Well of course microeconomics is one of the economic sciences. But there is no Nobel Prize in Economics.
[sub](There is, however, a Prize for Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.)[/sub]
Polycarp: Well, if he’d said “What the OP describes is an example of natural selection, but not of speciation”, that would be one thing. But that’s not what he said.
Gaspode, your entire argument reduces to this – evolution requires a “change in form”, and you don’t think the OP represents a “change in form”. After repeated inquiries about the definition of this term, you reply thus:
(channelling Ben) Weasel Powers Activate!!
If you want to leave it to the publishers, then post the publishers definition of it. Oh wait, that’s right, you can’t. Why? Because there is no definition of it. Why? Because it isn’t a scientific term!
If you are so sure the OP doesn’t represent a “change in form”, then you should be able to illustrate what this term means. What denotes a “change in form”, and what is excluded by it? How are biologists to determine whether a change in a population is evolution if you cannot define the very essence of its meaning? Why do I continually ask questions I know you will not address?
Gaspode, if you cannot define the term that your entire argument is based upon, then you are arguing completely from ignorance and cannot justifiably state what is or is NOT evolution. Quit ignoring the main issue and address this point.
Showtime, Gaspode – put up or shut up.
You are either deliberately misconstruing what is needed to support your position that microevolution is not evolution, or you do not have the mental faculties necessary to understand it. Are you fascinated by bright, shiny objects?
No one is asking you for examples of vague definitions of evolution. Evolution encompasses many things, INCLUDING microevolution. What you must show to support your non-existent argument is that microevolution is NOT evolution.
Let me try it a different way. If you wish to show that a microbiologist is NOT a biologist, it is not sufficient to show that a biologist is NOT a microbiologist. The word biologist includes many concepts, one of which is microbiologist.
Maybe you can grasp this: – if you claim 2+2<>4, you cannot prove this by showing that 4=3+1, or 4=0+4. You MUST demonstrate that 2+2<>4.
Concerning the “argument from authority”:
I claim more of them alright. I (and others) have shown cites numbering in double digits. You have shown ZERO cites. Zilch, nada, not one cite indicating that an example of microevolution is not an example of evolution. In fact, your lone cite (Raven and Johnson biology book) lists examples of microevolution in the Evidence for Evolution chapter, a fact you have yet to address. Come on, Gaspode, answer the freakin’ question!! Why does your cited source do this?
I don’t know why I bother. You haven’t answered any questions thus far, and I doubt you will start now.
For the umpteenth time Gaspode, organisms don’t evolve, populations do. Anything (including genocide) that alters the gene frequency of the population is causing the population to evolve.
Try to read this part carefully. I am not claiming the two terms have identical definitions, any more than I am stating that microbiologist and biologist have the same definition. I am not saying that every biologist is a microbiologist, just as I am not claiming that every example of evolution is an example of microevolution (though admittedly I have a difficult time conceiving otherwise). What I am claiming is this – just as every microbiologist is a biologist, every example of microevolution is an example of evolution.
I, and others, have posted numerous examples that support this stance. You need to show ONE source indicating that an example of microevolution is NOT an example of evolution, or admit you are working from your own set of assumptions.
Now I have tried to phrase this in simple declarative sentences using relatively small words. If you still continue to obfuscate, misrepresent the issue, and refuse to answer the questions, then you are obviously only interested in gamesmanship, and I am finished with you.
In your misguided attempt to prove that the situation in the OP does not represent evolution, you now post the following definitions:
[ul]
[li]evolution: change to show new biological properties[/li][li]evolution, the theory of lasting change amongst biological populations[/li][li]evolution All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today.[/li][li]Evolution," in the context most biologists intend to use it, is correctly defined simply as “descent with modification.”[/li][/ul]
Note this does nothing to bolster your theory that microevolution is NOT evolution. In fact, by each of these definitions, the OP exemplifies evolution!! The development of pesticide resistance is a “new biological property”, a “lasting change”, obviously one of “the changes that have transformed life”, and “descent with modification”. Thanks for making my point for me.
Then you follow with this:
Again you demonstrate my point. If evolution results from microevolution, and the OP is microevolution, then evolution results from the OP. QED. I am using your cites and your words. Please explain what part of yourself you disagree with.
Another fine example of how you avoid answering questions. No wonder I am the only one here foolish enough to engage in a debate with you. Gaspode, my five-year-old nephew can provide far better explanations than you have to this point. At least he will try to respond to the topic at hand.
Imagine that…Gaspode doesn’t understand the concept of humor either. Do they tell jokes in the Outback?
Then you need to explain why Raven and Johnson lists the definition of microevolution and lists microevolutionary examples in their Evidence for Evolution chapter. Why is peppered moth melanism and the evolution of lead tolerance in plants considered a “change in form”, but the development of pesticide resistance is not? What is the definition of “change in form”? Please, Gaspode, the suspense is killing me!!
Once again we see one of Gaspode’s few talents – putting words into the mouths of others. I have never made any statement remotely resembling this strawman. Get a real argument, Gaspode.
Aside from the fact that it details microevolution in the Evolution chapter, and points to examples of microevolution in this chapter also, any sane person would conclude that Raven and Johnson consider microevolution to be an example of evolution. Do you ever intend to address this issue? Maybe if you continue ignoring the question and post more irrelevent tangents, some 10-year old children might be confused enough to agree with you.
I’ll take that as a NO.
Gaspode, does the fact that dictionaries give differing definitions for microbiologist and biologist suggest that a microbiologist is NOT a biologist? Does the fact that your beloved dictionaries define microevolution as a “small evolutionary change” hold any weight with you? Do you even know how to answer a question directly?
Sorry for the ultra-embedded quotes, but I want to get this right. So when you responded “Correct” to MEBuckner, you of course just meant he was correct in stating “As I said earlier”, NOT “the situation in the OP …is evolution”. Yeah, sure. Whatever. Just like when you spoke of changing genetic frequencies in the human evolution thread, you really meant “change in form”.
Classic Gaspode. Instead of addressing the question, you instead try to draw a distinction between bitching and complaining. I’m sure by Gaspodian standards they have vastly different meanings. :rolleyes:
Microevolution is like a single frame of motion picture film.
Macroevolution is the film in its entirety.
Evolution is the subject of the film.
Does that make it any more clear, Gaspode?
and I’m not much of a debater so I probably don’t have much to add, but these links (which I don’t think I’ve seem posted yet in this thread, but then I skipped a lot of Gaspod’s semantics nit-picking, so please forgive me) were more than sufficient to convince me that modern scientists know what they’re talking about (uh-oh, is that an argument from authority?).
The first is specifically about the human genome project, which I, personally, find fascinating.
The other two are about transitional “fossils” (both living and dead ;)) which creationists claim don’t exist.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/marsupial.html
I haven’t studied creationism much, but it seems to me that creationists don’t make discoveries, you know? The biologists, genetists, geologists, paleontologists, etc., do the field work and make the discoveries while the creationists just sit around thinking of new excuses why the aforementioned scientists supposedly don’t have a clue as to what they’re talking about. The onus needs to be put back on the creationists to make a startling new discovery or three (and not repeat debunked fables about 11-foot tall people, arctic plum trees, or man and dino foot prints side-by-side).
jab1 wrote:
Does the film have car chases? I ain’t watchin’ a movie if it don’t have car chases.
And nudity. Female nudity.
[sub]Just think of it as evolution in action![/sub]