|
Someone send a copy to Ann Coulter so she can stop making a fool out of herself.
The genetec bottleneck you describe does not need to be caused by environmental change. It can result from migration or scattering of seeds to a new and isolated location.
And then Tinker Bell lived hapily ever after.
ML/NJ
There is a guy in a class I take who loves to stand up and spew this kind of stuff. It's always mind-numbing to listen to him. With him loving his own intellect and his vocabulary and the sound of his own voice, he cares not that most of the people in the class were lost at the first sentence.
You guys should get together.
I didn't see Jack Nicholson mentioned anywhere. ;)
Great piece! A nice, easy-to-understand summary of how evolution works.
Beautiful, elegant explanation of a difficult concept for some people.... thank you.
bttt
Gotta' do better than that if you want to knock down the
deus ex machina folks who want you to believe "God did it" in a New York second.
Several of the points make no sense in light of what has been found regarding the human genome, "jumping genes", and so forth.
No doubt it will prove very instructive and will end the debate here.
Evolution is amazing, I wonder who invented it?
In the SBR already?
Well written and well reasoned.
Of course, you could invent a time machine, drag the luddites back in time and show them, replete with charts and graphs and 8 by 10 glossies with circles and arows on the back, and they'd still refuse to understand.
Of course we are instructed to be kind to those whose faith is so weak.
Now, consider just how long, tedious and melancholy would be a catalogue of all the strawmen charges leveled by some the Creationist/ID advocates in this very forum, but which in fact have no place in ToE. I need not offer a comprehensive list (such would be too dreary), but highlight a few salient points which are not (unfounded assertions by its opponents notwithstanding) and never have been part of the Theory of Evolution, to wit:
1. ToE is mute on the subject of the origins of life. That is the domain of abogenesis, which has indeed some fascinating conjectures and hypotheses, but to date no compelling theories of the stature of ToE.
2. ToE is entirely mute on the subject of the existence or nature of any diety or dieties. Scientists who affirm ToE (which is to say, the absolute majority, particularly in the life sciences) include adherents of every major religion and every shade of agnosticism in addition to those who hold no belief in a supernatural diety.
3. ToE is entirely mute on all subjects of morality, it does not provide nor purport to provide any foundation or justification for any human behaviour, not because it is 'evil' or even 'morally neutral,' but because morality is not a subject of science. Scientists, like everyone else, seek their moral codes and spiritual guidance outside the domain of science.
I have never seen an ID'er attempt such a thing. I do not believe such a thing could be done.
Anyone care to take on the challenge?
And are there any instances of observed speciation (minus polyploidy and/or hybridization...certainly not in fruit flies, primrose, finches, maize, antibiotic resistant bacteria and etc.)?
Wrong in the very first statement. Only genetic material unique to that individual(mutated genetic stuff only) disappears from the gene pool. After all, the non-reproducing individual got his/her/its genetic material from his/her/its parents. No "self-respecting" Darwinian posits the theory that genetic material is miracled into an individual.(just practicing the art of Darwinian mind-reading/speaking for others)
Individuals don't evolve - populations do.
From within a population, individuals reproduce.
Every individual is different from all others.
Some individuals reproduce more prolifically than others due to a combination of both their individual difference and their individual ability to adapt to circumstantial conditions and changes in their environment.
Over many generations, a population evolves as a result of adaptation to this process of individual reproduction, variation, and natural selection.
The gradual changes include mutational genetic drift of the whole population as well as physical adaptations.
Whenever circumstances cause a segment of a population to be isolated from the main breeding pool, each individual group will continue to adapt to different environmental pressures in different ways.
The smaller splinter group usually feels greater evolutionary pressure due to the combination of smaller gene pool and greater likelihood of being forced to adapt to different climate, food source, and predator pressures while the larger main group tends to have the greater gene pool and more familiar environment.
If the two groups stay separated long enough, the genetic mutations will affect one or both of the groups to the point that they are no longer capable of cross breeding should they ever come back into contact with one another.
Once this occurs, they are two different species and there is nothing to stop them from gradually evolving more differently over the millenniums.