|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Since the discussion is impossible, and anything I say is mangled in the ToE paradigm anyway, I'm just going to sketch it all out again knowing that will happen and you can all go fly a kite.
All it takes to form a new race or variety or subspecies is to isolate a relatively small number of individuals on an island for a surprisingly short amount of time. A few hundred years should do it and there should be plenty of evidence for that having happened many times in the past. It happens with human populations as well as animals. This observable fact makes the different populations of trilobites and coelacanths in the strata/fossil record best explained as formed within the same short periods of time, and the assumption of evolution between say reptiles and mammals over millions of years just plain ridiculous. Selection reduces genetic diversity. The isolation of a small number of founders of new populations is a form of selection. In such a group there will be a new set of gene frequencies which will bring out the new traits over some number of generations that is far far short of millions of years and certaintly occurs frequently within hundreds. You don't need mutations for any changes whatever. The original created DNA in every species contained enough variability to produce every variety and race that exists, and a lot more than that before so much of it became junk DNA. Since death entered Creation there has been a lot of genetic loss in every species, represented by junk DNA. The bottleneck of the Flood didn't produce the severe genetic depletion a bottleneck today would produce because there was way more genetic diversity on the ark, a lot more heterozygosity in each genome that would simply lose some of it and become homozygous, but not enough to be genetically depleted like the elephant seal or the cheetah. The idea that mutations contribute anything to healthy genetics is mostly an assumption not borne out in reality, but even if they did they don't produce new races or varieties, it takes selection to do that and selection reduces genetic diversity. This has to happen in any evolving line which will eventually reach a point of genetic loss from which further genetic change is impossible, which defines the point where evolution has to end, which is the boundary of the Kind down that particular evolving line. Adding mutations to breeds destroys the breed, and their occurrence in any wild population just makes for a scattering of phenotypes, not evolution. It takes selection to bring about evolution and selection is going to get rid of everything that isn't in the selected gene pool in order to bring about a new subspecies with new characteristics. The only evolution that happens is within a created Kind. It makes for a wonderful array of different creatures over a lot less time than the ToE absurdly requires. And so on and so forth. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is no genetic relationship between chimps and humans so your questions are meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, yes I think that much genetic material has been lost since the Fall but mostly since the Flood. Yes I think all creatures used to be genetically immensely stronger than they are now, and human beings too.
I think all the extra alleles are useless accidents, very very few ever doing anything beneficial, and that the original created genome of each species was designed to produce a huge variety of combinations of traits from two alleles per gene and no more. The great variety would have been enormously enhanced by having so many more functioning genes that are now junk DNA. Perhaps you know how much of the junk DNA is related to the functions of existing genes? My guess would be that a lot of it did once add to existing traits, so that where there are now a number of genes for say visual acuity, there would have been many times that many genes. Visual, hearing, smelling, all the senses should have been much more acute than our limited ranges, also functioning vestigial organs and probably lots of other capacities we have no clue we or any animal ever had. Of course there was no death at the original Creation. It's death and disease that makes the loss of all this problematic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: There is no genetic relationship between chimps and humans so your questions are meaningless. We are saying that it takes millions of years to get divergence equal to 40 million mutations in species like humans and apes. If you think that is wrong, then please tell us how long it takes. 1,000 years? 500 years? 5 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: I think all the extra alleles are useless accidents, very very few ever doing anything beneficial, and that the original created genome of each species was designed to produce a huge variety of combinations of traits from two alleles per gene and no more. You think? Have any evidence to back it up? Otherwise, you are just inventing fantasies to avoid reality.
The great variety would have been enormously enhanced by having so many more functioning genes that are now junk DNA. How? Species largely have the same functional genes and the same junk DNA. How do you get variety from that?
Perhaps you know how much of the junk DNA is related to the functions of existing genes? Most studies conclude that 5-10% of the genome has sequence specific function.
My guess would be that a lot of it did once add to existing traits, so that where there are now a number of genes for say visual acuity, there would have been many times that many genes. Visual, hearing, smelling, all the senses should have been much more acute than our limited ranges, also functioning vestigial organs and probably lots of other capacities we have no clue we or any animal ever had. Why did species all lose the very same traits? Why wouldn't they lose different traits?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: All it takes to form a new race or variety or subspecies is to isolate a relatively small number of individuals on an island for a surprisingly short amount of time. Please show how you can have one species put on an island, and then have chimps and humans evolve from that species in a short amount of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have no evidence for your absurd theory so asking me for evidence is out of order. All you have is your accumulation of interpretations, nothing more than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: You have no evidence for your absurd theory so asking me for evidence is out of order. All you have is your accumulation of interpretations, nothing more than that. We are defining macroevolution as the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor. You are saying that macroevolution does not take millions of years, only a short amount of time through genetic diversity that already exists. So why would it only take a short amount of time for humans and chimps to evolve from a common ancestor without any mutations? Also, we have tons of evidence: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I haven't said ANYTHING about macroevolution. Everything I've said is about microevolution, changes built into the genome of the Kind. There is no such thing as macroevolution. Chimps and humans are not genetically related.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: I haven't said ANYTHING about macroevolution. Would you agree that in order to get 40 million differences between two lineages that share a common ancestor, it would take millions of years? Yes or no?
Chimps and humans are not genetically related. How so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I think you're misusing the term "built-in diversity." I think what you really meant to refer to was "existing diversity" or "existing variation." "Built-in diversity" is a term used by some creationists to refer to the preloading of genomes of animals on the ark with the genes and alleles needed for the creation of more species after the flood.
I've never heard that and it's absurd. "Built-in" suggests it was part of the original design. But I'll try to make what I mean clearer. Yeah, I thought you had moved on from talking about population genetics to another topic when you started talking about "built-in diversity," but I understand what you meant now. But the existing genetic diversity in the world today cannot be explained by a flood scenario that reduced the number of alleles for each gene to at most 4 for species with 2 pair and 28 for species with 7 pair.
Yes I know the party line about junk DNA and I still think what I think. What you think about junk DNA is just something you made up. What the rest of us think is based upon actual biological research.
I am not going to use the term "species" any more because of confusion about that, and as I keep saying it's irrelevant to my argument. Avoiding the term "species" will just make it harder to understand you than it already is. When you mean "subspecies" then say "subspecies". When you mean "species" then say "species". Easy.
I see that I said something in a way that implied population growth had something to do with the formation of new subspecies but it's migration that does that so I hope that clears up that confusion. I don't think you mean migration, either. I think you mean populations separating into subpopulations (which may or may not involve migration) with limited or no gene flow, and with each subpopulation having less genetic diversity than the original population and continuing to lose more. This is consistent with your focus on reduced genetic diversity creating new breeds, and that's probably why you originally mentioned population growth, because you can't have populations separating into subpopulations if you're starting with only the few individuals from the ark.
The millions of years of the ToE are a ridiculous assumption, and there is no evidence for THAT either, it's ALL a ridiculous assumption. Yet millions and billions of years is precisely what the evidence tells us. There's no evidence for the things you believe, and all the evidence is against it.
If you aren't going to accept my entirely different way of looking at these things there is no point in discussing any of it. I think if you change your approach and begin introducing evidence for what you believe along with arguments that make sense that you'll have much better success.
You are just going to keep imposing your false ToE assumptions on me, accuse me of lack of evidence when I've made the case well without it and so on. You not only have a lack of evidence, you ignore and reject the mountains of evidence that do exist. That's why your ideas are a fantasy.
This is to be expected in a paradigm clash. Your paradigm forces terms and conditions on me that are false and I've been trying my best to make mine clear in spite of that for years now. What you're doing isn't a paradigm clash within science. It's religion rejecting science.
I would have thought a fair reading of how I use English words would clarify but I'm finding incredibly absurd straw man renderings of my simple statements instead. I don't think we'd characterize your problem statements as "simple". Confused and willfully ignorant would be more like it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: What really happens is that your case is demolished with reason and evidence. Which is what you mean by "discussion is impossible". So, you decide to declare yourself right anyway. Too bad it won't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: Your post makes it painfully clear that you haven't the slightest interest in fair discussion. An honest attempt to understand what I'm saying shouldn't be all that hard but if it is the discussion is hopeless. It's only become clear in the last few posts how much of the problem is semantic. Plus a lack of interest in understanding what I'm saying. Seems to me there's no point in continuing. Oh, gee, it's everyone else's fault, what a surprise. And you're threatening to abandon discussion again, another surprise. You can't write nonsense and insist that others call it sense. You never present ideas consistent with the evidence, or that even have any evidence, let alone make sense. All you have is silly assumptions and things you've made up out of thin air. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All that's happened is a bunch of utterly ridiculously stupid straw man "refutations" not one argument that even addressed the real issues in my argument.
The argument about mutations did at least that much but everything since HBD and Percy got in on the act has been a bunch of weird attacks on straw men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah the problem IS yours Percy, you fail to comprehend the simplest points, yes that is your fault. But probably not one you can do anything about if you even had a desire to. Time to end this charade.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024