Changes

==To answer a question in the edit summary==

==To answer a question in the edit summary==

"holds that natural selection in combination with random mutation is the directive or creative force of evolution. How do we falsify this?"  To answer the question you have to think about the two variables that are acting on the population, natural selection, through environmental changes (this includes physical as well as chemical changes), and random mutation.  Random mutation first, not all mutations can pass down to off spring so we can not accept these (the mutations that will not pass) as leading to an evolutary adaptation.  Second the mutation has to be one that does not reduce the chance of the organism's survival, thus we study the mutation that can be passed to offspring and does not reduce survivability of the organism.  Now to natural selection, this would be a change in environment that would lead to either the reduced reproduction of the population or a change where the reproduction rate slows.  Now when combined, the mutation must provide some benefit to allow for the organism to have an increased rate of reproduction compared to the population thus allowing for gene dispersion by the organism thus allowing for a genetic shift in the population due to competing factors.  How to falsify this is to break it into the parts I described above and show that if any of these parts are missing or do not prescribe to the limits express above and evolution occurs then it is the mechanism of natural selection with random mutation would be false in regards to being the core of evolutionary theory.  If the variables above do not lead to genetic and eventually phonotypical changes then once again it is falsified.  Oh and why some scientist feel that Darwinism is a pejorative term is due to the difference in what Darwin proposed and modern evolutionary theory.  To use Darwinism implies a lack of modification of the theory since Darwin's time.  I hope this helps.

"holds that natural selection in combination with random mutation is the directive or creative force of evolution. How do we falsify this?"   

I am still working through the scientific method, we had talked about it before.  Where the method starts to break break down as compared to what the article states is when the science is proven through logic and mathematics but has yet to be proven experimentaly (due to technological limitations, quantum mechanics often encounters this)--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)

To answer the question you have to think about the two variables that are acting on the population, natural selection, through environmental changes (this includes physical as well as chemical changes), and random mutation. 

 

Random mutation first, not all mutations can pass down to off spring so we can not accept these (the mutations that will not pass) as leading to an evolutary adaptation.  Second the mutation has to be one that does not reduce the chance of the organism's survival, thus we study the mutation that can be passed to offspring and does not reduce survivability of the organism. 

 

Now to natural selection, this would be a change in environment that would lead to either the reduced reproduction of the population or a change where the reproduction rate slows.  Now when combined, the mutation must provide some benefit to allow for the organism to have an increased rate of reproduction compared to the population thus allowing for gene dispersion by the organism thus allowing for a genetic shift in the population due to competing factors. 

 

How to falsify this is to break it into the parts I described above and show that if any of these parts are missing or do not prescribe to the limits express above and evolution occurs then it is the mechanism of natural selection with random mutation would be false in regards to being the core of evolutionary theory.  If the variables above do not lead to genetic and eventually phonotypical changes then once again it is falsified. 

:Thanks, but even before I asked the question I knew that beneficial mutations lead to "an increased rate of reproduction compared to the population". This hold true for people engaged in [[animal breeding]], as well as for different breeds of a species evolving naturally. It even works for people: the skin of arctic residents is pale, and the skin of equatorial Africans is dark brown. People with more melanin pigment in their skin do better in climates with a lot of sunlight, because it protects them from UV radiation, right?

Oh and why some scientist feel that Darwinism is a pejorative term is due to the difference in what Darwin proposed and modern evolutionary theory. To use Darwinism implies a lack of modification of the theory since Darwin's time.  I hope this helps.

:I understand how mutation and natural selection work. What I don't understand is why they are considered creative or directive forces. Moreover, how can natural causes result in radical new designs, like one-celled life giving rise to plants or animals? And by what means could scientists possibly test this idea? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 10:03, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I am still working through the scientific method, we had talked about it before. Where the method starts to break break down as compared to what the article states is when the science is proven through logic and mathematics but has yet to be proven experimentaly (due to technological limitations, quantum mechanics often encounters this)--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)