Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-19-2018 12:20 AM
72 online now:
ICANT, PaulK, Pressie, riVeRraT, Tanypteryx (5 members, 67 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,440 Year: 19,263/29,783 Month: 1,208/2,043 Week: 253/507 Day: 1/80 Hour: 1/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
56575859
60
61Next
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18005
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 886 of 901 (818451)
08-28-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 885 by Taq
08-28-2017 4:16 PM


Re: Modern dog breeds required mutations
I've come across mentions of mutations in dog breeds several times. Looking for them just now I turned up a couple.
This article describes mutations that cause disease:

DOG DISEASE MAPPING PROJECT (DOGDNA)

And this article describes a study that thinks they've identified the mutation behind smooshed-faced dogs:

Study Identifies the Likely Genetic Mutation Responsible for Smooshed-Faced Dogs

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 4:16 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18005
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 887 of 901 (818453)
08-28-2017 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 879 by Faith
08-28-2017 1:45 PM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
Faith writes:

This is an insulting post so I'm ignoring it.

It was not an insulting post. Taq only corrected your errors, and apparently you find this insulting. Seems like there's a simple solution: accept the corrections and incorporate them into future posts. Problem solved.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 879 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30262
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 888 of 901 (818506)
08-29-2017 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 874 by Percy
08-27-2017 2:51 PM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
Genetically driven adaptation? How would that work, pray tell?

Been explained many times. Phenotypic changes occur as a result of random new gene frequencies. Lizards get big heads and jaws just from such random changes accumulating in their new population. The food doesn't drive the change, but the change causes the lizards to gravitate to food that their new jaws can handle. The test of the theory would be whether the kind of food their parent population ate is also available on their new island; and it most likely is because when they first landed there they were identical to the lizards of the parent population; it would have taken some generations for the new head and jaws and digestive system to emerge.

As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post I realize that if you'd bothered to follow anything I've been arguing at length on this subject you wouldn't have all the silly objections and questions you have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 874 by Percy, posted 08-27-2017 2:51 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2017 12:12 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 891 by Percy, posted 08-30-2017 8:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30262
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 889 of 901 (818508)
08-29-2017 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 885 by Taq
08-28-2017 4:16 PM


Re: Modern dog breeds required mutations
The fact that some traits are caused by mutations proves what exactly?

Faith writes:

I'm not ignorant of the idea that mutations are the source of genetic variability, I just think it's utterly screamingly ridiculous given their record of producing thousands of genetic diseases, and besides it's absolutely unnecessary given the elegant original design of DNA

The very rare mutation in a dog breed proves what again? Nothing that contradicts what I wrote above. In fact the mutants are contrasted with "wild alleles" which must refer to the originals I'm talking about. Of course a mutation would do something like cause a "smooshed" face which is basically a destructive effect even if silly people like it. Smooshed-face dogs have a hard time breathing, it's not a desirable condition. And I do suspect that some mutations are really the chemical reconstruction of a former lost allele, maybe that became junk DNA. Alleles are, after all, just a string of chemical codes, there could be some principle by which they recur from time to time. Which doesn't change the fact that the vast majority aren't beneficial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 4:16 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by Percy, posted 08-30-2017 8:24 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 893 by Taq, posted 08-30-2017 10:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14573
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 890 of 901 (818519)
08-30-2017 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 888 by Faith
08-29-2017 10:14 PM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
quote:

Been explained many times. Phenotypic changes occur as a result of random new gene frequencies. Lizards get big heads and jaws just from such random changes accumulating in their new population. The food doesn't drive the change, but the change causes the lizards to gravitate to food that their new jaws can handle

In other words you are misusing the terminology again and expect us to guess what you mean. Please stop that since it hardly helps honest discussion.

However, you are very likely wrong. The big heads alone might be just good luck - but the changes in head shape and the cecal valve as well would be an unlikely coincidence.

quote:

As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post I realize that if you'd bothered to follow anything I've been arguing at length on this subject you wouldn't have all the silly objections and questions you have.

And that IS pure insult, especially as it is obviously untrue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by Faith, posted 08-29-2017 10:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18005
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 891 of 901 (818538)
08-30-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 888 by Faith
08-29-2017 10:14 PM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
Faith writes:

Phenotypic changes occur as a result of random new gene frequencies. Lizards get big heads and jaws just from such random changes accumulating in their new population.

The quality of larger heads and jaws would only increase in a population if it were selected for by the environment.

What's actually true is that every population contains inherent variation. The particular set of variations contained in the founder population have a big influence on future directions of evolution. Those qualities best adapted to the environment are selected for and become more common and more emphasized in following generations. Mutations can assist in this process.

Why are you ignoring selection? You go on and on about breeding being a model for evolution, and breeding is all about selection. Selection controls which genes gets passed on to the next generation, not genetics.

The food doesn't drive the change, but the change causes the lizards to gravitate to food that their new jaws can handle.

But variation comes first, not change. Selection chooses among that variation according to fitness, according to which is best adapted. Those selected to reproduce get to pass their genes on to the next generation.

Every population contains variation. For your lizards, some have bigger heads, some smaller. Some have bigger jaws, some smaller. Some have bigger feet, some smaller. Some have longer tails, some shorter. Some have sharper teeth, some duller. Some are faster, some slower. Those qualities providing the best adaptation to the environment are most likely to become passed on to the next generation. And again, mutations can assist in this process. Over longer time periods and greater environmental change, mutations are essential.

The test of the theory would be whether the kind of food their parent population ate is also available on their new island;

That's not a test of your theory. If the food source requiring larger heads and jaws existed on both islands, then by your idea both islands should get lizards with larger heads and jaws.

...and it most likely is because when they first landed there they were identical to the lizards of the parent population; it would have taken some generations for the new head and jaws and digestive system to emerge.

Again, if the food sources between the two islands were the same, the lizards on the two islands would be the same.

What really happened is that Pod Mrcaru had a new and plentiful food source in the form of plants (as opposed to the primary food source of insects on Pod Kapisto), so the lizards adapted to that food source.

As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post I realize that if you'd bothered to follow anything I've been arguing at length on this subject you wouldn't have all the silly objections and questions you have.

And yet even for the single point you chose to rebut among all my points, you couldn't even get that right. The changes in the lizards on Pod Mrcaru resulted from selection, not genetically driven adaptation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by Faith, posted 08-29-2017 10:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18005
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 892 of 901 (818540)
08-30-2017 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 889 by Faith
08-29-2017 10:24 PM


Re: Modern dog breeds required mutations
Faith writes:

The fact that some traits are caused by mutations proves what exactly?

Well, this sentence by itself proves that you've finally conceded you were wrong that mutations don't exist, and later that you were wrong that they played no positive role.

Mutations are not only the source of some traits of relatively recent occurrence, ultimately they're the source of all alleles everywhere. There must be few if any alleles in any life anywhere that have survived in their original form from billions of years ago.

I just think it's utterly screamingly ridiculous given their record of producing thousands of genetic diseases,...

Deleterious mutations are selected against and are removed from the population. Mildly deleterious to neutral mutations propagate through drift. Beneficial mutations are selected for and can spread rapidly through a population.

...and besides it's absolutely unnecessary given the elegant original design of DNA

There is no evidence that the "original design of DNA" was any more elegant than the DNA of today. Evidence from ancient DNA tells us that DNA then was pretty much like DNA today.

And I do suspect that some mutations are really the chemical reconstruction of a former lost allele,...

It would be possible for mutation to bring back an allele that was resident in the population in the past and then lost.

Alleles are, after all, just a string of chemical codes, there could be some principle by which they recur from time to time.

The word you're looking for is "mutation."

Which doesn't change the fact that the vast majority aren't beneficial.

But deleterious mutations are removed while beneficial mutations are kept. What happens over time to the fitness of a population that rejects deleterious mutations while keeping beneficial ones?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by Faith, posted 08-29-2017 10:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 893 of 901 (818557)
08-30-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 889 by Faith
08-29-2017 10:24 PM


Re: Modern dog breeds required mutations
Faith writes:

The fact that some traits are caused by mutations proves what exactly?

It proves that even in your model organism there are mutations that keep evolution going at a point where you claim evolution should stop. Your argument has been refuted.

And I do suspect that some mutations are really the chemical reconstruction of a former lost allele, maybe that became junk DNA.

That is just a fantasy, backed by zero evidence. Do you really think that making stuff up on the fly is a valid argument?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by Faith, posted 08-29-2017 10:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 894 of 901 (827235)
01-21-2018 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 688 by RAZD
08-22-2017 9:11 AM


Re: adam, eve, and eden, but no flood ...
RAZD writes:

So how old is the earth, out of curiosity ...

I don't know and neither do you. IF we conclude based on the dating methods using radioisotopic dating 4.5 billion years old. IF we conclude based on a Birkeland current there is no way to know the age of anything. I would make the argument that the current state of Science in explaining the universe is out of date. The idea of blackholes, dark energy, inflation, etc and the like are weak ideas.

RAZD writes:


And yet you are still wrong about the flood. There is evidence in the "book of nature" that invalidates that date.

What you mean like with fossilization? You pretty much need a flood, or something to control the micro environments of dead things, to create the right conditions to fossilize bones. What I find more interesting is the passage of giants in Gen 6, Enoch, etc authored thousands of years before we discovered those fossils.

RAZD writes:

Based on what evidence from the "book of nature" ... ? Genetics?

LINK

RAZD writes:

So 200,000 to 300,000 years ago for "adam" and 152,000 to 234,000 years ago for "eve" ... was there a long time before one of "adam's" ribs was transmogrified into "eve" by god-magic?

Or was "eden" 200,000 to 234,000 years ago? and where was it?

There certainly was no world wide flying fantasy flood since then ... (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 7 to Message 9). Or is the "book of nature" lying?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

I love all the uncertainty in your last point, how exactly are you so confident?

Enjoy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2017 9:11 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2018 7:21 AM DOCJ has responded
 Message 896 by Percy, posted 01-21-2018 8:05 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 895 of 901 (827236)
01-21-2018 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 894 by DOCJ
01-21-2018 5:43 AM


Re: adam, eve, and eden, but no flood ...
I notice you didn't answer Message 687 which is closer to the topic under discussion (see thread title)

I don't know and neither do you. IF we conclude based on the dating methods using radioisotopic dating 4.5 billion years old. IF we conclude based on a Birkeland current there is no way to know the age of anything. I would make the argument that the current state of Science in explaining the universe is out of date. The idea of blackholes, dark energy, inflation, etc and the like are weak ideas.

You can argue opinion and assertion all you want to, but beliefs that are held in spite of invalidating evidence are delusions.

If you want to talk about how age of the earth is measured, start with Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. It's off topic here.

What you mean like with fossilization? You pretty much need a flood, or something to control the micro environments of dead things, to create the right conditions to fossilize bones. What I find more interesting is the passage of giants in Gen 6, Enoch, etc authored thousands of years before we discovered those fossils.

" ... or something ... " leaves a lot of open ground to causes of fossilization sans global flood, including local flood.

But this too is off topic here. Why not try starting a new topic at Proposed New Topics

I love all the uncertainty in your last point, how exactly are you so confident?

It's what the objective empirical evidence based science says. You want to challenge that, then provide the scientific data and reasoning behind your challenge.

... IF we conclude based on the dating methods using radioisotopic dating 4.5 billion years old. ...

Fair enough, so now let's turn to the topic, and start with when life began -- when and what forms first appeared on earth, and how did we get from there to here.

  • Just MICROevolution?
  • MICROevolution plus MACROevolution? (and what is MACROevolution?)
  • MICROevolution plus something else (what and how does it work?)
  • something else (magic)

Curious minds want to know.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 894 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 5:43 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 897 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 9:02 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18005
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 896 of 901 (827237)
01-21-2018 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 894 by DOCJ
01-21-2018 5:43 AM


Re: adam, eve, and eden, but no flood ...
Hi DOCJ,

You're either mostly off topic or completely off-topic, I can't tell which because you make no effort to show how your points tie in to the topic, if at all.

DOCJ writes:

The idea of blackholes, dark energy, inflation, etc and the like are weak ideas.

That "blackholes, dark energy, inflation, etc and the like are weak ideas" is an incredibly weak idea.

Okay, you've called the scientific position weak ideas. I've called that idea a weak idea. Now what? I guess we'll just have to look at the evidence, huh? Gee, what a novel idea! But not here, it would be off topic. This thread is about micro and macroevolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 894 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 5:43 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

    
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 897 of 901 (827273)
01-21-2018 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 895 by RAZD
01-21-2018 7:21 AM


Re: adam, eve, and eden, but no flood ...
Ok. The only life that evolved in a sense on the earth is plant life. It was not random, it was divine in origination. And the limits are divine as well. I don't know where that fits into the terms of micro or macro change but I don't think those ideas fit the image I'm describing. I will say it COULD appear as though it was micro and macro to those who are using Science today. And what I mean by Science is the kinda stuff you can actually observe in a lab.

quote:
11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.
12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

-GENESIS 1:11 - 13 DAY 3 ESV


Edited by DOCJ, : 🤣🤣

Edited by DOCJ, : 🤣🤣

Edited by DOCJ, : 😛


This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2018 7:21 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2018 11:16 PM DOCJ has not yet responded
 Message 899 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-21-2018 11:23 PM DOCJ has not yet responded
 Message 900 by jar, posted 01-22-2018 6:41 AM DOCJ has not yet responded
 Message 901 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2018 8:13 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 898 of 901 (827280)
01-21-2018 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by DOCJ
01-21-2018 9:02 PM


Re: adam, eve, and eden, but no flood ...
And what I mean by Science is the kinda stuff you can actually observe in a lab.

That is nothing but a creationist wet dream.

Science is what follows the scientific method, and there is no requirement to limit it to a lab.

Just imagine the varied fields of science that are not limited to a lab--start with astronomy.

Creationists need to wake up and smell the coffee.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 9:02 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 899 of 901 (827282)
01-21-2018 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by DOCJ
01-21-2018 9:02 PM


Re: adam, eve, and eden, but no flood ...
quote:

Science is the kinda stuff you can actually observe in a lab.

You mentioned Dark Energy and (early in the first second of the universe?) "inflation" as things that are something false.

But Creationists accept the expansion of the Universe and the creation of space,

Rapid "Dark Energy" (to create space faster) and much faster expansion of space (like early Universe "inflation" of Alan Guth) are the stuff that Creationists have been dreaming of.

Except they want a much wider application for such ideas.

They want Dark Energy to have started in millions of spots (not just a singularity)

And ultra fast inflation to explain our Universe's age to be much younger than 13.7 billion years.

See this thread.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=5498&mpp=15...

I think 13.7 billion years is really young myself, but your problem is what exactly?

Take it to the thread in my link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 9:02 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 900 of 901 (827285)
01-22-2018 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 897 by DOCJ
01-21-2018 9:02 PM


The Bible proves that the Genesis Creation story is just myth.
The big problem is that all the available evidence shows that God was wrong in what you quoted, most likely simply because God was ignorant of the truth but possibly lying like the God in Genesis 2&3.

The evidence shows that

quote:
And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so."
was not so. The first forms of life on the earth were not plants, not seed bearing, not vegetation, not fruit, not trees and not on earth but in the water.

Your quotations is simply more evidence that the Bible is simply the creation of man and quite often the God the writers created is as ignorant as the authors.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 9:02 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
56575859
60
61Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018