What would our daily lives lack had the theory of evolution never been articulated?

[GIGObuster]

@Ahu_Ha

:smack:

That’s what I get for posting the first link I click.

Here’s a non-creationist cite for you:

The thing is that I already knew where to look for cites, in this day and age, not knowing the source of one’s ideas is worrisome. It does seems though that the site supports more my position than yours.

Evolution has several mechanisms.

Genetic drift involves random changes.

Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution?

Futuyma: No, certainly not. There cannot be evolution without genetic variation in the first place. So there must be mutation and often recombination to generate the different genotypes or the different versions of the genes, known as alleles, which then may or may not make a difference in the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. You can’t have any evolutionary change whatever without mutation, and perhaps recombination, giving rise to genetic variation. But once you have genetic variation, there are basically two major possibilities:

* First, there is simply no difference between the different genotypes or different genes in their impact on survival or reproduction, and in that case, you can have random changes of one versus the other type in a population or a species until eventually one replaces the other. That is an evolutionary change. It happens entirely by chance, by random fluctuations. That is what we call the process of genetic drift.

* Genetic drift is very different from possibility number two, natural selection, which is a much more consistent, predictable, dependable change in the proportion of one gene vs. another, one genotype vs. another. Why? Simply because there is some consistent superiority, shall we way, of one genotype vs. another in some feature that affects its survival or some feature affecting its reproductive capabilities.

This does not exclude genes that were already present, and yes it is provability number 2 where that applies.

And the main article on Charles Darwin on the home page of actionbioscience.org still reports that:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/berra.html

Evolution via natural selection is the basis of all of biology.

As the phrase that “natural selection is not evolution” is coming mostly from creationist sites and is not in the article you cited, I have to say you still show a lot of ignorance here; Natural Selection is still a part of current Evolution theories. In the current context this saying is not a big problem, it is a problem for many creationists for some reason.

Going back to subject, that site also reports on other items that use evolution theory to improve our lives today:

• Recent discoveries in evolutionary developmental biology, known as evo-devo, have shown that very similar genes are present in very dissimilar animals. These body-shaping genes are controlled by DNA switches called enhancers that turn them on or off at various times in development. Such enhancers are a major factor in the evolution of anatomy.17

• TV viewers are familiar with DNA [deoxyribonucleic acid] analysis popularized on CSI [Crime Scene Investigation] programs. DNA-sequencing techniques—whereby the arrangement of A-T-C-G of genetic codes are compared—can convict or exonerate people accused of crimes. Similar techniques can confirm or deny paternity in disputed cases, or can ensure that the expensive grouper fillets you purchase are not flesh from lesser species. Such evolutionary tests are accepted by the judicial system because they pass the Daubert standard for scientific evidence; that is, the techniques were subject to empirical testing, published in peer-reviewed journals, and accepted by the scientific community.18 No such creationist tests exist; if they did, they could not meet scientific or judicial standards.

The Paradigm Shift

The above examples are just a sample of the benefits to society that flow directly from the creative power of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection (for more about Darwin’s legacy, refer to Charles Darwin: The concise story of an extraordinary man19). The publication of On the Origin of Species, on 24 November 1859, precipitated one of those rare events in the history of science—a paradigm shift. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn used this term to refer to the replacement of one world view by another.20 Examples of a paradigm shift in science include the replacement of the earth-centered Ptolemaic system by the sun-centered Copernican system; and the replacement of Newtonian physics by relativity and quantum physics. The paradigm shift instigated by Darwin’s legacy has made obvious the superiority of this scientific method as a means of understanding the world around us.

[Ahu_Ha]

GIGObuster, I think you are being disingenuous.

Natural selection, alone, is not evolution. It is the final step in a stepped process, and your very own source told us, and as I have re-stated twice now.

Tell me if you agree with this statement that I made:

If random genetic mutations don’t occur, then you can royally kiss the theory of evolution a sweet, wet goodbye. It’s gone.

Because if you disagree with it, then it is you who needs to read up on evolutionary theory, not me.

[GIGObuster]

@Ahu_Ha

True, but if you can’t demonstrate the mutation, the you can’t know that it wasn’t always present, right?

As the mosquito example showed, we can demonstrate now when the change of the population was due to mutation or by genes already present. And this is not a problem for evolution, as **RaftPeople **pointed out: “It may have been randomly created 3 million years ago and was essentially neutral all of this time until now when it is beneficial”

[GIGObuster]

@Ahu_Ha

GIGObuster, I think you are being disingenuous.

Natural selection, alone, is not evolution. It is the final step in a stepped process, and your very own source told us, and as I have re-stated twice now.

Tell me if you agree with this statement that I made:

If random genetic mutations don’t occur, then you can royally kiss the theory of evolution a sweet, wet goodbye. It’s gone.

Because if you disagree with it, then it is you who needs to read up on evolutionary theory, not me.

Not buying it.

Again, you should be able to point at a source that does say that “natural selection is not evolution” because as anyone can see, that was not in your non-creationist cite.

And it is you that is not reading the posts, show me where do I say that random genetic mutations don’t occur, I do include that in evolution too.

The point remains that absolute ideas like “neither is it evolution when only drug-resistant micro-organisms or pests survive the use of said drugs.” or “natural selection is not evolution” are standard creationist “boiler plate” points. So far I’m still finding creationist sites with that kind of absolute ideas, so you see why I’m not buying your explanations.

[GIGObuster]

Dang, I should also had bet that Ahu Ha was not going to last long in the Straight Dope Message Board.

[Busy_Scissors]

This thread minded me that I’ve wondered about the mechanism of glivec resistance in humans. I’ve just posted it in GQ - Be great if any of the knowledgeable folk in this thread could take a look at it.