Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speciation + Evolution = More Diversity
westernjoe
Junior Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-09-2007


Message 8 of 47 (493434)
01-08-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-07-2009 8:26 PM


Re: Evolution after Speciation
RAZD: Here's the flaw in your reasoning:
"Evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is an observed and documented fact,"
That is not the definition of evolution. The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Not only that, but this change in allele frequencies must be caused via random molecular changes and natural selection. Therefore the flaw in your whole reasoning is this: RMNS never happens. It doesn't happen in micro evolution, and thus, it never happens in macro evolution. Macroevolution is not an extrapolated microevoluiton over time because microevolution, as defined by your theory, doesn't happen. If someone would like to show me an example of microevolution, aka random mutation culled by natural selection validated by controlled experiment on animals, I would dearly like to see it.
In short, the ToE mechanism is flawed.
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2009 8:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2009 9:12 PM westernjoe has not replied

  
westernjoe
Junior Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-09-2007


Message 9 of 47 (493439)
01-08-2009 8:14 PM


"Creationists claim that there is some mechanism that ensures that "A dog will always be a dog." I am simply asking, "What is that mechanism?" I have yet to have anyone provide a clear and biologically convincing answer."
There is no "mechanism." your premise is flawed again. The problem materialists have is they attempt to define animals, such as dogs, by the physical....but what ultimately is responsible for the creation of a kind (such as the dog kind) is not anything that can be found in the physical....there is no "dog gene" or "dog genes." therefore...there is nothing for which to mutate to turn a dog into anything else. The mind of a dog is ultimately what must be altered. To change a dog into a non-dog would require the change of a non-phyiscal dog mind into a non-dog mind. And the other thing is, since evolutionists are unable to unearth any common ancestors between, say dogs and cats and bears and horses, then there is no actual evidence that their theory is true...it's certainly not science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 01-08-2009 9:00 PM westernjoe has not replied

  
westernjoe
Junior Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-09-2007


Message 13 of 47 (493456)
01-08-2009 10:43 PM


test
ohhhh
quote:
test
aaahhhh
thanks for the lesson!
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.

  
westernjoe
Junior Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-09-2007


Message 14 of 47 (493458)
01-08-2009 10:49 PM


Not really: the change is introduced by mutation, and this is random, but whether it is incorporated into the population is a matter of selection. Selection does not cause mutations, the two processes are independent.
ah.....so you are avoiding my point that evolution is caused by a change in allele frequencies over time. So I suppose we need to get that straight -- is evolution indeed caused in this way? And also, is this the result of random mutations and natural selection? (note: I did not claim that selections caused mutations.)
After we get that straight we can get on to the business of what constitutes "micro-evolution" and what doesn't. So let's start there...it will be fun to start from the beginning and take it nice and slow.
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes,
Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2009 11:01 PM westernjoe has not replied

  
westernjoe
Junior Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-09-2007


Message 16 of 47 (493461)
01-08-2009 11:24 PM


here was your question:
What mechanism prohibits the micro-evolutionary events that everyone admits occur from adding up to a macro-evolutionary event over time?
so why is it off-topic for you to define what "evolution" is? why is that so difficult for you? I cannot answer your challenge without you first giving me an accurate definition of what evolution (micro and/or macro is)....if you do not care to do so then the discussion is pointless. My argument against your challenge is that "micro" evolution doesn't even exist, as defined by your theory.
It seems to me you've attempted to get around the real issue by defining your theory in a very broad way, as something like "heritable changes over time." but the problem is, ToE was constructed to explain the buildup of genomes...therefore, any ole change in bodies does nothing to explain where genomes came from...that's why ToE must have a tie to changes in dna sequences. So just take a deep breath, invest a minute or so, and define the theory of evolution. I would also like to know if you believe micro and macro are accomplished via the same mechanism. Take your time....I'll be waiting...this is going to be fun.
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2009 11:41 PM westernjoe has not replied
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 01-09-2009 1:58 AM westernjoe has not replied

  
westernjoe
Junior Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-09-2007


Message 19 of 47 (493517)
01-09-2009 8:53 AM


I'm absolutely on-topic, as I am disputing your very premise, which is your definition of evolution.
Evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation
http://www.williamjhudson.net/evolution/glossary.html
"Evolution: A change in the gene pool of a population over time. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve."
You then asked for a "mechanism" that would stop this so-called evolution from turning into macro evolution......but by doing so you are assuming that your mechanism of microevolution actually exists. I have challenged you to show me an example and you refuse to do it. If you don't care to debate fine. If you can't even present one example of evolution, as your theory defines it, then I suppose the debate is over. But you must also realize that it is then wrong-headed of you to expect others to present a mechanism that will somehow stop a mechanism of which doesn't even exist. In otherwords, you've constructed a strawman of an argument.
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 7:08 PM westernjoe has not replied
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 4:31 PM westernjoe has not replied

  
westernjoe
Junior Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-09-2007


Message 20 of 47 (493519)
01-09-2009 8:58 AM


and let's get to your next point -- which is also highly on-topic:
Speciation - the division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations - is also an observed and documented fact, a process that occurs frequently in the natural world around us.
I dispute this because you don't even know what a "species" is. Darwinians call different varieties of finches different "speices" yet most of them can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. Same with different varieties of bears. The polar bear and brown bear can produce fertilie offspring as well, yet' they're labled different "species." Finally, your statement is assuming that the "speciation" process happens via the mechanism propped up by darwinists.....which is "changes in gene frequencies over time." This, as well, I dispute and you are welcome to show me an example showing otherwise.
If you are going to create a new post and make unfounded assertions, you should expect people to take you up on them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 7:34 PM westernjoe has not replied
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 4:54 PM westernjoe has not replied

  
westernjoe
Junior Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-09-2007


Message 21 of 47 (493521)
01-09-2009 9:01 AM


And to the Admin, if you can't keep your big nose out of the way so I can expose this sham of the theory then I'll move on. Go ahead and ban me, who cares. RAFD is too chicken to debate the topic he brought up anyway...I'm getting bored.
Edited by westernjoe, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Huntard, posted 01-09-2009 9:16 AM westernjoe has not replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 7:42 PM westernjoe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024