Re: Defining evolution

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John McCreery: "In Re Davenport (4), grumble, grumble"
• Previous message: Mike Salovesh: ""Against their own will" ?"

> With all due respect, and after consulting my physical anthropologist colleague,
> I have to stand by my original definition: evolution is change in gene
> frequencies. The change may or may not lead to speciation, and may or may not
> be the result of patterned, non-random forces such as natural or sexual
> selection.

I agree. Speciation is always decided *after the fact*, and is not
therefore a good criterion for evolution.

Danny Yee.

• Next message: John McCreery: "In Re Davenport (4), grumble, grumble"
• Previous message: Mike Salovesh: ""Against their own will" ?"