Re: Walter Remine: A paper analysis & a lesson in dishonesty
Overly complicated for this list. Remember that this is a list creationists need to be able to understand.
Also, that's one big DUH! There's a bit of difference between 1 and 2, there's a lot of difference between 1, 2, ..., 1000. What's the relevance?
We don't know how much will be inherited, so "some" is a good enough qualifier.
Overly complicated. "Some" already conveys that not all of that variation has an effect, so it's obvious to assume that the rest is neutral. It could be added that "some of that variation has a negative, some a positive effect on survival..."
The last sentence would suggest some form of group selection, which is contentious and distracts creationists from the core issues of understanding evolution.
Again, overly complicated, though correct. As I said before, it "distracts creationists from the core issues of understanding evolution", which is what this graphic is basically about. The image should convey evolution in its details and most basic form to see where creationists disagree. (Usually 11 and/or 12)
Rejected on all counts.
scientia said:1. Variation exists in all populations and increases with population size. A large population has more variation than a small population within the same species.
Overly complicated for this list. Remember that this is a list creationists need to be able to understand.
Also, that's one big DUH! There's a bit of difference between 1 and 2, there's a lot of difference between 1, 2, ..., 1000. What's the relevance?
scientia said:2. Almost all of that variation is heritable.
We don't know how much will be inherited, so "some" is a good enough qualifier.
scientia said:3. Some of that variation has an effect on survival or mating opportunities. However, most of the variation is neutral, conferring neither an advantage nor disadvantage to the individual. Secondly, characteristics can exist that benefit the group as a whole or a segment of the group rather than one individual.
Overly complicated. "Some" already conveys that not all of that variation has an effect, so it's obvious to assume that the rest is neutral. It could be added that "some of that variation has a negative, some a positive effect on survival..."
The last sentence would suggest some form of group selection, which is contentious and distracts creationists from the core issues of understanding evolution.
4. Saying that characteristics tend to increase or decrease is not correct. A characteristic that increases survival or mating opportunity has an increased chance of being passed to the next generation and spreading among the population. A characteristic that decreases survival or mating opportunity has a decreased chance of being passed to the next generation or spreading among the population. However, a characteristic can have both positive and negative pressures. A peacock's tail may increase an individual's chances of mating but may also make him more susceptible to predators. And, cooperative care of offspring can prevent an individual from mating while also increasing the survival of the group. In general, positive characteristics have greater odds of increasing unless countered by negative pressures while negative characteristics have greater odds of decreasing unless countered by positive characteristics. However, gene association can also limit variation in a characteristic until a mutation occurs that breaks the association; this is true even if the characteristic has high positive pressure. Conversely, an associated gene with negative characteristics can be continued in the population because it is associated with a gene that is essential.
Again, overly complicated, though correct. As I said before, it "distracts creationists from the core issues of understanding evolution", which is what this graphic is basically about. The image should convey evolution in its details and most basic form to see where creationists disagree. (Usually 11 and/or 12)
Rejected on all counts.