A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

not really....it's a side point. If you think having less fingers is an advantage, fine. The point still holds on mutations in a large group being swallowed up, and that generally some sort of isolation of a smaller population is envisioned as the means of evolution.

Maybe reading this article can help illustrate the issue here for you. Wolves' genetic diversity worryingly low | New ScientistThe isolation process into smaller groups that don't breed with one another creates a marked reduction in genetic diversity. In this case, a predator, man, greatly reduced the wolf population to the point now that there is a serious reduction in genetic diversity due to the various wolf populations being separated from each other.Note the following: So we see that genetic diversity can and does drop very rapidly with the types of changes leading to smaller populations becoming isolated and presumably evolving (or going extinct). However, it takes thousands of years presumably for mutations to increase genetic diversity. In other words, the processes decreasing genetic diversity greatly outweigh the processes creating genetic diversity, and evos cannot account for that, and frankly, I don't think they have even tried to as far as I can tell. Rather than empirical studies, it seems evos have substituted unfounded, bald-faced assertions, and argue via semantics and definitions rather than a reasoned, empirical examination of the process they espouse.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

What degree of isolation do you envision? We look at the fossil record and can see remarkable examples of stasis that defie gradualistic models. We don't see large members of species gradually change at all. The evo answer is that smaller groups within a species are isolated and evolve, and their numbers being small, we don't see any fossils. So whether the parent species is as devasted over their whole range as the wolf is, or if some other factor leads to a small group becoming isolated, isn't the issue essentially the same? The smaller group has less genetic diversity. They are the same thing. The reduction is due to the small population. The cause of the small populations being isolated is a reduction, not extinction, of the overall wolf population, but assuming some other cause of isolation, the result is the same.But you point out indirectly another problem with evo theories. Without the parent population being devasted, it becomes hard for any new form to emerge in that ecological niche. So the idea that it is unusual in the theoritical evo process for large-scale reduction of populations is incorrect, if evo models are true. Just quoting the scientists in the article that said it took thousands of years for the genetic diversity to be built up.Do you disagree with them?The point they are making is quite plain. It took thousands of years, according to them, to build up the genetic diversity in the wolf, and less than a 100 years to greatly reduce that diversity.

How do you think a new species can emerge if the species occupying the same ecological niche is not being driven to extinction? Moreover, isn't it fairly normal for species to be driven to extinction over time? Are you suppossing that extinction is not part of the process of evolution?As to the rest of your post, I am not sure what relevant points you are trying to make. Do evos know that they have never properly substantiated the fact that forces decreasing genetic diversity outweigh forces increasing genetic diversity?I don't know.Heck, as an undergrad in the 80s, I knew that Haeckel's stuff was forged and there was no phylotypic stage, but plenty of evo scientists in that field kept insisting on a phylotypic stage and references Haeckel's stuff as well.Did they know, or were they just ignorant?very good question.....wish I knew the answer

Whether the population thrives is not the point really. Cheetahs thrived for a long time with a narrow range of genetic diversity. The point is the process creates less genetic diversity, not more.

Imagination is great, isn't it? So a species just a teeny bit different than another species is going to replace it, but the first doesn't go extinct. Keep in mind colonizing an unoccupied niche most likely involves a different geography or something like that, and so once again there is isolation of a smalller group involved, not the whole-sale replacement of a near identical group over and over again with very small changes adding up to whole new types of creatures. So you don't consider extinction of older species via natural selection a part of the evo model? Wrong, it's not real science to posit something and say, well, no one has disproven it so it must be so. That's what evos do though, and so it's not real science. Evos have a claim that small-scale changes add up to macroevolution, but they have not substantiated it, as you admit.Had they substantiated it, they would have to show that the observed forces limiting genetic diversity is less than the mostly unobserved forces supposedly increasing it.Where are the peer-reviewed studies showing these things, Dr Adequate?Where are the evo studies showing that small-scale changes can add up to macroevolution even when the process limits genetic diversity?Just saying, hey, this is the way it is, and you have to show why it cannot, is not sufficient. To be empirical-based science, you have to show it, and evos have not for this most basic claim of their's.Conclusion: it's not empirical-based science but faith-based assertions, and dogmatic assertions at that.

First off, the Richardson study in 1997 states that the phylotypic stage and Haeckel's data were widely accepted and used both in textbooks and in peer-reviewed literature. You obviously want to waste everyone's time not looking up the details of the debate, something debated here ad nauseum by the way.I suggest you do your own homework.

Thus far, someone that has shown a limited ability to grasp concepts that challenge his beliefs.

You gonna address the heart of the argument or continue to dodge it with ignorance and sophistry, Dr Adequate?

This is what I am talking about, WK. It's not up to me to prove or disprove evo theory. You guys are the ones making the claim that one process can overcome the other. You, nor anyone that I can tell, has ever substantiated that. Evos have merely insisted that is the case without ever substantiating it, and thus their claim is not fact-based. The idea that critics should disprove their claims, and if they do not, then the claims are true, is prepostrous. Ok, show the studies proving that. If there are np studies, how can evos claim their theory is fact-based. This is one of the most basic claims of ToE, that small changes we observe in microevolution are steps of macroevolution. If evos know that there is tendency for reduction of genetic diversity, which you admit is known, how can they handwaive away that process and just say mutations can overcome that.Is the mere word of someone's imagination considered data for evos?I think the answer, sadly, is yes, that's what evos consider sufficient data to base their claims on, and very, very dogmatic claims at that.

not that interested in it, and don't see the relevance to the discussion at hand.....if you do see some relevance, you may explain that.....otherwise, I'd really like to see those studies verifying this most basic claim of evos, that mutational rates are sufficient to overcome the tendency towards reducing genetic diversity in populations.Care to do that?You could, btw, just come clean and admit there are no studies, Dr Adequate. That would be the right thing to do; show some integrity, and then we could probably move the discussion forward. But if you continue to dodge that point, further exploration of side points with you does not seem fruitful.

I will read your post in more detail and respond accordingly when I have more time, but on a cursory review, I would just point out that finding a few examples where an organism has increased genetic diversity via mutation is not the same as a peer-review study showing that the typical rate of mutation is sufficient, and sufficient for all types of living organisms, including mammals, reptiles, etc,.....to overcome the forces limiting genetic diversity.In other words, finding some examples that could be used to bolster an argument is not the same as a peer-review study and assessment of the argument altogether. The issue is much broader than simply observing there are instances of genetic diversity increasing with mutations. For example, there are also a lot of cases of extinctions as well. The issue is whether the mutational rates outweigh the forces limiting macroevolution, creating extinctions, and so forth.There also is the question of whether the mutations in the HIV virus are sufficient to envision HIV becoming something besides a virus. Mere increase of mutations is not the same as qualitative mutations able to elevate novel features to macroevolutionary status. The type and scope of mutations are relevant.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Nope. All I am asking is that evos substantiate their claims with actual empirical data. That seems to be something you guys are loathe to be willing to do when it comes to your most basic claims.Why is that?We know the standard evo model usually involves some element of isolation into smaller populations, and we know this decreases genetic diversity. We also know evos are willing to create theories of rates of genetic mutations, which are used for example in molecular analysis, but for some reason evos appear unwilling to demonstrate that the forces decreasing genetic diversity are less than the rates of mutation. I think it's clear the most basic claims then of evos are based on mere wishful thinking.

Maybe I can help clear this up. First, I am not saying natural selection cannot select for positive mutations. What I am saying is the standard models for evolution, which you are correct to point out, all consistute microevolution, generally involve some element of a population becoming isolated, and this isolation generally reduces genetic diversity. The point I am trying to bring some focus on is the actual process involved instead of just accepting the handwaiving that evos do in claiming that microevolution is macroevolution. That claim is not substantiated, not simply because the issues of time involved with breeding as you suggest, but mainly because evos have never felt the need to empirically validate their claims, which is quite disturbing if what one is after in science is as much about proper method and thus self-correcting as it is about correct belief.It seems evos have decided what the correct belief is, and assert that belief dogmatically without ever feeling the need to validate it, and have thus made the process of self-correction extremely difficult.Going back to this issue. You insist that any evolution is part of macroevolution, and insist that it is up to your critics to "draw the line" or disprove it, but it's your theory. It's not up to others to draw the line or disprove it. It's quite simply up to evos to demonstrate how the process of microevolution is the same as macroevolution. Just saying it is does not cut it, and is a false approach.Evos and everyone else knows that most of what we observe as microevolution appears to diminish genetic diversity over time with the effects of smaller populations becoming isolated. Evos also use theories of mutational rates in molecular analysis. It is up to evos, not critics, to show that the processes limiting genetic diversity are weaker than the processes creating genetic diversity via mutations. To my knowledge, no such studies and analysis has been done, and so the most basic claims of ToE remain wishful thinking at this point. You guys could be right, or you could be wrong, but at this point, it's more of a untested hypothesis than the factual theory evos claim. It's a guess on evo's part, and since the guess is called a fact, it's really a faith-based, not a fact-based, approach to science on the part of evos.It is also up to evos to show that mutations are unlimited within this process. By this I mean that there are constraints generally on how large a change a mutation can be and remain of some benefit to the individual and species involved. So this second hurdle must be addressed as well. Evos need to be able to show, not just that mutational rates are greater than the processes of isolation limiting genetic diversity, but they also have to show that the range of these mutations is of the naturally-occurring type to create macroevolution. The rates of mutation are limited by the fact the mutated individual cannot be so different in kind from the parents that there are no other creatures to mate with, for example. This is a strongly limiting factor. Evos need to show how the limited range of mutations coupled with the processes limiting genetic diversity can amount to macroevolution and creating the type of diversity needed for macroevolution.Evos haven't done this to my knowledge, and I am not sure there has been any efforts made to do this. Just saying, well, over long periods of time, this could happen because if the forces driving microevolution are actually prohibitive towards engendering genetic diversity and the type of genetic diversity to create macroevolution, then adding more time just doesn't help.

Just curious.....how do we know that?On the process, though I addressed in another post, I think maybe I can clarify a little more.....I am not saying natural selection does not select for positive mutations and that mutations can be involved in increasing genetic diversity. What I am saying is that we need to envision what the process of evolution is, that we observe (microevolution), and what it needs to do in order to do something like evolve a virus into something like bacteria or a bacteria into something else, etc,.....There are constraints evos are ignoring in just insisting that all change is evolution and all evolution is macroevolution, which is really what evos claim, but do not substantiate, and instead insist others disprove it.These constraints involve things such as isolation of smaller groups within a species reduces genetic diversity generally of the smaller group, and since isolation is generally one of the main ways evos propose that evolution takes place, the question becomes whether seeing something like Darwin's finches actually shows macroevolution or a process deeply prohibitive towards macroevolution. Are the smaller populations more capable now of evolving into something other than finches or not?It's also not just the raw level of genetic diversity, but the question whether the type of mutations that can thrive in such microevolutionary processes are the types that can lead to something other than just another variation of finches. Just saying, well, we think these changes can slowly morph it into something else entirely is handwaiving. Where are the analyses and studies involving the forces limiting genetic diversity and the type of diversity being accounted for? Interesting question: for evos they would say having a common ancestor is not the same as all starting from one pair.For creationists and IDers, I cannot speak for all, but my own view is the universe contains an interaction of spiritual and natural forces, and that the spiritual just refers to a realm of the universe, you could even say in modern science the realm of the physical universe though the reality is calling the universe physical is somewhat questionable. So I believe information and design and direction can involve forces and beings, including God, within the spiritual realm.I believe we are actually testing some of these mechanisms in quantum physics, and that involves an interaction of a deeper framework or dimensions, that men once relegated to the spiritual.This is getting off-topic, but just for clarity, I do not think the spiritual realm consists of merely one area or thing, and believe it is multi-layered, and most likely there are elements that we cannot test for or touch with science, at least right now, but that the interactions and mechanisms for direct influence of matter and energy and the natural world are things we could possibly address with science, and I believe we are doing that with some of the experiments involving entanglement and some other QM principles.Back to Adam and Eve, as we learn more about how the physical universe actually works, incorporating QM principles into our paradigm of reality, then I think we can then address and assess the potential for a "physical" mechanism, as we would call it, for creating changes.Take the wave-function itself. It can be manifested as wave-like or particle-like from our vantage point depending on how we approach it. Our level of knowledge or potential knowledge seems to effect the actual form that matter takes. That's the basic elementary principle of quantum mechanics. Now, we don't really understand it, and a lot of scientists including some physicists or former physicists here, don't accept it, but it works on and on, and is tested in the lab unlike some things evo claims.Well, if the universe consists of wave functions with this odd interactive element, who is to say when we measure and identify something, like a particle, that in the reality of the universe, it is not still a wave, and that wave can be made known with a change on knowledge and measurement. It will be interesting to see if genetic mutations can involve quantum physics, and that if information can be introduced via "mutations" via QM involving relationships and entanglements outside of the human body with parts of the human body.Edited by randman, : No reason given.