EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 84 of 248 (123909)
07-12-2004 9:31 AM

Reply to: Message 83 by Rrhain
07-12-2004 1:13 AM

Re: nitpick

would that make them vary sexual?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 83 by Rrhain, posted 07-12-2004 1:13 AM		Rrhain has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 87 of 248 (123930)
07-12-2004 11:50 AM

Reply to: Message 86 by arachnophilia
07-12-2004 10:53 AM

Re: lesbian lizard clones

but

each {one \ clone lineage} should be accumulating mutations and adapting in much the same way the "usual suspects" of asexual organisms adapt, and natural selection would pick the individuals to survive to breed in the same way.

and population size and genetic diversity would be critical determining factors in species success.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 07-12-2004 10:53 AM		arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 90 by Loudmouth, posted 07-12-2004 1:37 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 91 of 248 (123982)
07-12-2004 2:31 PM

Reply to: Message 90 by Loudmouth
07-12-2004 1:37 PM

Re: lesbian lizard clones

I was reading one article on archea at cold seeps
Cold vent | encyclopedia article by TheFreeDictionary

Unlike hydrothermal vents, which are volatile and ephemeral environments, cold seeps emit at a slow and dependable rate. Likely owing to the differing temperatures and stability, cold seep organisms are much longer-lived than those inhabiting hydrothermal vents. Indeed, recent research has revealed seep tubeworms to be the longest living noncolonial invertebrates known, with a minimum lifespan of between 170 and 250 years.

these bacteria live in slow motion compared to others.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 90 by Loudmouth, posted 07-12-2004 1:37 PM		Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 92 by Loudmouth, posted 07-12-2004 4:19 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 93 of 248 (124044)
07-12-2004 5:11 PM

Reply to: Message 92 by Loudmouth
07-12-2004 4:19 PM

Re: lesbian lizard clones

Sorry. In a hurry looking for the right reference. Had one on deep underground archea type bacteria that were long slow-motion livers. Can't find it now.

Bacteria also don't have multiple children -- they split one "adult" into two "children" -- and it is hard to compare length of life to length of time between offspring. There are as many opportunities for "division error" as there are for mutation that can contribute to genetic diversity.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 92 by Loudmouth, posted 07-12-2004 4:19 PM		Loudmouth has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 106 of 248 (136373)
08-23-2004 6:52 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-23-2004 11:33 PM

Bump for Robert

Go to OT for the topic
EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2004 11:33 PM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 107 of 248 (253118)
10-19-2005 5:07 PM

Restatement

There is only one mechanism that enacts the changes in species through time, and that is the DNA. Any change that does not make it into the DNA patterns of the genome fails to be reproduced.

Thus IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?

What are those mechanimsm and how do they act on one set of DNA molecules but cannot act on another set - DNA being the same four molecules in different patterns from one end to the other.

IF "macro" evolution {doesn't occur\can't occur} THEN there must be a mechanism in place that prevents it ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 110 of 248 (254274)
10-23-2005 5:52 PM

Reply to: Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object
10-23-2005 5:30 PM

Thank you for the (rather humorous to me)^(*) bare links.

This still does not answer the question of what the basic DNA level distinction that makes "micro" evolution a regular occurance in the natural world, but somehow prevents "macro" evolution.

Perhaps you would care to excerpt the significant portions regarding this specific issue and then discuss then in your words?

^(*) Creationists needed to create their own version of wikipedia -- a completely open source encyclopedia -- so that they can make up their own definitions of things ROFLOL. Let me guess whether it really allows open editing ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-23-2005 5:30 PM		Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 123 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-25-2005 6:40 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 115 of 248 (254288)
10-23-2005 6:50 PM

Reply to: Message 113 by randman
10-23-2005 6:12 PM

Re: grade: F-

Actually, all he did was cite facts.

... facts that are irrelvant to the question asked. As was pointed out.

What is the mechanism that prevents "macro" evolution but allows "micro"evoltion, given that there is one system of recording the overall changes in species through time: DNA, composed of 4 molecules in different patterns.

Is there some magical mechanism that says this pattern can happen here, but not there?

Take it one molecule at a time ... what stops the next one from being any one of the four specific molecules? Step by step to the end?

You accept that "micro" happens: what is the genetic difference that prevents "macro" from happening?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 113 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 6:12 PM		randman has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 118 of 248 (254294)
10-23-2005 7:09 PM

Reply to: Message 114 by Cold Foreign Object
10-23-2005 6:44 PM

just wrong.

This is a Young Earth model that ASSUMES ... Anyone can nitpick this YEC scheme to death ... I am not a YEC ... The value of the Model are the starting assumptions/Biblical base.

Do you not see the hypocrisy here? You are using a model that you specifically disagree with ...

... to argue against another model that you specifically disagree with ...

... but assume a validity for one that is not given to the other?

In addition:

all {A} is not{B}
not{B}, therefore {A}

is logically invalid, there is no need for it to be {A} versus any other not{B}.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 114 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-23-2005 6:44 PM		Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 119 by mick, posted 10-23-2005 8:33 PM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 124 of 248 (254828)
10-25-2005 10:17 PM

Reply to: Message 123 by Cold Foreign Object
10-25-2005 6:40 PM

and the topic is ....

For the time being, we should assume this is true (Mayr fact) as your blue box quote retrospectively assumes the opposite; it HAS happened.

ROFLOL - why should we assume some assertion of yours is true?

Do you now take everything Mayr says as true? and I should accept your recollection of it? From where? Some creatortionista site?

he said morphological change is prevented by natural barriers at a certain point.

Demonstrate those barriers and that they always apply: what is the mechanism. That is precisely the point of this thread.

(not your pre-boasting about some thread on another forum, btw)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 123 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-25-2005 6:40 PM		Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 125 by NosyNed, posted 10-25-2005 11:40 PM	RAZD has replied
	Message 129 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2005 7:56 PM	RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 126 of 248 (254837)
10-25-2005 11:51 PM

Reply to: Message 125 by NosyNed
10-25-2005 11:40 PM

Re: Barriers

Large populations and no separation are examples.

That would be why I said "and that they always apply" eh? There may be temporary barriers (thus stasis), but then {things\environments} change and all bets are off (thus punk-eek).

I am also talking about at the genetic level - what is the mechanism there.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 125 by NosyNed, posted 10-25-2005 11:40 PM		NosyNed has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 131 of 248 (254947)
10-26-2005 8:32 PM

Reply to: Message 129 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2005 7:56 PM

Re: and the topic is ....

I can take and establish a fact from any source. Then provide what I believe is the correct interpretation.

You can take an established fact ... and cite the source to substantiate that it is, in fact, established as an established fact.

You can then paraphrase it to demonstrate your level of understanding of the fact, however the correctness of the interpretation is not really up to you (it would really be up to the original author).

Of course not.

This is a legitimate response to all concepts of others. But if you are using a souce as a "gospel" source by asserting

ray, msg 123 writes:

For the time being, we should assume this is true (Mayr fact)

Then that is a different matter.

I don't need to demonstrate those barriers because the burden of speciation proof is on you.

Sorry, you posted the supposed barrier, that is the topic of this thread, and it is very much up to you to substantiate your assertion.

I won't have the time to track down the Mayr data until Friday or Saturday.

No problem there. That is legitimate as well.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 129 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2005 7:56 PM		Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 140 of 248 (255212)
10-27-2005 7:59 PM

Reply to: Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object
10-27-2005 3:27 PM

What Are the GENETIC Limits to Macroevolution?

PAGE 132
Here we have Darwin's central idea of evolution in a nutshell: bears can become whales, or whale-like, given enough time and enough natural selection. One species can turn into a completely different species by natural selection alone."

Nothing wrong, really with that statement. Given enough time for mutations to occur, plus behavior that favors an aquatic environment and the forces of natural selection you could develop a totally aquatic bear. Look at the difference in aquatic behavior of polar bears and brown bears - they share a common ancestor.

PAGE 133:
"Darwin changed his mind about this example after publication and withdrew it from the second and all later editions of his book. We don't know the exact reason why he had second thoughts and withdrew the example, but I think it is not too difficult to see why he would have done so.

...But in dropping his example of bears evolving into whales by NS, Darwin was dropping not just a marginal example which could easily be jettisoned without penalty. In rejecting the acquatic bear, he was abandoning the central proposition of his entire theory - or at the very least was publicly displaying the kind of doubts he was privately entertaining about the process.

So what kind of influences caused Darwin to drop his example about bears and whales ?"

Argument from incredulity and slothful induction. Logically invalid argument.

PAGE 134:
"Darwin was well aware of one central fact that dominated all animal and plant breeding experiments - then and now. No one has ever bred a new species artificially - and both plant and animal breeders have been trying for hundreds of years, as have scientists."

Well, we have now bred several new species in scientific experiments, and observed speciation in the wild on it's own, so this point is invalidated. What a surprise eh?

PAGE 135:
"Mayr: 'any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability....The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment.' Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (1963)

"This limit to the amount of genetic variability available in a species, Mayr termed "genetic homeostasis."

(1) Presumably this is the source of your comment re barriers to genetic variation.

Please document where these barriers are at the genetic level if you can. That is the question here: what allows some DNA sections to change but prevents others from doing so while the sections are visibly identical at the small scale level?

(2) As noted above, speciation events have been observed, thus the barriers noted by Mayr regarding breeding selection do not apply to other selection pressures. The barriers are only to the limits that artificial selection can push a specific {desired} feature (or set of features) within the limits of a species and the time-frame of the selection process.

(3) This is still not from Mayr himself, but quotes selected and filtered by a questionable source (see logical fallacies and refuted arguments above).

PAGE 135 (cont):
IT IS THE NATURAL BARRIER encountered not only by geneticists attempting to breed fruit flies, and the French botanists attempting to increase the sugar PAGE 136: content of the beetroot, but by all plant and animal breeders throughout the ages.

Again, speciatation events have been observed so this argument is falsified, invalidated, refuted. Repeating a false argument does not improve the argument. There is more sloppy thinking, arguments from incredulity and false statements in the paragraphs that follow, rendering the author a most uncredible source of trustable information or even of proper quoting of others.

More to the point, none of the rest of the quoted material addresses the issue of the GENETIC level barriers to "macro" evolution. Nothing has been presented that even begins to show a barrier mechanism at the genetic level.

So far a mutation can occur at any site on the DNA of a species - it is a random action that changes one (or more) of the molecules in the DNA strand to a different one (or more) of otherwise similar molecules.

And there are only four types of base molecules used in the DNA.

What is the mechanism that allows a {single\group} mutation in one area (that becomes a "micro" evolution feature) but prevents a similar {single\group} mutation in another area (that becomes a "macro" evolution feature)?

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 3:27 PM		Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 149 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2005 2:06 PM	RAZD has seen this message but not replied
	Message 150 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2005 2:20 PM	RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 142 of 248 (255241)
10-27-2005 11:18 PM

Reply to: Message 141 by KCdgw
10-27-2005 10:44 PM

Hey KC,

... and while Mayr was correct in noting that loss of fitness is common in intense breeding programs, Lerner pointed out it was due primarily to the breeding program’s disruption of coadapted gene complexes that had developed over long periods of time in the wild, prior to domestication-- not exhaustion of genetic variability.

So no genetic barrier to "macro" evolution has been shown.

did you notice that a certain "lightweight" is around?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 141 by KCdgw, posted 10-27-2005 10:44 PM		KCdgw has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 145 by KCdgw, posted 10-28-2005 7:35 AM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 155 of 248 (255404)
10-28-2005 8:03 PM

Reply to: Message 147 by Cold Foreign Object
10-28-2005 1:11 PM

WARNING: LOGICAL FALLACY AHEAD

Ray\Willow writes:

You are confused. We are attempting to determine if macroevolution happens, or if not, then Genesis special creation remains true - not microevolution.

Hasty Generalization.

If macroevolution happens, evolution remains the best theory to cover the facts.

If macroevolution does not and cannot happen, then some other mechanism is needed to explain the facts, but what that is has not been determined.

This is the typical logical fallacy of creationism (or IDism) attacking evolution rather than developing evidence for their concepts.

This is the

{all A} is {not B}
{not B} is true
therefore {A}

False logic. {not B} means anything else but {B} can be correct and with no real evidence for {A} anywhere, the more likely result is

{not B} AND {not A} is true
therefore something else.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 147 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2005 1:11 PM		Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,903 Year: 4,160/9,624 Month: 1,031/974 Week: 358/286 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0