|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
We have a lot of topics on that. Feel free to join any of them.
You need to point out where "religon" is incorrect in order for your point to be valuable. DOCJ writes:
All of my issues with the Bible are anchored in the Bible. You don't even have to go any further than Genesis 1 to find errors.
And I'm sure you have a list of issues and in all likelyhood you are anchoring to someone else. DOCJ writes:
Issues with the Bible are not productive in this topic. Kindly go to an appropriate topic and I'll be glad to discuss them. My guess is that you'll drop out before I do.
In anycase, please reference 1 or 2 issues if you want to be productive in this conversation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
DOCJ writes: Big bang, big crunch, multiverse, string theory, electrical universe theory, evolution, darwinian evolution, theory of evolution, general relativity, quantum theory, abiogenesis, etc.. Thanks for being so precise and specific. So basically you don't have a clue about science and how it works.
DOCJ writes: Umm... ok... 🙄 It's unhealthy to change your mind frequently = i.e. not unhealthy persay/can be unhealthy. You didn't catch that point? Sorry, I will do my best to be clear. Sorry, I don't see what could possibly be unhealthy about scientists changing their minds in light of new evidence.
DOCJ writes: If you study you learn. And what you learn is equal to a belief. The knowledge gained from studying is ultimately a belief. I would say it depends on what you are studying. If you are using science to conduct your study then your conclusions gained from the study would be based on evidence. Beliefs are not based on verifiable evidence, so beliefs are NOT equal to scientific knowledge. DOCJ writes: Nothing is absolute. This is true and it is one of the basic tenets of science.
DOCJ writes: And yes, Science, overtime, if the theory is comprehensive may be the ultimate truth of nature to human beings. Hope you understood that last part. One of the goals of science is to refine its theories over time to be closer and closer to accurate descriptions of reality. Achieving the "ultimate truth about nature to human beings" is not really a part of the scientific method, primarily because it is recognized that new evidence or observations may refine or change our understanding. Yep, I understood that last part, I just disagree that that is the way science works and so is an unrealistic expectation.
DOCJ writes: Hawking accepts evolution. Ah, if you mean Stephen Hawking, then yes I would say he understands how science works and accepts the conclusions of science, based on the mountains of evidence we have discovered over the last several hundred years.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
How exactly do you explain time always existing from your pov? Any reason to believe it? How exactly do you explain the wmap? The bb all these scientists support, or are you an electrical universe supporter?
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Wow good job buddy. You are learning. You still have not figured it out... 🤤
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Wow good job buddy. You are learning. You still have not figured it out.. Oh, I figured it out alright, you're just a troll.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
I'm going to help you out a tiny bit. Evidence does not speak evolution. Evidence is interpreted, people use their imagination, draw an idea, research the idea, test the idea and draw a conclusion. And other people test it and decide, etc. Its pretty simple. And it is still unhealthy to change your mind frequently just because a new rock is found. And people think it's a new transitional fossil... And even if it is a fossil that looks like something else, doesn't mean it is actually transitional... It's something that lived and died. That's it. Yes I can intrepret it too.. I'm not anchoring.. Look, I didn't insult you.. Wow.. You really need to learn how to discuss issues.. learn some etiquette.. 😙😁😛
Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Good job buddy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Feel free to start a discussion. Promise you I aint going anywhere. And there are absolutely no issues in Genesis, it's just you anchoring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
The allels contain the genes. And chromosomes contain up to 25,000 genes. Plenty of room.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
I'm not going anywhere, feel free to get this discussion rolling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Referencing false teachers. It is not just needing a job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: ...and mutations don't occur at any rate that would help the situation. Sure they do, just not usually on an observable human timescale. I did come across information that some Texas pumas were introduced into the Florida Panther population to increase diversity, and that was helpful.
The seals were able to build up their population which is some protection of course, but cats being more loners don't have that advantage. Elephant seals have one pup per year, while the Florida panther has 2-3 kittens every two years.
There is no reason whatever that a new species would not be the result of many generations of inbreeding in such a population, even to the point of loss of ability to breed with other populations of the same species. Without mutation, even many generations of inbreeding would create no new genes or alleles. The inbred subpopulation would still possess only genes and alleles already found in the main population. They would be the same species. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
DOCJ writes: How exactly do you explain time always existing from your pov? Any reason to believe it? How exactly do you explain the wmap? The bb all these scientists support, or are you an electrical universe supporter? Not a single one of these questions belongs in this topic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The allels contain the genes The alleles are versions of the gene, or in a sense ARE the gene, they don't "contain" it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If introducing the Texas puma into the Florida panther population "helped," that means the panther was not completely genetically depleted and was able to breed with the puma, so it was not a situation like the elephant seal or the cheetah as was implied. If it were possible to help the cheetah by introducing another cat, that would have been done by now so apparently it is not possible.
Without mutation, even many generations of inbreeding would create no new genes or alleles. The inbred subpopulation would still possess only genes and alleles already found in the main population. They would be the same species. Yes i8t would possess only the same genes and alleles, but depending on how different the gene frequencies are it could possess strikingly different phenotypic characteristics because of different combinations of those genes/alleles, a different frequency of heterozygosity or homozygosity for different traits and so on. It is the changed gene frequencies that bring about the new characteristics of a new population, and that alone is capable of creating all the different species in a ring species without a single mutation.; As for mutations, just how often do you get a brand new trait from a mutation anyway? Hardly ever is my guess. In the former discussion about these things a new rabbit fur color was given as an example. (Let's leave out the immune system for now since it seems to be different from other genes in many ways). My jaundiced view of mutations suspects that it was really the recovery of a lost color, since alleles are just sequences of chemical codes, but even granting that it's a brand new color, fur color is a pretty innocuous variation, not much to hang macroevolution on. Maybe we need to try to imagine our way through what mutations really would do if they occurred at various points in the formation of a daughter population. I guess the idea is that the new fur color if selected would make a new species of rabbit. Of course as that happens all the other colors are lost as I keep saying, reducing genetic diversity again in order to bring out this new population with this new color. So is it imagined by all those who keep throwing mutations at me that a series of changes at the level of rabbit fur, even through a dozen new "species" with different colors of rabbit fur, EACH LOSING THE ALLELES FOR ALL THE OTHER COLORS, is a viable model of evolution? abe: To be fair I have to include in this picture that when one trait is selected, again in this case if not by drift within the population then by migration of some number of individuals to start another separate daughter population, you can't avoid simultaneously selecting others, getting yet a new set of traits through a new set of gene frequencies for the whole population and not just the fur color. So as in ring species you now have a new species, but it's necessarily lost more alleles in the formation of its new set of phenotypes. Those new phenotypes will form a new trait picture for the new population after some generations of inbreeding to homogenize it as it were. What do you want to do at this point? Introduce a whole bunch of new mutations? Do you picture their spreading for a while in the population? What exactly is the picture here? Do you want to have another migration of some small number to form a new daughter population that contains some of these mutations? Are you imagining enough new variability from these mutations to offset the necessary loss? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. 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