Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jec41

Guess I'm still confused on why small changes are evolution. If I understand you correctly, then for arguments sake let's say there is a herd of all white horses. One horse is born with a small black spot. It mates, and the spot is not transfered to it's offspring. Is this evolution or just a mutation? I could see your argument if you were saying that mutations are a step that can lead to evolution instead of saying that they are evolution. Am I wrong?


183 posted on 01/19/2006 4:25:48 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]


To: xmission
Guess I'm still confused on why small changes are evolution. If I understand you correctly, then for arguments sake let's say there is a herd of all white horses. One horse is born with a small black spot. It mates, and the spot is not transfered to it's offspring. Is this evolution or just a mutation? I could see your argument if you were saying that mutations are a step that can lead to evolution instead of saying that they are evolution. Am I wrong?

The evolution of a species is at the population level, not the individual level. On one hand, a single variation in the genetic makeup of one member of a species may very well simply end up being a recessive trait. It also might never even spread with any significance throughout the species population. There is even the possibility that the altered gene doesn't even get spread into the general population at all. For example the originating individual, or its offspring, might not get the chance to reproduce.

On the other hand, if that one change is not malignant in terms of survival in the current environment and the ability to reproduce, then chances are it could at least become an ubiquitous trait displayed by some portion of the population. If the change actually provides some benefit to survival or reproductive success then over time it is even more likely to be propagated.

200 posted on 01/19/2006 5:01:01 PM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

To: xmission
I could see your argument if you were saying that I could see your argument if you were saying that mutations are a step that can lead to evolution instead of saying that they are evolution. Am I wrong? Am I wrong?

I think it is a question of semantics. If the horses were severely mutated and developed six legs most would say that evolution (change) has occurred. If it is a small mutation of a spot that appears and then disappears then change has occurred twice. I don't suppose that it would be incorrect to say mutations are a step that can lead to evolution. I could make a case for the statement. Mutation is change and evolution is change. Therefore change can cause other change. It would depend on the definition of mutation but if change does not occur neither does mutation.
240 posted on 01/19/2006 5:50:32 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson