Re: ILLogical Evolution

Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:59:20 -0700

At 10:47 AM 8/26/99 EDT, Kevin wrote:
>In a message dated 8/26/99 8:16:38 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>chadwicka@swau.edu writes:
>
>> Note also the following fallacy of equivocation in Miller's definition of
>> Evolution: "evolution: process by which modern organisms have
>> descended from ancient organisms; any change in the relative
>> frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population." [page 29]
>
>I fail to see how this is a "fallacy of equivocation". Miller is not using
>two different definitions simultaneously, but has split a longer, more
>detailed definition into two separate parts. Miller's definition of
>evolution would thus be a process by which modern organisms have descended
>from ancient organisms through changes in the relative frequencies of alleles
>in the gene pool of a population. The first part of the definition describes
>the result of evolution, while the second part describes the fundamental
>mechanism. There is no equivocation here.
>

Hello Kevin,

I can't say that I agree with you here. I had always thought of
"...any change in the relative frequencies of alleles in the gene
pool of a population" as being a result of evolution. A measure
indicating that, by some mechanism or another, evolution has
occurred, but not itself a mechanism. Or, IOW, various mechanisms
such as natural selection, genetic drift or whatever result in
the changes in allele frequencies so that these changes are the
result of evolution rather than a mechanism.

Anyone else want to comment on this?

Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz