3 ms·

> No evolution of a new feature, just a shift in the distribution of existing genes under changing selection pressure. Which is exactly evolution. Why the high

• splawn 10y ago
  because those goalposts don't just move themselves =P
  • toss1941 10y ago
    It's not moving goalposts. We all know that DNA is what programs how and when cells divide, so how can anyone claim they're witnessing evolution without a thorough understanding of how the new DNA is different from the old?
    • splawn 10y ago
      Because understanding DNA isn't required to understand evolution (even though the discovery of DNA did reinforce the theory greatly by showing how the changes occur at a chemical level) So I am not sure what you mean... But saying "these generational changes are too small to count as evolution" is moving the goalposts.
• M_Grey 10y ago
  Usually the answer to that is, "Creationism", or some form of contrarianism.
• AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  No evolution of a new feature. That is, there were already black moths - the genes to do that already existed in the moth gene pool. What happened may be "evolution" (certainly it is a greater survival rate of those most fit to survive the new circumstances), but it's not "evolution of a new feature" - nothing new was created. And in fact, creationists and intelligent design proponents (at least the more rational ones) do not dispute that such shifts of populations happen. They contend that this is inadequate to derive new features. It also seems to be inadequate to remove bad features. The black moths still existed after millions of years of white trees, even though they are clearly at a disadvantage compared to the white ones.
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    So... why the high standards?
    • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      So... why the repeated questions? You obviously think there's something at stake here, and you don't like the distinction I'm drawing. Why? Why are you so touchy on this subject? There is a difference between creating new genes and merely shifting the distribution of existing genes within a population. Regardless of what terms you want to use for it, those are different things. You seem to be trying very hard to push the point that the difference doesn't matter; perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but it does to some people. In particular, if you're ever going to talk to a creationist (instead of just mocking them), you'd better understand the distinction. I explained this in my previous post, which you seemed to reply to very quickly but without actually seeming to listen to what I said. I suspect you aren't going to listen to this one, either. (Feel free to prove me wrong.)
      • splawn 10y ago
        If only creationists make the distinction and not biologists, then why exactly is it relevant? Do you think this article is a bible study?
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
      • M_Grey 10y ago
        "So... why the repeated questions?" Because you didn't answer it. As for talking to a creationist, I try to avoid it at all costs, and don't expect to have to deal with them on Hacker News.
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
        > There is a difference between creating new genes and merely shifting the distribution of existing genes within a population. On one level, there is -- creating new genes (most of which aren't useful and are rapidly selected out, but a very small percentage of which are useful and retained) is what mutation does. OTOH, substantively, the means by which new features get distributed after mutation creates them (either selected out or retained and spread) is exactly the same way in which the distribution of existing features changes (since it is a change in distribution of existing features, once the mutation happens), so there's little practical difference once you accept that mutation exists, which is well established separately.