@Bilbous: No bilbous, it comes from her reinterpreting what I say so she can try lecture me on how wrong I am. She can't just accept it as is or she'll have to come off her high horse. Volki's ability to decipher english is just fine. She's hiding behind her little strawmen to avoid the irony that it wouldn't matter if she was wrong if she wasn't so convinced she knows everything and wasn't being obnoxious.
@Volki: Again you are refuting things I didn't say but it's not surprising because if you stop reinterpreting what I said you can't make your point.
Ok, I'll grant you getting worked up over the first one since I see where I may have been linguistically unclear. When I say diversity is not evolution, I am saying it is not the evolution process. It's the point I've been making for several posts now. I already explained, the point of contention is that you are playing loose with definitions. Diversity =/ evolution process. I'll take out the examples that were here since bilibous made the point already before I finished. But, if you'd get it straight that you need to start with working on your definition, it's
too loose, you'd find your story doesn't hold as well as you think. Like I just said, the second you narrow that definition to something unique, it invalidates your argument. That's why you need it to be undefined so badly.
Now, second point you can't explain that second one because
you don't have a counter explanation. Don't bluff, just admit you don't want to try and defend it. It is a valid question and one you apparently can't answer. If you weren't so arrogant I wouldn't hold it against you.
Now, if dogs are not similar genetically how are they interbreeding? That's basic Volki. Or do you think we can just stick any animals together and get offspring? Maybe I'll send you a camelopard one day.
I pointed out there was some variance yet they were still one species. "Most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species." the genome is the sum of possible genes. Breeds are differing by stuff like height and fur color. The one site said the difference in dog heights could be due to variance on a single gene. How does it constitute them being wildly different from each other if they share genes and the diversity is due to variation some of their genes? Dog breeds are not true species. Do we need to go back to the whole interbreeding argument again?
A species adapts. Not the individual.
Since the teeth are in the horse I'd say that horse had a direct relation to it as an individual. You can sort out what your statement means as this is what
you said.
And selective breeding is a related field of course it was listed with the others. I keep telling you that you are making a mess of a definition and you seem to miss that point. I'm not debating whether it is considered relevant information I'm telling you that it is not the definition of evolution.
de·fine verb \di-ˈfīn\
: to explain the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)
: to show or describe (someone or something) clearly and completely
Maybe this will help in the future. The whole reason for focusing on the definition is because without one you got nothing.
This, right here, is exactly what I am saying, Illysia. You are fixed on denying that the process of evolution is evolution. You accept that evolution is a theory, but you deny its definition. You ignore the fact that changes happen gradually. You assume that there is a concrete thing called evolution, of which only certain points in the process can qualify. However, no such points actually exist.
Now when did I ignore that it was gradual when I told you at the very beginning it takes time and dog breeds are too recent? Just stop strawmaning what I say so you can pretend to step all over it. It must make you feel better but all it does it mudy up an already murky debate. If you can't keep track of what was said, check. Every post is sitting right there. If you can't be bothered to check, don't comment on it. Further, if it is not concrete, what are you going on about? How do you know what evolution is and isn't without defining it? This argument goes in circles partially because the only thing you have firmly in mind is trying to talk down to me. What you need to focus on is the discussion and what is actually said.
But wait... lets go back a step.
Modern Evolututionary Synthesis- All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
- Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrast with the saltation theory of Bateson (1894).
- Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
- The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
- Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
- In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
The modern evolutionary synthesis is a 20th-century union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution.
See that last quote... the widely accepted account. Think what you want of it, but that list is the definition of evolution, you simply weren't paying attention or you ignored it because your strawman won't fit over it. Last I checked there wasn't a footnote saying "but only if it is also approved by volki". They didn't ask you for permission to define it. So your point is invalid. There is your definition, accept it or don't but understand fussing about it not being defined is just talk.
Evolution is so slow and full of so many changing variables that you cannot look at one point in time and say, "Look! That's where we evolved." That is a completely incorrect understanding of the concept. What you can do, though, is look at an old specimen, an ancestor, and then look at yourself. Seeing the differences, you say, "Look! We have evolved from that organism." That would be a valid statement.
And what does this have to do with anything we have been discussing? You have your hands full just trying to keep track of what actually has been said, I would advise against pulling in random statements. No one is talking about what point, no one is talking about which organism...
definition. Do try to focus. the last thing we need to do is to have to start a new argument on how to actually conduct an argument.
And while I do have points to make about lilu's statement, I'm going to leave her out of it because if I indulge you, she'll keep coming up. Goodness knows even I am sick of going round and round with you, I don't blame anyone else for steering clear of this.
