Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 5:58 AM
24 online now:
(24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 61 of 104 (23649)
11-22-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 12:38 PM


FW:
It is obvious you do not know what “realize” means, and it has led you to erect a strawman. You guys are on a role on this board with these assemblages of straw. I also did not say dog diversity was “fully realized” via breeding (which I pointed out emulates bottlenecks). In fact I completely agree with your sentence above (beginning at “they remain”, of course).

M: It is obvious that you are so profoundly ignorant of population genetics and science in general that you have to make up meaningless terms like "realize" genetic potential via bottlenecks....and from the rest of your post on this subject it is also clear you don't know the difference between a genetic bottleneck and a founder event....you should be a standup comedian Fred...you are a laugher...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 12:38 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 62 of 104 (23652)
11-22-2002 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 12:38 PM


quote:
I never said this “creates” diversity. In fact, if you recall I corrected Mamuthusus when he denied genetic information was lost due to bottlenecks (he later recanted, claiming I misunderstood him). What I said is bottlenecks & drift is a process that helps “realize” the already inherent diversity. If you don’t understand the difference between “create” and “realize” there is no point debating this further. I can only say that blue = blue for so long.

Never said it, hunh? How about this bit here, then?

quote:
It was asked how the diversity of life can be explained given a starting point of 5K years ago with some number of “kinds” of animals. I illustrated how bottlenecks and subsequent drift would easily account for some if not much of the diversity we see, and I provided dogs as an illustration.

Sure looks like you're claiming bottlenecks cause/create/whatever diversity. Those are your words, right? If you didn't mean them, you should have been more clear.

No, I have no clue what you're babbling about concerning "realized" diversity. If it made any sense, I wouldn't ask you to clarify what you meant, now would I? From your non-response, it's pretty apparent you don't have any idea what it means either.

quote:
It is one mechanism that has surely produced new species, we have observed it. I remind you that species is a man-made, subjective term. I have debated some biologists who say that merely isolating a population can qualify the isolated group as a new species. Consider that there are at least 32 species of bats. Each species could easily be the result of population isolation (pseudo-bottleneck) from a parent population (bat “kind”).

Besides the obvious error on the number of bat species (like by an order of magnitude), allopatric speciation IS one of the principal - albeit not the only - way speciation occurs. And duh, of course it's a man-made term. All the taxonomic classifications are, and most are pretty ambiguous to boot. What was the point of this utter and trivial irrelevancy again?

quote:
You are making false assumptions. We first must consider only the “kinds” that were required to be on the ark. We are not required to account for all the species of algae, fungi, insects, fish, mollusks, etc. (note that there are almost a million catalogued species of insects/spiders!). To compare apples to apples, I will compare the number of estimated kinds (which is based on known species) to the number of catalogued species required to originate on the ark. My source for species is:

http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/f01-key.html#number

4,000 Mammals
4,184 Amphibians
6,300 Reptiles
9,040 Birds

The total number of species that would have had to originate on the ark is 23,524. As you can see, it is entirely reasonable to achieve 23K species from an original 18K kinds over the period of 4000 years! It only requires 1.3 species per each “kind”. As I mentioned earlier, there are over 32 bat species, at least a dozen rabbit species, etc. It appears the 18,000 "kind" estimate is likely too high.


This is almost too silly for words. Okay, tell me again your rationale for excluding insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc from your "kinds"? List, for example, all the terrestrial plants that are capable of surviving one full year's immersion in salt water. List, for example, all of the species of phytophagous insects that are capable of surviving without their host plants for twelve months.

While you're at it, explain how - with all the violent to-and-fro surging, 40 days of rain, literally mountains of sediment being deposited all over the planet simultaneously, submarine volcanos or whatever you're now calling the "fountains of the deep", massive uplift and subsidence of sea floor, etc how ANY marine creature could possibly have survived. This ought to be rich.

Someone already covered the huge volume of extinct critters that would have had to be accommodated on the ark, like litopterns, giant ground sloths, cameliids, all the extinct perissodactyls, early artiodactyls, etc. And that's just the mammals! You've left out a LOT of critters.

In other words, Fred, justify your numbers.

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 12:38 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:25 PM Quetzal has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 63 of 104 (23681)
11-22-2002 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by peter borger
11-21-2002 10:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,

Before you reply have a look at the papers.


I have the paper in my hand.

quote:

The figure demonstrates a bonobo, a chimp, a Neanderthaler and (ancient) human. A lot of data go undiscussed. Like the common ancestor for chimp and human around 150 kyr BP.

Like I said, there is no such figure anywhere in the paper (150,000 kyr ancestor). It goes undiscussed, apparently, because it s not in existence.

I submit, Borger, that you simply do not know how to interpret the tree. In fact, and I suggest you actually look at it for comprehension THIS TIME, in the tree humans branch first from Neanderthals, THEN the great apes. There is no time scale given at all, so your 150,000 bit seems completely fabricated. The scale bar in that figure is for branch length changes, not time.

quote:

I recommend evolutionists not to show the raw sequence data anymore, since it immediately falsifies their own theories. Read the papers, otherwise, don't waste my time with.

Best wishes,
Peter


Pardon my language, but Borger, you are so full of shit that I have a hard time forcing myself to read your incoherent creationist claptrap anymore.

I understand full well that you simply do not know how to understand raw data. Your treatment of the alignment I linked to demonstrated that nicely - your naive, unsupported assertions were comically inept, to say the least.

You and WIlliams are a wonferful pair.

Again - Borger has totally made up this common ancestor of chimps and humans at 150,000 years nonsense. The paper that HE cited does not contain the "facts" he claims - and still is claiming, apparently - are in it.

I therefore consider Borger to be a charlatan, and no longer worth wasting time on. He is incompetent, dishonest, and clearly quite ignorant of the very topics he brings up.

Good day to you Borger - I sincerely hope the output in your ACTUAL area of research is not plagued with such incompetentce and dishonesty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 11-21-2002 10:39 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 12:01 AM derwood has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 64 of 104 (23684)
11-22-2002 9:11 AM


FW:Why do you have trouble with this? Taking in too much of Page's canned rhetoric?

[b]Canned rhetoric? Is that like saying that you want observed instances of evolution, lest it must be false, then IGNORING requests for observed evidence for the YEC cult beliefs?

Your projection is starting to exceed your pseudocertainty.

Everyone, Fred, EVERYONE can see that you toss out ad hoc nonsense, just-so stories, and repeated assertions as your 'evidence.' And EVERYONE can see that you IGNORE requests for ACTUAL evidence.

You and Borger...

Put Rowan and Martin to shame...

Oh - still waiting for observed occurrances of information arising supernaturally.


    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 65 of 104 (23697)
11-22-2002 10:24 AM


FW:We are not required to account for all the species of algae, fungi, insects, fish, mollusks, etc. (note that there are almost a million catalogued species of insects/spiders!).

[b]Well, if some of those things were not on the ark, how did they survive? Surely you do not think that freshwater molluscs and plants could have survived for more than a yewar in salt water? Insects? How did they survive?

The creationist has to go way extra-biblical to try to amke sense of the bible. Look at Woodmorappe and his pelletized food and animals trained to poop into buckets on command...


    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 66 of 104 (23724)
11-22-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Fedmahn Kassad
11-21-2002 8:30 PM


quote:
So now your claim is that loss of genetic diversity RESULTED in the speciation of cheetahs?

No. I can’t keep repeating myself. Please go back and read what I wrote.

quote:
That seems to be a brand new claim.

It seems this way to you because you were unable to follow the discussion.

quote:
Previously, you stated that this loss occurred in the existing cheetah population.

Huh? I stated that the cheetah has less genetic information than its pre-bottleneck parent species. Why is this so hard to understand? This is a simple, straightforward statement.

quote:
FW: I’m extremely confident it would not, because we have even observed the arrival of new species, all without any new genetic information. In fact, many are likely to be the result of lost genetic information. The cheetah is a great example!

A great example of what? Loss of genetic diversity in an existing species? I agree. Creation of a new species due to loss of genetic diversity? This seems to be your claim, bit I have yet to see anything resembling evidence. Could we expect that this is forthcoming?


The cheetah is a cat “kind”. A branch of this cat “kind” became isolated. This resulted in the CHEETAH. The cheetah has LESS information than its parent, pre-bottleneck cat kind. I already provided a citation from a CHEETAH expert who agrees it is likely the cheetah has lost gene segments.

Lions and Tigers also share a common cat “kind” ancestor. Each likely has less information than their common ancestor cat “kind”. Savvy?

quote:
Rapid speciation of many species from a single kind will by necessity require creation of a large number of new alleles. Since you previously said that loss of alleles in the cheetah population is a loss of information, gain of alleles from the original kinds to many new species is a gain. Or do you wish to treat us to more double standards?

No, what I wish is that you would follow the discussion. I do not know of a single evolutionist trained in info science who thinks the appearance of a new allele necessarily represents new information. Yet this is what you keep claiming, because you cannot get it through your thick skull. Find me ONE evolutionist who has a background in info science who thinks a new allele always equals new information. If this is true, then DISEASE = new information by this standard. Utter nonsense.

quote:
I know BS when I see it, and I see it. These kinds of arguments may work on the faithful, but most people can see right through your double speak.

The problem is, your blinders are on so tight you deny that 1+1=2. Let me lay it on the line: You have to be a complete moron to believe deterioration = new information. You would give flat-earthers a good name.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-21-2002 8:30 PM Fedmahn Kassad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 6:04 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 92 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-26-2002 3:00 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 67 of 104 (23725)
11-22-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by derwood
11-21-2002 8:56 PM


quote:
LOL!
No, Williams, there are over 900 species of bat.

ROTFL! Yet another Page hairsplit. I can just hear you going na na na na na, na. Scott, you are showing your desperation again to latch on to such trivialness. Not being a bat expert, I qualified my number with “at least” and “over” because it was based on what little I scrounged up on the internet. It didn’t matter how high the number was, the fact it was at least 32 served my point well. I am glad that Randy provided the right number. It aided my point even more, and by golly I lernt seomthin.

What you refuse to acknowledge is the huge disparity between 23K and 5-50M. Quetzal’s argument was based on a flawed assumption that was several orders of magnitude off, yet you remain true to form and still defend it. You go guy! Loyalty to the cause at all costs!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by derwood, posted 11-21-2002 8:56 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by derwood, posted 11-22-2002 3:08 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 68 of 104 (23726)
11-22-2002 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Mammuthus
11-22-2002 3:22 AM


I believe Mams has blown a gasket. I'd recommend pursuing immediate medical attention!

Regarding founder vs bottleneck, I know the difference. In a sense a small founder population is really no different than a bottleneck. DO you deny this? If so, please educate me, oh wise one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 3:22 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 6:11 PM Fred Williams has responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 69 of 104 (23733)
11-22-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Quetzal
11-22-2002 3:42 AM


quote:

quote:

I never said this “creates” diversity. In fact, if you recall I corrected Mamuthusus when he denied genetic information was lost due to bottlenecks (he later recanted, claiming I misunderstood him). What I said is bottlenecks & drift is a process that helps “realize” the already inherent diversity. If you don’t understand the difference between “create” and “realize” there is no point debating this further. I can only say that blue = blue for so long.

Never said it, hunh? How about this bit here, then?
quote:

It was asked how the diversity of life can be explained given a starting point of 5K years ago with some number of “kinds” of animals. I illustrated how bottlenecks and subsequent drift would easily account for some if not much of the diversity we see, and I provided dogs as an illustration.

Sure looks like you're claiming bottlenecks cause/create/whatever diversity. Those are your words, right? If you didn't mean them, you should have been more clear.


Hence why I followed-up with the top paragraph. I thought it was clear as a whistle. Even the emphasized sentence you quoted should have been clear. It is simply true that bottlenecks and subsequent drift help us SEE the diversity. It does not create the diversity, it helps us SEE it. Realize, see, all words with solid definitions. I am not the one having grammar problems here. You too appear to be equivocating/hairsplitting. But I’m used to it. I really in a sense don’t blame you. If the point you are defending is specious, well…

quote:
Besides the obvious error on the number of bat species (like by an order of magnitude),

Oh please. Like I said, hairsplit... but I didn't expect this specific hairsplit from you. See my comments to Page, who appears to be a bad influence on some of you. Do you want provocative, reasonable debate, or silly nonsense?

quote:
The total number of species that would have had to originate on the ark is 23,524. As you can see, it is entirely reasonable to achieve 23K species from an original 18K kinds over the period of 4000 years! It only requires 1.3 species per each “kind”. As I mentioned earlier, there are over 32 bat species, at least a dozen rabbit species, etc. It appears the 18,000 "kind" estimate is likely too high.

This is almost too silly for words. Okay, tell me again your rationale for excluding insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc from your "kinds"?


This is your way of avoiding the fact you were orders of magnitude off? The Bible did not require insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc. Your argument was based on what the Bible required on the ark. How these non-ark organisms survived outside the ark is another debate. Such is a fair question, and a good discussion, that has been discussed many times. The point is, it’s another topic. Your original claim requiring the ark to somehow accommodate the originators of 10 million species was a fallacious argument that needs to be put to rest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Quetzal, posted 11-22-2002 3:42 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by derwood, posted 11-22-2002 3:22 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 72 by derwood, posted 11-22-2002 3:27 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Randy, posted 11-22-2002 5:29 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 77 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 6:15 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 82 by Quetzal, posted 11-24-2002 3:24 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 70 of 104 (23756)
11-22-2002 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 1:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
LOL!
No, Williams, there are over 900 species of bat.

ROTFL! Yet another Page hairsplit.


"Hairsplit"? You said - what was it - 32 species? There are ove 900. That you consider that a 'hairsplit' is indicative of your self-delusion.

quote:

I can just hear you going na na na na na, na.

No, I am going "That Williams, what an ignornat punk."

Thats what I am 'going.'

quote:

Scott, you are showing your desperation again to latch on to such trivialness.

Yes, trivialness.

I guess the fact that you have been ignoring my other posts is just a'trivial' oversight on your behalf.

Though I must say that your blow-off of the latest in a long line of "directed mutation" debunkers was not only predicted, but was comically shallow, to boot.

Trivial, indeed.

quote:

Not being a bat expert, I qualified my number with “at least” and “over” because it was based on what little I scrounged up on the internet. It didn’t matter how high the number was, the fact it was at least 32 served my point well. I am glad that Randy provided the right number. It aided my point even more, and by golly I lernt seomthin.

LOL!

Damn, the equivocation and desperate face-saving attempt from the cretin is incredible.. Amazing....

"At least"... Yes, the earth is "at least" 500 miles around.

Whats that? it is 24,000 miles around?

Oh, please stop the hairsplitting!

What a friggin joke, the cretin intellect is.

quote:

What you refuse to acknowledge is the huge disparity between 23K and 5-50M. Quetzal’s argument was based on a flawed assumption that was several orders of magnitude off, yet you remain true to form and still defend it. You go guy! Loyalty to the cause at all costs![

Funny, I do not recall commenting on anything Quetzal wrote. Please show where I did.

However, your numbers seem fairly arbitrary and, frankly, made up. Your link didn't help you any, since there is no evidene of an Ark of any sort to begin with; no evidence for 'original kinds'; none for 'original kinds' producing all sorts of new species in short time periods via losing information; no evidence for how all of the alleles that must have been present in these superkinds went unexprtessed; etc. etc.

Your house of cards was blown down by a hurricane years ago, but you still keep claiming that it is an impenetrable fortress...

Of course, the projection is again palpable:

"Loyalty to the cause at all costs"

Indeed -
"Here Peter, smoochie smoochie."
"Oh, your MPG is so keen, why it gives me an erection. I will ignore that it runs counter to YECism cult beliefs, because it is anti-evo..."

Oh brother...

Still waiting for the lab reports showing 'new information' being created ex nihilo via supernatural means.

Still waiting for the lab observations of original kinds producing a multitude of species in short times.

Still waiting ....

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:01 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 71 of 104 (23759)
11-22-2002 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 1:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Oh please. Like I said, hairsplit... but I didn't expect this specific hairsplit from you. See my comments to Page, who appears to be a bad influence on some of you. Do you want provocative, reasonable debate, or silly nonsense?


Apparewntly, as we are replying to YOUR posts, we all want silly nonsense, which is all one gets from creationists pontificating on areas that they have no knowledge in, as demonstrated by their inability to substantively support their many dubious and often patently ridiculous claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:25 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 72 of 104 (23761)
11-22-2002 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 1:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:

This is almost too silly for words. Okay, tell me again your rationale for excluding insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc from your "kinds"?

This is your way of avoiding the fact you were orders of magnitude off? The Bible did not require insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc.


As the veracity of the bible is in question, it would behoove you to supply some evidence that does not rely upon millenia old plagiarised fairy tales.

So, if the bible does not 'require' these other creatures, please tell us where in the bible these other things are accounted for.

If there is no biblical passage that states something like "The Lord God, being a malevolent but whimsical God, magically protected all creatures not on the ark from the turmoil and hardships that He had created for them."

if there is nothing liek that, then you will have to do better than blabbering on about the bible "not requiring it" and dropping it as if it were irrelevant.

quote:

Your argument was based on what the Bible required on the ark. How these non-ark organisms survived outside the ark is another debate. Such is a fair question, and a good discussion, that has been discussed many times.

And no doubt hand-waved and ad hoc'd away...

quote:

The point is, it’s another topic. Your original claim requiring the ark to somehow accommodate the originators of 10 million species was a fallacious argument that needs to be put to rest.

As is the ark myth itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:25 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4420 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 73 of 104 (23778)
11-22-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 1:25 PM


quote:
from Fairy Tale Fred: This is your way of avoiding the fact you were orders of magnitude off? The Bible did not require insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc. Your argument was based on what the Bible required on the ark. How these non-ark organisms survived outside the ark is another debate. Such is a fair question, and a good discussion, that has been discussed many times. The point is, it’s another topic. Your original claim requiring the ark to somehow accommodate the originators of 10 million species was a fallacious argument that needs to be put to rest.

So the Bible does not require insects on the ark? It doesn’t seem that way to me.

Here are the verses in Genesis.

7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

Now it does say in 7:22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of life so the modern YEC apologists use this to claim that insects and other invertebrates that don’t breath through nostril did not have to be on the ark. However it does not say that ONLY those who breathe through nostril died and it more than once says every living thing and every creeping thing died . If insects were not thought to be living or need air this would seem a pretty big blunder in the supposedly inerrant Bible even if they don’t have nostrils. If insects are not among creeping things then why are grasshoppers identified in Leviticus as flying creeping things ye may eat? I suppose those questions belong on the Bible inerrancy page but I have made the point before that many families and even some whole orders of insects could not have survived on or off the ark
and it has not been discussed much here.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=40&p=2 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=40&p=2">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=40&p=2

I do recall KC (on OCW) saying that the flood could have “collected a forest along with its dirt” to preserve ground dwelling insects. That was pretty far out even for KC.

Many species of fresh water fish and many plants are also big problems as well. Why don’t YECs do the experiment of soaking a wide variety of plant seed in salty water for a year and then throwing them out on ground that had been under salt water to see if they grow? I think I know why. Do you?

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:25 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 6:12 PM Randy has responded
 Message 93 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-26-2002 3:01 PM Randy has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 74 of 104 (23788)
11-22-2002 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 12:51 PM


FW:
The cheetah is a cat “kind”. A branch of this cat “kind” became isolated. This resulted in the CHEETAH. The cheetah has LESS information than its parent, pre-bottleneck cat kind. I already provided a citation from a CHEETAH expert who agrees it is likely the cheetah has lost gene segments.

Lions and Tigers also share a common cat “kind” ancestor. Each likely has less information than their common ancestor cat “kind”. Savvy?

M: Oh so the cheetah is a cat kind? And what are the cheetah's post the bottleneck they suffered? Answer for the learning impaired aka Fred..cheetah's

Your argument is really stupid.

FW:
No, what I wish is that you would follow the discussion. I do not know of a single evolutionist trained in info science who thinks the appearance of a new allele necessarily represents new information. Yet this is what you keep claiming, because you cannot get it through your thick skull. Find me ONE evolutionist who has a background in info science who thinks a new allele always equals new information. If this is true, then DISEASE = new information by this standard. Utter nonsense.

M: LOL! HIV and other retroviruses integrate into the host genome...some of these elements as retrotransposons can take over functions of (syncytin), delete, or modify gene expression..so the utter nonesense is 100% of the posts you have written on this board.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 12:51 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 75 of 104 (23793)
11-22-2002 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 1:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I believe Mams has blown a gasket. I'd recommend pursuing immediate medical attention!

Regarding founder vs bottleneck, I know the difference. In a sense a small founder population is really no different than a bottleneck. DO you deny this? If so, please educate me, oh wise one.


M: At least I have gaskets that can be blown out...you apparently lack any thinking mechanisms

And you managed to yet again, not answer anything from the post....

And as to the founder population versus genetic bottleneck...they are different though I will grant you..similar. However, a founder event would be more as you incorrectly tried to illustrate with dogs and decks of cards etc. The original population is still in existence...new species eventually forms from the founders..both species (original population and new species) exist...a bottleneck like the cheetah experienced, the entire population collapses...there is no other population and no genetic diversity anywhere else because the population has crashed to a remnant...get it? I doubt it. In both cases, allelic variation is lost..in the founder event by drift and by severe bottlenecks for obvious reasons....but I am sure you read all this in the papers I cited on bottlenecks since you have shown such a propensity to read the scientific literature LOL!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:10 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Fred Williams, posted 11-23-2002 2:01 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019