Re: Evolution is not a fact


"hersheyh" <hersheyhv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ae22586d-4aec-49e4-98ce-4e833b111734@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 5, 12:01 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

I believe from observation of these posts that there
is a misunderstanding going on on both sides of
the argument. If a creationist says that evolution
does not take place, what he is meaning is that
macroevolution does not take place. He does not
consider microevolution to be evolution, but I can
see that the evolutionist does consider microevolution
to be evolution. Microevolution is a name that was
given to what formerly was called variation.

And here I thought (and taught) that the modern name for the ultimate
cause of *all* genetic (and hence relevant to evolution) 'variation',
was 'mutation'. And that such the process of mutation, which produced
variant alleles, was a continually occurring process. The variant
alleles thus produced were then sifted by one of two processes:
selection because the allele (or, more often, allele combinations)
produced variant phenotypes that were differentially affected (wrt
reproductive sucesss) by their local environments or by selectively
neutral drift. Both processes that change the frequency of alleles
(selection for phenotype or neutral drift), of course, require that
the variations (variant alleles) actually exist in the population.

Yes, mutation is a popular newbie term for variation,
but it is not a blanket that covers all variation, and
that is a problem and makes for lack of communication.
Variation is actually originally such as a breed within
a species.

Macroevolution is an allele change above the
species level.

What is "an allele change above the species level"? Speciation? All
allele changes occur by altering some existing allele in some existing
organism in some existing population.

How can I respond, since you have not presented a meaningful
definition of macroevolution? You have claimed that macroevolution
requires something that makes no sense, since *all* allele changes are
changes (aka, mutations) of existing alleles in existing species. Are
you thinking of some sort of magical poofing of some sort of magical
alleles into existence at some magical instance? That doesn't sound
like evolution to me. Sounds a bit more like magical poofing
creation?

Yes, it is speciation, or the formation of a new species,
and a DNA change has to take place. This is dependent
upon the definition of the word "species," though.

Creationists do not believe that
macroevolution occurs.

Some evolutionists
believe that the definition of "species" is a
problem.

All biologists *recognize* that *most* of the time, given our limited
time perspective, the identification of different species is
relatively accurate (just as saying that there is a difference between
'shore' and 'sea' is usually pretty obvious). But *because* species
change and some existing species vary, any definition of species will,
at specific times and places, be inadequate because species, like
shorelines, are not forever the same.

How can I put this? What you are saying is said in
very eloquent and efficient words. But to say this
to someone not understanding some of the things in
Biology, the last statement needs a bit more information
in order to be understood clearly. It's very hard to have
much knowledge as do you about a subject and talk to
someone that has lesser knowledge of said given subject.
What you say in your last sentence comes across as being
probably different than the way you mean it. It sounds like
you are saying that species is difficult to define since what
a species is, changes all the time. But that's not at all what
you mean, is it? Don't you think that because of more
complicated understanding about all lifeforms, we realize
now that all things can't fit under the one cover of a single
definition of species? Or do you think that idea is wrong?
I'm also not intending to frustrate you.

Some Creationists agree with that
also.

If you are an example, that is because most Creationists don't have a
clue.

Gee, thanks. Then kudos for your patience.

I hear what you say about mutation, and you are
applying it to being a form of variation. But what
I think they earlier meant by variation is actually
just something such as different breeds of cats
or dogs illustrate. I think what the world sees as
being a mutation is a mule, which cannot
reproduce. But what you are calling a mutation
is something that can reproduce. Isn't this correct?

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was ... A number of wild plant species appear to be due to autopolyploidy from ... turns out to be perfectly suited for evolution. ... clearly demonstrated that reversion, just like forward mutation, *when ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... definitions of "evolution." ... evolution within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... So where is the testable falsifiable hypothesis for how evolution ... so why hasn't our species been extinguished by random ... they depends on the environment plus all the other erstwhile mutation. ... You speak of "miscopying" as the source of variation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-Atheist evolutionists?
    ... We agree that random mutation happens. ... What we agree is "belief" is that species evolved by small random ... within your definition of evolution. ... Of variation in a population. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... Evolution practically guarantees that. ... where the ambiguity of species creeps in. ... Biologists are stuck with what nature is, ... Show me the difference between a mutation ...
    (talk.origins)