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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 851 (554221)
04-06-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by subbie
04-06-2010 4:16 PM


Re: In Faith's defense...
In other words, you'd be convinced of the truth of the ToE if we show you something that is the exact opposite of what the ToE predicts.
Kinda the same way Dawkins would be convinced of the falseness of evolution if a rabbit were found in the precambrian, which is the opposite of what creationism would predict too.
If there is such a thing as speciation that is not dependent on reduced genetic diversity then you could convince me that evolution is possible. In fact this is the direction I was expecting much of this discussion to go. I thought you thought speciation was possible along with increases in diversity. I expected you to try to prove it and I was going to try to show that it couldn't happen. Certainly seemed to be what people kept saying. But of course it makes my job all the easier if that's not the case.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by subbie, posted 04-06-2010 4:16 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by subbie, posted 04-07-2010 12:19 AM Faith has replied
 Message 218 by PaulK, posted 04-07-2010 2:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 224 by Taq, posted 04-07-2010 12:10 PM Faith has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 212 of 851 (554222)
04-06-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Faith
04-06-2010 3:36 PM


Re: In Faith's defense...
Prove that there's an increase in genetic diversity AT speciation
"AT speciation"??
Oh lord. You really do have no idea how evolution works, do you.
To argue against something you first have to know what that something is. Know thine enemy.
You would not have made this faux pas if you know the basics about evolution.
Faith, I have enjoyed your presence. You have stirred things up.
But I must ask.
What the hell are you doing here? You are NOT prepared for this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 04-06-2010 3:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 213 of 851 (554224)
04-06-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
04-06-2010 10:58 PM


Re: diversity
Using your logic, at what point are the genotypes diversified so as to account for the wide diversity of phenotypes? Your claimed negative correlation would lead to a situation in which genotype is not responsible for phenotype. But that linkage is well established. We must conclude that genotype positively corresponds to phenotype.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 04-06-2010 10:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 04-07-2010 1:25 AM CosmicChimp has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 214 of 851 (554227)
04-07-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
04-06-2010 11:02 PM


Re: In Faith's defense...
Kinda the same way Dawkins would be convinced of the falseness of evolution if a rabbit were found in the precambrian, which is the opposite of what creationism would predict too.
Not sure that Darwin ever considered that question, actually, but I understand your point.
As usual, however, you miss the point. You talk in terms of disproving creationism, when that hasn't been an issue for 150 years. So whether creationism would predict it or not is a moot point. Moreover, there have been several creationists who would have claimed a rabbit in the precambrian would have been a prediction of and conclusive proof of creationism. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to describe any hypothetical evidence that a creationist couldn't reconcile with the actions of an omnipotent creator. It's that ability to assimilate all possible evidence that makes creationism worthless as a scientific theory. Any theory that explains everything explains nothing.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 04-06-2010 11:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 04-07-2010 1:28 AM subbie has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 851 (554244)
04-07-2010 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by CosmicChimp
04-06-2010 11:32 PM


Re: diversity
Using your logic, at what point are the genotypes diversified so as to account for the wide diversity of phenotypes?
The diversity of phenotypes is the result of the reduction of alleles due to the reduced population. The reduced number of alleles corresponds to a reduced number of traits available of course, but the observed increase in diversity of phenotypes in the new population is due to many NEW traits having opportunity of expression which wasn't possible in the original population. This opportunity is the result of the reduction of alleles due to the reduced population.
Your claimed negative correlation would lead to a situation in which genotype is not responsible for phenotype.
It doesn't, but it's hard to get it said clearly. I tried above, I'll try again.
But that linkage is well established. We must conclude that genotype positively corresponds to phenotype.
Yes, of course it does, and I was trying to say that. I'm making a distinction between the many new traits that appear in the new population because of the reduced diversity, and the reduced numbers of alleles and their traits available because of the reduction of population. There are fewer traits in numbers than in the parent population but more are EXPRESSED than in the parent population. It's the EXPRESSED traits that are the increase in diversity you are talking about, but these are getting expressed BECAUSE of the reduced numbers of alleles (and their traits) available.
ABE: Another try: the increase in diversity you are talking about is the NEW PHENOTYPES. The daughter population has this kind of increased diversity by comparison with the parent population. But the point I'm trying to make about this is that the reason these phenotypes could be expressed is that the alleles have been reduced or even lost that supported the phenotypes of the parent population. So now you get a whole new character in your new population with fewer traits/alleles overall. This is hard to get said.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : another attempt to get it said.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by CosmicChimp, posted 04-06-2010 11:32 PM CosmicChimp has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 04-07-2010 12:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 216 of 851 (554245)
04-07-2010 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by subbie
04-07-2010 12:19 AM


Re: In Faith's defense...
DAWKINS, not Darwin, Subbie. I think it was him anyway, some big name evolutionist very recently.
It's true there are way too many creationisms and actually one can't deny that a rabbit in the precambrian would be good evidence for creationism of one sort or another, but creationists who see the entire geological column as the result of the Flood wouldn't expect to find a rabbit anywhere except in the upper strata with the other land animals.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by subbie, posted 04-07-2010 12:19 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-07-2010 2:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 217 of 851 (554266)
04-07-2010 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
04-07-2010 1:28 AM


Re: In Faith's defense...
Faith writes:
...creationists who see the entire geological column as the result of the Flood wouldn't expect to find a rabbit anywhere except in the upper strata with the other land animals.
Or maybe rabbits would be at the bottom because they got trampled by the bigger animals in the stampede to high ground.
That makes just as much sense as what you're saying.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 04-07-2010 1:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 218 of 851 (554268)
04-07-2010 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
04-06-2010 11:02 PM


Re: In Faith's defense...
quote:
Kinda the same way Dawkins would be convinced of the falseness of evolution if a rabbit were found in the precambrian, which is the opposite of what creationism would predict too.
Of course that is completely wrong. Even modern (young earth) creationism would predict that the something of the same "kind" should be at least possible in pre-flood sediments. And the quote you refer to is usually attributed to Haldane who died in 1964.
YEC does not attribute all fossil-bearing strata to the Flood, assuming that some come later. Since these must have formed in the ~4000 years since the Flood there seems to be no problem with fossils being formed in the ~2000 years prior to the Flood. Especially as they will have more time and better conditions.
And since YEC has no adequate explanation for the order in the fossil record at all, it can't really be said to make predictions even of the order in the rocks that they do attribute to the Flood.
Also, let us be clear, that the quote is usually described as an off-the-cuff remark. We should expect rather more from you than that, if you have really seriously considered the idea. For instance if you actually think about it Haldane had the problem that large amounts of evidence had already been examined and found to support evolution, You, on the other hand have no significant evidence at all - just theoretical musings and guesswork. Your ideas are merely a hypothesis awaiting testing (at best), not an established theory - therefore at the stage where a scientist would be seriously looking at how it could be falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 04-06-2010 11:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Wounded King, posted 04-07-2010 4:03 AM PaulK has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 219 of 851 (554277)
04-07-2010 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by PaulK
04-07-2010 2:59 AM


Rabbiting on
You are simply reinforcing Faith's false dichotomy thinking here. The point of 'rabbit fossils in the precambrian' isn't to provide evidence of creationism but rather an example of evidence which could falsify or call into doubt a substantial portion of our understanding of the evolutionary history of life on Earth.
The rabbits have nothing to do with creationism. Whether or not they would be consonant with a creationist worldview is entirely irrelevant to the point they are intended to demonstrate, i.e. that evolutionary theory can produce hypotheses that are falsifiable and is therefore a science in the Popperian sense.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by PaulK, posted 04-07-2010 2:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by PaulK, posted 04-07-2010 4:13 AM Wounded King has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 220 of 851 (554279)
04-07-2010 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Wounded King
04-07-2010 4:03 AM


Re: Rabbiting on
That is absolutely true, and I considered it. However Faith could simply argue that she was only looking for something that would falsify her claims and wasn't considering evolution. While that would be a dubious move (since she is trying to argue directly against evolution) it would be far from the least rational argument that she has used and not absolutely without merit (just very, very little).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Wounded King, posted 04-07-2010 4:03 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Wounded King, posted 04-07-2010 4:23 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 221 of 851 (554280)
04-07-2010 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by PaulK
04-07-2010 4:13 AM


Re: Rabbiting on
I think the problem stems from no-one calling her on this bait and switch ...
In other words, you'd be convinced of the truth of the ToE if we show you something that is the exact opposite of what the ToE predicts.
Kinda the same way Dawkins would be convinced of the falseness of evolution if a rabbit were found in the precambrian, which is the opposite of what creationism would predict too.
Somehow someone being convinced of the truth of ToE by evidence contradictory to the ToE becomes equivalent in Faith's mind with someone becoming convinced of the falseness of evolution by evidence contradictory to creationism. She has totally changed the premise and made it nonsensical.
Obviously the truly converse situation would be someone being convinced of the falseness of evolution when shown evidence directly supportive of evolution, much like Faith herself pretty much all of the time.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by PaulK, posted 04-07-2010 4:13 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 222 of 851 (554295)
04-07-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
04-06-2010 12:39 PM


Re: In Faith's defense...
Faith writes:
There's no rush is there?
Of course there's no rush, but Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only) was created so you could have a one-on-one, instead of the many on one you have here that was causing your meltdowns. If you're going to put your energies into this thread instead of that one then I hope we see no more meltdowns and complaints about how unfair it is that you're outnumbered, because we set up that other thread for the explicit purpose of helping you avoid these problems.
Some people you just can't help.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 04-06-2010 12:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 223 of 851 (554320)
04-07-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
04-07-2010 1:25 AM


Re: diversity
The diversity of phenotypes is the result of the reduction of alleles due to the reduced population. The reduced number of alleles corresponds to a reduced number of traits available of course, but the observed increase in diversity of phenotypes in the new population is due to many NEW traits having opportunity of expression which wasn't possible in the original population.
That is not true for dwarfism in dogs such as dachsunds. This required a mutation in a gene, a mutation not present in the parent population. This has been pointed out numerous times.
Also, do you think the differences between humans and chimps is due to expression of recessive genes in both populations? Or is it due to differences in the DNA sequences themselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 04-07-2010 1:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 224 of 851 (554322)
04-07-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
04-06-2010 11:02 PM


Re: In Faith's defense...
Kinda the same way Dawkins would be convinced of the falseness of evolution if a rabbit were found in the precambrian, which is the opposite of what creationism would predict too.
It's not the same at all, and you know it. Dawkins said he would REJECT the theory if something was found which the theory did NOT predict. You are saying that you will ACCEPT the theory if something is found which the theory did NOT predict. They are exact opposites.
If there is such a thing as speciation that is not dependent on reduced genetic diversity then you could convince me that evolution is possible.
Speciation is just one mechanism of many that, in combination, causes evolution. If you want to falsify evolution then you must show how all of the mechanism in combination will not produce evolution. You must show how mutation does not increase genetic diversity. You have not done that.
The problem here is that you are trying to falsify YOUR theory of evolution, not the theory proposed by scientists. The "Faith" theory of evolution is missing a lot of mechanisms such as neutral drift and mutation. I will glady agree that the Fiath theory of evolution will not produce evolutionary change. However, you have yet to show that the theory of evolution proposed by millions of scientists is false in the same way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 04-06-2010 11:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 04-07-2010 3:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 225 of 851 (554341)
04-07-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Taq
04-07-2010 12:10 PM


nonspeciation evolution plus rabbit vs high diversity speciation
Speciation is just one mechanism of many that, in combination, causes evolution.
Fine, I anticipated arguments along those lines. Produce one so I can take a look at it. Seems to me that if you're going to get evolution of the sort that leads one species to another you've got to pass through speciation. If you don't, show me how you don't.
About the rabbit, good grief, the example is similar to the genetic diversity in speciation example in that neither side predicts it can happen. As usual I have to cross all the commas and dot all the t's around here or off with my head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Taq, posted 04-07-2010 12:10 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2010 10:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2010 4:55 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 232 by Taq, posted 04-08-2010 1:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 234 by rockondon, posted 04-08-2010 3:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024