the phylogeographic challenge to creationism

Faith, A topic of its own, but its neither here nor there, here. The point is you have no reason to claim NS reducing diversity is a block to evolution when mutation introduces it all the time.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hey can we all be polite, cut out the swearing and name-calling etc. and not worry about who started it.I appreciate Faith making the effort to engage in this thread, and I appreciate the contributions of others too. I this thread is doing a reasonable job of making us examine and justify our assumptions so let's keep it going in a friendly manner.Mick

You make statements like the above and you also expect people to take the time to explain things to you?You're bloody lucky to get the oportunity you have here. It won't last forever.

No reason? Plenty of reason. The reduction of genetic diversity is a huge problem for evolutionism if it were faced honestly, and at the moment the ONLY thing countering it is mutation, which interestingly seems to be growing and acquiring powers of genetic increase by the minute in the minds of evolutionists. Mutation introduces changes that are called mistakes -- mistakes in DNA replication. MOST of them as Mammuthus just acknowleged, abort.This "all the time" refrain seems designed to obscure just how useless most mutation is, and it is very hard to get any kind of handle on how much potential there REALLY is in mutation to counteract the genetic-reduction effects of the other ironically-named Processes of Evolution. It seems to be ASSUMED that mutation is the driving force of evolution these days with rather little to back it up. Oh, I'm SURE it is seen all the time as emphasized here, but what it really is and what it really does remains obscure.

I thought science was interested in the truth and willing to consider what creationists think. My mistake.

Here's some help that is needed from an admin:I don't seem to be able to edit my posts. The edits don't take. Could someone look into that? Thanks.Also, my request for your attempt to abstract the meat of my opponents' arguments was sincere. It would be a great help.Also, your insistence that creationists argue like evolutionists is simply an insistence that creationists BECOME evolutionists. You need to cool it.

Your permissions all look correct.It might be possible that you have a problem (bad data) in one of the forum saved cookies in your browser. You can try to logout, then login again. Click on the "logout" link near the top of the forum page. Make sure you have your password handy, since that will be needed to login again.

---

given that Faith is the only creationist other than Brad who has participated in the thread, and the Faith is a YEC, then it's a bit harsh for her to be attacked by dozens of biologists at once. I know these are the rules of the biology forums, but I have seen lots of decent threads killed with this kind of argument. I expect (and the EVC rules require) that all posters who disagree with Faith provide substantive evidence for their position or evidence against Faith's position.I'm a bit irritated to find a thread I started with a great deal of effort degenerate over 24 hours like this. I (and Mammathus, and robinrohan (and, dare I say it, Faith)) have put some effort into our posts on this thread and it's being spoiled by completely irrelevant bickering with no substantive points being made.(Not meaning to pick on you in particular, NosyNed. This is aimed at a lot of short content-free posts that appeared recently).For example: None of these post provided any useful data, any useful insights or any interesting arguments.JUST STOP IT! YOU'RE FUCKING UP MY THREAD! AND I PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO IT!MickThis message has been edited by mick, 11-30-2005 02:23 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 11-30-2005 02:25 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 11-30-2005 02:26 PM

Sorry, I missed this. Given me a day or so to read through the whole thread point by point. The substantive issue for me is if Provine can really be correct that drift does not exist. If it does not then my sentence would have to have been false.
I will express the second 1/2 graph displayed in terms of the first one. This is from Shipley's "Cause and Correlation in Biology" but what is "continuous" will always be in question given the updatable nature of tests for correct causality. This IS how I seperate biology and physics but whether genetic divergent diversity is seperated by the discrete difference in the graph that either comes around or not will not be possible as long as I continue to read the difference of Fisher and Wright from terms out of the graphs. Will has absolutely sided with Fisher. I am leaving that up to a posteriori data. I could make guesses as I go, but I prefer to try to stay a bit on the more rational side than Will Provine.I will also answer your post more directly where you responded to me later. The part about being correlated to parent/offspring ratios is pure me.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-30-2005 03:47 PM

Boo-fuckin'-hoo. YEC's like Faith don't substantially respond to points or bother to correct their misapprehensions unless you drill them with it. That doesn't seem to be something you're prepared to do.But, you know, if you want to go around in circles with her, be my guest. But try not to misrepresent my posts in this thread; they only appear "content-less" because you've only quoted the sections and posts that were not substantitive replies but simply my attempts to defend myself against misrepresentation and personal attack.Sort of like your entire post, in fact. The source of the thread degeneration is your opponent, not any of us. Threads are going to degenerate no matter what when a participant consistently responds to being told that the sky is blue with "what's that? The sky is pink? Thank you very much for agreeing."

Please read through my posts in this thread and tell me that I'm
"not prepared" to correct people's misapprehensions or to challenge creationists. I am just one of the few people here who respond to posts by people like Faith and Brad in a way that is similar to how I'd expect to have my own posts addressed by others.I just want people here to talk about phylogeography and crationism, and not whether Faith is stupid or crashfrog is uncivil...Mickin edit: if you look at the top of the page, you see a list of registered members who are logged in, and a list of "guests" (unregistered vistors who are just popping by). At the time of writing, there are 22 registered members, and 79 visitors. I have seen a situation where there are about 5 registered members, and 99 visitors. Those visitors are people who are interested in the EvC debate, and might be tempted by the title "the phylogeographic challenge to creationism"; but when they click on the link to this thread they find that half of it is pointless infighting between cliques, and there is no real debate going on at all.in edit, again: mind you, after 10,000 posts, I might be pretty grouchy as well...This message has been edited by mick, 11-30-2005 04:43 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 11-30-2005 04:47 PM

What an excellent point, Mick! Lets resume the topic!
What does phylogeographic mean? Can you break it down to me what has been discussed so far?

Can you give a reference (or a reference list) for Provine. You keep mentioning him but I haven't read any of his work.Mick

Faith, My answer is the same, you have no reason to claim NS reducing diversity is a block to evolution when mutation introduces it all the time.If a mutation introduces a deleterious or neutral genotype, then diversity still increases. Increasing diversity via mutation cannot be argued. It happens in every individual in every generation. Most of them are neutral, but no matter. This highlights the real shift in your argument. You are no longer talking about decreasing diversity, but the old chestnut, "there aren't any/enough beneficial mutations".Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You have to be careful in considering which point you are picking to make a measurement. Mam is implying the point of formation of the first embryonic cell. I think you are implying after a living birth. Of course, the worst mutations are screened out very early leaving a different proportion of sorts of mutations later on.If (as I've read may be the case for humans) half of fertilizations abort almost immediately (and we assume this is a genetic problem) then it is easy to say "most" are harmful without that making the tiniest bit of difference to the discussion here. (of course, the subtlties may be lost on some posters ).