Describe your understanding of evolution.

[pitabread]

edited

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Changes at the molecular and even the atomic level are needed for evolutionary change. These are never satisfactorily explained. The gaps in the theory are so wide you could throw a cat through them.

Ah, I was expecting something new.
I imagine that this has been explained to you that biology doesn't cover atoms, and that anything with molecules doesn't need to be covered by theory of evolution, which just focuses on changes in DNA and alleles in genes to bring out evolution in a population.

Still, at least you answered my question.

 

[pitabread]

Changes at the molecular and even the atomic level are needed for evolutionary change. These are never satisfactorily explained. The gaps in the theory are so wide you could throw a cat through them.

What do you mean by changes at the "atomic level"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What does "science information that atheists call wrong" mean?

No, please don't.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Changes at the molecular and even the atomic level are needed for evolutionary change. These are never satisfactorily explained. The gaps in the theory are so wide you could throw a cat through them.

Atomic level?... Where did you read anything about this?

 

[pitabread]

No, please don't.

I removed my question. I'll respect your thread.

(Though I still am curious, because it was such an odd turn of phrase.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What do you mean by changes at the "atomic level"?

Let's focus on the molecular level first. Are molecular changes needed for evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

Let's focus on the molecular level first. Are molecular changes needed for evolution?

Yes. DNA is a molecule. Changes in that molecule (mutations) are the basis of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's focus on the molecular level first. Are molecular changes needed for evolution?

To be honest, let's not do this on this thread. If you want to start this sort of questioning, please start your own thread on it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes. DNA is a molecule. Changes in that molecule (mutations) are the basis of evolution.

Are changes at the atomic level also needed to effect these changes?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Yes. DNA is a molecule. Changes in that molecule (mutations) are the basis of evolution.

Actually... I didn't know DNA was quite that small. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To be honest, let's not do this on this thread. If you want to start this sort of questioning, please start your own thread on it.

This is what happens when probing questions are asked.

 

[Speedwell]

How does this happen?

OT. Open your catechism in a new thread.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is what happens when probing questions are asked.

I was fine with your statement about how you think there are gaps in the theory.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OT. Open your catechism in a new thread.

I edited that post.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I was fine with your statement about how you think there are gaps in the theory.

The molecular changes are really big gaps.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually... I didn't know DNA was quite that small. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Some molecules are quite large--depends on how may atoms they have.

 

[Direct Driver]

Okay, I'll say that does sort of answer my question as a personal definition of evolution.

I started to say what I think OTHER people mean, but stopped myself.

I believe evolution happens. The Corvette evolved substantially over its lifetime. However, when it comes to biology, I think things mutate. And some consider those mutations in DNA to be evolution. I see it as "de-evolution". The "adaptive" evolution we see, IMO, is a form of natural selection of types that are always showing up. I use the peppered moth as an example. The individual moths did not evolve. Rather, the population did. There were always "mostly dark" and "mostly white" moths. But when the environment favors one color over another, they will increase as a percentage of the population, and the other will decrease.

One could say the population of North America "evolved" after Europeans came here, and Slaves were brought in. But nobody "evolved". Rather, the population did. Fewer Asian "natives" and more Caucasians and Negroes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The molecular changes are really big gaps.

If you want to pursue that line of thinking, please take it to another thread.
This thread is just about personal definitions of evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you want to pursue that line of thinking, please take it to another thread.
This thread is just about personal definitions of evolution.

Gotcha. I'm gone.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I started to say what I think OTHER people mean, but stopped myself.

I believe evolution happens. The Corvette evolved substantially over its lifetime. However, when it comes to biology, I think things mutate. And some consider those mutations in DNA to be evolution. I see it as "de-evolution". The "adaptive" evolution we see, IMO, is a form of natural selection of types that are always showing up. I use the speckled moth as an example. The individual moths did not evolve. Rather, the population did. There were always "mostly dark" and "mostly white" moths. But when the environment favors one color over another, they will increase as a percentage of the population, and the other will decrease.

One could say the population of North America "evolved" after Europeans came here, and Slaves were brought in. But nobody "evolved". Rather, the population did.

Okay, that's fair.