vERY CLEVER TITLE i MUST SAY. i HAVEN'T HEARD HIS TALK YET BUT i GATHER HIS BOOK IS ABOUT THE BELIEF THAT JUNK dna REPRESENTS THE FORMER LIVES OF AN EVOLVED CREATURE. aS i'VE ARGUED HERE MANY TIMES i BELIEVE JUNK dna REPRESENTS GENES THAT FUNCTIONED WELL IN THE ORIGINAL CREATED WORLD AND NO DOUBT GAVE THE CREATURE ENORMOUS STRENGTHS OF AMNY KINDS WE CAN HARDLY IMAGINE NOW SINCE WE LACK NINETY FIVE OR MORE PERCENT OF THOSE GENES.
aNYHWAY i'LL LISTEN TO dAWKINS AND SEE IF HE EXPLAINS HIS BOOK.
lATER. hERE WE GO. dAWKINS JUST SAID IN THIS TALK i'M LISTENING TO THAT EVOLUTION IS CHANGE INGENE FREQUENCIES. aND NATURAL SELECTION IS BIASED CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES, BIASED TOWARD IMPROVELENT.
wOSW. he has also been using the term mutation as if it's needed to explain variation, which I don't get either. What are these people thinking? None of this makes any sense. All you need for variation, even some pretty dramatic variations, is isolation of a small portion of a population iwth its new gene frequencies and reproduction emong that group in isolation over enough generations to spread the new gene frequencies through the population, the fewer the founding individuals the shorter the numbe o generations needed to accomplish this change in the character of the population as a whole.
Mutations are n needed and would only contribute a new variation anyway which would be treated as any other allele in the mix.
As for gene frequencies this is all going on in the genome of a given species, this is not evolution that wcould ever become a new species. if you isolate twenty of any species from the rest of the population so that they inbreed fover some numnber of generations you will bget a new look to the new population of that species. it's built into the genome for this to happen. this is not evolution. This is obvious.
We got all the human races by simple isolation of portions of the human population as they spread out over the earth in times past carraying with them a set of gene frequencies shared among the population as a whole. You got the blue eyed blonds of the nordics that way, and the Asian features in the far east and the black skin of the Africans and so on and so forther. There is nothing needed for this to happen other than the isolation of a portion of the whole species over some nuember of generations. it's guilt into the genome, no mutations are needed and ther is nothing in this process that could lead to a different species.l
I guess I'm native. It really doesn't seem possible to me that Dawkins or Coyne could actually think that any of this is evolution. I was shocked when Coyne said that the difference between the wolf and the chihuahua shows evolution. What are they thinking? This is nuts.
Well, if you keep calling mere variation "evolution" we're all going to be hopelessly confused, and that's what I think is the case, THEY are hopelessly confused and I'm not going to be able to make a dent in any of that. Sigh. He acrtually gives an example of how a guppy is brightly colored when not subjected to a predator but loseds its color and becomes drab when there is a predator that eats them. And the fact that when drab guggies are isolated from predators they become color ful aagain over many generations he calls evolution. Yikes. This is cheer craziness.
So ther idea ofevolidence for evolution is really just evidence for uilt in genetic variation, plus the other bogus kind of evidence which is the so called fossil record which is nothing but an imaginative construct without a shred of actual empirical justification. Sigh.
Not to bother mentioning for the umpteenth time that the sedimentary rocks in which they are fossilized could not possibly ever have been part of a time period of tens of millions of years. Yes why bother.
Why Is Darwin’s Idea So Revolutionary? Richard Dawkins Lecture on Natural Selection and More (youtube.com)
