Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do individuals evolve?
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 1 of 9 (423813)
09-24-2007 12:49 PM


Revised OP
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:
Evolutionists and creationists generally agree that once an individual is born, it remains that same species for the rest of its life.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 09-24-2007 1:42 PM Fosdick has replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 9 (423824)
09-24-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fosdick
09-24-2007 12:49 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fosdick, posted 09-24-2007 12:49 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Fosdick, posted 09-24-2007 5:04 PM AdminWounded has not replied
 Message 4 by Fosdick, posted 09-25-2007 12:41 PM AdminWounded has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 3 of 9 (423863)
09-24-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminWounded
09-24-2007 1:42 PM


topic withcrawn
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...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 09-24-2007 1:42 PM AdminWounded has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 4 of 9 (424069)
09-25-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminWounded
09-24-2007 1:42 PM


Reproposed: Do individuals evolve?
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:
Evolutionists and creationists generally agree that once an individual is born, it remains that same species for the rest of its life.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 09-24-2007 1:42 PM AdminWounded has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminWounded, posted 09-25-2007 5:07 PM Fosdick has replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 9 (424116)
09-25-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Fosdick
09-25-2007 12:41 PM


Re: Reproposed: Do individuals evolve?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Fosdick, posted 09-25-2007 12:41 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Fosdick, posted 09-25-2007 7:14 PM AdminWounded has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 6 of 9 (424136)
09-25-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminWounded
09-25-2007 5:07 PM


Re: Reproposed: Do individuals evolve?
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminWounded, posted 09-25-2007 5:07 PM AdminWounded has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminWounded, posted 09-26-2007 3:17 AM Fosdick has replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 9 (424184)
09-26-2007 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fosdick
09-25-2007 7:14 PM


Last chance
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fosdick, posted 09-25-2007 7:14 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Fosdick, posted 09-26-2007 11:00 AM AdminWounded has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 8 of 9 (424242)
09-26-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by AdminWounded
09-26-2007 3:17 AM


Re: Last chance
AdminWounded writes:
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.
Well, then put it in the Coffee House forum where you had no trouble approving the Meet Me In Indy:
PurpleTeddyBear writes:
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.
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.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AdminWounded, posted 09-26-2007 3:17 AM AdminWounded has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminWounded, posted 09-26-2007 11:14 AM Fosdick has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 9 (424248)
09-26-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Fosdick
09-26-2007 11:00 AM


Re: Last chance
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Fosdick, posted 09-26-2007 11:00 AM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024