Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
139 online now:
Phat (1 member, 138 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,028 Year: 6,140/6,534 Month: 333/650 Week: 103/278 Day: 1/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 61 of 214 (367016)
11-30-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Adequate
11-29-2006 11:50 PM


Re: Wolves?
What do you think you're replying to?

Thus far, someone that has shown a limited ability to grasp concepts that challenge his beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2006 11:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2006 1:18 AM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 214 (367017)
11-30-2006 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
11-30-2006 12:13 AM


Try Harder
Random strings of words do not challenge my beliefs, they merely tax my patience.

For example:

You: Moreover, isn't it fairly normal for species to be driven to extinction over time? Are you suppossing that extinction is not part of the process of evolution?

Me: Yes; and no, respectively.

You: So you don't consider extinction of older species via natural selection a part of the evo model?

Me: Yes. I do. I said so. What do you think you're replying to?

---

If you have a cogent argument, feel free to make it. If you're just going to say random stuff without reference to what I've posted, that is not a debate.

PS: Still no comment about the Y-chromosome, eh? Pesky facts, huh?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 11-30-2006 12:13 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 11-30-2006 1:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 63 of 214 (367018)
11-30-2006 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
11-30-2006 1:18 AM


Re: Try Harder
You gonna address the heart of the argument or continue to dodge it with ignorance and sophistry, Dr Adequate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2006 1:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2006 2:43 AM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 214 (367023)
11-30-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by randman
11-30-2006 1:30 AM


Re: Try Harder
ou gonna address the heart of the argument or continue to dodge it with ignorance and sophistry, Dr Adequate?

Your thoughts on the Y-chromosome, please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 11-30-2006 1:30 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 11-30-2006 3:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3408 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 65 of 214 (367034)
11-30-2006 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
11-29-2006 1:03 PM


Re: Going to the cheetahs
Care to define thrive for me? Because a population of 12,500 doesn't sound thriving to me especially for a population described as showing 'remarkable physiologic impairments including increased spermatozoa abnormalities, decreased fecundity, high infant mortality, and increased sensitivity to disease agents' (Menotti-Raymond and O'Brien, 1993).

If you can tell us about the historical genetic diversity of Cheetahs in a similar way to the study of wolves I am keen to hear it, but the present studies are on populations which have been through recent severe reductions as well as further back historical reductions.

Never mind, cheetahs are rather beside the point.

The point is the process creates less genetic diversity, not more.

And the other point is that there is more than one process at work.

If you feel that there is a sufficient body of work to show that genetic variability cannot show a net increase in a population then it is rather up to you to provide it. So far your 2 examples, wolves and cheetahs are at the extreme edge of extinction. Do you have any examples from a more successful, numerous and wide ranging species?

I doubt anyone would even dispute a contention that there is a strong tendency in the history of life towards the reduction of genetic diversity, as represented by the fact that 99%, or whatever the number is, of species that have existed are now extinct.

This does not however mean that genetic diversity in a population cannot increase at a faster rate than decrease in that population. For a really accurate study we really need a number of genetic samples from a well supported ancestral species so we could do a study similar to that done for the wolves.

I also think you should allow that near extinction is not the same as small populations being isolated. While the genetic diversity of the isolated population may be reduced in comparison to the original population the original population may still retain all of its diversity. So the real question in such a situation would be if considering both populations there was an overall increase or decrease in genetic diversity over time.

At them moment I am not aware of any such studies having been done.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 11-29-2006 1:03 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-30-2006 3:03 PM Wounded King has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 214 (367145)
11-30-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Wounded King
11-30-2006 5:33 AM


bait and swtich tactics
And the other point is that there is more than one process at work.

If you feel that there is a sufficient body of work to show that genetic variability cannot show a net increase in a population then it is rather up to you to provide it.

This is what I am talking about, WK. It's not up to me to prove or disprove evo theory. You guys are the ones making the claim that one process can overcome the other. You, nor anyone that I can tell, has ever substantiated that. Evos have merely insisted that is the case without ever substantiating it, and thus their claim is not fact-based. The idea that critics should disprove their claims, and if they do not, then the claims are true, is prepostrous.

I doubt anyone would even dispute a contention that there is a strong tendency in the history of life towards the reduction of genetic diversity, as represented by the fact that 99%, or whatever the number is, of species that have existed are now extinct.

This does not however mean that genetic diversity in a population cannot increase at a faster rate than decrease in that population.

Ok, show the studies proving that.

At them moment I am not aware of any such studies having been done.

If there are np studies, how can evos claim their theory is fact-based. This is one of the most basic claims of ToE, that small changes we observe in microevolution are steps of macroevolution. If evos know that there is tendency for reduction of genetic diversity, which you admit is known, how can they handwaive away that process and just say mutations can overcome that.

Is the mere word of someone's imagination considered data for evos?

I think the answer, sadly, is yes, that's what evos consider sufficient data to base their claims on, and very, very dogmatic claims at that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2006 5:33 AM Wounded King has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 214 (367147)
11-30-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
11-30-2006 2:43 AM


Re: Try Harder
not that interested in it, and don't see the relevance to the discussion at hand.....if you do see some relevance, you may explain that.....otherwise, I'd really like to see those studies verifying this most basic claim of evos, that mutational rates are sufficient to overcome the tendency towards reducing genetic diversity in populations.

Care to do that?

You could, btw, just come clean and admit there are no studies, Dr Adequate. That would be the right thing to do; show some integrity, and then we could probably move the discussion forward. But if you continue to dodge that point, further exploration of side points with you does not seem fruitful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2006 2:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-01-2006 11:11 AM randman has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 214 (367246)
12-01-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
11-30-2006 3:07 PM


Re: Try Harder
not that interested in it, and don't see the relevance to the discussion at hand.....if you do see some relevance, you may explain that.....otherwise, I'd really like to see those studies verifying this most basic claim of evos, that mutational rates are sufficient to overcome the tendency towards reducing genetic diversity in populations.

Care to do that?

I refer you again to the existence of variety in the human Y chromosome.

You could, btw, just come clean and admit there are no studies, Dr Adequate.

But I do not live in the magical fantasy land in your head.

That would be the right thing to do; show some integrity, and then we could probably move the discussion forward. But if you continue to dodge that point, further exploration of side points with you does not seem fruitful.

In your magic dreamworld, no doubt I am "dodging the point". In the real world, I have provided you with facts which show an increase in genetic diversity, which you refuse to comment on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 11-30-2006 3:07 PM randman has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4299 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 69 of 214 (367267)
12-01-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
11-29-2006 12:30 PM


genetic diversity
Hi randman

randman writes:

Do evos know that they have never properly substantiated the fact that forces decreasing genetic diversity outweigh forces increasing genetic diversity?

You might consider the HIV virus, which arose in a single individual (or at most a small number of individuals) in the 70s or early 80s (I don't recall). At one point only one or a few people had it and there was naturally low genetic diversity in the HIV population because the population was small. Nowadays, however, after 25 million people have died of it, we have not only different strains of the virus in different geographical regions, but also different strains within a single individual! These are called quasi-species in the literature, and you can do a google search to find lots of examples of multiple quasispecies HIV developing within single individual hosts. If you don't think that this genetic variability arose through mutation in the face of opposing drift and selection, I would be interested to know where you think it came from!

In experimental terms, it is difficult to observe the development of genetic variability in metazoa because it is just too slow to be practical. Professor Lenski has carried out some experimental evolution studies in which populations of bacteria descended from a single individual are grown for tens of thousands of generations and the mutations occurring are observed by gene sequencing. He finds that genetic variability in his populations does indeed increase over time; the extent to which it increases is greater than that predicted by phylogenetic comparison of different bacterial genomes, but less than that predicted by direct estimates of bacterial mutation rates. In any case, there is NO genetic diversity in the starting population because it consists of a single individual, but after a few thousand generations the bacterial populations have diversified as expected.

And then of course we have lots of natural experiments with things like novel antibiotic-resistant bacteria, new forms of the flu and common cold every year, etc. These new forms arise somehow, and if it is not mutation then it's up to you to explain where you think the variability comes from. Because Lenski's experiments give solid evidence that mutation is indeed the driving force behind genetic diversification and drift/selection doesn't stop it.

Mick

AbE - sorry, I forgot to mention that your view of selection only decreasing genetic variability is not an accurate representation of the theory. This is quite an important point. Positive selection is expected to increase the rate at which novel beneficial alleles are fixed in a population such that selected fixation rates may be higher than the "background" fixation rate due just to drift. You are only correct in thinking that natural selection solely reduced diversity if you limit yourself to deleterious mutations. When we consider beneficial mutations, natural selection will increase the rate at which species diversify. Hence in humans we find unusually high diversification rates in genes involved in the brain, olfactory system, genes involved in cancer, etc. and those fixed substitutions exhibit high dn/ds ratios indicating that selection is the source of that diversification. Again, if you think that this diversification is just due to drift or some other mechanism, you will need to explain the high dn/ds ratio.

For example, how do you explain these findings? The key quote from the abstract of that article is: "A significant McDonald-Kreitman test showed an excess of fixed amino acid replacing substitutions between species, consistent with positive selection." An excess, not a deficiency as you would predict.

One last edit - I do think that Dr Adequate's question about the Y chromosome is important. I've no idea whether you are a YEC or not, so this may not apply to you but it certainly applies to others on the forum. If one were to accept that all humans arose from a single reproductive pair (which amusingly is - kind of - the common belief of both evolutionary biologists and creationists!) then where does modern day genetic variation come from? If we start with Adam and Eve (for the creationists, or just Y-Adam for the evolutionists) there was by definition a maximum of four alleles for each gene at the very beginning of the human species. Now it is quite clear we have more than four alleles fixed across global populations for many genes - where did they come from?

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 11-29-2006 12:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 12-01-2006 4:17 PM mick has replied
 Message 75 by randman, posted 12-02-2006 3:07 PM mick has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 214 (367319)
12-01-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by mick
12-01-2006 1:14 PM


quick response
I will read your post in more detail and respond accordingly when I have more time, but on a cursory review, I would just point out that finding a few examples where an organism has increased genetic diversity via mutation is not the same as a peer-review study showing that the typical rate of mutation is sufficient, and sufficient for all types of living organisms, including mammals, reptiles, etc,.....to overcome the forces limiting genetic diversity.

In other words, finding some examples that could be used to bolster an argument is not the same as a peer-review study and assessment of the argument altogether. The issue is much broader than simply observing there are instances of genetic diversity increasing with mutations. For example, there are also a lot of cases of extinctions as well. The issue is whether the mutational rates outweigh the forces limiting macroevolution, creating extinctions, and so forth.

There also is the question of whether the mutations in the HIV virus are sufficient to envision HIV becoming something besides a virus. Mere increase of mutations is not the same as qualitative mutations able to elevate novel features to macroevolutionary status. The type and scope of mutations are relevant.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mick, posted 12-01-2006 1:14 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by mick, posted 12-01-2006 6:22 PM randman has replied
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2006 11:57 AM randman has replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4299 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 71 of 214 (367358)
12-01-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
12-01-2006 4:17 PM


Re: quick response
Hi randman,

randman writes:

on a cursory review, I would just point out that finding a few examples where an organism has increased genetic diversity via mutation is not the same as a peer-review study showing that the typical rate of mutation is sufficient, and sufficient for all types of living organisms, including mammals, reptiles, etc,.....to overcome the forces limiting genetic diversity.

yes, I agree with you, but I think I made the point somewhere in the last post that there are practical constraints on the kinds of experiments we can do. We can "easily" breed bacteria for 20,000 generations but it is impossible to do the same experiment with chimps. That experiment would take pretty much all of human history. It's not really a criticism of the theory to say that such experiments have not been carried out on chimps or reptiles or whatever, since such experiments are physically impossible. As biologists we just have to deal with the data that we can obtain, and understand that there is a great deal of data that we cannot obtain in a direct controlled experimental fashion.

I think if you were to respond to just one of the points in the last post it would be that of the dn/ds ratio, i.e the difference between purifying selection (which removes genetic variation) and diversifying selection (which promotes genetic variation). Your model of evolution appears to predict an absence of diversifying selection, yet studies of dn/ds ratio in modern day species seems to show that diversifying selection is quite common.

If you would like more detailed explanation of what the dn/ds thing is all about, please just let me know. Otherwise, take your time in replying, no hurry.

Mick

in edit - Oh, one other thing - you said:

randman writes:

There also is the question of whether the mutations in the HIV virus are sufficient to envision HIV becoming something besides a virus. Mere increase of mutations is not the same as qualitative mutations able to elevate novel features to macroevolutionary status.

if you want to make the argument that observed variation is "microevolution not macroevolution", then I think it would be fair for you to define precisely where you think lies the limit on the amount of genetic variation that can be generated by microevolutionary processes. Otherwise I will waste a lot of time looking up papers which you can just brush aside crying "MICROEVOLUTION!" I don't know how you would define such a measure, perhaps in terms of % nucleotide difference between the average pair of individuals in a population or something. But you have to make it clear otherwise this is just going to be a case of borders being redrawn every few posts...

Furthermore, please bear in mind that your previous proposition that "natural selection only reduces genetic diversity" is quite different from your new proposition that "natural selection promotes genetic diversity only within the 'virus kind'". I'm happy for you to shift the goalpoasts a little bit, because I think that is where much productive debate resides, but you shouldn't gloss over it so easily when your argument evolves like that. But hey, I'm not going to make a big deal if your argument evolves, that is a healthy thing.

One last point - I'm sorry I keep editing my posts after submitting them. I am posting here while doing some very boring "typing numbers into spreadsheets" kind of work and it's tempting to keep coming back. I promise only to edit posts until somebody replies to them, at which point I will stop.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 12-01-2006 4:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 12-02-2006 2:48 PM mick has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 214 (367449)
12-02-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
12-01-2006 4:17 PM


Re: quick response
I will read your post in more detail and respond accordingly when I have more time, but on a cursory review, I would just point out that finding a few examples where an organism has increased genetic diversity via mutation is not the same as a peer-review study showing that the typical rate of mutation is sufficient, and sufficient for all types of living organisms, including mammals, reptiles, etc,.....to overcome the forces limiting genetic diversity.
In other words, finding some examples that could be used to bolster an argument is not the same as a peer-review study and assessment of the argument altogether. The issue is much broader than simply observing there are instances of genetic diversity increasing with mutations. For example, there are also a lot of cases of extinctions as well. The issue is whether the mutational rates outweigh the forces limiting macroevolution, creating extinctions, and so forth.

You now seem to be requiring that someone should show you that the net genetic diversity of the whole world is increasing.

In the first place, no-one can make that measurement directly, and in the second place, it isn't increasing right now. Humans are driving species to extinction at a frightening rate, and so long as this keeps up, the world's genetic diversity is decreasing.

But such is not always the case. Can you explain, for example, how the "conquest of the land" should have reduced net genetic diversity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 12-01-2006 4:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 12-02-2006 2:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 73 of 214 (367462)
12-02-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
12-02-2006 11:57 AM


Re: quick response
You now seem to be requiring that someone should show you that the net genetic diversity of the whole world is increasing.

Nope. All I am asking is that evos substantiate their claims with actual empirical data. That seems to be something you guys are loathe to be willing to do when it comes to your most basic claims.

Why is that?

We know the standard evo model usually involves some element of isolation into smaller populations, and we know this decreases genetic diversity. We also know evos are willing to create theories of rates of genetic mutations, which are used for example in molecular analysis, but for some reason evos appear unwilling to demonstrate that the forces decreasing genetic diversity are less than the rates of mutation. I think it's clear the most basic claims then of evos are based on mere wishful thinking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2006 11:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2006 12:27 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 74 of 214 (367468)
12-02-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by mick
12-01-2006 6:22 PM


Re: quick response
Furthermore, please bear in mind that your previous proposition that "natural selection only reduces genetic diversity" is quite different from your new proposition that "natural selection promotes genetic diversity only within the 'virus kind'".

Maybe I can help clear this up. First, I am not saying natural selection cannot select for positive mutations. What I am saying is the standard models for evolution, which you are correct to point out, all consistute microevolution, generally involve some element of a population becoming isolated, and this isolation generally reduces genetic diversity. The point I am trying to bring some focus on is the actual process involved instead of just accepting the handwaiving that evos do in claiming that microevolution is macroevolution. That claim is not substantiated, not simply because the issues of time involved with breeding as you suggest, but mainly because evos have never felt the need to empirically validate their claims, which is quite disturbing if what one is after in science is as much about proper method and thus self-correcting as it is about correct belief.

It seems evos have decided what the correct belief is, and assert that belief dogmatically without ever feeling the need to validate it, and have thus made the process of self-correction extremely difficult.

Going back to this issue. You insist that any evolution is part of macroevolution, and insist that it is up to your critics to "draw the line" or disprove it, but it's your theory. It's not up to others to draw the line or disprove it. It's quite simply up to evos to demonstrate how the process of microevolution is the same as macroevolution. Just saying it is does not cut it, and is a false approach.

Evos and everyone else knows that most of what we observe as microevolution appears to diminish genetic diversity over time with the effects of smaller populations becoming isolated. Evos also use theories of mutational rates in molecular analysis. It is up to evos, not critics, to show that the processes limiting genetic diversity are weaker than the processes creating genetic diversity via mutations. To my knowledge, no such studies and analysis has been done, and so the most basic claims of ToE remain wishful thinking at this point. You guys could be right, or you could be wrong, but at this point, it's more of a untested hypothesis than the factual theory evos claim. It's a guess on evo's part, and since the guess is called a fact, it's really a faith-based, not a fact-based, approach to science on the part of evos.

It is also up to evos to show that mutations are unlimited within this process. By this I mean that there are constraints generally on how large a change a mutation can be and remain of some benefit to the individual and species involved. So this second hurdle must be addressed as well. Evos need to be able to show, not just that mutational rates are greater than the processes of isolation limiting genetic diversity, but they also have to show that the range of these mutations is of the naturally-occurring type to create macroevolution. The rates of mutation are limited by the fact the mutated individual cannot be so different in kind from the parents that there are no other creatures to mate with, for example. This is a strongly limiting factor. Evos need to show how the limited range of mutations coupled with the processes limiting genetic diversity can amount to macroevolution and creating the type of diversity needed for macroevolution.

Evos haven't done this to my knowledge, and I am not sure there has been any efforts made to do this. Just saying, well, over long periods of time, this could happen because if the forces driving microevolution are actually prohibitive towards engendering genetic diversity and the type of genetic diversity to create macroevolution, then adding more time just doesn't help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mick, posted 12-01-2006 6:22 PM mick has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 75 of 214 (367476)
12-02-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by mick
12-01-2006 1:14 PM


Re: genetic diversity
You might consider the HIV virus, which arose in a single individual (or at most a small number of individuals) in the 70s or early 80s

Just curious.....how do we know that?

On the process, though I addressed in another post, I think maybe I can clarify a little more.....I am not saying natural selection does not select for positive mutations and that mutations can be involved in increasing genetic diversity. What I am saying is that we need to envision what the process of evolution is, that we observe (microevolution), and what it needs to do in order to do something like evolve a virus into something like bacteria or a bacteria into something else, etc,.....

There are constraints evos are ignoring in just insisting that all change is evolution and all evolution is macroevolution, which is really what evos claim, but do not substantiate, and instead insist others disprove it.

These constraints involve things such as isolation of smaller groups within a species reduces genetic diversity generally of the smaller group, and since isolation is generally one of the main ways evos propose that evolution takes place, the question becomes whether seeing something like Darwin's finches actually shows macroevolution or a process deeply prohibitive towards macroevolution. Are the smaller populations more capable now of evolving into something other than finches or not?

It's also not just the raw level of genetic diversity, but the question whether the type of mutations that can thrive in such microevolutionary processes are the types that can lead to something other than just another variation of finches. Just saying, well, we think these changes can slowly morph it into something else entirely is handwaiving. Where are the analyses and studies involving the forces limiting genetic diversity and the type of diversity being accounted for?

One last edit - I do think that Dr Adequate's question about the Y chromosome is important. I've no idea whether you are a YEC or not, so this may not apply to you but it certainly applies to others on the forum. If one were to accept that all humans arose from a single reproductive pair (which amusingly is - kind of - the common belief of both evolutionary biologists and creationists!) then where does modern day genetic variation come from? If we start with Adam and Eve (for the creationists, or just Y-Adam for the evolutionists) there was by definition a maximum of four alleles for each gene at the very beginning of the human species. Now it is quite clear we have more than four alleles fixed across global populations for many genes - where did they come from?

Interesting question: for evos they would say having a common ancestor is not the same as all starting from one pair.

For creationists and IDers, I cannot speak for all, but my own view is the universe contains an interaction of spiritual and natural forces, and that the spiritual just refers to a realm of the universe, you could even say in modern science the realm of the physical universe though the reality is calling the universe physical is somewhat questionable. So I believe information and design and direction can involve forces and beings, including God, within the spiritual realm.

I believe we are actually testing some of these mechanisms in quantum physics, and that involves an interaction of a deeper framework or dimensions, that men once relegated to the spiritual.

This is getting off-topic, but just for clarity, I do not think the spiritual realm consists of merely one area or thing, and believe it is multi-layered, and most likely there are elements that we cannot test for or touch with science, at least right now, but that the interactions and mechanisms for direct influence of matter and energy and the natural world are things we could possibly address with science, and I believe we are doing that with some of the experiments involving entanglement and some other QM principles.

Back to Adam and Eve, as we learn more about how the physical universe actually works, incorporating QM principles into our paradigm of reality, then I think we can then address and assess the potential for a "physical" mechanism, as we would call it, for creating changes.

Take the wave-function itself. It can be manifested as wave-like or particle-like from our vantage point depending on how we approach it. Our level of knowledge or potential knowledge seems to effect the actual form that matter takes. That's the basic elementary principle of quantum mechanics. Now, we don't really understand it, and a lot of scientists including some physicists or former physicists here, don't accept it, but it works on and on, and is tested in the lab unlike some things evo claims.

Well, if the universe consists of wave functions with this odd interactive element, who is to say when we measure and identify something, like a particle, that in the reality of the universe, it is not still a wave, and that wave can be made known with a change on knowledge and measurement. It will be interesting to see if genetic mutations can involve quantum physics, and that if information can be introduced via "mutations" via QM involving relationships and entanglements outside of the human body with parts of the human body.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mick, posted 12-01-2006 1:14 PM mick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022