Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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."

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.


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.