nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + +
Talk:Evidence of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 19:54, January 9, 2009
, 19:54, January 9, 2009response to Ed
::(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)
::(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)
:::Very good points. I often remember the fact that most high school biology teachers either minored in biology in college or they had a couple of bioclasses with their masters. In either case their exposure to evolutionary theory is very limited and I would not refer to them as evolution educators. I know for a fact that the Peppered Moth is not used as an example in most college bio-major classes, due to better and more current examples. The use of the Peppered Moth may just "date" the instructor, lol. I would say that Wells is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
:::As for your last question "does "evolution" sometimes also mean "changes in distribution of existing organisms"?" yes it does. This is one of the driving forces in evolution as population distribution directly effects gene dispersion. Both varieties of moth did exist before the soot pollution, if anything the peppered moth example shows population shift due to natural selection (moths easier to see).--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:54, 9 January 2009 (EST)