Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

From Harun Yahya? I wouldn't.

Rigour mortis, more like.

Flat-out wrong. There's absolutely no dispute that speciation occurs. Where else would all the new species be coming from?

It's fairly well-understood as a natural mendelian consequence of sexual recombination.Why don't you explain why we only see homeostasis in sufficiently large populations? If it doesn't apply in some situations, how can it be your speciation-proof genetic barrier? Which experiments?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-27-2006 07:31 PM

If you didn't understand the question, it would be better for you to say so, rather than cut and paste some ridiculous screed instead of answering my question.I repeat:

quote:

---

Why don't you explain why we only see homeostasis in sufficiently large populations?

---

I just told you that the "barrier" is easily penetrated in small populations. So, assertions that the "barrier has never been penetrated" aren't answers to the question I asked, which I've repeated above. Why don't you answer my question instead of cutting and pasting nonsense? Ah, one more "forth-coming paper" that's going to leave us quaking in our boots, sundered by your intellect. Lysmachus had one of those, too. We've kinda stopped hearing from him.Is it too much to dream that the same be true of you? By all means, hit us with this "paper."

I don't get it. What humans, birds, or reptiles do you think exist that aren't quadrupeds? All humans, birds, and "reptiles" (itself not even a real taxon, much less a "kind") are quadrupeds. The indication of that would be the four limbs that each of these groups of creatures posess.Can't wait for your "upcoming paper." Like in Calvin and Hobbes I expect you to try to convince us that bats are bugs, or some such.

I'm accusing you of not answering my question. For the third time, and then we're done:

quote:

---

Why don't you explain why we only see homeostasis in sufficiently large populations?

---

How many limbs does a human have?How many limbs does a bird have?How many limbs does a reptile have? (Even snakes have the vestigal skeletal structures of limbs.)What does the word "quadruped" mean? If you're not talking about birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals, then what organisms are you talking about with this term? From what basis do you conclude that your article represents a selectivly meaningful event? Even in evolution, organisms get struck by lightning.

Interesting. Thank you.God only knows what Ray is talking about, of course.

That's simply nonsense, though. If you think that answers my question, try again.Maybe I need to make it clearer? We're not talking about two different species, here. We're talking about two different groups of the exact same organism.We only observe hmeostasis in the sufficiently large population. Int he small group, we don't observe it at all.Why is that? For like the fourth time, can you answer my question or not?

We're talking about populations, period. A large population exhibits genetic homeostasis. Kidnap a small subset of those individuals, seperate them from the large population, and homeostasis disappears in those individuals.Why is that? That's what I'm asking. I know why it happens, according to evolution. It's your explanation that I've been asking for.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-28-2006 06:52 PM

That genetic homeostasis isn't found in sufficiently small populations.

So you admit that it's a fact? And that therefore, your vaunted "barrier" is only present for large populations; which are precisely the populations where we don't tend to see speciation and macroevolution? But you've just admitted this can't be true. If you accept that genetic homeostasis isn't observed in sufficiently small populations, which is an understood fact of the homeostasis you're referring to (I'll assume that you did your homework on homeostasis before you brought it up in the debate), then we know that there's no "genetic barrier" at all, and that homeostasis is a function of population interactions and not any kind of individual genetic limit.It's incontrovertable. Your explanation of homeostasis as a "natural genetic barrier" doesn't explain why small populations are not homeostatic. Because we know they aren't we know that there's no such thing as the "natural genetic barrier." No, I'm not. I'm showing you how your model, that equivocates homeostasis with genetic barriers, can't explain why small populations are not homeostatic and therefore have no barrier. And if there's no barrier to surmount, why, then, there's macroevolution.It's really quite simple, Ray. So answer the question. What's your explanation for why sufficiently small populations are not homeostatic?

No, Ray, you still don't understand. Not in "subset species."In the literal number of organisms. If you have 2 million widgits, and you observe them over many generations, they exhibit genetic homeostasis. If you abduct a small population of say 100 widgits - the same individuals who, as part of a large population, exhibited homeostasis - they don't exhibit homeostasis.Do you understand genetic homeostasis, yet? No matter what organism, it's not observed in small populations. If you seperate individuals from a homeostatic population they stop being homeostatic. The large population is irrelevant. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand genetic homeostasis, and you shouldn't have brought up something you weren't prepared to understand. No, I haven't. Again, if you believe this, then you're refusing to understand my argument out of willful ignorance. We're not talking about kinds. We're not talking about sub-species. We're simply talking about large and small populations of the same organism, and the fact that only large populations are homeostatic, and they stop being homeostatic when the population becomes small. There's no barrier to breach, in populations that are sufficiently small. Again, how do you explain this fact of genetic homeostasis?

The opposite of what? Can you point out the contradiction? Large populations are not macro-kinds, and we're not talking about any organisms except for a single species. One single species. In large populations, it does.In small populations, it doesn't. It's a well-understood fact of genetic homeostasis, which you must have known before you introduced genetic homeostasis into the discussion. Didn't you? I mean, or else you were talking about something you know nothing about. The fact that there is no barrier in a sufficiently small population. In a small population, no homeostasis - therefore, no barrier. It's quite simple and it's a well-understood fact of homeostasis. Nobody's talking about subspecies or anything else. We're not dealing with taxonomy here, just large populations and small populations of the same species. Can you show me a single post of mine where I made this reply? Subspecies have never been the topic of discussion here, and I've never made reference to subspecies in any of my posts.