Summations Only

Why would it make further evolution impossible? You may say that the origin of new variation is "not evolution", but do you actually deny that this occurs? If not, then populations are always being supplied with fresh variation on which the process that you think of as "evolution as such" can act.Let's take a worked example. Let lower-case letters stand for genes and subscripts attached to those letters for alleles. Let us begin with a population P with an assortment of alleles in its gene pool which we will write asP = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁, f₂}Now let a subpopulation of P get swept out to sea and deposited on an island, giving us population Q. Since you like the founder effect, let's suppose that the founders of Q have no examples of f₂.P = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁, f₂}
Q = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁}Note that this does not make Q a new variety, since there is no animal in Q that couldn't be found in P.Now let a mutation produce a new allele b₂ in Q. It is neutral and does not achieve fixation but fluctuates in the gene pool.P = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁, f₂}
Q = {a₁, b₁, b₂, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁}Now there are some members of Q that look different from anything in P, but by no means all.Now let a mutation a₂ arise in Q ...P = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁, f₂}
Q = {a₁, a₂, b₁, b₂, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁}... which is favored by natural selection and is fixed in the population ...P = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁, f₂}
Q = {a₂, b₁, b₂, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁}Now we have one trait which allows us to distinguish P from Q. There is no reason why the same thing shouldn't happen to gene c: an allele c₂ arises in Q ...P = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁, f₂}
Q = {a₂, b₁, b₂, c₁, c₂, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁}... and being better suited to the island, displaces c₁ ...P = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁, f₂}
Q = {a₂, b₁, b₂, c₂, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁}Then let a new allele e₃ be produced ...P = {a₁, b₁, c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, f₁, f₂}
Q = {a₂, b₁, b₂, c₂, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, e₃, f₁}Well, let's stop the music there for now. We now have two traits in which P and Q do not overlap, which allow us to identify them as distinct varieties. The net genetic diversity of P has not decreased. The net genetic diversity of Q has slightly increased. The net genetic diversity of P + Q has increased rather more. And, note this, there is no particular reason why the sort of processes described here should stop. They can continue. P and Q can become still more disparate. We are not running out of anything. And this remains true even if you decide that some parts of this process are to be called "not evolution" and other parts are to be called "active evolution" or "evolution as such".

I suppose you could leave EvC to go pursue this mighty battle elsewhere but for five things:1. You probably can't find a creationist site that would allow such a discussion,H. I'd miss you, Tangle,ix. Even if there are only a few real flesh and blood bots lurking in don't you think they deserve the benefit of your experience and knowledge rather than leaving them to the head-exploding inanities of the loonies?h. I forget what the last two things are, but they are important and you would find them very convincing.So, there. I win. EvC stays. You stay. The struggle continues.

Not with what you claimed I agreed with. No, there is no NEW variation in anything I've said, that's your idea and I've repeatedly said that even if it occurs it has to be subjected to selection to get a new subspecies. Evolution DOES halt because there is a built-in variability that comes to a natural end as new phenotypes come to characterize a new subpopulation. Increases in genetic diversity are really just the reincorporation of formerly split-off individuals, not an overall increase, but even allowing you mutations for the sake of argument, they still have to be cut down to get a new subspecies, you still end up at the point where evolution can't continue for loss of genetic diversity. The ToE hallucinates novel genetic increases, but since they don't exist in reality, evolution is kept going as long as the built-in genetic diversity is not completely depleted by the selection or subtractive processes which include population splits. When it is depleted evolution comes to a natural halt, quite often with a highly genetically depleted subspecies that has many fixed loci. No it isn't. Have done so many many times. New gene frequencies in new daughter population bring out new phenotypes at the cost of the loss of competing genetic material for other phenotypes = reduction in genetic diversity. Reduction in genetic diversity is necessary for this to occur, necessary, that is, for evolution to occur. Adding genetic diversity interferes with this necessary loss of genetic diversity, thus interfering with the production of new phenotypes, thus interfering with evolution. SO simple really. Didn't I just say it happens in nature? The variation selection works on is built in. Selection (which includes isolation of daughter population) is the driving factor. Speciation is not at all a necessary factor in my argument. Reduction in genetic diversity occurs wherever evolution is occurring, whether the misnamed condition called Speciation occurs or not.

You are certainly the champion wen it comes to word magic flimflam aren't you? Writing your own personal ToE I think. You get what appears to be a novel trait, that is conserved carefully by breeding with many different breeds so that genetic diversity remains high, although no other traits but the chosen trait are conserved and otherwise all you have is motley crews with the single chosen trait.What I'm describing is what Darwin had in mind and what hs defined the ToE since then: the changes that are brought about by microevolution. You will never get your conserved trait by natural evolution, it has to be managed every step of the way, but microevolution is natural and occurs in the wild without any interference, and Darwin was right that it operates along the same lines as the breeding methods he himself used, the breeding of a chosen trait by eliminating competing traits, which naturally produces a whole new kind of animal because you don't get just one selected trait that way, you get a whole constellation of traits and a new breed. LOTS OF NEW TRAITS, far from "no traits." THAT is evolution as Darwin understood it and as it's been understood all along since Darwin, and what you are talking about will never get you anything but motley beasts with curled ears or whatever the chosen anomaly happens to be. Never a new subspecies, never anything that could even pretend to be the springboard for macroevolution, which is pretended for microevolution even if wrongly.And the evolution of the large heads of the lixards on Pod Mrcaru is not evolution? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Not with what you claimed I agreed with.

---

If you follow a quote with "Yes" you are obviously agreeing with the quote. Denying that - as you are - seems absurd.

quote:

---

No, there is no NEW variation in anything I've said

---

You were talking about it. You said that it "adds genetic material" - and I pointed out that that is how new variation did drive evolution.

quote:

---

The ToE hallucinates novel genetic increases, but since they don't exist in reality,

---

Do we need to go over the examples - like the Scottish fold cat - AGAIN ? Proven facts are not hallucinations.

quote:

---

Adding genetic diversity interferes with this necessary loss of genetic diversity, thus interfering with the production of new phenotypes, thus interfering with evolution. SO simple really.

---

In other words it contradicts your ideas if how evolution works. but since we see new traits being brought into existence by mutation we know that your ideas are wrong.

quote:

---

Speciation is not at all a necessary factor in my argument. Reduction in genetic diversity occurs wherever evolution is occurring, whether the misnamed condition called Speciation occurs or not.

---

However, as I keep pointing out, your argument gives us strong reasons to think that human breeding of animals should result in your version of speciation. Especially in those breeds of dog which suffer genetic problems from excessive inbreeding. And it doesn't. That is evidence against your idea.

OK, that's fine. As long as you acknowledge that during passive evolution genetic diversity is gained we're on the same page. Of course, this does mean your argument about running out of genetic variation fails, but that's OK, right? Right, and then gaining it back again. OK, I have no problem with this, as I said. I'll use words your way if you want. If we agree that diversity goes up, then goes down, then goes up, then goes down etc then we're basically talking about the same things. Exactly. Change. Exactly. Random changes within a population have to be selected before we can say we have evolution in the sense that Darwin was talking about. The random changes in the population are important, right? Otherwise there is no selection! Which would be true, as Fisher notes, if it weren't for those random changes in a population that increases genetic diversity OF NECESSITY, which ends up making further evolution possible.If you want to argue against some process that Darwin and Fisher and Hamilton rejected, you can do. Fisher's famous treatise explicitly rejects alternative evolutionary models. One model is as you described. No variations but from recombination. He showed mathematically it would run out of steam pretty quickly despite the huge number of possible ways to recombine existant genetic material. Some alleles get lost by chance or by selective forces meaning eventually changes stop really happening.But evolution as described by evolutionary biologists does not result NECESSARILY in a loss of diversity. 'In The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection', 1930 from where I drew those earlier quotes, Fisher provides the maths that shows how much mutation and how much selection is needed to avoid eventual complete loss of genetic diversity. That book is not irrelevant. It's a much more important book than 'On the Origin of Species' is as far as laying out the framework for evolution. Darwin argued it was plausible and consistent and coherent. Fisher proved it was possible.That gets us to 80 years ago. Your move, Faith.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm just trying to get you to explain what you mean by the sentence'There is science in creationism'Do you mean the same as saying'There is investigation in creationism'?Furthermore, are you using abductive reasoning or not? First you said deductive, then you said it was obvious that you were using abductive reasoning now you are telling me that you have no testing method for your abductive reasoning or that you aren't using abductive reasoning?I'm confused about what you are trying communicate. I think it's because you reject the thesis that words have meanings. You'll need to phrase that by reality, not by words. How can I show what 'science' is in relationship to an 'investigation' if I don't know or can't rely on, the meaning of those words? It's an incoherent challenge that I have therefore no obligation to consider.Instead, I ask what you mean when you say"There is science in creationism"What do you mean by 'science', what do you mean by 'creationism' how is the relationship between the science you propose could be best communicating with the preposition 'in'. In short, what are you trying to communicate to me, when you use those words? You are using words so that you can communicate, I think. So I'm confused as to why you are finding it so burdensome to explain what you mean by them.Unless you really are just saying 'words are meaningless' or 'science in creationism' is meaningless. Science is a word with meaning. Meanings are decided by people. Well yes. But Astrology isn't about biology. It's about social matters. They exist just as obviously as design does. Absolutely.
The question is, should we humans who are speaking English to one another, call what Newton did with regards to the laws of motion (derive them through educated guesses, logic and observation), 'science'? It's up to you. I think we should. Most other people thing we should. It seems to me, that if the intent of language is to communicate to other people that unless we have very good reason not to, we should err on the side of common usage.Do you have a very good reason to not call Newtonian Mechanics, science? I can't observe Intelligent Design, sorry. Your argument fails from the outset if it requires this kind of direct observation. I look, I do not see Intelligent Design. The test has failed replication. The proposition is rejected. So you say, let us dispense with words as much as possible I will break down your argument denoting concepts with letters rather than words. They will mean nothing but what we can establish through the logic. No word games.things exist (Message 21)
Some things have cP (Message 24)
cP exists because of d (Message 41)
d is best explained by der (Message 121)
some der are i
through induction, all der are i
i is not n (Message 103)Is that right? No word games here, I'm just piecing together the form of your argument as best as I understand it in the most persuasive form I could.There are problems all over the place here, such as the tension in the idea that all known der have d and cP therefore are best explained by der. We end up with an infinite regress that can only be resolved with the special pleading argument at the end that is not based on the original induction. If i is not n, it is excepted from the need to be explained in terms of another der, I suppose. Thus, special pleading.

While Newton developed his laws by reasoning he also took further steps to test that reasoning and did so by turning to an early example of multi-disciplinary peer review.

quote:

---

To test his hypothesis of universal gravitation, Newton wrote Flamsteed to ask if Saturn had been observed to slow down upon passing Jupiter. The surprised Flamsteed replied that an effect had indeed been observed, and it was closely predicted by the calculations Newton had provided. Newton's equations were further confirmed by observing the shape of the Earth to be oblate spheroidal, as Newton claimed it should be, rather than prolate spheroidal, as claimed by the Cartesians. Newton's equations also described the motion of Moon by successive approximations, and correctly predicted the return of Halley's Comet. Newton also correctly formulated and solved the first ever problem in the calculus of variations which involved finding the surface of revolution which would give minimum resistance to flow (assuming a specific drag law).

---

From hereHe went yet one step further and established a method, a process, a procedure, a mechanism or thingamabob to be used.

quote:

---

Newton presented his methodology as a set of four rules for scientific reasoning. These rules were stated in the Principia and proposed that (1) we are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances, (2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes, (3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and (4) propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.

---

And it is those latter steps, a method, a process, a procedure, a mechanism or thingamabob to be used and the independent testing and verification that we keep asking for and that Creationists simply have not yet provided.Not Ever!

That is an interesting collection of words. The funniest, I think, come near the beginning, where you complain that I am "writing [my] own personal ToE". Which is manifestly what you've been doing, with hilarious effect, for years. What I'm writing is the theory of evolution as upheld by, y'know, all scientists everywhere, the one in which variation is not only eliminated, but also arises and may be conserved and accumulated by artificial or natural selection. The theory described by Darwin when he wrote such things as:* "It would be a most extraordinary fact if no variations had ever occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful to man."* "Lapse of time is only so far important, and its importance in this respect is great, that it gives a better chance of beneficial variations arising and of their being selected, accumulated, and fixed."* "The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to have made for himself useful breeds."* "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."* "The variations [...] are not supposed all to appear simultaneously, but often after long intervals of time."* "Natural selection [...] only takes advantage of such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature."* "Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations."* "One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal's or plant's own good, but to man's use or fancy. Some variations useful to him have probably arisen suddenly, or by one step."* "Dissimilar variations arise under conditions which appear to be nearly uniform."* "The paramount importance of these considerations in explaining the immense amount of variation which pigeons have undergone, will likewise be obvious when we treat of selection."* "[Man] can never act by selection, excepting on variations which are first given to him in some slight degree by nature."* "Variations manifestly useful or pleasing to man appear only occasionally."* "Where many species of a genus have been formed through variation, circumstances have been favourable for variation; and hence we might expect that the circumstances would generally still be favourable to variation."* "Can it then be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations?"* "[Natural Selection] implies only the preservation of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life."* "A large number of individuals, by giving a better chance within any given period for the appearance of profitable variations, will compensate for a lesser amount of variability in each individual, and is, I believe, a highly important element of success."* "No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur."* "It seems to me, that species have been produced by ordinary generation: old forms having been supplanted by new and improved forms of life, the products of variation and the survival of the fittest."* "The more complex organs and instincts have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations."* "Some authors have maintained that the amount of variation in our domestic productions is soon reached, and can never afterward be exceeded. It would be somewhat rash to assert that the limit has been attained in any one case; for almost all our animals and plants have been greatly improved in many ways within a recent period; and this implies variation. It would be equally rash to assert that characters now increased to their utmost limit, could not, after remaining fixed for many centuries, again vary under new conditions of life."* "No case is on record of a variable organism ceasing to vary under cultivation. Our oldest cultivated plants, such as wheat, still yield new varieties."* "It cannot be proved that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited quantity."You got that? According to Darwin, because there is an "innate tendency to new variations", therefore variations arise, they appear, they occur in successive generations; this precedes artificial selection: "the individual differences given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur" and similarly "natural selection [...] only takes advantage of such variations as arise"; these variations are "added up" and "accumulated"; this process produces species "formed through variation"; it would be "rash" to assert, and "cannot be proved" that at some point the variations will stop arising; and, finally, "the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected [...] by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations", so that for example this process of variation and selection is capable of producing, for example,"a perfect and complex eye":* "Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."This is the theory of evolution. This is what I am talking about, what Darwin was talking about, what all scientists are talking about, what everyone is talking about except you with your own private little theory of evolution which is damn all like everyone else's, and which is contrary to observation and fails to account for the facts.And goddammit, Faith, why didn't you read what Darwin wrote before lecturing us all on what he wrote? It's not like his ideas are a big secret. His book is right here on the internet, where you can read all the passages I've cited and a good deal more. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Removed in favor of Dr. Adequate's covering of the same ground in much greater detail.Edited by NoNukes, : Superfluous. No need to dogpile.

I'm not ignoring anything. Natural Selection is what has always been understood to be what MAKES THE CHANGES that we know of as evolution. It has to have something to work on but that is not what I'm defining at the moment, if you wouldn't mind just following the argument and cutting out all the distracting irrelevant side issues. Oh I'm sure you could come up with any number of irrelevant distractions. Blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa. I have no interest in all the side issues Darwin pursued. It has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make here. I could not care less about all of this. Go ahead, be right about this completely irrelevant side issue, who cares. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK. There is something that reduces genetic diversity. So what?

Yes, let us deal with the real issues.As Dr Adequate and Modulous and NoNukes have demonstrated, evolutionary theory has, ever since Darwin, been depicted as the interplay of two forces. One introducing new variations and one culling them.You wish to replace this with your own idea, based on an idealised idea of what animal breeders do. Why should we regard your version of evolution as the correct one, when it is not even wholly accurate when it comes to animal breeders ?Why should we throw out a basic part of evolutionary theory - a part needed for the theory to work just because you think it can't work - for reasons you have never satisfactorily explained ?Edited by PaulK, : Credit was due

THAT IS THE MOST BRITISH THING EVER.

Your comments about something that is not the theory of evolution are irrelevant. But what makes you look like a buffoon is claiming that your ideas are the same as Darwin's when faced with the text from Darwin's work. Can you at least stop doing that?Further, if you don't intend to talk about the theory of evolution, then you cannot establish that it is incorrect. We all agree that your proposition describes something that does not work. We can find that expressed in Darwin's work. We've already done that. The problem is that by never getting beyond your point, you fail to address why the theory of evolution is wrong. Your current argument is not even being disputed. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.