tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post440879444821606441..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Understanding Evolution in New England Colleges and UniversitiesLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90996544985341506582012-10-29T03:37:13.239-04:002012-10-29T03:37:13.239-04:00Schenck, C cannot be the answer for several reason...Schenck, C cannot be the answer for several reasons. Firstly, chimpanzees are primates, but they are NOT monkeys. Secondly, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Humans did NOT evolve from chimpanzees. It is essentially like saying that we descended from our third cousin. It makes no sense.Enrique Amayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17920679240393270702012-10-26T22:30:29.886-04:002012-10-26T22:30:29.886-04:00It's really crazy that answer choice C, which ...It's really crazy that answer choice C, which is the only one amoung that choices that represents evolution, was chosen by the lowest number of people, of all groups! When I first read the choices I thought the rest were supposed to be 'obvious throw-aways': origin of the universe? origin of life? Acquired traits? Single cell directly to complex mutli-celled animals? All way way off, C was the best worst answer.Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10802843636373254323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7725048132341238442012-10-17T13:47:10.975-04:002012-10-17T13:47:10.975-04:00I agree that a definition should not include a des...I agree that a definition should not include a description of processes (then it would be a description, not a definition). That's why neither of the definitions I mentioned above contain such a description.<br />konradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57494362768133223022012-10-17T04:07:55.865-04:002012-10-17T04:07:55.865-04:00Reading Prof. Moran's articles on the definiti...Reading Prof. Moran's articles on the definition of Evolution, it seems to me that his point is that the definition of Evolution should describe Evolution as a phenomena, and not include a description of processes. If I'm interpreting him correctly, I agree. The processes (Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, etc) and their contributions to our view of how Evolution occurs are bound to change as new data and insight comes along. We should be describing what Evolution "is", not how it occurs (i.e. specific processes). In that sense, I don't see a problem with what prof. Moran used as a definition.<br /><br />My two cents.Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8283990594460113062012-10-17T00:39:09.158-04:002012-10-17T00:39:09.158-04:00Despite the total lack of well done creationist id...Despite the total lack of well done creationist ideas being presented to these kids or teachers it still is healthy numbers for us.<br />Truly a fair debate system on this would move our numbers up quite a lot.<br />It shows also teachers are just confident in their fellow teachers and presume they are right.<br />They know little about evolution in reality.<br />It's just about who you trust.<br /><br />it comes down to the facts and making a case with those facts.<br />After all this time and resources and lack of opposition in these places evolutionism should be true to 90% or so.<br />something is wrong!Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68441114199472416732012-10-17T00:37:45.608-04:002012-10-17T00:37:45.608-04:00e) reminds me of that one about the scientist who ...e) reminds me of that one about the scientist who tried cutting the tails off of rats to see a race of tail-less rats would developjethroelfmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05154313429911481786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45427128680128279662012-10-16T18:50:16.237-04:002012-10-16T18:50:16.237-04:001. Not if you ask a zoologist (which is what I did...1. Not if you ask a zoologist (which is what I did this morning).<br /><br />2. If what you are offering is a definition of microevolution, it is best referred to as a definition of microevolution. (Especially on a blog frequented by creationists.)<br /><br />3. If the definition only refers to populations of organisms, it should say so. This is an important distinction mainly because of the existence of memetics - to ignore it is to open a door for pseudoscience to enter evolutionary biology.<br /><br />As I understand, the most standard definition of microevolution is "change in allele frequencies over time". This avoids problems 1 and 3, but not problems 2 and 4.<br /><br />Personally, I would define biological evolution as "the time evolution of a set of genetic sequences", where "time evolution" is defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution<br />Of course, I do not expect this definition (or any other attempt at mathematical rigour) to be popular with the authors of biological text books, and I understand that such definitions are not useful for the purposes of most evolutionary biologists.<br />konradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70999050756035254772012-10-16T16:56:46.222-04:002012-10-16T16:56:46.222-04:00Larry, Konrad is referring to the quantitative gen...Larry, Konrad is referring to the quantitative genetics definition of heritability, which is all about phenotypes. A more precise term for your definition of evolution would be "inherited". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11813578031791689352012-10-16T16:54:32.018-04:002012-10-16T16:54:32.018-04:00I have no idea who Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C. is (he ...I have no idea who Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C. is (he teaches "Biology of Organisms" [???]), but his definition of evolution as a "cosmic" process is certainly highly idiosyncratic:<br /><br /><i>Based on current scientific evidence, 100% of all people should accept the concept of evolution, which proposes naturalistic explanations about the origin of the universe (= cosmic evolution; Krauss 2010), its gradual processes of change including the origin of life, its diversification, and the synergistic phenomena resulting from the interaction between life and the environment (Paz-y-Miño-C. and Espinosa 2011a).</i><br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2011.00604.x/pdf<br /><br />Even if he means well, I daresay he's himself in need of some more education before he educates the public.<br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11118228887224563542012-10-16T15:10:06.528-04:002012-10-16T15:10:06.528-04:001. Heritable changes refers to any genetic change...1. Heritable changes refers to any genetic changes that are inherited.<br /><br />2. No, this is a minimal definition as I explained in my post. Did you read it?<br /><br />3. What the heck are you talking about. Do you not understand the biological meaning of "population"?<br /><br />4. Negative selection and balancing selection are special cases that don't easily satisfy the definition.<br /><br />Feel free to offer a better definition. If you like, I could give you the names of half a dozen textbook authors you can contact when you come up with your definition.<br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32174199755768954392012-10-16T14:51:00.780-04:002012-10-16T14:51:00.780-04:00"Evolution is a process that results in herit..."Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."<br /><br />Er, wait. Some problems there:<br /><br />1) "Heritable changes" (as the term is used in biology) refers to phenotype, not genotype: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability<br />Surely you don't mean to exclude silent changes at the molecular level?<br /><br />2) Does this definition work for macroevolution? It only refers to one population.<br /><br />3) Is it a definition at all? To be a definition, it has to unambiguously classify any process as either being evolution or not, i.e. you need to be claiming that evolution is the _only_ process with the listed property. Then are you prepared to include processes where the populations do not consist of organisms, e.g. evolution of (populations of) empires, ant colonies, cities, memes, etc? All of these have a notion of population and of generation, and support heritable change (in a non-genetic sense).<br /><br />4) Do you really mean to exclude strong purifying selection and balancing selection, either of which may result in an _absence_ of change over a long (but finite) period of time?<br />konradnoreply@blogger.com