Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extent of Mutational Capability
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 279 (792989)
10-18-2016 9:37 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Extent of Mutational Capability thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 45 of 279 (793120)
10-21-2016 7:18 AM


Moderator On Duty
I'll be moderating this thread. These are the ground rules.:
  • Please keep discussion civil and follow the Forum Guidelines.
  • Microevolution and macroevolution are now commonly used terms within biology. They weren't 30 years ago when I first caught whiff of this debate, and I don't know when the change happened, but they are now. See Wikipedia for detailed descriptions.
  • The term "kinds" has no precise definition, so it must be provided a definition for this thread or dropped from discussion.
  • "Ferenner" might be redneck for "foreigner", but not American. A hearty welcome to EvC goes out to CRR.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 61 of 279 (793154)
10-22-2016 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by CRR
10-21-2016 8:51 PM


Re: What is a "kind"?
Hi CRR,
The definition of kind *does* have to have a solid definition. It can be as complicated and messy as the definition of species, or it can be as simple as you like, or it can be anywhere in between, but it must have a clear and unambiguous definition. Without such a definition these claims from your Message 28 and Message 35 can't be discussed:
CRR in Message 28 writes:
However we have never observed evolution from one kind into another.
CRR in Message 35 writes:
Who claims that one kind can evolve into another? Evolutionists, that's who!
You *do* offer a definition:
The definition I favour is "those animals/plants that could interbreed immediately following creation". There has been much speciation and differentiation since then and it is often difficult to precisely define boundaries between kinds.
Here's a list of the issues I see with your definition. Some have already been noted:
  1. Your definition makes specific reference to creation, which isn't a concept with any scientific foundation. The underlying assumption in all the science threads is that discussion will have a scientific foundation. If you believe you can establish a scientific foundation for creation then you should propose another thread where you do that, then return to this one.
  2. Your definition is specific to sexual species. Do you want to extend the definition to include asexual species like bacteria?
  3. Your definition includes speciation within kinds, which means you accept that an original interbreeding population of a single kind could gradually become two or more populations that cannot interbreed with one another. This seems to make kind superfluous and accept evolution's view of speciation.
  4. Your definition is vague. For example, your definition doesn't exclude mammal as a kind, but an original mammal kind could have gradually become many, many different mammal species within the mammal kind and that would still fit within your definition. But it is unlikely that you agree that kind applies to such a high level of classification as mammal.
Others will break your definition down differently, and that's fine, I see no reason to fix on a single analysis. But I do think it necessary that kind be given a more precise definition and a more direct connection to the world that, as a purportedly scientific concept, it is required to have.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by CRR, posted 10-21-2016 8:51 PM CRR has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 81 of 279 (793215)
10-24-2016 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by CRR
10-23-2016 4:53 PM


Re: What is a "kind"?
Hi CRR,
This refers to my Message 45, and so I think you might have written it before you saw my Message 61:
CRR writes:
I have provided a definition of kind as per Percy's request Message 45 and in response to others. The definition I favour is "those animals/plants that could interbreed immediately following creation". You might not agree with it but you now have one.
I tried to describe a few of the problems with this definition in my Message 61, and HereBeDragons describes the most significant problem here in this paragraph from his Message 75:
herebedragons in Message 75 writes:
But Greg's question is essentially "are there genetic limits that prevent one kind of creature from becoming another kind?" So without a useful definition of "kind" it is pretty hard to really address that question. For example, are wolves and foxes different kinds? Well, lets see... were they able to interbreed immediately after the creation? How could you possibly determine that?
You need to provide a workable definition of kind. You say you think RAZD's definition is "workable," and a couple other people have endorsed it as well, but it still leaves open the same unanswered question, and the one I think most important: How do we recognize kinds today?
Edited by Admin, : Slight reformat.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CRR, posted 10-23-2016 4:53 PM CRR has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 182 of 279 (793657)
11-03-2016 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
11-03-2016 1:40 AM


Re: The Maths
PaulK writes:
You know, citing Walter ReMine is hardly going to prove your case. And I recognise "saintpaulscience" as ReMine's site and the claim of 1667 mutations as his assertion. ReMine's opinions are not accepted science.
I'll make this same point to CRR, that he can argue any position he likes regardless of any current scientific consensus and that he's encouraged to argue Walter ReMine's position here, but that he must bring the arguments into the thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2016 1:40 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 183 of 279 (793658)
11-03-2016 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by CRR
11-03-2016 3:32 AM


Re: The Maths
CRR writes:
You say you don't trust my source without looking at it; without evidence
Participants here are encouraged to make their case in their own words and use links only as references. It's actually in the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by CRR, posted 11-03-2016 3:32 AM CRR has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 201 of 279 (794239)
11-12-2016 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by CRR
11-12-2016 2:09 AM


Re: The Maths
CRR writes:
The paper was submitted previously to the journal Theoretical Population Biology, where renowned evolutionary geneticists Warren J. Ewens and James F. Crow reviewed it, along with Alexey Kondrashov and John Sanford. They all acknowledged this paper is essentially correct in all matters of substance. However, Ewens and Crow rejected it from publication on the grounds that it is not sufficiently new or different from what was known by themselves and some of their colleagues in the 1970s.
One of my roles as moderator is as fact checker. These aren't your words. They're the words of Walter J. Remine as quoted at Cost theory and the cost of substitutiona clarification at Creation Ministries International. From the Forum Guidelines:
    Remine goes on to say:
    quote:
    "However, they never communicated this knowledge to the greater scientific community, nor to the public at large. There were rare correct insights scattered sparsely in the literature, but those were incomplete, overwhelmed by confusion, and never communicated together in a coherent manner. This has all been very unfortunate, as there continues to be widespread misunderstanding within the scientific community regarding these important matters, even among those who have studied the cost literature for years. It is hoped that the clarifications presented in this paper, which are sound, will eventually reach the greater scientific community."Walter J. ReMine.
    Your task in this thread should be explain where lies the misunderstanding referred to by Remine, and why his objections are valid.

    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 200 by CRR, posted 11-12-2016 2:09 AM CRR has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024