|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Looks to me like your chart of trilobites demonstrates what I said
no, look at it again. some go extinct earlier, and some come about later. like i said, neither representation is accurate. You are mixing the models again. There is no "earlier" or "later" in my model, they all lived at the same time and died in the same event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Actually, knowing where the hands go is more what a creationist would get right than an evolutionist. Based on what evidence and hypothesis? That hands appeared suddenly in the jigsaw record? Really? by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In spite of this being factually wrong wishful thinking totally unsupported by any evidence, you would still have intermediate forms in those small isolated populations over several generations .... and there is still no evidence of this. Why don't you tell me what you DO find so I can see how it isn't what you say it should be. And I haven't seen anything I'd call "evidence" for all the assertions on your side of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
All the same big event, huh? Would you care to speculate as to why no crab fossil has ever been found in the same rock as a trilobite fossil? No perch in the same rock as a eurypterid? No dimetrodons with dinosaurs? Never, in any of those cases?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
And no humans with any of those old layers?
Trying to put the global flood back several hundred million years and claiming that all fossils and marine deposits come from that single flood reveals the emptiness and the desperation of the creationist claims. Might just as well claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Oh, wait. They do that too. Never mind.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm just talking about what it takes to get a new variety/race/breed.
Yes, but the point that you're arguing is the formation of a wide range of new species from a single pair of ark passengers possessing very great genetic variability. How long does that take? I guess you want a wild estimate? A thousand years to get the whole range perhaps? But "new species" or varieties should form a lot faster than that. First the pair would produce offspring, the offspring would produce offspring, there would be different variations among all those offspring already, meaning different phenotypes, then you get more offspring from the original pair and from the offspring of each generation and you could have a few hundred individuals in just a few generations of this, a pretty motley crew at this stage I would expect, lots of individual variation. Then some of them move away from the parent population, maybe three or four such groups, forming daughter populations, and they all keep producing offspring, and maybe you get hundreds of those in each subpopulation after a few generations too. You're going to have a lot of phenotypic variety in individuals in those groups, too, but over time a reproductively isolated subgroup is going to start to form its own phenotypic appearance that differs from the other groups and from the original population. The farther away they move from each other, ensuring reproductive isolation from each other, the more each population will develop its own characteristics. Would there be anything like a stage you could identify as transitional in all that? People here seem to think there would be but as I think about how at first you're going to get a lot of different individual phenotypes in any new population the more I think it's really not all that certain that any of them would be clearly transitional between the original and the ultimate population. If you confined a motley bunch of alley cats to an island where they inbred for many generations, wouldn't they go through stages of producing all kinds of different individuals before maybe after many many many generations they might start to look more alike than different and become an actual variety or race of cats? Which of the many different individuals in the intermediate stages would you pick as the transitional type? So your question was How long? To get a new "species" which I call a variety a few hundred years.
By concentrating only on variation within a single species and how long that takes, you are avoiding the question that your position (that all related species originated from one pair of animals on the ark, a "basic created kind" in standard creationist parlance), since your position does require multiple speciation events. Not if speciation merely means the group doesn't breed with other populations, since there are many reasons for that. Lions CAN breed with tigers but normally don't, but both are "species" as usually understood aren't they?
And by misrepresenting the time needed to produce variation within a species as being the same as the time needed for speciation to occur, you are dead wrong. I doubt it.
The standard creationist claim of "basic created kinds" is that the number of animals on Noah's Ark can be very greatly reduced if it carried single pairs representing "basic created kinds", such that those individuals carried a great amount of genetic variability pre-loaded in them, and that all the species within each "basic created kind" then descended from those representative breeding pairs. Thus, there would be a "basic canid kind" from which wolves, foxes, dingos, coyotes, and dogs descended. And there would be a "basic feline kind" from which all cats descended, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, panthers, pumas, and tabbies. Yes, that's the basic idea.
What happens when you cross a dog with a wolf? You get offspring which I believe are fertile. In fact, there are breeders who do just that; there's a market for it. But then from biological research we find that there's not that much genetic difference between dogs and wolves; there simply have not been enough generations (AKA time) that has passed since we domesticated wolves and started breeding them. What is your point here? While I believe all it takes is a pair on the ark to get all the variety we see today of any given species, I try not to be too strict about exactly what that original pair would have been like.
What happens when you cross a house cat with a tiger? Of course, we would employ artifical insemination or petri dish techniques for that experiment so that no animals would have been harmed. What happens? I'm willing to bet that house cats and tigers are not interfertile, that they cannot produce any offspring. Clearly, too many generations (ie, time) have passed since they diverged from each other. You can cross a lion and a tiger to produce a hybrid, a liger, which I believe to be sterile, so much less time (AKA generations) has passed since they nothing will happen, because they had diverged from each other more recently than they had from house cats. Again I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Whether producing offspring is possible between any given cat groups I don't consider to be definitive of what a cat is. They all descended from the cats on the ark and wherever there was great genetic divergence between different groups, yes, they could lose the ability to breed with other populations. But they are still the same species. The criterion of loss of ability to interbreed is artificial.
There can be some room to argue that dogs and wolves are just variations within the same species, but it is unavoidably clear that house cats, lions, and tiger are different species. No it isn't. But I don't see any need to decide these things.
You have deal with speciation and how long that takes to happen. I figure speciation, the development of inability to interbreed with former population, is simply going to happen after many generations of genetic divergence from the other groups, and I can't think that the amount of time is any kind of indicator of that. It would depend on accidental circumstances.
But you have forgotten the Bible! You keep insisting that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and is so authoritative that they must supersede reality itself. Let's be fair now. I assume reality conforms to the Bible whether anyone can see it or not.
Well, that must also include the ages given by the chronologies in the Bible, since that is the basis for your rejection of an old earth. OK, anybody can play the Ussher Game. A local creationist published somebody's study which traced through the begots and the reigns of the various kings to get a time-line with dates relative to the Creation. Then he got to a historical event that we have a date for and used that to tie his AC ("After Creation") dates with our Anno Domini system (AKA "Common Era"). He came up with Creation occurring in 4185 BCE, not quite 500 years earlier than the Jewish Calendar would have it. But even if we couldn't fix the date of Creation according to our system, that wouldn't matter. Because what does matter is that we can fix the date of the Flood relative to Creation. The Flood happened in 1656 AC ("After Creation"), in 2529 BCE to us (but that doesn't matter). Those "original basic created kinds" were created at the time of Creation, and with all their great genetic variability. Then 1656 years later, single pairs got onto the Ark. The problem is, as you yourself described, Faith, they would have already spent all that genetic variability long before the Ark. Oh not ALL. They would have lost some heterozygosity due to death (which of course was not part of the original plan), the percentage of homozygosity would have been higher, more fixed loci for some traits, but if there was say 80% heterozygosity at Creation, there could still have been 50% on the ark. Or let's say only 30%. But today, in humans at least, there is only 7%. Yes I can find the reference if necessary. It's heterozygosity that provides the genetic variability. Even 30% on the ark would be enormous genetic variability compared to today's 7%, and we still have a lot of genetic variability left in us, right?
The individuals representing those "basic created kinds" would have had no more genetic variability left than extant species have now. Nope. See above.
You haven't thought this through, have you? Oh many many times. And I've argued it here many times before as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All the same big event, huh? Would you care to speculate as to why no crab fossil has ever been found in the same rock as a trilobite fossil? No perch in the same rock as a eurypterid? No dimetrodons with dinosaurs? Never, in any of those cases? Something to do with the principles of hydraulic sorting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Something to do with the principles of hydraulic sorting. Hydraulic sorting is something that creationists made up out of desperation to try to explain hundreds of millions of years of natural deposition with a single event--because they just had to make that evidence go away. For many reasons their explanations simply don't work, but creationists don't let real-world evidence stand in the way of their beliefs. Red Queen: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Faith, you have the Red Queen beat hands down.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Clever hydraulic sorting, I guess. Crabs are shaped a lot like trilobites. Dimetrodons are shaped a lot like triceratopses. And tabulate and scleratinian corals both grew on sea floors, never got detached from them to get "sorted," and still never get found in the same rocks. Amazing, ain't it!
"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As far as I know nothing I've been saying has anything whatever to do with that chart or anything else you've said. My reference is population genetics and my own often-argued position on these things.
You are avoiding the question! Why do you emphasize "variation within a kind"? The implication is that that disagrees with evolution. Why do you think that? Well, let me try to sort this out. You think the KIND keeps changing until it could eventually be called another Kind? No? Isn't that what the ToE implies? I'm trying to say that the genome of any given Kind can't change, that all the change, all the variation we see of cats and dogs and whatnot, is all confined within the limits of the genome for the Kind and it cannot produce anything but what's in that genome. There's a lot of genetic variability in that genome, or there was originally. After six thousand years of death some Kinds don't have a lot left. I personally believe that junk DNA is a record of all that death. Even mutations can only change within the structure of the genome, replacing segments of DNA with other sequences, usually to the detriment of the organism, but even assuming it sometimes produced something viable it could still only be within the template determined by the genome. That's the genetic boundary of the Kind. And otherwise I argue that the processes of evolution that form new varieties, at least where this comes about by the splitting of populations into daughter populations, tends toward the LOSS of genetic variability or diversity, so that any series of population splits will create interesting new variations or phenotypes BUT at the ssame time with the loss of genetic diversity. Since that is the trend brought about BY evolution through these processes, you can see that ultimately there will be a point where no further evolution or variation is possible. Which is the opposite direction from what the ToE postulates and needs. SO; genetically you can't get variation beyond the limits determined by the genome, and phenotypically you are always going to be spending genetic variability as you develop new breeds, variations, races, or "species."
Again:
DWise1 writes: quote:But every species belongs to its original kind -- cats are still cats, and dogs are dogs. So how is that supposed to refute evolution? Unless the author believed that evolution requires that a dog could give birth to a cat or vice versa. Is that what you believe? Or at least along the lines of how you believe that evolution is said to work? No I believe evolutionists think that variation is openended, and that the genome can be altered by mutations, that you can go on getting variations in phenotypes indefinitely. "What's to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution?" is the nave question asked all the time here. I think evolutionists have simply not reckoned with the actuality that when you get new phenotypes, certainly through the reduction in numbers of individuals, you are going to get a reduction in genetic diversity. Some even think gene flow adds genetic diversity, but all it does is move some genes (alleles) around. They have this unexamined belief that phenotypic variation implies an increase in genetic variability. When it is shown to them that actually you are getting a decrease in genetic variability they then answer that mutations will save the day. But mutations mostly just change an existing sequence of the DNA into another sequence, they do not change the structure of the genome, and besides, even if mutations did provide viable genetic possibilities, they would only be subject to the same processes of reduction in the formation of new phenotypes anyway. . Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Why don't you tell me what you DO find so I can see how it isn't what you say it should be. You talked about lions and the "cat kind" ... and one of the questions is where you draw your arbitrary mythical "kind" line. Feliformia - Wikipedia
quote: Note that Family Prionodontidae is not shown on this cladogram for some unstated reason. Intermediates\transitionals galore. But there are also shared characteristics that show development and evolution from the early forms to the extinct and current forms. None of them showing significant evolution (speciations) in the last 4500 years, with the families being established over 26 million years ago. And that is a simplified summary of the paleontological data that is known. Edited by RAZD, : subt Edited by RAZD, : wordby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
RAZD, you're not playing fair!
You're posting data. Now Faith is going to have to make up another tall-tale to explain it all away. Bad RAZD!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
But mutations mostly just change an existing sequence of the DNA into another sequence, they do not change the structure of the genome These two thing are synonymous. Changing the "sequence of DNA" is changing the genome or genetic information of an organism. It is the same thing. Mutations create new genetic information from existing DNA by modifying the sequence of already existing nucleotides and/or by changing one nucleotide into another (point mutations, insertions and deletions).
, even if mutations did provide viable genetic possibilities, they would only be subject to the same processes of reduction in the formation of new phenotypes anyway. . How do new phenotypes reduce the effects of mutation on gamete DNA? Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why do you NEED to mention the person's knowledge? Did you know that a lunatic in an asylum can state a correct thing about genetics? Did you know an expert in genetics can state an incorrect thing about genetics? As long as a person states something sound, that is all that counts, which means that in debate, you actually have to address what was said, rather than saying something about the person's character, which is either ad hominem or an ad hominem allusion. In debate, to appeal to scientific knowledge indirectly, is an appeal to authority. This is ultimately your argument, though it is not stated explicitly. You state her lack of knowledge in order to prove your own, as though this settles something. Please be aware, I have not read her argument, nor yours, I have only highlighted your extremely basic logical error. Go back and ACTUALLY ADDRESS something she said or do not speak at all. When I pointed out that she doesn't know anything about genetics, it was obviously implied that the specific things she'd just been saying about genetics were wrong. I am surprised that it is necessary to explain this to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can say you're wrong too. You have an obligation to say what I'm wrong about. Just saying I'm wrong is an empty accusation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024