Roosevelt_M_Jones t1_ivfog3n wrote
Reply to comment by fastspinecho in We know about viruses, bacteria and other microorganisms evolving to better infect other organisms. Consequently, diseases change too to some extent. Are there any examples of human bodies evolving to fight against these disease causing agents? by ha_ha_ha_ha_hah
.... individuals don't evolve. Individuals mutate, if the mutation is beneficial (or at least not highly detrimental) to thier survival they might pass it on, and eventually over enough gerations they might evolve into a new sprate species.
Your like half right in so many places, but have other things completely backwards.
fastspinecho t1_ivfpz7b wrote
Evolution is much more than just the origin of species. It can be used to describe any individual with different traits than its ancestors, even within the same species.
It's true that an individual cannot evolve over the course of its lifespan. However, evolution fundamentally describes a relationship between multiple individuals (or if you prefer, a "population"), it is not necessarily acting on the entire species.
Elsewhere in the comments you can find a discussion of the sickle cell gene. This is an example of a relatively small population of individuals who evolved resistance to malaria (as well as a deleterious homozygous trait). They most certainly do not constitute a new species.
Roosevelt_M_Jones t1_ivfrgw3 wrote
"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
You're conflating mutation and Evolution. These are not the same thing. Just because a singular individuals is different from its ancestors dosen't meet the criteria of Evolution. It's a gradual and iterative process that takes generations and is very heavily intertwined with speciation.
fastspinecho t1_ivfs9rr wrote
Yes, it is related to speciation. But that does not mean it is acting to change an existing species. It is often acting at a much smaller scale.
In fact the definition you quoted doesn't even use the word species. It refers instead to generations, ie differences compared to one's ancestors.
Roosevelt_M_Jones t1_ivgcqhm wrote
Look, just click on the link and read up on evolution, both that I have provided are reputable sources with the latter having a bunch of good citation of even more sources. Your clearly not understan some very fundamental parts of the theory of evolution or aren't clearly communicating what you mean, so you can either provide sources that back up what your saying or read what I've shared with you and further your understanding.
I mean the book in which the theory of evolution was first published is called "the origin of species" for Darwin's sake, you'd think that might be a good hint to the interconnection between the two concepts.
fastspinecho t1_ivgdije wrote
I read both sources, and I found nothing to support the contention that "successful evolution caters to the whole species with little regard for the individual".
Quite the opposite in fact. Evolution always begins at the level of individuals, and does not always affect the whole species.
> Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population
Roosevelt_M_Jones t1_ivgelb8 wrote
Cool, not the point I was making and still not citing anything.
"The main difference between evolution and speciation is that evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of a population over successive generations whereas speciation is the formation of a new, distinct species during the process of evolution."
https://pediaa.com/difference-between-evolution-and-speciation/
My point was that individuals do not evolve, period, that is not how evolution works. I will admit that speciation isn't the only way things evolve, and I was interlacing the concepts a bit, though this still only strengthens my main point the individuals do not evolve.
[deleted] t1_ivgerzb wrote
[removed]
fastspinecho t1_ivgi3b0 wrote
> still not citing anything.
I cited the first paragraph of your linked article.
> The main difference between evolution and speciation
So, they are related concepts but not the same. Like I wrote earlier.
> individuals do not evolve
If you mean that a single individual cannot evolve over the course of its lifespan, then I'm glad you agree with what I literally wrote earlier.
If you mean individualS - plural - cannot evolve, then you are wrong. A group of individuals can evolve, even if the rest of the species does not. Which is why I wrote "evolution acts on individualS, not species". And why I didn't write "evolution acts on an individual".
Roosevelt_M_Jones t1_ivgx5ok wrote
Yes, you add that has I was writing my reply, hence me calling you out on that.
And your still not grasping that just because you make individual a plural that dosen't change that it takes gerations, that still be mutation. If you had read any of the links this wouldn't be an argument, but you just can't seem to grasp that evolution is a larger pheromon, not applicable to the minute scale of individuals. Yes, individuals do change, but for those changes to actually be evolution takes many gerations. You are just not able to understand the difference between mutation, adaptation, and evolution. You're clearly at least a little educated so I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple basic principle but at this point I'm just done trying explain it to you. You can plant your feet firmly on this common misconception.
Peace ✌️
fastspinecho t1_ivhyypy wrote
> evolution is a larger pheromon, not applicable to the minute scale of individuals. Yes, individuals do change, but for those changes to actually be evolution takes many gerations.
You mean like when I wrote that evolution "is manifested in the differences between an individual and its ancestors"? What do you suppose "ancestors" means?
All your arguments have been aimed at a straw man.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments