Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 8:48 PM
358 online now:
Coragyps, halibut, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Rrhain (6 members, 352 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,365 Year: 23,971/21,208 Month: 1,936/2,468 Week: 29/416 Day: 29/24 Hour: 4/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5556
57
585960Next
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 841 of 893 (818280)
08-26-2017 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 839 by PaulK
08-26-2017 1:38 AM


Re: What Really Happens
The logical argument has been given dozens of times here. I may not do it justice with any particular repeating of it, but I can try again: Domestic breeds are recognizable by their peculiar characteristics; they don't keep changing through mutations or any other kind of gene flow unless allowed to run wild.; If they are purebreds in past generations before breeders were worried about genetic diseases they would have been homozygous for all their distinguishing traits, which is a condition of greatly reduced gentic diversity. This reduction is NECESSARY to getting a breed. You HAVE to get rid of the alleles for other characteristics in order to maintain those of a particular breed.

In the wild the same situation must happen too. "Species" are recognizable by their peculiar characteristics and they too don't change over time, even thought they DO run wild. They preserve their reproductive isolation and therefore their particular characteristics even when they have not lost the ability to interbreed with others of the Species/Kind. Tigers and lions for instance can interbreed but normally don't, they remain recognizable tigers and ions.

While such subspecies are probably not close to being purebred in the sense mentioned above, the processes that led to their original divergence from others of their Kind would necessarily have eliminated traits that do not belong to their own trait picture, which means they have some degree of reduced genetic diversity in comparison to the parent population they diverged from.

Since nature is just chock full of recognizable species and subspecies of their Kind that maintain their distinguishing characteristics from generation to generation, I think we can suppose that mutations aren't altering their basic genetic situation.

It may still be possible for further evolution in many wild animals.; Perhaps the grizzly could split into two different subspecies still. If so it would be by losing the traits of the parent species for some degree of reduced genetic diversity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 1:38 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 845 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 3:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13125
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 842 of 893 (818281)
08-26-2017 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:20 AM


quote:

A line of thought got derailed back there somewhere thanks to Percy's hairsplitting semantic distractions. Well, more than one line of thought met that fate for that reason, but at the moment I'm thinking of my attempt to answer the complaint that domestic breeding can't be a model for evolution because speciation doesn't occur in breeding, meaning that the point is never reached where interbreeding with other members of the species becomes genetically impossible

It is certainly an objection, but it should be noted that you DID frequently claim that the inability to interbreed was caused by your "genetic depletion". Are you admitting that you simply made that up ? (You did, of course, but it is rare if you to admit to that)

quote:

My answer is that I don't think speciation according to that definition occurs in nature either so breeding is a good model even by that standard

So how do you explain ring species ? Not so long ago you were asserting that ring species were evidence for your ideas (which was another thing you simply made up) but if the inability to interbreed never develops in nature, ring species aren't something you would expect to see at all.

quote:

I'm makig a simple point: inability to breed doesn't distinguish some different "species" in the wild same as it doesn't distinguish between domestic breeds.

I note that you offer only assertion here. However if, as you claim, the inability to interbreed never develops in nature the inability to interbreed must be fundamental. Your assertions are not only false - they are contradictory.

quote:

So stop with the hairsplitting semantics. My point holds: breeding is a good model of evolution on many counts.

Appealing to false and contradictory "reasons" hardly gives us reason to believe that.

quote:

All this is too tiresome. Either my opponents are low IQ or experiencing early dementia or just don't want to understand anything I'm saying.

Or alternatively your desperate rationalisations are obviously wrong and all your arrogant bullying backfires as usual.

quote:

Whatever the reason yes THEY are making the discussion impossible and accusing me of being the problem.

As usual "discussion is impossible" just means that you are being defeated despite your clumsy tricks. That's not a problem. The problem is your arrogance and dishonesty and refusal to accept that you are wrong even when it is absolutely obvious


This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:55 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 843 of 893 (818282)
08-26-2017 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 842 by PaulK
08-26-2017 2:50 AM


It is certainly an objection, but it should be noted that you DID frequently claim that the inability to interbreed was caused by your "genetic depletion". Are you admitting that you simply made that up ? (You did, of course, but it is rare if you to admit to that)

It was my theory. Theories are by definition "made up." I thought that was the likely cause of the inability to interbreed. As I said a number of times in recent posts I believe. It appears the theory is wrong. Why do you have to make it sound like something evil when it is a perfectly standard thought process?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 842 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 2:50 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 3:13 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 847 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2017 3:14 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 852 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 10:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 844 of 893 (818285)
08-26-2017 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 826 by Faith
08-25-2017 4:28 PM


Re: What Really Happens
My theory is SO elegant, so consistent, so fine, and SO unappreciated, alas.

It is unappreciated because it is wrong.

And it is not a theory! A theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts, is supported by all relevant facts, is contradicted by no relevant facts, and makes successful predictions.

Your hypothesis fails on all accounts. But because it is actually a belief rather than a real hypothesis, and because it is based on belief rather than evidence, you will never accept anything to the contrary.

These threads and your own statements show that this is the case.


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 826 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 4:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13125
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 845 of 893 (818286)
08-26-2017 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:46 AM


Re: What Really Happens
quote:

The logical argument has been given dozens of times here

I don't think you understand the term "logical" correctly. The mere fact that you have to make excuses to try to deny the contribution of mutations would disqualify your argument, even if your usual excuse wasn't obviously false.

quote:

Domestic breeds are recognizable by their peculiar characteristics; they don't keep changing through mutations or any other kind of gene flow unless allowed to run wild

in case you have forgotten mutations do occur and are sometimes used by breeders. Adid that there are certainly mutations that will not affect the desired traits (many will affect traits that are not easily seen), and the relatively short time scale and your argument is already in trouble. The lack of gene flow is just an artificial constraint by breeders. So, not exactly a good start.

quote:

This reduction is NECESSARY to getting a breed. You HAVE to get rid of the alleles for other characteristics in order to maintain those of a particular breed.

Which is generally agreed.

quote:

In the wild the same situation must happen too. "Species" are recognizable by their peculiar characteristics and they too don't change over time, even thought they DO run wild. They preserve their reproductive isolation and therefore their particular characteristics even when they have not lost the ability to interbreed with others of the Species/Kind. Tigers and lions for instance can interbreed but normally don't, they remain recognizable tigers and ions.

The evidence shows that species have changed over time. Species may be stable over long periods of time by human standards but they do not last forever. Many are replaced by closely related species.

quote:

Since nature is just chock full of recognizable species and subspecies of their Kind that maintain their distinguishing characteristics from generation to generation, I think we can suppose that mutations aren't altering their basic genetic situation.

Why would we suppose something we know to be false ? You've had the example of the pocket mice. Mutation can and does add selectable diversity. Just because something happens slowly and mostly unseen is not a logical reason to conclude that it does not happen. (Strictly speaking it is illogical)

quote:

It may still be possible for further evolution in many wild animals.; Perhaps the grizzly could split into two different subspecies still. If so it would be by losing the traits of the parent species for some degree of reduced genetic diversity

Unfortunately for your argument the genetic diversity of the parent species is not static, and is very likely significantly increased since it was formed.

So, no, you don't have a logically unimpeachable argument or even a good one. And you have no excuse for not knowing that by now,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13125
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 846 of 893 (818287)
08-26-2017 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:55 AM


quote:

It was my theory.

By which you mean that it was just an unsupported opinion that you presented as fact. Even after the obvious objections has been raised and not answered.

That may be normal for you, but it should not be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 847 of 893 (818288)
08-26-2017 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:55 AM


Theories
It was my theory. Theories are by definition "made up."

Stop misusing scientific terms! A "wild-ass-guess" or a religious belief are not theories. A layman may think any nonsensical idea he comes up with is a theory but that is a gross misuse of the term.

If you want to play at science, you really need to learn something about it. Here are some scientific definitions, posted for about the 10th time. Read and learn!

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. [Source]

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source


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 843 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 848 of 893 (818290)
08-26-2017 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
08-25-2017 10:00 PM


Re: What Really Happens
The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically.

Maybe. But logic isn't sufficient. To produce a true result it must be based on true premises. Your false assumption that mutations cannot be significant renders the whole thing invalid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 10:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 849 of 893 (818291)
08-26-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 837 by Faith
08-25-2017 9:58 PM


Faith writes:

I used to wonder about evolution's strange lack of evidence way back when I believed in it.

Your lack of awareness of evidence and irrational rejection of evidence don't make the mountains of evidence disappear. It just makes you ignorant and irrational and incapable of carrying on an evidence-based discussion. You live in a fantasy world where you think it valid to say, "I reject your evidence," while providing no reason, no contrary evidence, no counterargument. You rarely make it through a post without making a number of evidential and logical errors, not a good source of valid ideas.

When I came to understand Creation it's like that gave me a sort of permission to consider it wrong,...

This might make sense if you were engaged in a religious discussion, but you're not. This is a scientific discussion, so far distinguished by your inability to bring any evidence or rational argument to the table. The only permission needed for you to consider evolution wrong is actual evidence and rational argument in your favor. So far there's been none.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 837 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 850 of 893 (818292)
08-26-2017 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
08-25-2017 10:00 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Faith writes:

The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically.

Yet another one liner restatement of something already rebutted in detail multiple times.

The idea that there can be an "inability to evolve further" is starkly contradicted by what we observe happens in the real world. There is nothing besides extinction that can bring evolution to a halt because mutations are continually added to populations' gene pools generation after generation. We know the mutation rate of many species, and it is well above zero. The Wikipedia article on mutation rate estimates the number of new mutations per generation in humans to be 64.

Mutations may be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. Sufficiently deleterious mutations will be selected against and will tend to be eliminated from a population. Beneficial mutations will be selected for and will tend to spread through a population. Neutral mutations that do nothing (e.g., they're in a non-coding region) can spread or be eliminated through genetic drift. Neutral mutations that are neutral because they do the same thing as the old allele will be selected for or against at the same rate as the old allele.

Another way evolution keeps going is gene flow with closely related populations, which introduces new alleles and sometimes even new genes. Yet another way is viruses that insert new genes. And of course there's always varying gene frequencies, since genetic diversity never drops to zero.

Bottom line: claiming that reductions in genetic diversity can bring evolution to a halt is one of the most obviously false things you could say.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 10:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 851 of 893 (818293)
08-26-2017 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:20 AM


Faith writes:

A line of thought got derailed back there somewhere thanks to Percy's hairsplitting semantic distractions.

Gee, my recollection is that you stated you were going to abandon the term "species" and use "kind" instead, and then you never gave "kind" a workable definition, and then you continued to use the term "species" anyway, often right alongside the undefined term "kind". No one can be sure what you're saying, including you, and this is yet another example of you not doing what you said you were going to do. But you do this everyday, we're used to it.

And once again you're blaming someone else for your problems. As long as you renounce responsibility for the quality of your arguments and their success or failure, instead shifting that responsibility to others, you'll never have sufficient motivation for the carry-through that might result in ideas that aren't obviously false, oftentimes self-evidently so.

My answer is that I don't think speciation according to that definition occurs in nature either...

Discussion of this idea wasn't derailed by me but by you. I responded in detail in Message 827. You chose not to address my response when you replied in Message 829, instead calling my post "a bunch of wacko accusatory nonsense" and congratulating yourself for responding so economically. Once again you have no one to blame but yourself.

The evidence we have says that once a population separates into subpopulations, the lower the gene flow between them and the longer they remain separate the more different they will become genetically. This is because of introduction of mutations, changing allele frequencies, and different selection pressures. This process is what we observe in nature.

Genetic analysis tells us that this process has been ongoing since the beginning of life. For example, measuring genetic distance tells us the amount of genetic divergence that has occurred between species or between populations of the same species. For another example, phylogenetics tells us the evolutionary history and relationships between species or populations. It's how we know that a hippopotamus is more closely related to whales than pigs.

...so breeding is a good model even by that standard.

The evidence just presented says you are glaringly wrong to claim that selective breeding is a good model for evolution. Selective breeding is a good model for selection, but selection is only one part of evolution.

I compared the grizzly with the panda which brought some kind of uproar because they are supposedly different species.

Uproar? I think you mean only that yet another of your errors was called to your attention. You make so many errors that people don't make a big deal over most of them, just the most glaring or funny.

But both are true bears of the family Ursidae so what is this ridiculous uproar about anyway?

You suggested they might be able to interbreed, which if you'd bothered to look it up you would have discovered was an absurd suggestion.

I'm makig a simple point: inability to breed doesn't distinguish some different "species" in the wild same as it doesn't distinguish between domestic breeds.

You're making the mistake of trying to redefine species. It already has a definition. Inability to interbreed is the very definition of the boundary between species, whether wild or domesticated.

Whatever brings about that inability doesn't remove the animal from its basic Species or Kind:

You still haven't defined "kind" - please stop using the term until you define it.

a panda is a bear, a grizzly is a bear, a polar bear is a bear.

As was explained before, pandas have only 42 chromosomes, brown bears (grizzlies and polar bears are subspecies of brown bears) have 74. Of course pandas are very unlikely to be able to breed with brown bears, and of course brown bears can breed with each other.

A lion is a cat and a tiger is a cat, certainly at least as genetically different from each other as a golden retriever is from a cocker spaniel, and there is no problem with interbreeding between either group.

Wrong again. A golden retriever and a cocker spaniel are the same species and can mate and produce viable offspring, mutts that can breed to produce more mutts. Lions and tigers are different though closely related species but more distantly related than dog breeds, so ligers and tigons are rarely fertile.

So stop with the hairsplitting semantics. My point holds: breeding is a good model of evolution on many counts.

Every point you made was wrong, so of course your conclusion does not hold: selective breeding by itself is not a good model of evolution because if ignores mutation, which plays a major role in evolution. Mutation is the "descent with modification" part of evolution that goes beyond mere changes in allele frequency.

There was another big uproar about my opinion on speciation. Simple English escapes some people who get themselves so steeped in technical terminology they can't think.

You cannot redefine terms to suit your purposes, and you can't use terms for which you have no definition.

All this is too tiresome. Either my opponents are low IQ or experiencing early dementia or just don't want to understand anything I'm saying.

We understand what you're saying, and most of it is either wrong or nonsense or made up.

Whatever the reason yes THEY are making the discussion impossible and accusing me of being the problem.

When you lash out at others and blame them for your problems, they are naturally going to respond that you bring the problems on yourself by not availing yourself of easily available information, by ignoring evidence, by not seeking evidence supportive of your views, and by making things up out of thin air (the claim of 95% functional DNA in the past comes to mind).

When there is one lone YEC against half a dozen rabid evos you'd think a little more effort would be made to understand the creationist.

Your ideas are so wacky that not even the creationists will own you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 852 of 893 (818294)
08-26-2017 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:55 AM


Faith writes:

It was my theory. Theories are by definition "made up."

No, theories are not by definition "made up." Try looking up scientific theory. It's a framework of understanding constructed around a body of evidence that both explains it and generalizes from it.

Your "ideas" are made up. They don't cohere with any body of evidence, their "explanations" are only attempts to reconcile the Bible with the real world, and they definitely do not generalize.

I thought that was the likely cause of the inability to interbreed.

Yes, you thought genetic depletion could be the cause of the inability to interbreed, despite that it makes no sense and is in direct conflict with how we already know breeding works.

Why do you have to make it sound like something evil when it is a perfectly standard thought process?

Coming up with ideas that have no evidence, that conflict with existing evidence, and that make to rational sense, is not a "perfectly standard thought process." It is ignorant and obtuse and fanciful. And insisting on such ideas in the face of continual correction and the providing of factual information is worse.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 853 of 893 (818295)
08-26-2017 10:48 AM


Sorry if I don't read through insulting posts, they raise my blood pressure and it's not a pleasant feeling.

Yes I understand, nothing could possibly be true if it isn't in lockstep with evo theory. Definitions must all be in line with evo theory, you can't have an original thought because evo theory says something else. I understand, that's the rules here. Sorry I don't play by them but I don't.

I'm still not completely sure there aren't some cases where the cause of inability to interbreed is genetic depletion. It must at times at least be the result of normally occurring genetic differences brought about by microevolution. In any case it has nothing to do with what is called "speciation."

YEC isn't the ToE and I have many many objections to different tenets of the ToE. Utter heresy of course, and you can excommunicate me if you like since it's your church as it were, but I don't agree with the classification system, I don't agree with the definition of "speciation," I do think breeding is a good model of what happens in evolution which at the very least requires reduction in genetic diversity due to random selection; I know microevolution occurs normally in a very short period of time, hundreds of years being a pretty long time, and I find evidence for this in examples I've given both of living species and fossils, I know it only takes new combinations of the original created DNA to bring about new characteristics, mutations being an interference and unnecessary, and that this requires losing the genetic stuff for other characteristics, I believe that it is very rare that change is driven by the environment, genetic change being the usual cause of adaptations and "fitness," though I thinki the whole idea of fitness is overrated; and overall I know the ToE is a crock.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 854 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2017 11:23 AM Faith has responded
 Message 856 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 11:32 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 859 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 12:33 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 861 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2017 3:30 PM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5069
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 854 of 893 (818298)
08-26-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 853 by Faith
08-26-2017 10:48 AM


Faith writes:

you can't have an original thought because evo theory says something else.

A couple of years ago a woman said the most hurtful thing that's ever been said to me. I was doing a Master's degree in a science subject and I'd submitted two pieces of work. One got 73% the other 74%. To get a distinction you needed 75%. I had three more pieces of work to submit so I asked how I could get the other 1 or 2%. She said:

"You have to say something original."

The idea that you can't have ideas is as wrong as you can possibly be. To accumulate scientific knowledge, new ideas are essential, but - and this is the bit your missing - they have to be backed by evidence, real facts that others can test. You have never ever done that. You just have an idea that suits your belief and call it a fact. That's why you hear the phrase 'prove it' so often. New ideas are the bedrock of scientific advancement, but they must be able to survive factual challenge. Yours can't. Has there been at any time over the years you've been here a non-YEC that said you've come up with anything valid and original?

The second thing you're missing is that the new idea mustn't be bat-shit crazily, easily provably wrong. The problem you have is that these 'new' ideas of yours are actually very old ideas that have been shown to be wrong many, many times. You don't have the knowledge, training or motivation to develop rational ideas that can hold their ground. If your starting point is always religious, you'll never have anything valid to say.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 853 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 10:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 11:32 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 855 of 893 (818299)
08-26-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 854 by Tangle
08-26-2017 11:23 AM


SO many ways there are to state the status quo without bothering to think about the challenges to it.

ABE: And I'm quite sure that very little if anything I've said is an old idea.

And Percy, if you come back to this post: I'm not reading anything else you post.;

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2017 11:23 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 11:37 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 858 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2017 12:32 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 860 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 1:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
5556
57
585960Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017