>>the algae "evolved" from a type that grows quickly to a type that resists being eaten.<<
I noticed the word "evolved" is in quotes. Why is that? The begged question is, did the type that resists being eaten already exist, albeit in small numbers, before the aledged "evolution" took place? If it did, then this is not evolution of an algae, it is evolution of the characteristcs of a population of algae.
If you have a part of the country that has a population made up equally of black bears and Polar bears, and one day the temperature drops substantially, and it stays that way for ten years, you will notice that there will be a lot more polar bears, and many less black bears. But nothing evolved, even if the black bears died out completely. Natural selection would simply have chosen the strongest of two EXISTING types, elimintating one. The diversity of the poplulation was reduced, not expanded.
Civil discussion placemarker ...
That was a good and civil post.
Wrong, mind you, but good and civil. :)
I believe that I agree with you on this subject. But, just so you know, one of the convenient definititons of "evolution" is the "shifting allele frequencies of genes" within a population.
A tax-break for blondes in Rhode Island might induce more blondes to move to RI. That would -- you see -- be evolution in action.
The experiment in the thread seems to me to be quite pointless (no species creation) but by the word game definition, it would be considered "evolution".
RobRoy:
If you have a part of the country that has a population made up equally of black bears and Polar bears, and one day the temperature drops substantially, and it stays that way for ten years, you will notice that there will be a lot more polar bears, and many less black bears. But nothing evolved, even if the black bears died out completely.
It's funny that you say that because Polar Bears are just white "adapted" Grizzly Bears. The broke off 200 million years or so ago. If you Google "Polar Bears Grizzly" you will find a recent case where they interbred in the wild. They have been doing this in zoos for a while and the offspring are fertile so the question is "Are they really separate species?" With fertile offspring the technical answer is no. So why are all the Eco-Nuts freaking out? (Silly question, because that is what they do.)
Same is true for dogs, wolves, coyotes and dingos. The Red Wolf is pretty much extinct due to interbreeding with coyotes. In Canada they stake in-heat females (usually German Shepards) out over-night so the wolf males will breed with them. All the offspring are fertile.
The Dingo is vanishing because domestic dogs that get lose and run wild are interbreeding with Dingos and slowly destroying the "species." But if all these different "species" freely interbreed are they really different species? Technically the answer is no.
The point is how far does a line have to "evolve" before it becomes a separate species? Horses and donkeys, and zebras and donkeys, and lions and tigers can all interbreed but the issue is sterile.
Now, imagine a Great Dane and a Chihuahua breeding in the wild. Impossible, but they are the same species, aren't they?
So how far would a Polar Bear have to evolve before it couldn't interbreed with its Grizzly ancestor? Ten more ice ages? 50? 100? Every warm period between ice ages thins their numbers down and they interbreed with Grizzlys, thus keeping the link alive. (And don't give me any of the Global Warming crap - we are between ice ages and the breakup of the Arctic Sea is the beginning of the next one, Go study the history of the Columbia Gorge. It's called a cycle.)
But nothing evolved, even if the black bears died out completely. Natural selection would simply have chosen the strongest of two EXISTING types, elimintating one. The diversity of the poplulation was reduced, not expanded.
You, like so many here, don't understand how evolution works. What if the Black Bears didn't die out completely but just a few hundred survived? What trait would they have in common that furthered their survival? Thicker blood, more fat, longer hibernation periods, longer gestation, larger size. Repeat this process 100 times over 1 million years. Now you have a Black Bear that is bigger than a Grizzly and can hibernate for half a year comfortably. It could no longer breed with the Black Bear it decended from. It would, at that point, be a "different" species.
The problem is in having a "static" view of reality as opposed to a dynamic one. The former is locked into concrete bound "everything" is a "thing" view and the latter allows for the understanding of abstractions and processes.
To give you an example. What is "cause and effect?" Hand me one, point one out to me. Can't be done. It is a complex abstraction that requires complex thought. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Evolution is cause and effect as it pertains to life. That's all.
Old Professer:
How, exactly does algae resist being eaten, I wonder...
By making itself very untasty, like the Monarch butterfly. Or by becoming poisonous like penicillin. Just one lucky toss of the genes and nobody wants to eat you anymore.
Mineral Man:
Learning fast you are.
Very funny that is.