> Date: 31 AUG 1996 02:27:15 GMT > From: Doug Yanega <email@example.com> > Newgroups: sci.bio.technology, sci.bio.misc, sci.math, > bionet.molbio.evolution, bionet.microbiology > > David Beorn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > Just look at how variable HIV is. All these mutations all occuring at the > > > same time - some are viable and some aren't. Some are better at surviving > > > for a while or better at transmission or better at eluding drugs and the > > > body's own systems. > > > > But in all cases, it is STILL HIV, right?? I.e. no evolution occurred - > > adaptation, variability of a species yes - but not evolution. No new > > "creature" was created. > > I told this to David in private, but I'll share it with everyone else. All > right class, pay attention... *ahem* > > Evolution is defined as a change in the frequencies of alleles (different > forms of the same genes) present in a population from generation to > generation. > > That's it. I would wager 10 years' salary that this is not at all what > Dave THOUGHT the definition of evolution was. In essence, evolution *IS*
No one would take that bet because no one would be silly enough to think anyone thought that's what evolution is. While that may be YOUR definition, it is not the one in practical use. And I have been specific in what was was contending against - that evolution caused speciation. Also, that evolution is NOT variation in species - if that's the case then every reproduction is evolution because I would imagine rarely (if ever) do the offspring have the exact characteristics of both of the parents. So your definition becomes a meaningless if it means what you say it does.
> natural variation within species, viewed over time; if there is any change > whatsoever in the genetic makeup of a species (i.e., adaptation or new > variability), then evolution has occurred. It's as simple as that. That's > been the definition of evolution for *decades* now, and some people are
Only in your mind...
> still living in the 1700's...happily criticizing something they won't even > bother to look up in a textbook. Dave is trying to make "evolution" > synonymous with "speciation" and it never was and never will be.
It is not me who has done so - it is the scientific community that has made it so, whether by mis-use (as you imply) or because that was the meaning all along. Either way, this is it's common meaning and is what is being discussed here. Usually people who have no argument change the argument to one they can win. In this case, you didn't even do that.
> Doug Yanega (email@example.com)
*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^ * David Beorn, firstname.lastname@example.org (internet) * * Virginia FREENET * *-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^