Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 121 of 248 (254538)
10-24-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Cold Foreign Object
10-24-2005 6:45 PM


Lewontin quote
Could we have the context and the complete Lewontin quote to determine just what he was really saying?
I've seen too many creationist quote mines to take anything at face value.
Of course, one could interpret the first part as writen; that is up to the second elipsis. We are forced by the evidence to accept quantum mechanics and general relativity. They are about as counter intuitive as I can conceive of.
The rest of the quote is on the other side of a second elipsis. I am very suspicious of that.
ABE
I found enough. The quote is approximately correct but I don't have all the context.
It is deep enough that this topic is not the place to discuss it. If you think it is germane a topic in "Is It Science?" would be appropriate.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-24-2005 07:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-24-2005 6:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-25-2005 6:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 122 of 248 (254798)
10-25-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by NosyNed
10-24-2005 6:53 PM


Re: Lewontin quote
I found enough. The quote is approximately correct but I don't have all the context.
It is deep enough that this topic is not the place to discuss it. If you think it is germane a topic in "Is It Science?" would be appropriate.
Yes, I will drop it as drift.
I am currently writing a comprehensive article for a large Creationist website where the quote and others like it are discussed. When the link is up I will post it.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 10-24-2005 6:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 123 of 248 (254799)
10-25-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by RAZD
10-23-2005 5:52 PM


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.
Ernst Mayr answered this question, IIRC, when he said morphological change is prevented by natural barriers at a certain point. I am searching for the data and have not found it as of today. For the time being, we should assume this is true (Mayr fact) as your blue box quote retrospectively assumes the opposite; it HAS happened. IOW, your argument is evolution-did-it anyway because God is not an option at any step. Why don't you establish a fact then explain how ape sperm miraculously produced a better and more intelligent version of itself repeatedly ending in modern human beings ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2005 5:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 10:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 127 by Wounded King, posted 10-26-2005 2:43 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 128 by Wounded King, posted 10-26-2005 2:47 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 125 of 248 (254835)
10-25-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
10-25-2005 10:17 PM


Barriers
It will be necessary to read the quote in context. There are, of course, barriers to speciation. Large populations and no separation are examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 10:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 11:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 127 of 248 (254843)
10-26-2005 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Cold Foreign Object
10-25-2005 6:40 PM


Why don't you establish a fact then explain how ape sperm miraculously produced a better and more intelligent version of itself repeatedly ending in modern human beings?
Wow, an easy one. Mutation, probably random in the majority of instances, and natural selection. The neccessary facts would be the observed prevalence of mutational events and the obvious operation of natural selection. Some evidence would be the comparative analysis of human and other primate genomes.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-25-2005 6:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 128 of 248 (254844)
10-26-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Cold Foreign Object
10-25-2005 6:40 PM


Are you sure you aren't thinking of Mayr saying that there were limits to the genetic variability that could be sustained within a single gene pool?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-25-2005 6:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 129 of 248 (254943)
10-26-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
10-25-2005 10:17 PM


Re: and the topic is ....
Do you now take everything Mayr says as true?
Does anyone do that ?
Of course not.
I can take and establish a fact from any source. Then provide what I believe is the correct interpretation.
Ray writes:
he said morphological change is prevented by natural barriers at a certain point.
RAZD responds writes:
Demonstrate those barriers and that they always apply: what is the mechanism. That is precisely the point of this thread.
I don't need to demonstrate those barriers because the burden of speciation proof is on you. I won't have the time to track down the Mayr data until Friday or Saturday. I could post it as heresay but I won't.
It is evolutionists who assert the genetic code randomly mutates, rather it MUST since no other explanation of living things exists. Now, here we are again, where is the evidence of this besides educational credentials asserting this as fact ?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 10:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by NosyNed, posted 10-26-2005 8:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 8:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 132 by mick, posted 10-26-2005 8:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 133 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 12:54 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 130 of 248 (254945)
10-26-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2005 7:56 PM


Barrier mechanisms
It is evolutionists who assert the genetic code randomly mutates, rather it MUST since no other explanation of living things exists. Now, here we are again, where is the evidence of this besides educational credentials asserting this as fact ?
Since the nature of mutations is a rather large topic discussed elsewhere AND since it has been shown that the code does, in fact, randomly mutate perhaps you could take that to another topic.
You might further this one by sticking to the Meyr point that you posted. If there is a barrier: What is it?
You posted a quote suggesting that there is a barrier. Such a mechanism is what this thread is about.
What is the barrier?

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 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 132 of 248 (254948)
10-26-2005 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2005 7:56 PM


Re: and the topic is ....
Herepton writes:
It is evolutionists who assert the genetic code randomly mutates, rather it MUST since no other explanation of living things exists. Now, here we are again, where is the evidence of this
Do you mean that the genetic code randomly mutates, or that genetic sequences randomly mutate?
I'll provide some evidence for you if you can clarify the question.
Best wishes,
Mick
added in edit:
I assume you mean the evolution of genetic sequences, because after reviewing your posts, the evolution of the genetic code would not be particularly relevant. A further question is, are you challenging the existence of mutations, or are you challenging their random nature? I will provide evidence as soon as you reply.
This message has been edited by mick, 10-26-2005 08:42 PM

NOT IN THIS THREAD. IT IS NOT ABOUT MUTATIONS.

This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-27-2005 01:50 AM

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

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 133 of 248 (254969)
10-27-2005 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2005 7:56 PM


Whos whatsa what?
Okay, I admit, I was lurking!
I don't need to demonstrate those barriers because the burden of speciation proof is on you.
You lost me Herep. You seem to be suggesting (or quoting) that there are "barriers" that prevent morphological change. But "barriers" is a very vague word. It's not unreasonable to ask for a definition / example / mechanism.
Are you talking about something that exists within the genetic code? Are you talking about something that exists in physical world outside of the organism?
You're saying that the burden of proof is on evolutionists, but we've given you data, mountains of it. If you want to disprove the data, offer data of your own.
The burden of proof is on the party trying to change the status quo. Evolution is quite clearly the status quo. If you hold a different belief, please offer a clear explaination of your belief and data to support your explaination.
Otherwise, why should we take your theory any more seriously than flat-earth or boogeyman?

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

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 134 of 248 (255153)
10-27-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by KCdgw
07-07-2004 11:32 AM


Re: Limits to Macroevolution
KC supposedly quoting Richard Milton writes:
"This is Darwin's central idea of evolution in a nutshell: bears can become whales, or whale-like, given enough time and enough natural selection. However Darwin withdrew this claim from the second and later editions of the book.
Almost certainly this was because as an animal breeder he knew from first hand experience that no plant or animal breeder has ever succeeded in producing a new species by selective breeding. Primarily this is because of what Harvard's Ernst Mayr called "genetic homeostasis" -- the barrier beyond which selective breeding will not pass because of the onset of sterility or exhaustion of genetic variability."
The above quoting is a butcher shop special. No page numbers or any of the ordinary standards to be found.
Here is what Milton actually wrote:
"Shattering Myths of Darwinism" [1997] Park Street Press:
PAGE 132
"Darwin had accumulated hundreds of pieces of evidence that tended to support his idea, but he knew it was inevitable that skeptics would say: Show us an example of natural selection. So in the first edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin gave one. He said, 'I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more acquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.'
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."
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.
In the first place, it is purely hypothetical rather than actual; it is based on conjecture not on direct evidence....there are no fossils of intermediate types and no other physical evidence, so the transformation that Darwin at first saw as highly probable has not in fact happened....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 ?"
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."
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." 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.
Darwin himself, as a breeder of pigeons and other animals was aware that the amount of variability available was limited. And although Darwin afterwards thought better of his statement about bears and whales, and removed it from later editions of his book, the substance of his claim nevertheless remains THE central tenet of synthetic evolution - bears can become whales, or microbes can become elephants, by means of random mutation and natural selection. Today, few Darwinists could be found to put their names to such a bald manifesto. Yet that is what they teach in schools and universities."
"Nobody has yet produced a black tulip or a blue rose because of the same barrier."
PAGE 140:
"So far, no step in the chain of reasoning has been taken which goes beyond the data. But Darwin's successors felt that the theory as it stood at that point could be extended logically and naturally one step further - and it was a step that appeared to be not very far beyond the data. If variation and NS explained how a finch could change its beak shape to adapt to its island home, and how a giraffe's neck could get longer, then it also explained how one species could turn into a completely different species.
After this intoxicating draft from the tankard of speculation, the newly hatched synthetic evolutionists were brought back to earth with a disillusioning jolt. As we have already seen, ordinary subspecific variation cannot be pressed into service as the mechanism of evolution for two important reasons: first, because what Mayr calls "genetic homeostasis" - the NATURAL BARRIER beyond which selective breeding will not pass; and, second, because the genetic program or recipe for whales is not contained in the existing genetic makeup of bears. A genetic change is needed BEFORE one can change into the other - and natural selection is not capable of initiating genetic change."
"The genetic code is a one-way system. Information can be read out when a new life is generated but information cannot be written in to alter the characteristics of that new life." Crick, "Nature" 227:561 (1970)
PAGES 152-3:
"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.
Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.
It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved) that is the really clever part.
When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree with this final part.
This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point; that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution in the fossil record."
KC writes:
the concept of genetic homeostasis is misunderstood.
The data says macroevolution is prevented by natural barriers that no experimentation has been able to cross. Asserting it happens "behind your backs in the wild" is a theory contradicted by the available evidence - driven by worldview needs. Macro is assumed based on a need for Genesis to be wrong. No evidence exists for macro because it is not true.
This topic and others like it only exist out of a recognition that there is no evidence for macro except by hindsight assumption, while attempting to place opponents on the defensive; evolutionists have established the fact for their opponents.
Ray
This message has been edited by Herepton, 10-27-2005 12:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by KCdgw, posted 07-07-2004 11:32 AM KCdgw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by nwr, posted 10-27-2005 5:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 7:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 141 by KCdgw, posted 10-27-2005 10:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 135 of 248 (255165)
10-27-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Cold Foreign Object
10-24-2005 6:45 PM


herepton writes:
Feigning like you do not know what's wrong with the cows being closer to whales than horses tells me and anyone else what you and all evos are about.
Could you share it with me? What is wrong with whales being closer to cows than cows are to horses? I am not feigning anything.
herepton writes:
Mick, you were the person who without hesitation challenged the YEC scheme by citing data that places hyenas in feline taxa rather than canine. Now you are playing stupid when you aint. This response has conceded the point.
As I said, I'm not "playing stupid". It is unfair of you to assume that my stupidity is not genuine
Without hesitation I challenged the YEC scheme by citing data that places hyenas with feline taxa. The biological characteristics of hyenas are diagnostic of greater similarity to cats than to dogs. I'm afraid this is a fact. If you don't agree with that, you should explain what the features are that allies hyenas with dogs, and why these features outweigh their similarity with felines. If you can't defend it, but continue to claim that I am being dishonest in some way, and that I have somehow "conceded your point", then it is clear you are unwilling to take part in a substantive debate.
herepton writes:
...the embarrassing lack of transitional...
I refer you again to the cetacean/artiodactyl link. Now it may be you who is feigning ignorance here...
herepton writes:
What is obvious is that you take the side of starting assumptions regardless the falsifying evidence. Evos assert we descended from chimps yet the DNA evidence says a resounding no. Whats the point of having evidence if your philosophy will be used to overrule ? This is rhetorical. You are refuted.
I don't think you've refuted anything, you have provided an irrelevant quote from lewontin that doesn't represent my views in any way. You have provided not one piece of "falsifying evidence". Not one piece!
Now let's consider your statement. "Evos assert we descended from chimps yet the DNA evidence says a resounding no". If you were willing to discuss that evidence, to provide a scrap of evidence in favour of this outrageous and bizarre assertion, we could have a substantive debate and you could redeem yourself to some extent. But if you simply make assertions like this, without any evidence whatsoever, and end your assertions with the statement "You are refuted" then it's clear that you aren't capable of debating in a reasonable manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-24-2005 6:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 4:37 PM mick has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024