Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Evidence of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 19:35, January 9, 2009
, 19:35, January 9, 2009to Able
:First I would like to point out that I really dislike the use of the peppered moth as an example. The question that has to be asked first is what do you define as evolution? If it is a phenotype change in a population then yes, the peppered moth is an example. If it is speciation then no, the peppered moth is not an example. Some creationists will accept the peppered moth as an example of microevolution. I personally would use the [[Nylon-eating bacteria]] as an example.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:08, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:First I would like to point out that I really dislike the use of the peppered moth as an example. The question that has to be asked first is what do you define as evolution? If it is a phenotype change in a population then yes, the peppered moth is an example. If it is speciation then no, the peppered moth is not an example. Some creationists will accept the peppered moth as an example of microevolution. I personally would use the [[Nylon-eating bacteria]] as an example.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:08, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::Well, that's my point: Are evolution educators using a good example of evolution as "[[evidence for evolution]]" or not? I'm trying to settle the matter of whether the best known of the ''[[Icons of Evolution]]'' is a valid example of bias. I figure either:
::No one uses the moth as "proof" of evolution - so Wells has no case here; or,
::Only a few educators or scientists use the moth as proof of evolution - so Wells is making a mountain out of a molehill; or,
::This is one of the ten most common "proofs" of evolution - so it matters whether the example is proving anything or not.
::If both varieties existed before the soot pollution, then how is it an example of microevolution? I thought "evolution through natural selection" refers only to new forms of life being caused to come into existence.
::(Or does "evolution" sometimes also mean "changes in distribution of existing organisms"? If so, why would anyone try to prove or disprove that?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:35, 9 January 2009 (EST)