Quote:
Originally Posted by yodachoda
And no, your single bacteria example is not evolution because that's a change in an individual, not a population. Let's say we have two bacteria, one blue and one red. Color is heritable. Bacteria can reproduce assexually btw. If one bacteria dies, say the blue one, then evolution has occurred. The bacteria population has evolved from 50% red, 50% blue to 100% red.
You also don't have a population after that happens. What does that mean for the gene pool of your bacteria population?
By the way, I'm just playing around as devil's advocate here. You're really kind of arguing against a strawman and thinking that you're making some salient point that is actually relevant to those who don't accept "evolution" (which means different things to different people in the general population). As far as I can tell, you really aren't. Maybe in this conversation, you'll see why.
Let's take a different example:
Let's say you have a large population (to avoid the problem of "not a population") of red and blue bacteria. And let's say that the population naturally cycles between 60/40 and 40/60 red/blue ratios, but otherwise stay GENETICALLY IDENTICAL.
Under the first definition:
Quote:
1. Any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations
I would say that this actually isn't evolution under this definition. The heritable characteristics (the colors red and blue) have not actually changed. What do you say?
Under the second definition:
Quote:
2. Change in the allele frequency in a population.
Indeed, we would have evolution.
But under this concept, if you were to take some random person who accepts "evolution" (not giving any particular definition -- just someone who doesn't reject it), and told them that the genetic makeup of both bacteria have not changed ever, would that person think that you're talking about "evolution"? I would think not, because the way that evolution is portrayed, you're seeing some sort of change from one individual of one generation to another (the beaks of the next generation are "slightly longer"), and not talking about population ratios.
I don't think it's quite as trivial as you want it to be, or that the observation you're making is trivial and it's the implication that you're trying to get to is not.