Will you please look at the cite I provided and explain why your opinion should be given greater weight than his?
Individual animals do not evolve.
The problem is that “evolved” is an adjective: “evolve” is a verb. Certainly any creature alive today is evolved, but that doesn’t mean that every creature alive today is evolving.
At any rate, I’m pretty convinced that this doesn’t have much to do with the thread topic.
Daniel
I never said they were.
I never said they did. I’m saying that every act of reproduction is a tiny unit of evolution. Of course individual animals don’t evolve. That’s why it makes no difference if they’re killed in a fire.
Are the kittens not individual animals? Did you not say they evolved by being born slightly different from their parents?
Okay, maybe not–if you didn’t say that, then I’m not clear on what you’re arguing. I’ll let it go, since I don’t think it’s very relevant to the question at hand.
Daniel
A grain of sand is a castle.
Actually, what I am saying is that every grain of sand is a tiny unit of a castle.
First a thing is a thing, then it is a tiny unit of a thing. Hardly honest debating.
Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve.
Two cats and one litter is not a population of organisms. Nothing occurred that transcended the lifetime of the kittens. The act reproduction that resulted in the kittens was not evolutiion.
There is change in every generation of reproduction. I have not tried to argue that the ontogeny of an individual is relevant so I don’t know why you keep bringing that up. It sounds like you want to define evolution as only referring to adaptation or speciation within whole populations. I think that’s a distinction without a difference since the mechanism is still reproduction. I also think you’re expending way too much energy trying to belabor this point.
Ok, Dr. Semantic. Kittens are evolved because they are different from their parents. I am using the word as an adjective, not a verb. The kittens themselves are obviously not actively evolving and I haven’t suggested that they do.
It’s more akin to saying that sand dunes are sand.
Almost, but not quite. Translated, I’m saying ‘Appeal to authority ain’t gonna cut it.’
I think the confusion on your side of the debate seems to be “Complete understanding” vs. “Basic understanding”.
One can understand things at different levels. And to completely understand biology - or at least as completely as possible with current knowledge - evolution is a part of that understanding. However, a basic understanding doesn’t include everything - and those of us on the other side of the debate seem to argue (I am, I think the rest are) that evolution is not an essential component to a basic understanding of biology.
If someone teaches me everything about car components and how they work together, I can be said to have at least a basic understanding of cars. Even if I haven’t been given the information on the process behind the design - I may not be able to say ‘They added the third brake light because studies showed an decrease in accidents would result’ - so my understanding is not complete. But it is at least basic.
First, like it or not evolution is :
A core part of modern biology. Frankly, if you don’t teach evolution, why bother with the rest ?
Hard to avoid without crippling the subject.
The sole scientific method of explaining things most people actually care about.
Second, let’s be realistic. The choice is not to teach evolution or not; it’s between teaching evolution or creationism. The option of leaving the subject alone does not exist; the creationists will see to that. Since the choice is between science and lies, I choose science.
I know I said I was leaving this thread, but I’m back for now.
It all depends on your definition of biology. I say biology (even basic biology) is the study of life (and for basic biology I mean life as we know it, here on earth, in all it’s diversity, not in all the details but in a general sense*). As I understand it, you think (basic) biology is the study of organisms.
To understand how an organism works evolution isn’t particulary relevant. To understand how life works it is essential.
- I’d be surprised if there are any people who have a complete understanding of biology.
An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority isn’t an authority on the subject at hand. I’ve made a broad, interconnected appeal to authorities on this subject. Your “I’m an intellectual maverick!” act won’t cut it, either.
Daniel
Right, but the most your side has going for it is a few poor analogies. Our side has going for it the National Academy of Sciences, and standards for teachers at federal and state levels, and science curricula from around the developed world.
If you’d like to show us a few respected non-Creationist biologists who deny that understanding evolution is an essential part of understanding biology at a basic level, feel free to do so. If you’re unable to do so, you should at least question why it is that nobody knowledgeable in the field agrees with you.
Daniel
You did not say that the mechanism of evolution was reproduction. You said that reproduction was evolution. Hardly the same thing at all. Do you truly not see the distinction? The mechanism is not the result. Every change that occurs is not evolution; only the changes that are passed on to entire populations have evolutionary significance.
Surely no more than you? Reproduction is not evolution. Evolution has not occurred until there has been a change in the properties of a population of organisms.
You used the phrase “tiny unit.” If a grain of sand is a sand dune you have made your point.
Isn’t it just as significant that certain changes are not passed on?
While it’s equally significant in a way, the overwhelming majority of changes aren’t passed on. The ones that are become more significant because they’re remarkably rare.
Daniel