|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hey, a lot of creationists claim that scientific laws only came to effect after the so-called Fall. That's true. However creationists who pick on the second law of thermodynamics as an example are quite easily shown to be deluded by something other than the Bible which itself describes events that require a working second law Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you are talking about? And why would events requiring a working second law be a problem in the Bible?, which is what you seem to be implying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Breeding is a way of illustrating the essential effects of selection. Other factors unnecessarily complicate the point, introduce elements that only slow down the ultimate effects of selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Accuracy ISN'T my intent; my intent is to present the most salient feature that defines the process of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
in other words you picked a poor example because it supported your opinion. It is hardly "bias" to point that out or disagree. Indeed it is bias, aimed at obscuring the point that ultimately evolution in the wild must eventually run out of genetic diversity just as traditional domestic breeding also does, through the inevitable series of selection processes, both natural selection and random selection by migration. Side trips that create hybrid zones and reintroduce gene flow, as well as mutations that are assumed to reverse the losses but couldn't possibly,* just distract from and obscure the ultimate effect. ==========================*if only because they don't occur frequently enough for that purpose, let alone the fact that most of them are not beneficial anyway, even if there is an occasional beneficial one which I strongly dispute, Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh yes it is. Shall we do a few rounds of no-it-isn't-yes-it-is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It could be fun to try to do this experiment except I didn't intend my model to be anything other than evidence that there could BE another model, since you seemed to be saying the ToE is all there is. There are probably many other points I'd eventually add to mine, which was pretty much off the top of my head.
I'm not completely sure what your project is trying to do. You want to find the host of this teleomorph, which is related to the fungus that eats beet leaves though it doesn't eat beet leaves itself. Presumably your ultimate aim is to stop the asexual fungus from eating the beet leaves, but how knowing the habits of this sexually reproducing type will help with that, since it doesn't eat beet leaves, is escaping me. And I can't imagine how the ToE would give you a lead on this either. I suppose I'd start by looking for other hosts that have the most in common with beet leaves, genetically perhaps or possibly by other features. I don't think it's clear enough what I'm trying to accomplish however. If anything more comes to me I'll post it later. Second thought: I need to understand better what this creature really is. It has both sexual and asexual forms, but apparently intimately genetically related? So a start at the project could be investigating its reproductive habits more closely? None of this so far suggests anything crucially about your ToE model or mine either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So we're looking for the teleomorph of this beet-leaf-eating fungus?
Why? I'm glad someone else will also be thinking about this. Yahoo!
There is no need to invoke the theory of evolution for common sense predictions. That's certainly what I'd expect. HBD thinks otherwise. I guess we'll find out what he has in mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have no reason at all to bring in anything from my model. As CRR said this is a practical matter. What you are doing is setting up some kind of impossible situation even if you don't mean to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your childish games make debate here a nightmare. Maybe that's your intention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Since apparently all you want to do is find some way to prove my thrown-together model isn't usable in its present form (which can't be tested under these circumstances anyway), and you are giving me a test in a field you've had experience in for years, which would overcome any problems with YOUR model, I'm bowing out of this set-up. I would like to see how your model operates if you have the time. And if CRR stays in the game, his views too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Plants didn't die, they were eaten.
There was no entropy before the Fall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Bible describes God as resting after his efforts in creation. The connection is explicit. I know it is popular to assume that God's store of energy is infinite and is never replenished, but that is not what the Bible says. Really? Because it says He rested??? But as CRR said, the Sabbath was made for man. God doesn't need anything, not rest, not Replenishing, nothing. Sometimes scripture describes Him in human terms to make it easier to relate to Him, but the overall portrait of God is of infinite and unwavering power, never needing anything, never suffering loss, just infinitely giving and loving.
Mal 3:6 writes: For I am the LORD, I change not; Acts 17:25 writes:
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When creationists state that macroevolution does not occur, what are they saying does not occur? Well, what I say is that genetic change stops at the boundary of the Kind when you run out of genetic diversity in the genome. Purebreeds are the model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Even in purebreds there are new mutations that emerge in every individual in every generation which increases genetic diversity. Is this macroevolution? Evolution is phenotypic change in a population at least and MACRO evolution would be change beyond the Kind. And your mutations in a purebred are either superfluous or detrimental. People want to preserve their breeds, they don't want more change. In any case in order to GET more change you'd need a lot more than a few mutations. You need them in the sex cells and you have to get them selected, they have to become characteristic of a new breed or population, and for that to happen means you have to lose competing traits. You don't get evolution without a cost. And at the rate implied by this scenario there is absolutely no way you could ever get evolution past the Kind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The fact that it takes reduction of genetic diversity for evolution to occur at all, meaning to get a new population with new characteristics, is not recognized in the ToE. People just go on and on dementedly talking about how microevolution just seques into macroevolution without a hitch, without recognizing that to get a new species requires the loss of all competing alleles. You keep theorizing about how more genetic diversity can be produced so that macroevolution can occur, but
1) this is NOT the ToE which thinks there's no stopping point at all, and 2) you couldn't get enough useful change in thousands of years to begin to suggest a transition from micro to macro. All mutations do is replace an allele in a given gene, so all you can EVER get is a new version of the trait governed by that particular gene -- and in most cases you don't even get that. What you get is at best a neutral mutation that doesn't change the phenotype, and at worst, of course, destruction of the gene itself. In any case mutations will never get you past the genomic parameters of the Kind. The ToE has been proved wrong in so many ways it's astonishing to see how it just goes on limping along as if nothing had ever happened. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024