science and technology. ... >> reproduction technology has for some years provided intravenous ... evolution just as it has been doing for centuries. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Macroevolution FAQ 2.1D
    ... > Macroevolution - its definition, ... > "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is ... > evolutionary change at or above the level of species. ...
    (talk.origins)