Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 136 of 248 (255168)
10-27-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by mick
10-27-2005 4:23 PM


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.
You have accepted this as fact. Darwinists claim all species are transitional since there is no actual evidence linking them. This transitional claim is refuted by the fact above we have both accepted.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mick, posted 10-27-2005 4:23 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2005 4:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 139 by mick, posted 10-27-2005 6:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 248 (255170)
10-27-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Cold Foreign Object
10-27-2005 4:37 PM


Darwinists claim all species are transitional since there is no actual evidence linking them.
Incorrect. Evolutionists observe that all populations undergo change, none are static; thus, all species are in a state of transition.
It's an observation, not a claim. And it's certainly not based on a lack of evidence as you falsely claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 4:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 11:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 138 of 248 (255179)
10-27-2005 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object
10-27-2005 3:27 PM


Re: Limits to Macroevolution
Herepton claims to be quoting from Milton "Shattering Myths of Darwinism". I have not attempted to verify the quotes, nor have I attempted to verify Milton's quotes from Mayr.
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.
I expect that what is stated in the quoted text is mostly correct. The question is on whether this provides a basis to question ToE.
Most of the quoted text deals with artificial selection, rather than with natural selection. With artificial selection, what is mainly being tested are the limits of selection alone. If a selection is being made from within a range of variation already present, then it seems obvious enough that what can be achieved is limited by the variation that is present. The only way to go beyond those limits, is for more variation to be introduced.
The quoted text also comments on "drastic improvement". You will mainly get drastic change when selection pressures are high. Again, you will see a reduction of variation.
In the real environment, evolutionary changes are mostly slow. There is plenty of time for new variation to arise from mutations, at the same time that selection pressures might be removing some variants. Thus the population can change, while retaining a significant amount of variation.
My own suspicion is that during times of equilibrium (relatively little change in morphology), there is nevertheless continual genetic change. Roughly speaking, a period of apparent equilibrium could be a period where variation is built up in the population. The occasional drastic change from selection will tend to reduce variation, but the variation will be replaced during a future period of equilibrium.
As a consequence, the barriers are temporary. As additional variation is incorporated into the genome, the barriers are pushed back.
In short, I don't see that the barriers mentioned constitute a problem for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 3:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 139 of 248 (255191)
10-27-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Cold Foreign Object
10-27-2005 4:37 PM


Hi Ray,
Herepton writes:
mick writes:
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.
You have accepted this as fact. Darwinists claim all species are transitional since there is no actual evidence linking them. This transitional claim is refuted by the fact above we have both accepted.
Now I really don't understand. Are you suggesting that the statements:
"all species are transitional"
and
"whales are more biologically similar to cows than cows are to horses"
are inconsistent?
Mick
ps. you do realize that "all species are transitional" is an inference from the fact that there IS evidence to connect species in a hierarchical manner, not that there ISN'T. The fact of homology is a reason to suggest that all species are transitional, for example.
Here's a blow up of my avatar:
Each individual is from a different species. Time to put your money where your mouth is. Can you explain the homology of these species in a way that doesn't involve common descent and its corrollary, the transitionality of species?
This message has been edited by mick, 10-27-2005 06:22 PM
This message has been edited by mick, 10-27-2005 06:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 4:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2005 1:11 PM mick has replied
 Message 148 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2005 1:14 PM mick has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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

  
KCdgw
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 248 (255236)
10-27-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object
10-27-2005 3:27 PM


Re: Limits to Macroevolution
quote:
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.
I suppose, in this graceless age, it is unreasonable to expect one to actually read a post before insulting its author. Just call me old-fashioned. Had you actually bothered to read my post, you would have noticed I mentioned that the quotation of Milton was from his very own website, entitled, appropriately enough, ”Shattering the Myths of Darwinism’. I even gave the link, which, if you actually bother to check, has the exact quote I noted.
Now, while I am pleased you have learned to cut-and-paste vast swaths of text, I have to insist on being unreasonable, and noting that Milton’s description of ”genetic homeostasis’ is incorrect on several levels. First of all, the term was coined by Berkeley geneticist I. Michael Lerner, 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.
quote:
"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."
I suggest you read the following to disabuse you of such hyperbole:
Dobzhansky, T and O Pavlovsky (1971). Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature 230: 289-292.
KC

Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 3:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 11:18 PM KCdgw has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 248 (255241)
10-27-2005 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by KCdgw
10-27-2005 10:44 PM


hi
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

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 143 of 248 (255249)
10-27-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
10-27-2005 4:40 PM


Incorrect. Evolutionists observe that all populations undergo change, none are static; thus, all species are in a state of transition.
It's an observation, not a claim. And it's certainly not based on a lack of evidence as you falsely claim.
I happen to know you are probably the most knowledgeable evolutionist anyone will find anywhere. But with all due respect these are weasel words.
You briefly cite general well known CLAIMS. Yes, all species are in a state of transition, at issue is macro transition. You have no evidence of this claim and your observations are useless since at some times they are subject to illusions/Blind Watchmaker weasel words.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2005 4:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2005 12:28 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2005 7:49 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

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


Message 144 of 248 (255250)
10-28-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object
10-27-2005 11:59 PM


Macro Evolution - a definition?
Yes, all species are in a state of transition, at issue is macro transition.
Agreed that macro evolution is the issue.
Just what, then, do you define as macro evolution. Where is the dividing line between micro and macro? The dividing line will not be delineated by picking two examples that are on opposite sides of it and far from it. It will gradually be deliminated if you supply a number of examples that are just on one side and the other of the line between macro and micro.
Once you have supplied what you mean by the term we can carry on.
Using the biological definition it has been shown to occur so I'm sure you are not using that definition. We will need to see just what you do mean.
Besides, the issue is also for you to show what it is that could stop any level of "macro" evolution. If as you claim without support that it doesn't occur; just why doesn't it?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-28-2005 12:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 11:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2005 3:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
KCdgw
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 248 (255286)
10-28-2005 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by RAZD
10-27-2005 11:18 PM


Re: hi
quote:
So no genetic barrier to "macro" evolution has been shown.
There is no barrier. It has never been described, nor demonstrated. The 'genetic homeostasis' gambit can only be played by completely distorting the term. It only applies to drastically intense selection, as seen in breeding programs. Most selection in nature, as any student of evolution knows, and which our friend Herpeton conveniently avoids discussing, is far less intense. Milton conveniently avoids Lerner when discussing genetic homeostasis, for good reason. On page 5 of his book, Genetic Homeostasis, Lerner writes (my emphasis):
quote:
The three types of evidence which contribute most heavily to the theory advanced refer to:
1. data on artificial selection in instances where deceleration of gains is observed or a plateau is reached without apparent reduction in genetic variability.
Of course, Milton doesn't mention that, now does he? And Herpeton just accepted Milton's screed unquestioningly. So have a lot of creationists, who cite Milton's quote with relish.
KC
This message has been edited by KCdgw, 10-28-2005 07:36 AM

Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 11:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 146 of 248 (255287)
10-28-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object
10-27-2005 11:59 PM


I happen to know you are probably the most knowledgeable evolutionist anyone will find anywhere.
That's certainly false.
But with all due respect these are weasel words.
No, they're not. The only thing remotely "weaselish" here is your attempt to squirm out from beneath your demonstratably false and dishonest claims.
You briefly cite general well known CLAIMS.
No, I cite observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2005 11:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 147 of 248 (255352)
10-28-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by mick
10-27-2005 6:18 PM


Each individual is from a different species. Time to put your money where your mouth is. Can you explain the homology of these species in a way that doesn't involve common descent and its corrollary, the transitionality of species?
You are confused. We are attempting to determine if macroevolution happens, or if not, then Genesis special creation remains true - not microevolution.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by mick, posted 10-27-2005 6:18 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by mick, posted 10-28-2005 5:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2005 8:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 148 of 248 (255353)
10-28-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by mick
10-27-2005 6:18 PM


Now I really don't understand. Are you suggesting that the statements:
"all species are transitional"
and
"whales are more biologically similar to cows than cows are to horses"
are inconsistent?
No, the evidence says that whether you bow to it or not.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by mick, posted 10-27-2005 6:18 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2005 2:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 149 of 248 (255362)
10-28-2005 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
10-27-2005 7:59 PM


Re: What Are the GENETIC Limits to Macroevolution?
content deleted, double post.
sorry,
Ray
This message has been edited by Herepton, 10-28-2005 11:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 7:59 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 150 of 248 (255365)
10-28-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
10-27-2005 7:59 PM


Re: What Are the GENETIC Limits to Macroevolution?
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.
You knowingly replied to half a statement. Darwin withdrew his speculation that bears can morph into whale-like creatures.
Argument from incredulity and slothful induction. Logically invalid argument.
Your one-line drive-by to the Darwin withdrawal. Please address the evidence of Darwin rescinding this claim and the evidence pointing to why he did so.
In reality, your comment above is an insult caused by the inability to refute. I will not press this point any further as the facts speak for themselves, and until they are answered the silence and evasions confirm their veracity.
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?
Barest of assertions.
If you "have now" bred several new species....what the hell was your theory based upon prior to "now" ?
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?
How can I evidence a negative ?
You are the one claiming bears can change into whales. Your argument is microevolution is a fact. Everyone agrees. Then from this fact you assert macro must have occurred. But the data from experimentation says there are natural barriers preventing change beyond a certain point.
These crucial facts is exactly where science has proven Genesis special/sudden creation.
Mayr, the staunchest of evolutionists, was so brainwashed by his creator Evolution, he was blinded to the fact that genetic homeostasis falsified his false Creator. In fact the Bible says the real Creator blinds every mind that denies Him Creator credit with the poison of Naturalism/evolution - a place where you will never run into Him again.
RAZD, you ignored the Crick data I posted, and let me say it very plainly: I cannot provide what you ask because I am not aware of any evidence supporting it. If there was evidence, we would not be having this debate.
(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.
Speciation cannot and has not been observed. Saying it does not make it true. The process as you know takes millions of years. The only natural time lapse visual event we have (fossil record) somehow, with millions of species, failed to capture any species transitioning as one would expect.
Then you hand-wave away the fact of genetic homeostasis. In science we have decided that only experimentation determines facts. Hundreds of years of these experiments have established a natural barrier and its uncrossability. If you feel this database of evidence does not reflect the realities of nature outside the lab then post evidence that trumps these long known facts.
(3) This is still not from Mayr himself, but quotes selected and filtered by a questionable source (see logical fallacies and refuted arguments above).
Ad hom attack indicates the inability to refute. You have accepted the Mayr data, now, because you do not like the messenger (Milton) this somehow erases the message. I could easily and arbitrarily brand Darwinian sources as "questionable etc.etc." and then we would be determining claims and facts based on worldviews. Milton is an atheist, Mensa member, and 30 year science journalist. I suggest you cough up data which undermines genetic homeostasis or continue ad hom/poisoning the well tactic which is only done because you cannot refute.
As for your questions in yellow. Why can't you answer them ?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 7:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2005 9:23 PM Cold Foreign Object 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