Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 91 of 259 (770861)
10-14-2015 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
10-14-2015 6:52 PM


Moderator Concern
Faith writes:
The last three posts are not worth answering. First one is irrelevant, second one is wrong, third one is both irrelevant and wrong. Soon as someone says something at all worth answering I'll answer it.
Presumably the reason you're here is to discuss your ideas. People are trying to discuss with you.
What Blue Jay said about evidence is not irrelevant but was a response to your efforts at ignoring evidence. PaulK called your attention to his explanations of how your ideas are mistaken, but instead of rebutting them you just declared them wrong. NoNukes is trying to understand what you mean by speciation, and if breeding incompatibilities don't stem from "acquired diversity" (i.e., genetic differences) then since this thread is about your "Genetic Processes Argument" it's hard to see how his statement could be irrelevant, and if it's wrong then this has to be explained.
Please discuss your topic. Please do not take moderation into your own hands. If you feel someone isn't discussing in good faith please post to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 6:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 10:07 PM Admin has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 92 of 259 (770862)
10-14-2015 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:41 PM


Stop lying Faith -- all science approximates
That's the lowest level possible science blue jay, basically a delusion. But with the ToE you have to be happy with any pretense I suppose.
No Faith, that is reality for ALL science. Your failure to understand must make you a dunderhead ...
Because you have been told this time and again. In every science field you choose to blather on in.
Theory explains facts, and theory makes predictions that can be used to test the theory. If the theory is not invalidated then it is accepted as a good explanation of those facts known at this time. When a theory like the ToE has been tested and tested and tested and there is no viable alternate theory, then it is accepted as the best known explanation at this time.
Evolution is one of the most tested theories in science, and it has not had one scintilla of evidence that it is invalid.
This includes the genetic evidence that mutations provide new alleles and that they are the only *known* source of new alleles.
Your opinion is amazingly incompetent at altering these facts in any way.
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 83 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2015 8:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 93 of 259 (770863)
10-14-2015 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:44 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On -- mutations occur, get used to it.
READ WHAT I WROTE AND THINK FOR A CHANGE. Sheesh. What makes the kind of difference that leads to speciation is REDUCTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY,. Good grief. n
Wrong. See Message 49.
Using caps does not make you any more correct or improve your argument. You are still wrong. You need to have mutations to generate genetic incompatibility, and you need them occurring in two separated populations independently with no gene flow. This has been explained to you. Many times. In every thread you raise this issue it gets explained to you. This has been going on for years.
No matter how many alleles you remove from a population it will still be able to interbreed with the parent population -- because they COME from that population and were interbreeding in that population, and there is no way for them to become different\incompatible without mutations.
It's a simple concept to understand, and I don't see why you can't just read it to see the light.
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 84 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 94 of 259 (770864)
10-14-2015 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
10-14-2015 8:01 PM


Re: Stop lying Faith -- all science approximates
Evolution is one of the most tested theories in science, and it has not had one scintilla of evidence that it is invalid.
This includes the genetic evidence that mutations provide new alleles and that they are the only *known* source of new alleles.
Your opinion is amazingly incompetent at altering these facts in any way.
It is not "opinion" that is involved here, it is belief.
Belief, to creationists, overrides evidence and everything else.
To creationists, belief does indeed alter facts, and it alters them in any manner that is necessary to reconcile them with said belief. It alters scientific definitions as well. To the degree that facts and definitions are not altered (or a punster might say, "altared"), those facts and definitions are ignored, denied, misrepresented, stretched, or obfuscated.
Heinlein noted that "Belief gets in the way of learning." To that we might add, "Belief gets in the way of thinking."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 8:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 95 of 259 (770865)
10-14-2015 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:47 PM


you do not understand genetics and have no authority to judge others
This is not an error I make. ...
The mistakes you make are legend. You do not understand genetics and are no authority to lecture anyone on the subject. You misuse words because you do not understand them or refuse to accept the scientific definitions because they run counter to your dogmatic fantasy.
... I've been defending this argument for over ten years. ...
And for 10 years people who actually know the subject matter have been telling you where you are wrong, how you are wrong and what you need to understand to correct your mistakes.
... I do not make that error. ...
See Message 49
... But your comment proves that you must be doing it yourself. ...
ROFLOL again, and again the irony.
... I keep putting off dealing with your posts because you say so many ridiculously wrong things and say them at such length I haven't been up to it. ...
No Faith, they are the corrections of your multitudinous errors. If you didn't run on at such length in the wrong directions you would not need such lengthy replies correcting you.
... For you to impute that particular error to me makes it only too sadly clear that you must be wrong to an even more abysmal degree than I suspected.
Again you are no authority, and so you have no basis to judge others, especially when your "knowledge" is such a flaky hodgepodge of incomplete information and made-up misinformation.
But hey, that's what makes you such a hoot to read.
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 85 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 9:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 259 (770867)
10-14-2015 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
10-14-2015 8:31 PM


No, the problem is your stubborn ego-driven blindness
My argument is simple, straightforward, uses words correctly according to the English language, is not jargon-ridden but clear to anyone who is willing to just read carefully, and correctly makes use of necessary concepts from population genetics. It IS counterintuitive, that is what makes it difficult, although the concepts are implicit in breeding methods for one thing, and that ought to give you a handle on them if you were just willing to do that; also, evolutionist lore ASSUMES the things I'm challenging, assumes increase in genetic diversity for instance because the theory requires it, not because it is true. I repeat the point about losing genetic diversity over and over because it IS counterintuitive. Eventually it ought to sink into the most resistant skull. And yours is probably the most resistant here because you have immersed yourself more completely in evo lore than probably anyone else here. But you haven't spent any time at all even trying to understand the argument I'm making.
You want me to use words that would actually obscure what I'm trying to say. I have no reason to even try to do that. I've accommodated to such complaints many times before as far as is consistent with my aims. Just read the English and follow the argument instead of imposing your standard evo BS on everything I say. There must be some INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS that could be asked about my claims instead of this you aren't a scientist and you have no right to challenge our sanctified theory attitude you all have. Too bad but after all this time that's the only explanation that makes sense for the dunderheaded responses I get from everybody here.
You don't WANT to get my point and there is nothing more to it. Bias is the basic problem but if it weren't for willful blindness on top of it bias might be overcome with time. You are all just a bunch of stubborn ego-driven MEN who refuse to understand simple English. Why, because I'm a nonscientist, a Christian believer, or perhaps just because I'm a woman? I don't expect an honest answer, you'd hide the truth from yourselves anyway.
The argument is counterintuitive, it takes some effort to overcome that effect. It challenges evo assumptions; it takes some effort to overcome that too. Otherwise it is written in straightforward English and it's correct.
Treat me like I'm an intelligent person who knows what I'm talking about. Read my simple English the way it should be read. Make an effort to overcome your own assumptions. I've repeated my points clearly enough time and again, you really have no excuse for continuing to refuse to get the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 8:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2015 10:49 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 112 by herebedragons, posted 10-16-2015 8:30 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 97 of 259 (770869)
10-14-2015 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Admin
10-14-2015 7:47 PM


Re: Moderator Concern
Presumably the reason you're here is to discuss your ideas. People are trying to discuss with you.
Actually they are not. That has become clear. See my last post -- Message 96. I'm tired of playing the game. They posture and pose and say totally off the wall irrelevant things but apparently I'm not allowed to answer in kind? Apparently not. Why should that surprise me. When I say they don't get it TRY FOR A CHANGE GETTING THAT THEY DON'T GET IT. I've said it often enough. They don't get it. Neither do you.
What Blue Jay said about evidence is not irrelevant but was a response to your efforts at ignoring evidence.
BS. Irrelevant, wrong and irrelevant.
PaulK called your attention to his explanations of how your ideas are mistaken, but instead of rebutting them you just declared them wrong.
I've rebutted them a million times already and more than once on this thread. He doesn't get it I'm tired of repeating myself. The rebuttal has been stated and stated and stated and stated. Just reread it. Require HIM to reread it. It's all there.
NoNukes is trying to understand what you mean by speciation, and if breeding incompatibilities don't stem from "acquired diversity" (i.e., genetic differences) then since this thread is about your "Genetic Processes Argument" it's hard to see how his statement could be irrelevant, and if it's wrong then this has to be explained.
NoNukes says the most ridiculously off the wall things of anybody here. He isn't "trying to understand" anything. He's raising the usual weird objections that don't even make sense. I never said speciation applied to breeding. I use breeding to demonstrate that developing a breed depends on losing genetic diversity, which I apply to the formation of subspecies in the wild since the same population genetics principles must apply.
However occasionally a breed does become unable to reproduce with other breeds so it is a form of speciation but that's not really relevant anyway.
Please discuss your topic. Please do not take moderation into your own hands. If you feel someone isn't discussing in good faith please post to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.
You don't play fair either Percy, which is in fact demonstrated by this post of yours I'm answering. It's clear I'm on my own here.
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 91 by Admin, posted 10-14-2015 7:47 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2015 1:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 102 by Admin, posted 10-15-2015 9:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 259 (770871)
10-14-2015 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:44 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
READ WHAT I WROTE AND THINK FOR A CHANGE. Sheesh. What makes the kind of difference that leads to speciation is REDUCTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY,.
We all know that you've said that, Faith. It just seems to be rubbish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 10:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 99 of 259 (770872)
10-14-2015 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
10-14-2015 10:26 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
Of course it "seems to be rubbish" to someone committed to willful blindness who won't even try to get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2015 10:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2015 1:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 100 of 259 (770873)
10-15-2015 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
10-14-2015 10:07 PM


Re: Moderator Concern
Faith, raising valid objections IS discussion, even if you cannot answer them. Brushing them off with accusations that they "do not get it" - with no explanation at all is an evasion.
It seems that your idea of "discussion" is mindless agreement. To you, dissent, no matter how cogent is automatically wrong simply because it IS dissent. That's a really poor attitude here, and one directly opposed to the search for truth.
quote:
I've rebutted them a million times already and more than once on this thread. He doesn't get it I'm tired of repeating myself. The rebuttal has been stated and stated and stated and stated. Just reread it. Require HIM to reread it. It's all there
And that is an outright lie. You have never, for instance, given any reason to think that breeders would reject new variations that do not interfere with their plans - or even that they would determinedly look for such variations if they were not easily apparent. And yet your argument depends on evolution having to do that. But if breeders succeed in producing new breeds without doing that, why is it necessary? You don't say.
if you want to disagree just provide a quote which addresses it and a reference to the message which contains the quote. Don't just throw unsubstantiated accusations as has become your habit.
And let us not forget that you refuse to even consider what happens between speciation events, even though speciation events comprise a small part of a species existence. How can you rebut arguments by refusing to discuss them ?
Lying is not the answer, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 10:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 101 of 259 (770874)
10-15-2015 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
10-14-2015 10:47 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
Of course it "seems to be rubbish" to someone committed to willful blindness who won't even try to get it.
Of course I "get it". I understand your blithering nonsense perfectly. But because I also know stuff about the real world, I am able to see how real stuff conflicts with the nonsense you've made up in your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 10:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(5)
Message 102 of 259 (770883)
10-15-2015 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
10-14-2015 10:07 PM


Re: Moderator Concern
Hi Faith,
In a discussion thread everyone argues their side, and whoever is right or wrong is for others to decide. If you're not going to argue your side and make your best case to those reading the thread, if you're instead just going to declare yourself right and others wrong, then please stop posting.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 10:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 103 of 259 (770893)
10-15-2015 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
10-14-2015 9:55 PM


The Irony: the problem is your stubborn ego-driven blindness
My argument is simple, straightforward, ...
And incomplete ... because it ignores contrary evidence that makes it wrong.
... uses words correctly according to the English language ...
Wrong. Many people have criticized your arguments as making up new meanings for words that don't really apply.
For instance "phenotype" ...
quote:
NOUN
biology
the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
You use it to describe a group of organisms that you claim became a new subcategory as a result of them all sharing a single new mix of alleles ... in part because you do not want to use the word "species" (because, iirc, you don't like the implication that macroevolution would be occurring). So you muddle with "sub-species" and hijack phenotype to say what biologists use "species" to say.
Then you say things like:
... Do you know the difference between GENETIC diversity and NEW PHENOTYPES? ...
Do you know the difference between racial diversity and new babies?
An easy test for you to see if you are using a word correctly is if you replace the word with the definition and it means what you think you are saying.
... is not jargon-ridden ...
Every science has terminology that has been developed for clarifying meanings and understanding content. Learning the "jargon" is part of learning the science so that you can discuss it properly and communicate without confusion.
... but clear to anyone who is willing to just read carefully, ...
Except when it isn't and people ask you for clarifications because you have misused some words and dance around others (species) as if they were hot-potatoes.
... and correctly makes use of necessary concepts from population genetics. ...
You don't know population genetics. You have gathered bits and pieces and assembled what you think is population genetics, but there are significant aspects that you ignore or are ignorant of.
... It IS counterintuitive ...
Nope. It is incomplete, and it is incomplete because it ignores or omits significant aspects of evolution in general and population genetics in particular.
... that is what makes it difficult ...
No, that is what makes it wrong. Your argument is like saying that bread doesn't rise because yeast doesn't exist (or that it rarely exists, and when it does it doesn't do enough to make bread rise, so it is irrelevant and can be ignored in looking at bread to see that bread does not rise).
... although the concepts are implicit in breeding methods for one thing ...
Breeding methodology is not population genetics, and I say this because you seem to think it is, hence your reliance on it to explain your version of population genetics.
... and that ought to give you a handle on them if you were just willing to do that ...
See?
... if you were just willing to do that ...
Curiously I don't think a single person replying to you is unwilling to consider what you have said, they just take the next step of looking at the evidence and they see that your argument is incomplete or outright wrong.
... also, evolutionist lore ASSUMES ...
Not "lore" Faith -- scientific theory predicts that what has been observed in one situation will be observed in similar situations, it is not an assumption it is a prediction.
... the things I'm challenging, ...
Correction, the things you are denying. If you were challenging them you would have evidence and would have tested your concepts.
... assumes increase in genetic diversity for instance because the theory requires it ...
Wrong way around Faith: biologists observe increases in genetic diversity and then incorporate that observation into theory.
... not because it is true. ...
Except that what has been observed is in fact, you know, fact. Mutations have been observed, and the increase in genetic diversity that resulted was observed. Hypothesizing that what has happened before will continue to happen is as close to "truth" as science gets, and in fact is what all science is based on.
Unless you have a better explanation (one that explains all the current known facts and makes new predictions for new findings) the current explanation will continue to be accepted as the best known explanation for the facts as observed.
You think you do, but your concept is full of holes, and you have no evidence that supports your concept while plenty of evidence contradicts it. You think it is better because it fits your dogma, not because it fits the facts, and that is not science, nor is it a challenge to science.
... repeat the point about losing genetic diversity over and over because it IS counterintuitive. ...
No, you repeat it over and over and over because you want it to be true.
... Eventually it ought to sink into the most resistant skull. ...
ROFLOL, the irony, it huuurts ...
... And yours is probably the most resistant here ...
And you complain about being personally attacked ... the irony ...
... because you have immersed yourself more completely in evo lore than probably anyone else here. ...
Because I have studied science in general and evolution especially, from actual sources that teach the sciences rather than making up fantasies?
Trying to minimize (by denigrating it) the value of information that contradicts your personal dogmatic view won't make it change.
... But you haven't spent any time at all even trying to understand the argument I'm making.
Curiously I've spent way too much time on it, and I not only understand your argument, I understand its failings. Going over it again and again won't erase those failings.
You want me to use words that would actually obscure what I'm trying to say. I have no reason to even try to do that. ...
No, Faith, I want you to use words the way they are defined and the way they are used in science. If that doesn't enable you to discuss your concept clearly, then you need to look at what your concept really is.
... I've accommodated to such complaints many times before as far as is consistent with my aims. ...
But it is not your aims that govern how language is used. Language is used to communicate and so you need to use it properly to accomplish your aims.
... Just read the English and follow the argument instead of imposing your standard evo BS on everything I say. ...
Curiously I read and follow your argument, and then I tell you what is wrong with it, what the evidence shows is wrong with it. You call it BS in order to dismiss it rather than to answer why those problems don't make your argument wrong.
IE -- if it truly were BS you would be able to demonstrate why and provide evidence in support. You don't, instead you complain and complain and complain.
... There must be some INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS that could be asked about my claims ...
You mean like "what are the numbers?" like "what is the evidence?" like "why can't mutations replace lost genetic diversity with new genetic diversity?" -- you know, those questions you refuse to answer?
... instead of this you aren't a scientist and you have no right to challenge our sanctified theory attitude you all have. ...
It's not your purported challenge to the theory Faith, but the way you attack the people who actually have studied the field and try to say that they don't know what they are talking about. It's the Hubris of Ignorance when you think you know more than people that have studied the fields in question, and that you can criticize them and call them ignorant.
... Too bad but after all this time that's the only explanation that makes sense for the dunderheaded responses I get from everybody here.
Versus the explanation that you are wrong, you have been consistently wrong, people have time and again pointed out to you why, where and when you are wrong.
But go ahead and sling more insults instead of reply to the criticisms of your argument that point out the failings in it.
You don't WANT to get my point and there is nothing more to it. Bias is the basic problem but if it weren't for willful blindness on top of it bias might be overcome with time. ...
Again, the irony ...
... Why, because I'm a nonscientist, a Christian believer, or perhaps just because I'm a woman? I don't expect an honest answer, you'd hide the truth from yourselves anyway.
Yep, the whole world is ganging up on you in a vast conspiracy just so they can persecute you for being a Christian ... it doesn't have anything to do with you personally being wrong.
The argument is counterintuitive, ...
Nope
...it takes some effort to overcome that effect. ...
Nope
... It challenges evo assumptions; ..
Nope
... it takes some effort to overcome that too. ...
Nope
... Otherwise it is written in straightforward English ...
Nope
... and it's correct.
Nope.
See above and see Message 49 for further clarification.
Treat me like I'm an intelligent person who knows what I'm talking about. ...
Except for where you still have things to learn.
... Read my simple English the way it should be read. ...
Curiously I can only read what is written, using standard definitions, I cannot interpret what is in your mind, it is your responsibility to communicate that.
... Make an effort to overcome your own assumptions. ...
Again with the irony. You lambaste people for not doing what you are not doing.
When you have an actually valid scientific argument based on facts and proper information, instead of half-truths and misunderstandings and dogmatic preconceptions, let me know.
... I've repeated my points clearly enough time and again, you really have no excuse for continuing to refuse to get the point.
And once again, it is NOT an issue of understanding and it is NOT an issue of getting the point, it is the issue that your argument is flawed, fatally flawed, flawed in many ways flawed.
And you have no excuse for continuing to refuse to get the point. People have been telling you for 10 years ....

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 96 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 9:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(6)
Message 104 of 259 (770901)
10-15-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:41 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
Hi, Faith.
Faith writes:
That's the lowest level possible science blue jay, basically a delusion. But with the ToE you have to be happy with any pretense I suppose.
Okay, so you didn't like my last post. I guess that wasn't the most productive decision I could have made. I just got excited about what I saw as a minor victory: you agreed to call it "science," instead of "assumption." I'll stop being juvenile about it if it helps us communicate.
In all sincerity, I cannot understand how you and I can disagree on the things we disagree about. To me, using evidence about one thing to draw conclusions about other similar things seems perfectly reasonable, and this seems like the only thing I’m doing when it comes to alleles and mutations. But, to you, it apparently seems like a pile of wild assumptions and delusions.
The contrast here is really jarring to me. You and I both think we’re being perfectly rational and making perfect sense, yet each of us thinks the other is being irrational. It reminds me of that one time when Bolder-dash and I both looked at the same photographs of apes and disagreed about whether the apes had facial hair. We couldn’t even agree on the facts contained in photographic evidence!
I feel like I’ve made a good-faith effort to understand and explain, but I’m still having trouble identifying what keeps you from agreeing with my perspective on what is and what isn’t rational.
Maybe it’s because I’ve only ever presented one paper on beneficial mutations? Maybe you think we only have one experiment that supports our idea that mutations create new alleles? Is that the problem?
Just in case it is, here are a few more examples:
Bacteria/Microbes
Here is a paper that used genetic markers to track adaptive events in a population of transgenic E. coli bacteria. They started with 1 single bacterial cell, and let it multiply over 1000 generations, periodically taking samples of the progeny and screening for mutations to a single target gene. They identified 66 mutations to that one focal gene which had an adaptive, or beneficial, effect on the fitness of individual bacteria.
Here is a study that tracked changes in the ratio of two marker genes over hundreds of bacterial generations. Once they identified a population in which white- or red-marked bacteria had deviated from the starting ratio by a predefined amount, they calculated shifts in fitness by replicating the experiment and showing that either the white- or red-marked strain had indeed developed an adaptive advantage. They used these results to develop a mathematical model of the probability of a beneficial mutation reaching fixation.
Here is a paper that identified 665 mutations in Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria, and evaluated their fitness relative to the wild-type bacterium by comparative growth assays on a variety of different media. They discovered that the distribution of fitness effects was exponential, which means most of them had minor fitness effects, but a few of them had major fitness effects.
Nematode worms
Here is a paper that discusses modern techniques for identifying phenotype-altering mutations in model organisms, including nematodes, plants and fruit flies. The specific mutation they focus on is a mutation that alters the developmental fate of stem cells in the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans (this is a neutral phenotype). If you look through the references for this paper, you will find dozens of studies that talk about methods for screening populations of laboratory organisms for the presence of new phenotypes, and for identifying how each new phenotype is associated with a readily-identifiable mutation.
Chickens
Here is a paper that deals with mutations to pigmentation genes in chickens. The Dominant white allele does not occur in wild jungle fowl (i.e., wild chickens), but does occur in some populations of domestic chickens. Two mutations to the Dominant white locus include Dun and Smoky, both of which mutations have been positively identified. Furthermore, both of these mutants arose spontaneously in known populations, and the exact bird in which the mutation occurred is known.
Humans
Here is a short review paper about an allele in humans that has a beneficial effect on lipid transport. This allele is easily explained as a truncation mutation (i.e., a change to a single nucleotide creates a stop codon, which halts translation from RNA-to-protein early, resulting in a shortened protein). It’s occurrence within the human population suggests that it is not the ancestral condition, but a derived condition resulting from a single-nucleotide polymorphism.
Here is a paper from 1984, in which large-scale screening of Jamaicans identified a family with a benign (i.e., neutral) phenotype variant that deals with the production of hemoglobin in humans fetuses. They were able to show that this phenotype was caused by a single point mutation, because they sequenced the genotypes of the child and the parents, and showed that the child’s genotype differed from both parents’.
Here is a news article about a 2011 paper that used whole-genome sequencing on two families of humans, and determined that the children in both families have about 60 new mutations (relative to their parents), of which about 1 will have a phenotypic effect.
-----
I spent about 1 hour searching on Google Scholar with search terms like identifying beneficial mutations, and skimming/reading PDF’s, and I came up with 8 papers that show some really compelling evidence. These aren’t just lists of alleles that are purported to have been caused by mutations: these are mutations that have been observed directly, and have resulted in new alleles. Some of them are beneficial mutations, and none of the ones I reported are deleterious.
How many more of these might I have found if I had spent an entire day on it? Even with a law of diminishing returns, I might easily expect to find a couple dozen experimentally-verified mutations, representing thousands of man-hours of experimental labor and millions of dollars of grant funding.
When we say that alleles come from mutations, we aren’t making wild, unfounded assumptions. There really is very good evidence that alleles come from mutations, and a lot of scientists have put in a lot of hard work to acquire that evidence. And, there is no evidence that alleles come from anywhere else. Until that evidence comes out, mutation seems like the best --- indeed, the only --- hypothesis we’ve got.
So, to me, it seems only rational to accept the mutation hypothesis until I see a good reason to think otherwise. Sure, it may turn out that I’m wrong: maybe some alleles come from some other mechanism, possibly even from an Intelligent Design mechanism, but if I accepted that now, with our current state of evidence, I would be making some unfounded assumptions, which we all agree are an inappropriate way to do scientific reasoning.
Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe that this is irrational, or delusional, of me?
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 105 of 259 (770918)
10-15-2015 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
10-13-2015 9:53 AM


Re: No lack of evidence
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity necessary to getting pure breeds.
Evidence: mutations cause gain of genetic diversity that were later inherited by the pure breeds.
Evidence: descendants of pure breeds will increase in genetic diversity over time due to accumulation of mutations.
Evidence: You can't get new phenotypes unless you get rid of alleles for other phenotypes. Breeders know this, it's the reason for preserving strict reproductive isolation.
Completely false. You didn't have to get rid of any other hemoglobin alleles in order to produce hemoglobin C, a new and rare allele that may be better than hemoglobin S at protecting against malaria.
Hemoglobin C - Wikipedia
Evidence: Cheetah, unique cat with fixed loci, which is the end result of loss of genetic diversity in the formation of new species. It could be created by one drastic bottleneck or it could be created by a series of population splits occurring from each former daughter population.
Evidence: Cheetah genetic diversity increases with each generation as new mutations are added.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 9:53 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 10-15-2015 6:07 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024