Quoting Horse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi Horse,
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to answer questions about evolution. I guess whether or not changes in bacteria qualifies as "evolution" in the sense that something more than bacteria are created in the process is a matter of definition. Arlo says there's a difference between micro and macro evolution. It's the latter I had in mind in claiming evolution has stopped at the lower levels while the MOQ represents a current example of evolution occurring now at the intellectual level. I've become somewhat suspicious of scientific terminology every since reading Pirsig's take on the platypus. (No relation.) In any case, I appreciate your answers to my questions. It's always good to hear from you. Regards, Platt > >> More from Wikipedia: > >> > >> "Evolution is change in populations of organisms over generations. > >> Offspring differ from their parents in various ways. When these > >> differences are helpful, the offspring have a greater chance of > >> surviving and reproducing, making the differences more common in the > >> next generation. In this way, differences can accumulate over time, > >> leading to major changes in a population. > >> Evolution occurs through changes in genes, the "recipe" for constructing > >> the organism. When an organism reproduces, small random changes in the > >> genes make the offspring different from the parent. Sometimes these > >> changes help the offspring survive to reproduce. When this happens, the > >> genes for the beneficial traits are passed on to the organism's own > >> offspring, becoming more common in the next generation. Genes that do > >> not help organisms reproduce may become rarer or be completely > >> eliminated from the population. This is called natural selection, a > >> major part of evolution. Through natural selection, populations of > >> organisms slowly change over time as they adapt to changes in their > >> environments." > >> > >> So evolution is not just about creating new species. > > > > Isn't a major change in a population the same as creating a new species? > > I don't think so. But it depends on what sort of life we're talking > about. For a major change in life that reproduces sexually the new, > "improved" form may be compatible with the earlier form although with > significant differences. Whereas a new species is generally incompatible > with a related species even though they have a common ancestor. > > > If not, what constitutes creating a new species? > > I suppose that depends on what definition of species you want to use. > Have a look at the Wikipedia page on species to see what I mean. An > interesting quote from this page relating to species classifications is: > > "....the differences between them are more a matter of emphasis than of > outright contradiction. Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is > entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to > judgement. Given the complexity of life, some have argued that such an > objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists > should settle for the most practical definition." > > > And, are any major changes in populations being observed today? Thanks. > > Again, what sort of populations are you thinking of. Going back to what > I said a while ago about bacteria, they are seen to be changing all the > time and given that there are about 5 X 10^35 (5 with 35 zero's added) > bacteria on the planet and around 10 million species of the little > buggers it would be almost impossible for them not to be subject to > major changes over time. Another interesting group is fungi which is, I > think, the second most common form of life on earth. > > > Horse ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
