Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

littlegreenrock t1_iqtkf2m wrote

sigh

selection. it's not evolution.

−11

jazzman7838 t1_iqu1lrc wrote

You need to look up the definition of evolution bruh

3

littlegreenrock t1_iqu4jps wrote

in HS i saw the grey moth in England, soot, turned black article. was told it was evolution, just as you learned. years later I did my science degree and discovered that this was a lie, it's selection not evolution

years later I find myself in a HS teaching biology. today it's that same moth, evolution. "you guys realise that this isn't evolution, it's selection, right?" this is the way we're going to teach it.

you are a product of this.

it's not evolution, it's merely selection and variance. two things needed for evolution to occur, this isn't evolution.

−2

jazzman7838 t1_iqu7y22 wrote

I would love for you to explain what you think evolution is, if it’s not this.

Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics over generations. That is what’s being documented here. It’s micro evolution, but it’s evolution. Selection is ONE pressure causing evolution. The selection is the increased radiation environment around Chernobyl that favors individuals with more melanin. But the higher proportion of individuals with increased melanin in the population over time? That’s evolution bruh.

4

littlegreenrock t1_iqublp1 wrote

there's no such a thing as micro evolution. what you're referring to is called selection

0

jazzman7838 t1_iqucpr2 wrote

Selection is the pressure. Evolution is the result. You have a bad understanding of the terms and hopefully are not passing this bad understanding to your pupils. Read what people with PhDs in evolutionary biology have to say on the matter.

What’s an example of evolution based on your understanding?

3

littlegreenrock t1_iquhtes wrote

incorrect. selection can be a result of it's own. evolution is something much greater than simply changing colours. you're still confusing selection (and variance) with something greater, so much greater that it completely overshadows selection. these frogs are the same frog in a new colour. where as a cat and a tiger are not on the same level of disparity.

if my mums pink roses turn white it's not an evolution of the rose. they are still roses, with a new colour. that's selection, as a pressure, yes; and variance IN POPULATION as a RESULT. there's no evolution.

−1

jazzman7838 t1_iqvdajr wrote

JFC. You are a science teacher? Where? Do you deny the fact of Darwinian evolution?

It’s not JUST a change in color. You’re acting like the frogs got a sun tan. What is changing over successive generations is the frequency of genes in the population that code for more melanin. The population is changing. The gene frequencies are changing. The offspring are very slightly different than their ancestors, on average. That’s evolution, baby. The author of the study has a PhD in biology.

2

littlegreenrock t1_iqve0f4 wrote

you're describing selection and variance. this isn't a new frog species, it's a new colour.

0

jazzman7838 t1_iqvf90e wrote

You really should take a hard look at whatever “lesson” you got in college and actually read what evolution means from some current evolutionary biology papers. It doesn’t only refer to speciation. Obviously speciation can happen as a gradual process without a clear start and end date as two populations slowly diverge. That process is called…evolution.

2

JugglinB t1_iqu07b5 wrote

Huh? Evolution is a non-random selection process - with selection *by giving some increased chance to breed through an inherited trait

Edit *missing words

2

littlegreenrock t1_iqu4n0e wrote

selection process. yes. this is an example of selection process. not evolution.

−1