Re: Tautological Fitness
- From: Kermit <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 25, 1:39 pm, backspace <stephan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 1, 10:32 am, Ivar Ylvisaker <ylvis...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But, of course, this is only microevolution and creationists generally
accept the reality of microevolution. Most would argue that the real
issue is macroevolution and not microevolution.
Microevolution doesn't have a single true meaning. The concept Leavitt
had in 1909 fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolutionwasn't a
formulation of a theory but a problem description
What on Earth is a "problem description"? If you mean a description of
a problem, no. Microevolution, when used by a biologist, means
evolution below the species level. It is a matter of quantity, of the
degree of change in the the frequency of alleles which has occurred in
a breeding population. Macroevolution is above the species level.
as to how the small
scale morphological changes we can observe as an egg turns into a
chicken must be solved first before we can address transmutation.
What do you mean by transmutation?
If you mean that we have to understand development of an organisms
before we can address evolution of a species, no. It certainly throws
light on it, however, and evo-devo (evolutionary development) is a
fast growing and exciting field in biology.
The production of form from formlessness in the egg-derived
individual, the multiplication of parts and the orderly creation of
diversity among them, in an actual evolution, of which anyone may
ascertain the facts,
No biologist uses the word evolution to describe this. "Evolution" has
a clear meaning in biology, and using it to describe another process
would be confusing. Unlike you, scientists prefer to avoid
obfuscation.
but of which no one has dissipated the mystery in
any significant measure.
Actually, we have learned quite a bit. Were you capable of reading for
comprehension, I would recommend "Endless Forms Most Beautiful", by
Sean B. Carrol.
This microevolution
The development of an organism is not microevolution. Did you not read
the article you linked above?
forms an integral part of the grand evolution problem
In what way is evolution a problem? Well, other than for those people
who thinkthe universe is all about *them.
and lies at the base of it, so that we
shall have to understand the minor process before we can thoroughly
comprehend the more general one...
No; they are different processes, although they have much to teach
about each other.
What reality do I as a YEC fundamentalist "accept"?
Not the one that sustains your life. Your imagination may satisfy your
emotional needs, but there is only one reality. Some folks have a less
certain grasp of it, that's clear enough.
Where was this reality defined, who defined it.
Curious. Do you actually think that reality is defined by our word
play?
The problem description as outlined
in 1909 I agree with in broad terms, this concept Leavitt labeled
microevolution, but what is the concept with it today and who has this
concept.
Any biological dictionary has a quick definition for you. But you
confusedly look for some authority. Ain't one. A word means what
people thinks it means, collectively. For technical terms, look to
professionals in that field. Auto mechanics, biologists, carpenters,
gardeners, all have a technical vocabulary in addition to the common
language a people share.
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~sousa/teach/Philbionotes5.html
a) Functions are not mere effects, but just those effects the organ
was selected for.
b) This presupposes a distinction between being selected, and being
selected for.
There is a distinction in concepts between "being selected" and "being
selected for", but what are these concepts since the terms don't have
a single true meaning?
They are made clear in the web page, which are class notes for a class
you didn't take. The professor is trying to make clear the difference
between the reason why a trait was selected for, and incidental
characteristics of the trait/gene, which were not what was selected by
natural conditions.
For instance, if the climate turns colder, larger bodies in an
endothermic population may be selected for. An incidental effect would
be perhaps that they have to eat more, and must hunt more. It's
unlikely that *that trait of greater hunger is reproductively
advantageous, but the larger size would make it easier to keep warm,
and that may override the disadvantage of needing more food.
In the same vane there are different concepts with "selection at
random" and "random selection" where the word "random" can either
imply intent or non intent ,
Nature has no intent. Nor is selection random. The *variation is
random (unbiased as to need of the organism), but hte selection is
not. Are you trying to misrepresent it? If so, that is dishonest, and
stupid, because we know otherwise. If you truly do not understand the
difference, perhaps you should try to, in order to post appropriately.
Repeating this is simply idiotic, and makes neither you nor your
pseudo-arguments look intelligent.
just like "selection" can be used in the
context of intent or non-intent. See http://bit.ly/19lJrY
In evolutionary science, *natural selection is never deliberate. This
has also been explained to you. Unnatural selection, normally called
breeding, produces a similar effect, but is chosen by humans.
Kermit
.
- References:
- Re: Tautological Fitness
- From: Ivar Ylvisaker
- Re: Tautological Fitness
- From: backspace
- Re: Tautological Fitness
- Prev by Date: Re: Dr. John Harshman's embarrassing "literalism" claims
- Next by Date: Re: Just LOOK at these pictures and THEN say there was NOT a Noah's
- Previous by thread: Re: Tautological Fitness
- Next by thread: Re: Tautological Fitness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
