Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.correct,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.folklore.urban,alt.christnet.bible,talk.abortion,alt.blasphemy,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!uw-beaver!uhog.mit.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!iglou!news
From: gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dp1-047.ppp.iglou.com
Message-ID: <DtMw1t.86n@iglou.com>
Sender: news@iglou.com (News Administrator)
Reply-To: gnewman@iglou.com
Organization: Wormsby Works
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <4qh2jf$lfv@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <DtFp7u.JFy@iglou.com> <xanidu-2306960830540001@lucky118.nuts.nwu.edu> <4qlp8s$cll@news.ox.ac.uk> <xanidu-2506962023090001@lucky146.nuts.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:59:39 GMT
Lines: 64
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:184242 sci.lang:56439

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:23:09 -0500, xanidu@kublikan.edu wrote:

>In article <4qlp8s$cll@news.ox.ac.uk>, patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk
>(Patrick Juola) wrote:

>>  >I don't know what "allele frequencies" are, but I am willing to hazard a
>>  >guess that they involve micro-evolution rather than macro-evolution.  Is
>>  >that correct?
>>  
>>  Nope.  As a matter of fact, that distinction doesn't exist in the scientific
>>  literature.

>Maybe not in those words. But surely there is a distinction between
>changes that occur to "tweak" a species - longer vs shorter beak, for
>example - and those which presumably result in a new species.  Or is the
>idea is that "evolution" is the  result of an accumulation of tweaks.

 You can have a LARGE change that doesn't result in speciation.
Or you can have a relatively small change that does.

Suppose a small population of something or other is isolated, and
over a period of time the pheremone that signals mating changes.
Later, the isolating mechanism goes away. The previously isolated
critters now have a mating signal that the new population doesn't
recognize. Voila! A new species that looks and acts just like the
original one -- but since they don't mate, the gene pools are
distinct.

>>  
>>  Suppose, for a moment, that "allele frequencies" did *not*
>>  >change over time. The reaction would not be to say "evolution does not
>>  >work" but rather, "evolution evidently does not use allele fequencies."  
>>  
>>  Well, what the hell else *could* it use?  If you don't like the term
>>  "allele frequencies", use "changes in the gene pool" -- which is only
>>  slightly less accurate and significantly less technical.  

>You miss the point.  The point is that if some perceived mechanism
>involved in evolutionary theory were to be shown *not* to operate,  the
>resulting "gap" would be covered by some other hypothetical mechanism.
>Sounds to me that there's a tautology involved here - evolution is
>"defined" as changes in af. If that's the case, then one cannot point to
>af as a mechanism - its a consequence.


Certainly. Evolution is a consequence of how the genetic
materials reproduce ALMOST exactly the same. Natural selection
weeds out the less reproductively fit, and we have biology.

>>  If allele frequences did not change over time, that would be an
>>  utter refutation of everything said about evolution since Darwin's
>>  _Origin of Species_.

>Okay, fine with me. That doesn't mean, of course, that the theory as
>presently constructed is correct. It just means that *any* theory without
>af's is no good.

 Sure. You were asking about evolution, not the theory of
evolution. Music isn't the same as music theory, either. Nor is
cancer the same as the theory of what causes cancer.

A theory is an explanation.


