A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

You claim you have proven genetic diversity always increases, right?And yet some species go extinct? So real world examples disprove your claim.Some species are more limited in their ability to evolve such as the cheetah, which gets to the point we were suppossedly discussing, which you conveniently and repeatedly ignored. You PROVED that this was impossible though, eh? Guess those cheetahs are a creationist conspiracy.....bunch of fearful liars, eh?You also ignored the fact that mutation types are limited.....'see ya...

No, of course not. What a ridiculous lie.

Me: If a non-empty gene pool is divided into two non-empty isolated gene pools, without reducing the total population, and the mutation rate is constant and non-zero, then the equilibrium combined heterozygosity of the two gene pools is strictly greater than the equilibrium heterozygosity of the original population.Randman: You claim you have proven genetic diversity always increases, right?

Having thought it over, what strikes me most is how implausible your fantasies about me are. Surely even you can't believe them? If only you could attach meaning to this phrase. Or indicate any place where I assumed the contrary.

absurdities on your part.... So it's a lie, eh? You forget you wrote this. It's hard to see how in the long run, say, if a species goes extinct, that the species has increased genetic diversity, but somehow you think everyone else is ignorant. You also fail to appreciate that there is loss of genetic diversity with species as a result of microevolutionary pressures, and that this leads to species and forms evolving without as much ability to evolve and to exinctions. This point was made to you, over and over again, but you refused to debate it, and instead chose to try to foul up the thread.That's why I requested you be removed from posting on this thread. I think a very fruitful and good dialogue can occur, but only if we are discussing facts. Your approach to debate did not help move the discussion along, imo.Edit to add that you did show that "if total population" remains constant, but that once again, avoids the fact that we envision a process where populations do not remain constant.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I'll edit out since you cannot respond....Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Dr. Adequate refuted you at every turn, and your only recourse was to distort his statements; when confronted with the proof of his actual statements, you could only silence him--while again misrepresenting his statements.Good to see that some things remain constant, Randman.You are still a clueless dick.Where, now, all your pompous talk about censorship?You have met the enemy, and He is You.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

if you have nothing factual to say about the topic on hand, then you are not welcome either. The fact you think Dr Adequate refuted anything is interesting, but it speaks more to your lack of reason and intelligence than anything.But let me reiterate this: if your stance is to avoid debating the topic on hand and throw out some crap about hooray for your side, despite your side's pathetic showing with Dr Adequate, please stay off the thread.If you care to address an evo/creo/ID topic, you are welcome, but otherwise, you are not. Personally, I don't think you have it in you to be able to address the topic straighforwardly, but I am willing to give you a chance...just this once.

OK, so there is an ability for greater variation if there is interspecies breeding, correct? Personally, I don't like the term "interspecies" in reference to hybridization because if you are looking at this from a process oriented perspective, the ability breed is a significant barrier, and it would be nice to just think of a species as a group that can breed together and if they can breed hybrids, it's one species. Otherwise, you have imo a somewhat elastic term, but that's the subject of a different debate.So you have groups that cross-breed and produce more variation quicker than expected......the isolation is not constant and is broken down, right? So what's the effect?While the effect of breaking the isolation leads to increasing genetic diversity again, you have to look at what else it leads to, and that is being more congruent with it's own "kind" if you would, and I use that term loosely to just mean the other species it can breed with. It brings the isolated group back into the fold so to speak, more harmonious with the others of the same type of creature. This to me, is not a process leading to macroevolution, and it illustrated my point. This leads to better cichlids, not something else entirely.The reason is that if an isolated group began to become something other than a cichlid, it could not mate with the other cihlids species, but as long as it can mix back in with the other cichlids, it is really improving upon that design, and the pressure is really to improve upon that design more and more, not break with it entirely.This sort of gradualism may create many varities of cichlids and many varities of finches and other things, but there is absolutely no reason to expect this to lead to anything else as long as there is a continual mixing back in with other cichlid or parent-group species.I think this is what somewhat like Grasse was talking about and others. The gradualism model just doesn't work but to provide varities, and the PE model relying more on isolation has problems, imo, because it so reduces genetic diversity.

Seeing as Dr Adequate persists in his slander elsewhere...... The problem with your thinking, Dr Adequate, is you assume that you do not have to demonstrate total population and mutation rate are constant. Whereas perhaps, and this is tenable, the constant mutation rate is workable, it's patently obvious that the population doesn't remain constant....that's something you refused to accept and allow into your dense head.nuff saidEdited by randman, : No reason given.

Gosh, Rand, that'd be swell!What would you like to debate? Petroglyphs of Fred Flintsone's pet dinosaur, Dino? The South American trade in tourist stones painted with thunder lizards plucked from 1950s illustrated popular science? Quantum hocus-pocus that proves the past tail can wave the present dog?On second thought, no thanks. I've handed you your head a dozen times in real debate, before you were thrown into this geek cage for your inability to recognize evidence and logic. Like Monty Python's Black Knight, you bleed to death without ever feeling any pain.Why beat a dead ass?Only the breath-taking hypocrisy--remarkable even for the presenter of a "Collector's Curve" empty of data points as evidence of declining fossil finds (search for that one, kids, it's a blast)--of requesting Dr. Adequate's removal while simultaneously misrepresenting his comments moved me to post. You used to be more subtle.Take a tip from your Uncle Omni: you have nothing but entertainment value here. Posture, twist, misrepresent, dodge, pretend, build monuments to cultish web sites--but don't bounce your foils.It makes you look like a weenie.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Since you offer nothing but slander and are the equivalent of intellectual scum, please don't post here any longer. Only serious debaters are welcome.

Then how did you get in?Rand, I've been thrown out of better places...and they had bedbugs.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I'am sorry your feelings got hurt, but my job in life is not to service your impotence.....you feel upset by your critics arguments and have nothing factual to say in response and so decide to post a bunch of personal crap.....sorry, but you can take that elsewhere....it's not my fault your education and/or intelligence is so lacking.

Buz, I've thought about the topic....seems more like abiogenesis, and not sure I want to start a topic because of 2 reasons.1. You are right, of course, so much so that what's there to debate....there is basically imagining something very unlikely as possible, and then you get into evos insisting that just-so stories are factual, and since they write the rules here, any idea they claim is a fact, it is a fact per the admins here, and any real fact that contradicts them is somehow wrong. There isn't a hint of objectivity in the way the board is moderated, or even in considering basic, simple ideas like the difference between someone's imagined fact and a real fact. It's not in the history of evolutionism to actually bother but so much if a fact or piece of data is real. If it "fits", it's considered accurate, for the most part, though it seems there is a minority wanting to advance some real science.2. Second reason is I don't know a lot about the subject. What I have learned is that arguing with evos here usually devolves into them asserting old ideas as facts, and then when you try to correct them, it devolves per the usual character slanders and what-not, and they avoid the points made in the debate. That occured when I pointed out to one evo how what he said was a fact on earth's early atmosphere was actually just a hypothesis that is no longer in vogue. The surest way to infuriate a evo is actually correct him on the data.....Harsh words, I know, but what else is there to say?You have a group of admins rabidly anti-ID or anti-creationist that have no hint of the awareness of the possibility they are not being fair and unbiased, despite the fact it is doubtful they could find 10 non-evos on the planet that would take a look at their actions and agree they are fair, balanced, objective or whatever....Edited by randman, : No reason given.