|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
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? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
DOCJ writes: Ref post 580. You can create a link to a message by entering "[msg=580]". If you do that then you'll get this link to message 580: Message 580. By the was, there's a rule in the Forum Guidelines that sort of requests you not compose messages consisting of little more than a link:
It is also often suggested that you reexplain arguments rather than referencing previous messages that weren't understood the first time they were read. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi DOCJ and welcome to the fray, I see you are having fun with faith, one of our stalwart creationists.
However, none of that is showing that new kinds come into existence as I've been saying since post 396. EvC Forum: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? as you are new, here are some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When stuff you say catches my eye and I have a thought about it I'll respond. That's what happened here:
RIL populations guarantee the outcome you predict of small, inbreeding daughter populations. Although I do focus quite a bit on such small populations I claim the same trend exists in larger daughter populations, it just takes more time for the effects to be worked through, and when the daughter population is large enough it also has to be understood that the same kinds of changes are going to occur in the parent population as well because its gene frequencies will also have changed quite a bit. Also the most important thing in my scenario is the initial random selection of the founders of the daughter population, which you don't pay much attention to. It's that original founding number that determines the new gene frequencies that determine the traits in the new population and what has to be lost to bring them about.
It happens in just a few generations, at a much faster rate than could ever happen in a wild population. It is the founder effect on steroids. I've been claiming that it only takes a few generations too even in a wild population. I don't think it took all those thirty plus years to develop the Pod Mrcaru lizards for instance.
Changing allele frequencies due to isolation and homogenization is not sufficient to create new species. If it were, it would be happening all the time. I don't attribute changing allele frequencies to isolation and homogenization; I attribute one new set of allele frequencies to the number of individuals in the founders of a daughter population. Isolation is what is necessary to making sure the new gene frequencies are the only source of the traits in the new population. Homogenization is the result of the multiple sexual recombinations from generation to generation that eventually blend all those traits together for a distinctive identifiable character to the new population as a whole. Since you are not describing these things as I describe them I have no reason to think anything you say has anything to do with my argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
RIL: Daughter populations consist of a single individual or breeding pair ... Although I occasionally mention that I think the bottlenecked cheetah and elephant seal constitute genuine species, I avoid making my case from such a small founding number because they are considered to be different from species because of the bottleneck. That makes no sense, I don't think it's true, but I don't want to get into a fight about. Perhaps you can get away with it because you're talking about plants.
and are also selected at random. The environment is constant between daughter populations, but there are relatively unlimited numbers of daughter populations, limited only by the number of offspring per generation. I don't see how the number of offspring relates to the number of daughter populations.
How long would it takto produce 10 daughter populations in the FSH scenario compared to the RIL scenario? I haven't yet been able to understand enough of your argument to have any idea how long it takes RIL to produce anything. In the case of my scenario daughter populations develop a lot faster than the ToE supposes, in however many generations it takes from founding to homogenization, and if the founding number is as small as yours that should be a very very few years, five? ten?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
thx
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Got it, thx!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
I did jump into the GAME at post 395. I will try to make sure I know what is being said by reading all bazillion pages.....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
from prev Message 396:
Strong's Concordance @ Blueletterbible.org writes: Outline of Biblical Usage:kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool. This does not preclude new species because this represents apartitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost orconservednot gained. A new species could arise when apopulation is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition anew species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of anexisting "kind". prev Message 586 coyote writes: Ah, so modern humans and chimps are in the same "kind" then. Got it! What? Where did you get that from? I presume you're reading the word "ancestral" or "groups of living organisms;" from the religion of evolutionist? I just read those from the neutral perspective, that it is referencing only human ancestry. I do try minimally to be neutral prior to picking a side. Edited by DOCJ, : err Edited by DOCJ, : err
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You can't have it both ways. If your definition includes:
"Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool." Then all of the primates are of the same "kind."Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Strong's concordance @blueletterbible.org writes:
Outline of Biblical Usage: kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool. This does not preclude new species because this represents apartitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost orconservednot gained. A new species could arise when apopulation is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition anew species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of anexisting "kind". coyote writes: You can't have it both ways. If your definition includes:"Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool." Then all of the primates are of the same "kind." I disagree that I am having it "both ways". I am interpreting it as it is intended. The evolutionist religion is interpreting it that those two different species are the same kind. You have to PROVE not theorize that apes and humans are from the same ancestral gene pool. At this point it just leaves it open that they are possibly the same kind. And that is perfectly acceptable if it is the truth. At this time I have no reason to believe it. Edited by DOCJ, : err Edited by DOCJ, : err Edited by DOCJ, : err Edited by DOCJ, : err
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If you follow your definition, all primates are of the same kind.
(That's one of the problems with creation "science." There is no internal consistency--things get changed and stretched to conform to scripture no matter what the evidence shows.)Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
coyote writes: If you follow your definition, all primates are of the same kind. I disagree
coyote writes: (That's one of the problems with creation "science." There is no internal consistency--things get changed and stretched to conform to scripture no matter what the evidence shows.) There is Science that's it. Edited by DOCJ, : Err
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Disagree all you want--you presented a definition of "kind" which, if followed, includes all primates within the same kind. If you don't like that, get a better definition.
But the problem is you need a definition that will fit scripture, have few "kinds" on the ark (to avoid overcrowding), and will accommodate the massive speciation since the end of the flood around 4350 years ago. And yes, there is only one science. Creation "science" is a fraud designed to get around a Supreme Court decision and fool a few school boards. In practice it is the exact opposite of real science as it must conform to scripture no matter what, while real science follows the evidence where it leads and often shows scripture to be wrong.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
coyote writes:
Disagree all you want--you presented a definition of "kind" which, if followed, includes all primates within the same kind. If you don't like that, get a better definition.But the problem is you need a definition that will fit scripture, have few "kinds" on the ark (to avoid overcrowding), and will accommodate the massive speciation since the end of the flood around 4350 years ago. And yes, there is only one science. Creation "science" is a fraud designed to get around a Supreme Court decision and fool a few school boards. In practice it is the exact opposite of real science as it must conform to scripture no matter what, while real science follows the evidence where it leads and often shows scripture to be wrong. I disagree with you. Science is a tool. Science does not endorse anti creationism. The evolutionist religion endorses anti creationism. Further, I have noted kind refers to a population of organisms not a community of organisms. FYI: I don't need terms like macro-evolution or creation-science. I just read Genesis and it is clear. And the translators have done a great job of looking at what Moses wrote, and taking what the definitions mean, and providing that data. And if you want to argue the flood, etc we can do that in the proper thread. What you do with it, is up to you. God bless you. Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
from prev Message 396:
Strong's Concordance @ Blueletterbible.org writes: Outline of Biblical Usage:kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool. This does not preclude new species because this represents apartitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost orconservednot gained. A new species could arise when apopulation is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition anew species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of anexisting "kind". Curiously I have felt that the way "kind" is used is most similar to "clades" rather than trying to use species and other taxonomic levels (which are becoming less useful as more speciation occurs -- and then "species" become "genus" becomes "family" ... ) -- new species are always members of the parent clade.
quote: What? Where did you get that from? I presume you're reading the word "ancestral" or "groups of living organisms;" from the religion of evolutionist? I just read those from the neutral perspective, that it is referencing only human ancestry. I do try minimally to be neutral prior to picking a side. ummm ... what's the "religion of evolutionist?"
... I just read those from the neutral perspective ... I do try minimally to be neutral prior to picking a side. You may think you are but, methinks, your bias betrays you. How would you draw a cladogram of chimps and humans? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024