Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 3:33 AM
202 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie (2 members, 200 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,778 Year: 18,601/29,783 Month: 546/2,043 Week: 98/386 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 61 of 71 (843912)
11-22-2018 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by caffeine
11-22-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
If the latter, then you've accepted that mutation creates new alleles. I predict your response would be that it only creates 'bad' alleles because it's part of the fall. But these alleles are not 'bad'. They're the standard (not sure if fixed) in their relevant populations - they only cause problems in combination with one another. By populations being seperated, new species have been created with new versions of genes.

Too much technical detail has the effect of abscuring rather than illuminating. Again I'm not sure what your point is here. What I've been describing has to happen no matter what the source of genetic variability: the trend has to be to reduced genetic diversity with any kind of selection process that reduces the number of individuals in a reproductively isolated population. Reduced genetic diversity is the opposite of what the ToE needs to be true.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by caffeine, posted 11-22-2018 3:57 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by caffeine, posted 11-23-2018 5:47 AM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 62 of 71 (843914)
11-22-2018 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
11-22-2018 3:13 PM


Re: Name one.
Faith writes:

Simply repeating the Creed doesn't amount to evidence.


That's what we keep telling you. Your denial is worthless.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 3:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1965
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 63 of 71 (843937)
11-23-2018 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by caffeine
11-22-2018 2:35 PM


It's not a microbe. It's from a population of microbes. Plural.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by caffeine, posted 11-22-2018 2:35 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1965
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 64 of 71 (843938)
11-23-2018 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
11-22-2018 2:22 PM


I changed it. I humbly ask foregiveness for my mistake.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 2:22 PM Faith has acknowledged this reply

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1551
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 65 of 71 (843940)
11-23-2018 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
11-22-2018 4:14 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Too much technical detail has the effect of abscuring rather than illuminating.

I tried very hard to avoid making the post too technical. The only technical concepts included in what you're quoting are fixation and alleles; which I thought you understood. Most of it's just normal, everyday words. I'm not sure how you can think you have it all figured out if any attempt to discuss how things actually work is too technical.

The only point of the post was to use practical examples of the real world that demonstrate your pet theory is wrong. New alleles arise by mutation. Therefore, selection does not mean that species somehow run out of variation. Because new variation appears. It's not that complicated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 4:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 11-23-2018 5:27 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 66 of 71 (843944)
11-23-2018 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dredge
11-20-2018 8:07 AM


Aussie
Hey Dredge. Fellow Aussie here.
I know exactly what you are saying mate.
Funny thing is no one else does...
Hehehe...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dredge, posted 11-20-2018 8:07 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 67 of 71 (843970)
11-23-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dredge
11-20-2018 8:07 AM


Is this another hit-and-run OP? Or are you going to play out this as before?

I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe that existed billions of years ago, ...

I'm sure you have.

... but can't find any.

I'm shocked.

It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.

It would.

You are not going to gain any more traction here than in the other forums you post.

First of all, you are under the mistaken notion that all science must be directly applicable to whatever subset of applied science you care to abuse.

Then you assume that you can make demands of us that we satisfy YOUR personal criteria for usefulness. You are going to ignore anything we post, right?

Then you require us to play in your sandbox only, and ignore the fact that YEC/ID has no such application in applied sciences.

No one really cares what your opinion is. You are trolling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dredge, posted 11-20-2018 8:07 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 68 of 71 (843971)
11-23-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
11-21-2018 12:55 PM


Re: Name one.
... the known fact that Species or Kinds do have built in ability to vary but only within the Kind.

So, Faith, tell us about the what species represented giraffe kind in Cambrian times, or even in the Jurassic? After all, modern giraffes must have adapted from a precursor giraffe, yes?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 12:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 11-23-2018 4:12 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 69 of 71 (843986)
11-23-2018 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by edge
11-23-2018 2:09 PM


Re: Name one.
... the known fact that Species or Kinds do have built in ability to vary but only within the Kind.

So, Faith, tell us about the what species represented giraffe kind in Cambrian times, or even in the Jurassic? After all, modern giraffes must have adapted from a precursor giraffe, yes?

There is no Cambrian or Jurassic time. You know, just the layered sedimentary rocks with fossils in them, nothing to do with time. You said somewhere that you were starting to think like a YEC. Naaa, not yet.

I suppose there was some other form of the giraffe, that evolved into the giraffe we have today but that happened over the last 4500 years or so.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by edge, posted 11-23-2018 2:09 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 70 of 71 (843991)
11-23-2018 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by caffeine
11-23-2018 5:47 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
So I guess you are merely arguing the usual, that because mutation produces the occasional viable allele that therefore we have an increase in genetic diversity which falsifies what I'm saying. But it doesn't because any increase gets eaten up as it were by the selection processes that reduce genetic diversity in order to bring about a new species or subspecies, ---a new population with new phenotypic characteristics. Genetic decrease is NECESSARY to the formation of new species or subspecies.

Even if all alleles were mutations this would be the case. A population full of mutated traits isn't evolution anyway since that's just a motley collection of differences, while evolution requires the formation of new populations based on new gene frequencies with new phenotypic characteristics. You have to lose alleles in order to get that new population, their source is really irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, however, beneficial mutations simply do not show up in any frequency that would interfere with the processes of reduction (and if they did you'd never get new phenotypic groups anyway). The cheetah has been waiting a long time for mutations to save it from extinction. It's been fortunate in that at least any mutations that have arisen haven't completely done it in yet, although the creature is certainly struggling.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by caffeine, posted 11-23-2018 5:47 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2018 2:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 71 of 71 (844007)
11-24-2018 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
11-23-2018 5:27 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

So I guess you are merely arguing the usual, that because mutation produces the occasional viable allele that therefore we have an increase in genetic diversity which falsifies what I'm saying

On the evidence it seems to be true, so itís a pretty good answer. Which is why you havenít been able to refute it yet - and why you avoid the evidence so much.

quote:

But it doesn't because any increase gets eaten up as it were by the selection processes that reduce genetic diversity in order to bring about a new species or subspecies, ---a new population with new phenotypic characteristics

In your opinion. But you have yet to make a case that this produces a real ongoing decrease rather than a fluctuation in diversity.

quote:

As a matter of fact, however, beneficial mutations simply do not show up in any frequency that would interfere with the processes of reduction (and if they did you'd never get new phenotypic groups anyway).


More of your unsupported opinions. You canít support either claim.

quote:

The cheetah has been waiting a long time for mutations to save it from extinction.

They are a lot further from extinction than they were at the time of the original bottleneck. They have survived a more recent bottleneck due to humans hunting them. You have zero data on what mutations have done to improve their situation.

Itís really telling that you have absolutely no examples from species that have not undergone severe bottlenecks. This ďinevitableĒ result doesnít seem to occur from ordinary levels of selection at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 11-23-2018 5:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018