Evolution is correctly defined as a change in the allele frequency of a population. An event that kills all non-redheads, or all microbes that aren’t drug-resistant, will most assuredly change the allele frequencies of the population in question; therefore, evolution will have occurred. There is no requirement that a particular gene suddenly appear ex nihilo at some designated time.
As **GIGObuster **mentioned, it does not matter if the “resistance” genes were already present in the population. All that matters is that the frequency of them changes. One should not make the mistake of thinking of evolution in terms of an individual organism – evolution applies to the population.
Well, when we talk about our modern understanding of evolution, we are including things such as genetic mutations in the DNA.
If the genetic code to be pesticide-resistant is already present in some members of a species, than it’s misleading, at best, to call the survival of those members “evolution”.
It’s akin to saying that if the holocaust was successful, it would have been “evolution”.
I’m sorry that you don’t understand evolution, but it isn’t misleading at all to call this evolution. In fact, it is perfectly correct. In its simplest form, evolution is comprised of random mutations followed by natural selection. Survival of certain members of a population is the selection part in action.
Ignoring the godwinization, if the genetic makeup of the population changed due to the holocaust, then evolution occurred. The fact that you don’t grasp it doesn’t make it any less true.
But Der Trihs mentioned, in response to the OP, that:
The genes for pesticide-resistance must already be present in the species if they are going to survive the pesticide, and continue to breed. We do not need to have an understanding of “random mutations” to understand selection of existing genes.
In that case, every time someone dies, or a new baby is born, the human species has “evolved”. If you think I “don’t grasp” evolution because I am calling that definition a bit deficient, well, I guess we aren’t going to agree.
The question is, do we need to understand genetic mutations in DNA in order to understand natural/artificial selection of an existing subset of genes within a species?
As mentioned before, a cite that shows where you got the idea that “neither is it evolution when only drug-resistant micro-organisms or pests survive the use of said drugs.”
Are you thinking that less-misleading evolution is a circumstance when the environment has changed and simultaneously a mutation appears allowing an individual to survive that passes on that trait?
As I explained to dehacker, if all you need to see to call something evolution is for some members of a species to be removed, then yes, I guess you have “evolution”.
But that’s a deficient definition of evolution, as it ignores one central component of the modern theory, which is random genetic mutation.
But again, it doesn’t matter whether a “mutation appeared”, or if Allah created the species as it is, complete with some members having drug-resistant genes.
What matters is, do we need to know how the genetic variation got there in order to understand natural selection of those genes?
That is not the issue now, if you are so learned as you are implying, you should be able to give us the cite where you got the idea to casually state that “neither is it evolution when only drug-resistant micro-organisms or pests survive the use of said drugs.” and expect that to fly over here with just your “I said so”, so for the second time, cite please.
There are many cites that I have found showing that it is not only random genetic mutation what evolution is about.
NPR had a discussion with Darwins great,great grandson. he left England and went to Dayton, Tennessee to see how they thought of the old man. He was taken aback to find out how much he is hated. The religious nuts blamed him for 12 evils of modern day, including gays,inter race marriage and a bunch of others. He was shocked.
For it to be “evolution”, as our modern understanding of the theory goes, the following would need to happen:
The drug-resistant genes would, at some stage, have to not be present in any members of the species at all.
Then, via some kind of random genetic mutation, the drug resistant gene appears in a member/members of the species. This gene is passed on to all subsequent offspring of those members.
**** Here’s where the OP’s question kicks in ****
The species is hit with a dose of pesticide, killing all but the carriers of the drug-resistant gene. This is called natural selection (although some might argue this is artificial selection).
Wha-la. “Evolution”.
Now, if you crop only from where the OP’s question kicks in… ahh, no, you don’t have evolution, you have natural selection of existing genes.