|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/20/2005 : 06:03:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
By the way, I think that 'allele' is only defined well in context.
Well, we're talking about the context of evolution and genetics, in which case an allele is a specific gene variant. Which gene that is will be specified by chromosome and base-pair position.quote:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'maleable' as opposed to 'vague'. I would say that definitions of population are always (or at least so far) vague, in the strictest sense.
If I'm studying the evolution of bacteria in the lab, my population might be what's in my petri dish. If I'm studying zebras in the wild, my population might be a particular herd. Once the context is nailed down, "population" takes on a highly specific meaning, and is by no means vague. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 06:17:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
But if this is the definition of evolution it will miss the central thesis of Darwin's original work, which is common descent.
That's perfect, then, since the idea of evolution predates Darwin's Origin by at least 50 years. Darwin's contribution to biology was not evolution itself, but common descent due to evolution.quote:
In fact this is what creationists do with this very definition today, thus the whole micro vs. macro idiocy. They can point to this definition and say, "yes I agree with that, but that is just microevolution, but that whole common descent thing, now that's another story". They play this little game to make themselves not look like total idiots and by accepting one scientific definition, they try to hijack some scientfic authority.
Right, and because they attribute evolution to Darwin, we know they haven't done their homework, and are talking out their asses.quote:
However I wouldn't try to make definitions just to thwart creationist tricks, but I think the more encompassing definition explains more and is more useful than the restricted definition. And that should be the key goal of any definition.
But the fact is that evolution and common descent are two interconnected theories, and not a single theory. After all, if a situation occurs where a population undergoes evolution en masse over time, and that population never splits in any way, you'll see evolution, but no common descent - a "vine of life," if you will, instead of a tree.
On the other hand, I can't think of a way to get common descent without evolution per my definition. So again: common descent is a result of evolution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2005 : 07:32:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
quote:
At its core, evolution is simply defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.
But if this is the definition of evolution it will miss the central thesis of Darwin's original work, which is common descent.
No....the modern synthesis considers evolution as the change of frequency of genes in a gene pool (note my picky change of terminology - it doesn't change the point). This does not in any way miss Darwin's point.
Darwin suggested several ways in which evolution might occur.
Does this help?
r |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2005 : 07:43:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Well, we're talking about the context of evolution and genetics, in which case an allele is a specific gene variant.
Yes, of course.
But the term 'gene' and consequently the term 'allele' is quite a lot more complicated than this. I wouldn't feel confident in defining either unless pressed. The questions of what are genes and alleles would fill many books but would also make excellent threads on this site - anyone agree?
Cheers
r |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2005 : 10:19:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The questions of what are genes and alleles would fill many books but would also make excellent threads on this site - anyone agree?
Yes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 00:52:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
(I'll leave out Randy Flag)
I read that book when I was a teen-ager and it freaked me out. Since then, I've always been ready for signs that we're all gonna die via a super-virus gone wild so I can pack up my car and get the hell outta town!
The infamous Omega Virus was written before The Stand and made into a movie as well. But the amount of variation in our genetic makeup protects the population as a whole from a single pathogen. The chances are great there will be some people with some genetic difference that allows resistance to the virus. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
