|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do individuals evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Google’s yellow brick road recently took me to this site Science Against Evolution, which self-describes its own position on the matter. A post to this site led me there; it addresses my proposed OP question: Do individuals evolve? The author of this post agrees with Darwin: “Individuals do not evolve, but populations do.” And in his post he makes this broad and obvious statement:
quote: Done deal? Or not? Maybe the OP question is just too easy to bother with. Isn’t it rather nave and a little pop-sci to insist that the individual is where evolution by natural selection occurs? One might ask reasonably that if individuals don't serve as hosts for evolution then what does? But does that mean that they themselves evolve? Or are individuals just the expendable carriers of heritable information, which is precisely that thing that does evolve. Of course evolution needs individual organisms to work, but individuals don’t last long enough to evolve.* It’s their combined allelic contribution to the population that evolves. At least this is my stand on the matter. And maybe it's trivial. But I would be interested in any argument that seriously threatens it. ”HM *For another angle on this see Why a person doesn't evolve in one lifetime, from Nature (September 21, 2007). Edited by Hoot Mon, : Reposted Message 4 here to replace the original OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Hoot,
I like this topic, its an interesting article, but I find it hard to promote when you have so fundamentally misunderstood it that you can claim...
Pepper’s theory, in a nutshell, is that humans may get cancer to keep them from evolving in old age. Perhaps you could reread the article and redraft your commentary. This may seem like nitpicking but on past experience a whole thread could go by with people trying to explain to you where you have gone wrong, I'd rather you looked at it now and we could focus on a substantive discussion of the paper in the thread. Even just taking that one sentence out would make it promotable, but it would be nice to know that on re-reading you can tell that the article doesn't make this claim. TTFN, AW Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given. Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given. Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Hoot,
You may be right, Wounded, but I still like my spin on it. I'll drop it there and spare the forum of yet another Hooterism.
I like this topic, its an interesting article, but I find it hard to promote when you have so fundamentally misunderstood it that you can claim...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Google’s yellow brick road recently took me to this site Science Against Evolution, which self-describes its own position on the matter. A post to this site led me there; it addresses my proposed OP question: Do individuals evolve? The author of this post agrees with Darwin: “Individuals do not evolve, but populations do.” And in his post he makes this broad and obvious statement:
quote: Done deal? Or not? Maybe the OP question is just too easy to bother with. Isn’t it rather nave and a little pop-sci to insist that the individual is where evolution by natural selection occurs? One might ask reasonably that if individuals don't serve as hosts for evolution then what does? But does that mean that they themselves evolve? Or are individuals just the expendable carriers of heritable information, which is precisely that thing that does evolve. Of course evolution needs individual organisms to work, but individuals don’t last long enough to evolve.* It’s their combined allelic contribution to the population that evolves. At least this is my stand on the matter. And maybe it's trivial. But I would be interested in any argument that seriously threatens it. ”HM *For another angle on this see Why a person doesn't evolve in one lifetime, from Nature (September 21, 2007).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Is this referring back to the OP I rejected or is it supposed to stand alone as a new OP.
Constantly referring to the OP in your OP itself is very confusing, especially when there is an alternative OP upthread. Just take out the 2 instances of the phrase 'OP' and I'd promote this version. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
"It's good to be king."
I thought I was doing what would please your Highness. So, I'll go a step further. I'll make Message 4 the OP, delete the text of the original OP in Message 1, and replace it with the new OP in Message 4. It's not that important, though. There are better thread ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Hoot,
What is your problem? I have given two very simple very clear criteria for both your initial OP and your new one. they have been massively minimalist, the deletion of 2 words or the deletion of 1 sentence. If you want to do what would please me why are you incapable of reading plain English and just doing what I told you would please me and would make the topic promotable? All you had to do was take out the sentence where you made a claim for what the researchers theory was which was absolutely not supported by what was in the article you referenced. Instead you wrote another whole OP. In what way was that easier than simply doing what I asked? And now you still haven't taken out the 'OP' bits I objected to, I agree that in the absence of an alternative OP they aren't as confusing but the fact that you chose to completely replace your original OP instead of doing what I actually asked you to and just removing the 2 instances of 'OP' in the post strikes me as a product of sheer bloodymindedness.
There are better thread ideas. I agree, your first OP was much a better thread idea apart from the one sentence where you were misinterpreting the whole theory. If you just don't want to take any admin direction let me know and I can close the thread down, otherwise if you want your topics promoted read what is said and do what we ask. TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
AdminWounded writes:
Well, then put it in the Coffee House forum where you had no trouble approving the Meet Me In Indy:
What is your problem?...If you just don't want to take any admin direction let me know and I can close the thread down, otherwise if you want your topics promoted read what is said and do what we ask. PurpleTeddyBear writes:
Or put it wherever you like. I could make other suggestions. Or delete it. I don't want to see you suffer over it anymore. Hello, I am a serious long time lurker......myspace.com/pushback317 Anyone near Indianapolis? I'd like to do local meetups to discuss Jesus. I have a lot to say about him. I promise I will not wear the pink glasses. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Well, then put it in the Coffee House forum where you had no trouble approving the Thread Meet Me In Indy: Specific forums have a purpose 'Coffee House' is for non-science social topics. If someone wants to meet up with people in their area the 'Coffee House' is the right forum. It isn't the right forum for your topic just because you can't be bothered acting on admin suggestions.
Or delete it. I don't want to see you suffer over it anymore. I agree, neither do I, closing this one down. TTFN, WK Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024