|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"Complexity" is a difficult thing to define/quantify, but evolution doesn't proceed from simple to complex, so it may be a non-issue given the context. Instead, evolution proceeds from "less fit" to "more fit" for a given species and environment Well, what about the proof from the digs? The deeper you dug, the simpler the organism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Robin, this debate is over if you are going to refuse to accept my premises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Robin, this debate is over if you are going to refuse to accept my premises What do you mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have to debate. You can't declare there is no evidence for God. I can certainly show evidence for God and have done so many times, but it's not appropriate in this thread. Even when God is not mentioned, you see that God is my premise for the arguments for creationism but you can't just declare that God doesn't exist. For purposes of this argument just focus on the points I'm making. I believe my arguments are logical, and you can't disqualify them just because you don't believe in God. This won't wash.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 02:16 AM Psa 14:1 of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well the limits I've been talking about have to do with limits to genetic variation by population reducing events that separate different portions of a gene pool from one another.
quote: I guess you haven't followed those arguments. I'm not up to laying it all out at the moment.
I do. But in any case design economy works just fine, as do all the creationist explanations. Nothing whatever makes the evo explanation any more compelling.
quote: This is what I was objecting to. You need a designer, that's for sure, but this is just as valid a theory as the evo theory, and there is plenty of evidence for God, which has been given here many times by many posters. You may not declare that this is "just my feelings." At the very least you have to give your own evidence if this is really a debate. This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 03:08 AM Psa 14:1 of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"population reducing events"? What on earth are you talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you haven't followed those arguments. I'm not up to laying it all out at the moment. You don't have to go into great detail. Just give me an idea of what you're talking about.
You need a designer, that's for sure, but this is just as valid a theory as the evo theory, and there is plenty of evidence for God, which has been given here many times by many posters. OK, no problem. I waive that point. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-20-2005 08:49 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, what about the proof from the digs? The deeper you dug, the simpler the organism? Interesting question. Wonder what Pink S will have to say. Sure seems to me that that's one of those old ideas that launched the ToE that is no longer considered to be true. There seem to be a lot of those floating around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
=============================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN AND FAITH ONLY, GUEST POSTERS BY INVITATION ONLY. ============================================================= quote: Not all that easy but here goes. By the way I just posted on the subject again on the "phylogeographic" thread, where I did a lot of that all along. My very first thread at EvC back in February or March or so was on this topic too, that had something like Natural Limits in the title. So if I can't get it spelled out here clearly enough, I'll see if I can track that down and link it. The basic idea is that a Kind may turn out to be defined by natural limits to variation which must ultimately be reached if mutation turns out not to be the great generator of new useful genetic possibilites it is claimed to be. This comes about by the usual processes I've seen called Evolutionary Processes on sites about Population Genetics, such as migration (the moving of part of a population away from the "parent" population), natural selection {which singles out a portion of a population for its adaptive genes), changing the frequencies at least so that the adaptive genes proliferate while the unadaptive are either eliminated altogether or simply reduced in the population and not expressed; bottleneck, which severely isolates a small portion of a population, in which the alleles are severely reduced from what was in the parent population. All these are processes that divide populations initially reducing the population of course -- you have fewer numbers of individuals, that is, and new frequencies of alleles in both new populations (or new and old or in the one that survives if the other dies), [which is the usual definition of evolution (change in allelic frequencies over time),] and in the process reduce the genetic diversity. Fewer alleles = less diversity. Either or both new populations may increase in numbers after the split, of course, but the new allelic frequencies will bring new traits to expression, the changes that are called microevolution. As a general rule, that does have some exceptions: New traits = less genetic diversity. It doesn't always happen in every population shift, even though frequencies may shift. That is, stability or equilibrium does occur. But the only processes that actually ADD anything genetically are mutation and recombining populations, or hybridization, and the latter doesn't add anything NEW, merely reintroduces genetic possibilities that were lost in earlier splits. Mutation is a topic unto itself. SO the overall effect of all these processes, with the exception of mutation, is the reduction of genetic diversity. But interestingly, these are called "Evolutionary" Processes, as they produce the phenotypic "microevolutionary" changes that are taken for evidence of the ToE. But if in the process of producing these changes the population loses genetic diversity, this would seem to be a change in the direction away from evolution. You get new phenotypes by bringing some alleles to expression at the expense of others -- by eliminating or reducing the frequency of others. All these population dividing processes do this. It is just funny that the very processes that produce the change, even all the way out to actual speciation, are processes that reduce diversity. If these processes continue out to their ultimate conclusion, you get new types that may be highly adapted but also genetically compromised to an extreme. This is seen in domestic breeding all the time. They have been developing ways to cope with this effect, but the point is that it IS the natural effect of these processes -- new traits at the cost of reduced genetic diversity. So these Evolutionary Processes produce change, certainly, but they also produce degrees of genetic depletion, even to a great degree over time, out of which which further change becomes less likely and less possible, the opposite of what evolution needs if it works. ============================================================Sorry, I rushed through that and I'm sure it's not as clear as it should be, but maybe I can clean it up later. ============================================================ quote: Thanks.============================================================= NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN AND FAITH ONLY, GUEST POSTERS BY INVITATION ONLY. ============================================================= This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 11:19 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
migration (the moving of part of a population away from the "parent" population) If there were a group of 100 lizards, and they got separated into 2 groups of 50, then each member of each group will be mating with other members in that group, and they will continue to change through the generations. It doesn't matter if it's a 100 or 50. And if they are successful, pretty soon you've got 5000--all sorts of combinations. I would think this splitting would tend to make the groups different from each other faster. If both groups were successful, after a long time they would look a little different from each other, and after a longer time they would look very different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If there were a group of 100 lizards, and they got separated into 2 groups of 50, then each member of each group will be mating with other members in that group, and they will continue to change through the generations. It doesn't matter if it's a 100 or 50. And if they are successful, pretty soon you've got 5000--all sorts of combinations. Yes, this is what I'm talking about. But what makes the changes possible is the initial change in genetic frequencies caused by the separation, which will involve a reduction and even the elimination of some alleles that were present in the original combined population. Meanwhile the other population will have those particular alleles to develop changes in a different direction, and a reduction or even complete absence of those that now dominate in the split off group. This is how change happens, through changing allelic frequencies involving a reduction or elimination of some, and if it involves the elimination of some, this will amount to an overall reduction in genetic diversity.
I would think this splitting would tend to make the groups different from each other faster. Yes, it does. That's why the processes that cause the splitting are called Evolutionary Processes.
If both groups were successful, after a long time they would look a little different from each other, and after a longer time they would look very different. Exactly. But this is happening because of the changed allelic frequencies, which in some cases, such as bottleneck and severe natural selection for instance, are an out and out elimination of some alleles, which is a reduction in genetic diversity, which is contrary to what the ToE would seem to need if it were true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I'm studying this book I got. I'll see if can understand a little more about "alleles." I'll get back with you.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-20-2005 12:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Ok, I've got all this mastered.
Mere imperfect replication by itself could not produce evolution. If not for these other processes there would be no evolution. 1. selection2. mutation 3. gene flow 4. genetic drift 5. biased variation 6. movable elements 7. nonrandom mating. So if it wasn't for these things going on, there would not be enough gene variety for any life form to evolve over time. All of these processes don't have to occur, but some of them do. That's how you get to "macroevolution."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
=============================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN AND FAITH ONLY, GUEST POSTERS BY INVITATION ONLY. ============================================================= Ok, I've got all this mastered. I'm SO impressed.
Mere imperfect replication by itself could not produce evolution. If not for these other processes there would be no evolution. 1. selection2. mutation 3. gene flow 4. genetic drift 5. biased variation 6. movable elements 7. nonrandom mating. So if it wasn't for these things going on, there would not be enough gene variety for any life form to evolve over time. All of these processes don't have to occur, but some of them do. That's how you get to "macroevolution." Cute. 1, 3, 4 and 7 concern populations: 1, Selection, 4, genetic drift, and 7, nonrandom mating add nothing new genetically, and over time subtract diversity as I've been describing. Selection selects against alleles as well as for, genetic drift is simply allele selection by chance rather than effect, again selecting against as well as for; selective mating also selects against as well as for. Anything that eliminates alleles reduces genetic diversity. 3. Gene flow adds BACK what already existed in the population, also adding nothing new, like hybridization. You get increased genetic diversity for the time being, but only until equilibrium is reached or one of the other subtractive processes comes along. For evolution to be possible beyond "microevolution" NEW alleles must be added, and none of these four adds anything. SO four out of the seven do NOT further evolution beyond microevolution, but in fact strongly suggest that microevolution is the absolute limit of such processes. 2, 6 and 7 {AbE: Should have been 2, 5 and 6} are all about genetics per se, rather than populations, apparently versions of mutation (I googled them but haven't studied them). Mutation is the only process that could possibly add anything to the mix. Others have insisted that mutation does indeed add diversity to an extent that overcomes all the selecting-reducing processes I keep bleating execrably about. So I guess you'd better study up on mutation if you want to defeat me. BUT it would be nice if you'd at first get the point about these processes that reduce genetic diversity and limit evolution in such a way as to define a Kind. =============================================================NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN AND FAITH ONLY, GUEST POSTERS BY INVITATION ONLY. ============================================================= This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 07:10 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 12-21-2005 02:08 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Wonder what Pink S will have to say. Did you still want a comment on me on this point? I don't want to derail the topic, since it has since seemed to go in a more genetic direction...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, you are an invitee, please comment. Robin asked what happened about the digs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024