|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 20332 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 3244 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
On topic of off-topic? Horses are not the same as dogs and cats....?
But aren't dog breeds, pur-breds, less able to evolve further? Seems that evolution is limited since the more evolution, the less genetic variation within a species and so this is evidence for creationism, not Darwinism. Btw, this is answering and discussing your points that you brought up. Additionally, you do realize that some foxes can and do mate with some wolves. Considering that fact, it's hard to see how someone can use foxes and wolves as somehow evidence against creationism, evolution prescribed within a kind or baramin. Once again, I don't see how your points advance any valid criticism of creationism. Can foxes mate with cats or something?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 3244 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html Apparently, some see this as fairly strong evidence for the need of a reinterpretation of evo theory away from adaptionism and raises questions about the origin of specific traits. Specificaly, this experiment shows dog traits arising not due to conferred selective advantage but simply because such traits are associated with or arise with, incident to, a specific behaviour. In other words, a whole host of traits come when a specific behaviour is selected for, but the traits themselves are not tied to any selective advantage. They just get expressed with tamer canines. Now applying this to your OP, the similar traits between cats and foxes are likely nothing but the fact similarities are expressed per different behaviour. Somehow the genetics that enable specific behaviour also tend to produce similar traits, but that doesn't mean the traits themselves confer a selective advantage. So considering genes for specific morphological and behavioural similarities may well likely be similar, there really is no reason to assume these traits are the result of common ancestry at all. In fact, you admit similar traits can arise without them being conferred via common ancestry, correct? So where is the beef on the fox being similar to cats claim? I just don't see it yet.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 2440 days) Posts: 4149 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Joined: |
So you are using the massive assumption that these genes are 'likely' to be similar, with no apparent substantiation, to deny common ancestry? You don't think that is the sort of assertion that might merit evidence to support it? Do you mean the specific genetic basis of the novel traits? In that case the assumption is even larger. The idea that similar phenotypic traits do not imply common ancestry is clearly established, which is why convergent morphological evolution is recognised. But what evidence is there that there is an indistinguishable genetic basis? I can readily believed that the same genes or pathways may be involved but I doubt that the same mutations are. It seems eminently possible that selection for tameness could be effectively select for a reduced level of something like testosterone which could affect behaviour, fertility and hair development. But there are many possible mutations that could produce such a reduction either in the many proteins involve in the testosterone biosynthesis pathway, the androgen receptor molecule which mediates testosterone signalling or proteins interacting with the androgen receptor. Would similar effects from disrupting the same developmental pathway, albeit as a side effect of selecting for a behavioural trait, not be the result of common ancestry? labeit at a deeper level, i.e. not the inheritance of the trait from the common ancestor but of the gene regulatory network which leads to the expression of a cluster of similar traits when it is disrupted in a similar way. Fodor seems to be arguing against a strawman ultra-adaptationist form of Darwinian theory, in which every trait must be adaptive, that you would be hard pressed to find anyone subscribing to. TTFN, WK
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12653 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 |
Hi Randman,
I understand you don't believe you started this off-topic digression, but I've read almost all your posts since your return, and you seem to be introducing topic drift everywhere you go. This is consistent with your history here, which also includes making discussion personal, and there's another factor where your goal seems to be chaos rather than understanding. Moderators here no longer attempt to coax and cajole members into being good citizens, and certainly in your time here if anything was going to work with you we would already have found it. You're last suspension was for four weeks, your next will be permanent. Since the January reorganization there has not been a single reversal of any permanent suspension. I usually send people requesting reinstatement to Jar's new discussion board, but I can't recall the name or URL at the moment. I'm sure you think this is biased and unfair and all the rest, but I can't help that. There are some people who can have civil on-topic constructive conversations at any discussion board, and there are some who can't. This board no longer permits participation by those in the latter category. Please, no replies. Added by Edit: Jar's website is Dreamcatcher. Edited by Admin, : Provide URL.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 20332 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Hello, Beretta, I thought I would add to my previous response.
Let's test this hypothesis. From European Starling, Sturnus vulgaris, eNature article by Brian E. Small, eNature.com: quote: In other words, the starlings adapted themselves to live around humans, rather than have the humans select them for tameness, and this adaptation has been advantageous for the starlings. Thus it is possible for natural selection alone to make the same selection for tameness that was done with the fox experiment (and the experiment article talks about the possibility that dogs originally selected themselves to take advantage of humans, rather than being domesticated by humans). Tame foxes if they were to arise naturally could find the same advantage to living around humans as have starlings and a number of other animals. I am not aware of anybody that thinks starlings are desirable to have around, rather it seems that humans have spent considerable energy trying to discourage starlings from living around humans. We have also discussed the metric of using the variations within the dogs to judge whether other fossil species can evolve one from the other. Randman (Message 72) suggested that this was a new idea, but in this he is ignorant of the kinds of measurements biologists use. Biologists involved in taxonomy spend their lives measuring and comparing fossils and skeletons to document how much alike and how different they are. What I have done is taken this kind of detailed in depth measuring process and made a rather simplistic approach more suited to the layperson than the scientist. One example of using such a metric by biologists is the pelycodus diagram:
Here you can see layer by layer of fossils, with the variation in size shown as horizontal bars and thicker bars to show the rough distribution of numbers with the different sizes. This diagram shows how each subsequent layer shows change in the average size of the individuals, but in every case the sizes from descendant layers overlap the sizes in previous layers, and the difference from layer to layer is less than the amount of variation in the population as a whole. The approach suggested here using the amount of variation known to exist in one species, dogs, and applying that degree of variation is similar, but it is still less than the degree of comparison that taxonomists do. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Hi Razd –back after a forced absence – Africa has it all, no power, no telephones and no internet –or all of the above intermittently and with no apparent plan. South Africa has returned somewhat to the dark ages and we miss what we used to take for granted.
To continue -
The fossil evidence shows sudden appearance of fully formed kinds and sudden extinction of same –no tree. Perhaps a lawn would better describe what is actually seen when the evolutionists wonderful distorting glasses are removed. No doubt a certain amount of evolution could have occurred in such a way as to escape detection, but at some point we need more than ingenious excuses to fill the gaps. As for the molecular evidence:
The horse geneology looks exactly like evolution because it has been arranged to look exactly like evolution. The horse series has been pulled from museums and textbooks (the ones that are at all interested in accuracy). The only ones that still ‘believe’ in the horse series are the ones that have not been updated as to the facts. Dr David Raup said that the horse series ‘has to be discarded or modified.’ Saiff and Macbeth said that the seven stages do not represent ancestors and descendants. They are fossils taken from different times and places and were strung together, perhaps innocently, to show how evolution might have handled the matter. “The early classic evolutionary tree of the horse ….was all wrong.†(Science Newsletter Aug 25, 1951 p118) “Other examples, such as the much repeated ‘gradual’ evolution of the modern horse, have not held up under close examination.†(Starr and Taggart 1992, p304)
The only thing is that the logic is backward – we believe it happened therefore mutation and natural selection must be capable of it, one way or the other.
The evidence also shows, according to evolutionary geologic age assumptions, that the coelocanth lived in the age when dinosaurs lived and then disappeared from the record and became supposedly extinct. They never lived with whales or humans according to the fossil record and yet evidentially (according to real repeatable observable facts), they exist alongside both whales and humans in the present. There is a difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative and going to the evidence to look for confirmation for the only theory that one is willing to tolerate.
Except when it comes to Darwinian evolution where faith in the supposed ‘fact’ that evolution has occurred overrides all other possibilities and thus ‘facts’ are forced into the framework of the overriding belief system.
Which brings me back to what I said before –either it happened or it didn’t happen and to draw conclusions we need conclusive proof. Science is supposed to be based on hard evidence showing that something did happen and can be proven based on repeated experimental evidence. All the rest is philosophy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 3335 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
What other possibilities? What other testable hypotheses have been presented that attempt to account for the full range of diversity on this planet? You've been asked to point towards a design hypothesis repeatedly but always dodge the issue. Without a counter hypothesis you have nothing to argue for. You rely solely on the criticism of a ToE "framework" to define your position! Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
brendatucker Member (Idle past 3447 days) Posts: 168 From: West Hills, CA Joined: |
There is a counterhypothesis on the table in "Proposed New Topics" under the heading, RAISING STANDARDS. Perhaps you have a preference about where a debate on that information could best serve us.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Do not attempt to bypass the approval process.
If you have anything substantive that is on topic you may add it here. A quick look at the website suggests that you have a lot of stuff that is in no way whatsoever supported by any evidence of any kind. If you have evidence that is appropriate here, fine. If not, do not attempt to circumvent the proposal process.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Intelligence. We are on EVC forum . Evolution and creation are the two options - I can't personally think of anything else. Since when in life do random mistakes and selection of the best mistakes manage to design anything good, brilliantly clever, integrated and so very very complex? Small is not simple. Even unicellular bacteria are too complex for us to create. They make man's creations look like toys in comparison.
Macroevolution is not testable, it is an historical concept and it is assumed; so to ask what 'other testable hypothesis' is out there is to imagine that macroevolution has somehow been proven by repeatable experimentation.You can prove neither and only one can be correct.The truth is out there...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 2440 days) Posts: 4149 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Joined: |
Yes, you can. In the case of programs this was demonstrated in the Lenski et al. paper in Nature (1999). TTFN, WK
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 3335 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Which "God"? Without working hypotheses for these questions you have no useful answers.
The universe is underpinned by various forces. Knowledge of these forces enables us to better understand the Universe's workings. Gravity, for example, isn't a random process.
Evolution is testable in many ways and your attempt to hide behind the "macro" canard indicates that you concede this. So called "macroevolution" is just "microevolution" over a long period of time. Until you are able to produce a working hypothesis to explain why evolution is limited to "microevolution" then you are just hand waving. ID has no answers beyond "Goddidit". Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 19121 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 |
All the issues you raise have ready answers, but a thread on when morphologically a species has evolved sufficient change to be a different species is not the place.
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 3335 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Topic drift partly my fault too! I'll leave it there..
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
How about who cares which God, how or when. The fact remains that we have design, very clever, very intricate, very organized -so that tells me that there has to be a designer. Random mistakes over I don't care how long isn't going to produce carefully integrated design. Genetic mistakes only produce our genetic load and very occasionally something that may be considered to be an advantage though, in those few cases, the advantage comes about by loss of pre-existing genetic information.
By conceding that specified complexity and the genetic code needs a cause that is far from random. By realizing that a painting needs a painter, a bridge needs a designer and anything as intricately put together as the simplest of bacteria needs a designer.We don't need to see the painter to know that there is one.
No, it's a law that can be repeatedly experimentally tested for and thus can be proven to exist, that is what science is supposed to be about -unlike the big evolution story, our modern creation myth.
Or so you would like to believe. Microevolution or variation is a fact. Macroevolution is far from it -it is a supposition at best. It was hypothesised to do away with the need for a creator as an explanation for the creation.
Until evolutionists can prove a mechanism for macroevolutionary change and tell us where the original genetic code came from, they are the ones doing the hand waving.
ID proposes that an intelligence did it. Evolution proposes that nothing but random chance did it. I'll go with intelligence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019