« If it's junk, can we get rid of it? | Main | Evolving enzymes in the lab »

Evolution avoidance syndrome

That's the title of an essay by my colleague Scott Lanyon. He notes that "development" refers to changes within an individual, whereas changes in the genetic composition of a population are known as "evolution." Apparently some public officials were afraid to say that a fish population could "evolve" resistance to a newly arrived pathogen, so they say they hope resistance will "develop." This is confusing, because individual susceptibility to pathogens can develop, increasing or decreasing with age, but that's not what they were talking about.

I used to run into a similar problem when I worked in an agronomy department. Some of the people I interacted with would say that an herbicide had "broken down", when actually the weed species it once killed had evolved resistance to it. The change was in the weeds, not in the pesticide. This misuse of the English language is particularly harmful because herbicides do break down (chemically degrade), which is usually a good thing; we don't want them polluting lakes, for example.

Populations evolve, but don't worry, fish and weeds didn't evolve from apes.

Comments

Sorry sir, but the weeds did not evolve, go back and look at the survivors. I'm positive that they are still classified as the same exact weed as before. What happened is that some of the weeds in that 'patch' were able to resist the chemicals and survive. The same goes for those germs that have have the ability to make people sick with a disease that was previously curable, but no longer. Check those germs out Sir, they too still belong to the exact same kind as those who were killed off.

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

Oh look, a cretinist. So much fun.

The rest of the above is amply answered (repeatedly, redundantly, and not recently) in many places. May I recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/
?

On with the show...

Sorry sir, but the weeds did not evolve, go back and look at the survivors. I'm positive that they are still classified as the same exact weed as before.[/i]

"Evolution" does NOT mean "novel species". The strictest definition of evolution I know is:

"Change in allele frequencies through time"

In the hypothetical situation described, weeds evolving resistance to a pesticide, the survivors (which you so urgently suggest we examine) survived BECAUSE they had an allele, a variant of a gene, that allowed them to survive; it granted them resistance. After application of pesticide, the allele frequency in the population changed - you only get to be counted as part of the population if you're alive. The frequency of the resistance allele went from some low fraction of the population to 100%, from before to after. Thus, a change in allele frequency occurred through time, i.e. evolution happened.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

You know what, I can't resist:

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

Evolution is about what happens to living populations of organisms, not what happens to interesting chemicals in interesting conditions. That's called "abiogenesis" and is an active area of research. How, exactly, would the creation of artificial life in a lab be evidence for or against evolutionary biology?

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so.

Psychologists refer to this type of thing as "projection". Authority is nothing in science, it is everything in religion.

Try answersingenesis.org.

I did. The site is just one falsehood after another. I found the arguments there to be weak or nonsensical. Again, I'd like to recommend TalkOrigins for specific critiques of arguments such as those of AiG.

Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

Logical fallacy: truth is not derived from popularity.

Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever.

Not sure what you're getting at here, so I hope I'm not lying (given that I am not knowingly saying things I know to be false, I think I'm safe). Anyway, yes, a big problem, a very tricky problem. Possibly one that no human will ever solve, though I prefer to be a little more optimistic about our chances. But, once again, how would success in this endeavor in any way impact evolutionary biology?

Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary.

"God did it" is not a logical answer, it's a failure of logic. It's the ultimate easy cop-out, and as such I find it both boring and stupid. Your appeal here is both wrong and fallacious, in that you again commit the argument from authority argument - who says it matters not at all, what is said is the only thing.

Sorry for the long comment. I like the post.

Finally, I wanted the cretinist's words to appear in italics, but I can't figure out how to make that happen; apologies for any resulting confusion.

I have repeatedly asked Mr. Collins to restrict generic comments such as these to the Troll Refuge, where I have already responded to both of his current "arguments". He has ignored these requests and my responses. (For example, I asked whether there is a list of "kinds" that is widely accepted by creationists, so that I can provide specific counterexamples.)

He is starting to repeat himself, so I'm banning him. I've left this latest post, rather than deleting it, because TheBrummel's response wouldn't make sense otherwise.

It is possible to catch David Attenborough using 'developed' in stead of 'evolved'. Check on episode 6 (sea mammals) of 'The Life of Mammals'.

Occasional misuse of language may cause little harm, but this is more than an occasional problem. After we get this straightened out, maybe we work on getting people to say "dawn" instead of "sunrise" and not saying "heat" when they mean "high temperature."

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Type the characters you see in the picture above.