Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: let's agree on something Message-ID: <218@cylixd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 11:22:54 EDT Article-I.D.: cylixd.218 Posted: Fri Aug 23 11:22:54 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 06:21:46 EDT References: <2140@iddic.UUCP> Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) Distribution: net Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN Lines: 22 Summary: In article <2140@iddic.UUCP> kendalla@iddic.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes: >All living things have as their basic identifying characteristic a >genetic code. The chemical building blocks of this code are the same for >nearly all life forms; only the sequence and quantities differ. If >this code gets a little scrambled during the process of reproduction, >it is (in theory) possible to end up producing a very different thing >from the parent. It is also possible (in theory) that this new thing >may be able to continue reproducing. Isn't this what is meant by >"genetic evolution"? > >Can we all agree on this? > >Kendall Auel My college genetics professor used the term "population genetics" instead of "evolution" to describe changes in species over time. That way, he could teach the subject instead of arguing with staunch 7-literal-day creationists, none of whom ever argued the validity of "population genetics", but who would surely have screamed had the professor used the term "evolution". charli