|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If what you were saying was in any way coherent, it would presumably be a stupid lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Is this an example of (human) evolution? Obviously, by definition. But not a very interesting one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"This theory (evolution) has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless". - (the late) Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research. "What total crap Louis Bouroune talks" --- lots of other scientists (paraphrased).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's my understanding that mutations are a result of pure, blind chance. Am I mistaken? For once you are right about something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, agreed, me and evolutionists seem to all agree evolution is by pure luck and chance. What a stupid drooling retarded lie. Whom do you hope to deceive by telling it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It was my understanding that all parts of a genome are not equally prone to mutations. This is also true; why do you mention it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is really a version of microevolution because really this is all that happens to bring about new phenotypes characteristic of new populations -- the selection by one means or another of some proportion of the parent population, its reproductive isolation, either because the others have been killed off or by some other means, and then its increase in numbers. That's really all that ever goes on in "evolution" anyway. That's something you made up, remember?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh here we go again. Yes indeed. Once more you are making a trivial, obvious mistake.
No, this is the result of thinking about some known facts, it's not made up. I question your use of the word "thinking".
The old fashioned methods of domestic breeding are sufficient to make the point: to get a new phenotype you eliminate all the other possible phenotypes and their genotypes too of course. A lot of the work of breeding is preventing the mating of your breed with other breeds of the same animal so as not to reintroduce the alleles for other phenotypes, that would interfere with the purity of your breed. This is so fundamental there's no way to deny it: you get new phenotypes by getting rid of the competitive phenotypes and their genotypes. And the old fashioned breeder also didn't want any mutations because they would just bring in genetic material that does not exist in the pure breed, and that's what you don't want if you are developing a purebred animal. Apart from the fact that this is not usually how you get new phenotypes, it is obviously the case that natural processes are not intent on producing and then conserving a pure breed. The fact that (for example) the Dalmatian Club Of America wants to produce homogeneity and stasis in dalmatians does not prove that natural forces can do nothing but produce homogeneity and stasis. They can also produce diversity and change; so could the dalmatian guys if they wanted to. You might as well point to lapidaries polishing stones and deduce that there are no forces that can produce rough or jagged rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I was pointing out that all areas of a genome are not equally prone to mutations - That it's not "pure, blind chance". Some genome areas are more probable to mutate than others. Maybe call it "impure, blind chance"? Well, you'd have to ask Dredge what he means by the adjectives. But in general when we say that something is by chance we do not mean that all results are equiprobable. You are six times more likely to throw a 7 on two dice than a 2, but we still ascribe the results to chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I carefully said "old fashioned" breeding. The Scotch Fold, like the American Curl, is bred by crossing with non-fold/curl cats. The old-fashioned method was MOSTLY breeding only animals with the desired characteristics, which led to rapid genetic depletion. Cross breeding maintains the genetic variability. And today since it is recognized that genetic depletion IS the result of the old-fashioned methods, which lesds to genetic diseases, breeders avoid those methods even at the cost of the purity of their breed. Right, not even all the breeders do the thing which you want to make the paradigm for all evolutionary processes ever. This is a clue: I urge you to get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The essence of Faith's argument is to redefine evolution in a way that has never occurred to anyone before, nor likely will again. To avoid confusion I shall use the term Evolution to refer to Faith's definition, and evolution to refer to the conventional definition.
So, Evolution, according to Faith, consists entirely and exclusively of processes which produce homogeneity and eventually stasis in a population, as exemplified by the actions of breeders trying to maintain the purity of a breed of dog or cat. Clearly Evolution so defined must eventually come to a halt when it has eliminated all the genetic diversity in a population. It follows that the origin of a new trait, which might be the beginning of a new breed or even the first step towards a new species, is not Evolution --- indeed, is the very opposite of Evolution. And so the production of new species from old is not Evolution. (It is of course evolution). In Faith's own words:
If you add diversity after you have a new species as a result of evolution/selection/reduction of genetic diversity, you simply lose your species. It's no longer the same species. You may get something else, even another species eventually, but you'll have lost the species originally selected. This isn't evolution." [By which she means that it isn't Evolution] So, for example, the evolution of humans from australopithecenes is not Evolution, and it would be true --- by definition! --- to say that the one did not Evolve from the other. Of course, what creationists want to prove is that the one did not evolve from the other, and Faith's argument does not even begin to touch on this question. But thanks to her definition of Evolve, she can prove something which is pronounced the same as the thing creationists want to prove. Imagine a man who wants to prove that Oswald didn't assassinate Kennedy. After many long months wrestling with the evidence and getting nowhere, a heaven-sent argument occurs to him. He will take the assassination of Julius Caesar to be so paradigmatic of assassination as to be definitional of it. To be Assassinated, he declares, is to be stabbed to death in the Roman Senate House in 44 BC. He can now prove that Oswald did not and could not have Assassinated Kennedy. Of course, he is not a step nearer proving that Oswald didn't assassinate Kennedy, which was his original goal, but he can prove that Oswald didn't Assassinate Kennedy, which is pronounced the same as the thing he originally wanted to prove.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No one has differed that evolution is by CHANCE so I say its accepted definition by all, is LUCK or if you like CHANCE Whom do you hope to deceive by drooling out this stupid lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Ok, please give me a brief explanation of how you think the process of antibiotic reistance works. How it works depends on the antibiotic and the mechanism. If you mean how does it evolve, mutations for resistance arise in the population and spread through it by natural selection and lateral gene transfer. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
He says that when he doesn't have an Adequate reply. I have gotten it several times. No, I say that when someone is making stuff up and I wish them to stop. If you were smarter you could have figured that out for yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Evolutionists, having hijacked the science of biology, like to think they own it and have re-defined it in their own image. But the truth is, ToE will only ever be an irrelevant little subset of real biology. Biologists disagree with you. I have to think they know more about biology than you do, what with them being biologists and you being almost entirely ignorant of biology. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024