/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3744610]

Which of the following is the best modern definition of evolution?

1 change in allele frequencies in a population over time
2 survival of the fittest
3 inheritance of acquired characters
4 descent without modification

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.3744623]

>not picking number one
>not letting me do your homework for you

[Lion !FvAwVR8cv6 No.3744622]

out of those I would pick 3, although that may be very close to Darwin's definition, so I'm not sure about the "modern" bit.

[Anonymous No.3744627]

5. a theory
6. a geuss
7. Satan's lie to deceive atheists
8. nonsense

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.3744639]

>>3744622
>mfw he subscribes to Lamarckism

[Anonymous No.3744644]

1

[Anonymous No.3744651]

>>3744639
>Never heard of Neo-Lamarckism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

[Anonymous No.3744656]

>>3744622
Inheritance of ACQUIRED CHARACTERS?
Even assuming he meant characteristics, that's nonsense, and has fuck-all to do with DARWIN'S theory.

[Anonymous No.3744659]

>>3744656
May as well go on to the others.

2 is arguably applicable to natural selection, but certainly NOT to evolution as a whole.

4 is nonsense.

The only answer left is 1.

[Anonymous No.3744838]

5. the drastic transformation of one species into another, usually occurring over long periods of time, due to the non-random selection of organisms that are best adapted to overcome present obstacles in order to successfully ensure reproduction and survival of offspring.

/thread

[Anonymous No.3744855]

>>3744838
confusing evolution with natural selection
/thread
/typical sci moron

[Anonymous No.3744873]

>>3744627
All of the above

[Anonymous No.3744891]

>>3744855

[Anonymous No.3744893]

>1 change in allele frequencies in a population over time
No scientific evidence to prove this. only assumptions
>2 survival of the fittest
Would make sense why it's logical and rational to kill babies, anyone actually
>3 inheritance of acquired characters
Science doesn't defend insanity
>4 descent without modification
0/10

[Anonymous No.3744897]

>>3744855
>the drastic transformation of one species into another
go away

[Anonymous No.3744903]

1

[Anonymous No.3744910]

>>3744855

It's called EVOLUTION via natural selection.

/retard

[Anonymous No.3744912]

>>3744893
Equating natural selection with "survival of the fittest" is a mistake that is expected of dull, edgy teenagers.

Equating EVOLUTION with the concept is un-fucking-forgivable. Get off /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3744917]

>>3744910
>implying natural selection is the only mechanism by which species change and evolution occurs
>confirm for scientifically illiterate
For fuck's sake, what are you people doing here?

[Anonymous No.3744931]

>>3744917

>get called out
>become pedantic

Take your pills, aspie.

[Anonymous No.3744948]

>>3744931
This is pedantry, you are simply flat out wrong in your implication that natural selection is the only aspect of evolution.

[Anonymous No.3744953]

>>3744948
isn't*

[Anonymous No.3744966]

>>3744948
>>3744931
And for the record, I wasn't the poster of >>3744855 , so I did not "get called out".

[Anonymous No.3744973]

1. Yes. Evolution is the change of expressed genes (alleles) and only applies to populations.

2. No. Darwin explicitly said that it is not the survival of the fittest. To make this even remotely viable you would have to say the survival and reproduction of the most adaptable.

3. No. This is probably the second best answer, but still, it doesn't note that the genes are constantly changing to fit the environment. Also, it only references the parents and offspring, not the entire population.

4. Fucking no. This is like the antithesis of evolution. The traits of a population must shift in order to survive, and this doesn't reference that at all. Also does not reference the entire population. Also not entirely true.

Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.3744983]

>>3744893
>Would make sense why it's logical and rational to kill babies, anyone actually
Exceptions are just exceptions.

[Anonymous No.3744988]

>>3744973
Three is not the "second best answer". See >>3744656

Acquired characteristics are not inheritable. That's lamarckism.

[Anonymous No.3745008]

You faggots realize that this is some 14 year old underage b& trying to get us to do his homework for him, right? There's no need to read so fucking deeply into the problem.

OP - The answer is 1. I am absolutely positive that this, at the very least, is what your bio teacher is looking for as it is the way it is defined in almost all biology textbooks.

[Anonymous No.3745019]

If I had to pick one of these, I'd go with 1, simply because it satisfies Hardy-wineberg equ. In reality its more like the change of allele frequencies over time because they cause greater reproductive success, ultimately eventually leading to a genetically different population that cannot mate with the original population (thus creating a new species). Or at least that's how I tend to look at the big picture.

[Lion !FvAwVR8cv6 No.3745020]

>make thread about definition of evolution
>guaranteed at least 50 replies

never change /sci/
also
>biology
>science
>implying I've ever taken a biology course

[Anonymous No.3745027]

Random mutation causes innate differences in organisms.
With inevitably, relatively, limited-resources, natural selection manifests in those organisms best suited to survival to tend to out-reproduce the others.
Considering this, with each generation there will be an increasing ratio of offspring of individuals with genetic makeup best suited to survival in their niche.
Given enough generations, this tendency ultimately manifests in the extinction of certain genotypes.
Given many more generations, this process will result in organisms relatively alien to their predecessors (speciation).

[Anonymous No.3745041]

>>3745027
I mean you could still have those non-favored genotypes in small percentages of the population. It's the phenotypic expression of the gene that generally causes the biggest impact on reproductive success.

[Anonymous No.3745198]

reproductive isolation events (geographical, mechanical, genetic, chromosomal) tends to lead to a conspicuous increase in the rate of deviation from the former population mean for other metrical qualities (height, weight, color, smell, etc...), this for obvious reasons as mutations first arise in one individual and then will pervade a small subset of the population suited to the exchange in germ-plasm, and depending on the selection pressure and degree of dominance, become the majority

once this occurs you have two drastically different organisms, much more so to each other than what appears to outsiders for the latter did not in recent ancestry interbreed with the organisms in question, that would probably be labeled by conventional scientific language as being merely coincident in physiological structure in factors warranting separate genii

[Anonymous No.3745212]

1

[C No.3745243]

5.) "Reproduction of the Fittest"

[C No.3745253]

>>3744659
It's not 1. That's not evolution.

[C No.3745259]

>>3744644
>>3744659
>>3744903
>>3745212
>>3745008
>>3744973

So much failure...

[Anonymous No.3745270]

>>3744610
5 biology is not a science

[Anonymous No.3745301]

this thread makes me sad. not sure if /sci/ is retarded or just full of trolls

ITS EASY TO HATE ON BIOLOGY WHEN NOBODY KNOWS ANY

[C No.3745297]

OP, I will actually help you. Everyone who says (1) is either a troll or just mistaken. Your teacher is looking for (2), but the reality is that survival in itself is not evolution. Tell your teacher that it's actually reproduction of the fittest.

[Anonymous No.3745319]

>>3745301
This

[Anonymous No.3745324]

>>3745297
>survival in itself is not evolution
Genes won't be passed to the next generation if you don't survive long enough to reproduce.

[Anonymous No.3745346]

>>3745301

>this thread makes me sad. not sure if /sci/ is retarded or just full of high schoolers

FTFY

A lot of that Costanza spam is from /b/tards because they know they can get a rise.

Just like "Checkmate Atheists" threads spammed to death were all the rage just a few months ago.

[C No.3745352]

>>3745301
I'm purposely being an asshole just for the fun of it, but in all honestly the problem is hard to answer. The reason is that the first definition is for "genetic drift" in many textbooks, including my own when I was taking biology.

If OP is in grade school, it's very likely that the term "genetic drift" is in his list of vocabulary separate from evolution, and defined as choice (1). However, other sources will say that evolution is synonymous with "change in allele frequency versus time".

I'm trying to answer his question in a way that would agree with a middle or high school textbook. In reality, many textbooks just plain suck and there's no way of knowing which definition they will use. The best thing for OP to do is read the book.

[C No.3745363]

>>3745324
If I defined evolution as "reproduction of the fittest", it's already implied that they survived to reproduce.

[Anonymous No.3745382]

The answer is definately 1. I'm a bio student (if that counts for anything) and I just know that's the answer. Its so simple that it pains me that there are so many long posts explaining why the other choices could be right when they are not.

Also, choice 1 was (almost word for word) the answer to similar questions on a bunch of different practice tests and such for AP and SAT II.

[C No.3745422]

>>3745382
It's really not simple. You have too much faith in the public education system to provide decent books to students. Even in undergraduate, I remember "genetic drift" being defined as (1). Unfortunately, books and teachers / professors are not perfect.

[Anonymous No.3745454]

>>3745422
Okay, listen, c.

1 is a quick summation of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory that was brought on with population genetics. The answer is 1.

Genetic drift is essentially sampling error, and by no means does it make 1 an incorrect answer (allele frequencies changing in a population over time).

Your attempt to sidetrack to discussing textbooks, while interesting, is somewhat irrelevant.

[C No.3745517]

That seems to be what google tells me, but what will always be drilled into my head is my biology professor repeatedly saying, "evolution is REPRODUCTION of the fittest!". She had a major problem with the phrase "survival of the fittest", and pointed it out frequently during our section on evolution. I had that quite a few years ago, so I wonder whether this is a recently corrected definition (doubt it though), or simply a bad lesson.

[Anonymous No.3745530]

>>3745517

Well, normally when someone is speaking of "survival" you're not speaking just of whether an organism lives longer.

It includes the idea that the organism reproduced, the progeny grew to reproductive age, and the progeny reproduced.

[Anonymous No.3745538]

>>3745517
No, that is definitely accurate. Reproduction of the fittest is absolutely crucial. The unifying principle behind differential reproduction/differential survival and then random effects such as genetic drift is that they come with a change in allelic frequencies within a population. Hence, number 1 is the best answer, and the answer all population biologists and most evolutionary biologists would give you.