Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 968 (590017)
11-05-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 1:14 PM


Claims made without evidence may be dismissed with the same.
Quite so. And until you support your claim that "Dr. Sanford is an accomplished modern population geneticist", we may presume that you are talking crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 167 of 968 (590018)
11-05-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 1:06 PM


Re: Population genetics?
Im not sure of your reasoniing here. Dr. Sanford is a Biologist in the field of genetics who specializes in agriculture.
My point is that population genetics has a specific meaning and is a specific field of study, and it isn't the field that Dr. Sanford practices, so your calling him an accomplished population geneticist seems to be based on you liking the guy rather than him actually having any accomplishments or track record in the field of population genetics.
Well that's what MA is. It is a forward population accounting program.
That bears no resemblance to what I was talking about, which is the study of real genetic sequences in real populations. Mathematical models and simulations certainly have a place in population genetics, but only to the extent that they allow us to accurately model and make predictions about reality. So far there is little evidence that Mendel's Accountant does either reliably for anything other than very small populations, if that. It certainly doesn't support Sanford and ReMine's claims that population genetics makes an earth less than 10,00 years old and a literal genesis with created kinds more plausible than evolution.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 1:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 168 of 968 (590019)
11-05-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2010 1:14 PM


Re: Population genetics?
Ah, yes. So if Jimmy cracks corn, he's an expert on the subject of evolution.
Ah, yes, red herring fallacy
Instead of blathering about how creationists have found one guy with equivocal qualifications who after "finding Jesus" started talking garbage --- why don't you put his garbage up for discussion?
I have been for multiple pages now. Are you capable of reading and comprehension?
In suggesting this, I am not seeking an unfair advantage, because goodness only knows how many genuinely eminent scientists I could quote saying that Sandford is talking crap.
Don't worry, you have no unfair advantage using illogical arguments from authority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 1:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 1:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 169 of 968 (590021)
11-05-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Wounded King
11-05-2010 1:19 PM


Re: Population genetics?
It certainly doesn't support Sanford and ReMine's claims that population genetics makes an earth less than 10,00 years old and a literal genesis with created kinds more plausible than evolution.
Is it possible to get a smaller population than one man and one woman?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Wounded King, posted 11-05-2010 1:19 PM Wounded King has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 170 of 968 (590022)
11-05-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 1:22 PM


Re: Population genetics?
I note your stupid lies and cowardly evasion.
Let me know when you have an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 171 of 968 (590025)
11-05-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 10:40 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Great! Then if you are familiar with these theories, then you are aware that Ohta's refinements in the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution are well accepted by today's population genetisists.
I'm not questioning Kimura's or Ohta's views. I'm questioning your views, which are not shared by Kimura and Ohta. Demonstrating that you can spell their names is not a substitute for explanation.
Here's another example of you not explaining something:
What you are missing is that the strongest are mutants also relative to their ancestors. They are the most fit in that generation in that selection environment. However, they are less fit than their ancestors. That's what relative fitness is. Now, I am just referring to sexually reproducing creatures here. Creatures where Mendelian genetics apply. I am not referring to bacteria or viruses etc.
This is just a restatement of the original statement that I questioned. Again, just how do you envision this happening? Yes, slightly deleterious alleles can become fixed in a population, but you go beyond Kimura and Ohta in claiming that deleterious genes must inevitably accumulate in populations to the point of making them less fit than prior generations. This is not a valid extrapolation of Kimura and Ohta.
Here's why you're wrong:
Imagine you have a population with slightly deleterious allele X that is not affected by natural selection and that eventually becomes fixed.
Later slightly deleterious allele Y occurs in a different gene. It, too, is unaffected by natural selection, even in combination with allele X, and it, too, eventually becomes fixed in the population.
Still later, slightly deleterious allele Z occurs in a different gene. It, too, is unaffected by natural selection, even in combination with alleles X and Y, and it, too, eventually becomes fixed in the population.
This population can go on accumulating and fixating slightly deleterious alleles that are unaffected by natural selection even in combination with all the other deleterious alleles, and since there is no impact on natural selection then there cannot possibly be any impact on fitness.
As soon as you introduce a slightly deleterious allele into the population that in combination with the older and now fixated deleterious alleles is subject to natural selection because it diminishes fitness, then that allele will be selected against. It will not spread through the population and cause the population to be less fit than prior generations.
So lets compare the ancestral population to the progeny population. The ancestral population would do just fine with the warmer environment. The progeny population (evolved population) is incapable of adapting. So who is more fit? It is the ancestral population. This is the revelation of the data from MA. And it is abundantly obvious in the real worl when you think about it.
It is not a revelation to anyone that as populations adapt to a changing environment they become less fit in the original environment. That's inherent in the evolutionary process.
You seem to have forgotten what we're discussing again, which is your claim that the accumulation in a population of slightly deleterious alleles to the point of degrading fitness is inevitable. The example about a sudden climate change was just an illustration of how a non-genetic process could cause the situation you're postulating. It wasn't intended to change the topic of discussion.
Well, unfortunately, that is why I asked you to learn about it. You obviously are aware of it from your many posts, but you are not learning about it. Let me post from the wiki article which may elucidate your thinking to see that drift can have a substantial effect on both large and small populations in regards to deleterious mutations....
I'm beginning to notice that when it comes time to explain something you either name-drop, or you quote somebody else who you've misinterpreted as agreeing with you. Why don't you read your little excerpt yourself and then explain to us how it supports your claims?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 10:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-08-2010 9:57 AM Percy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 968 (590029)
11-05-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 11:27 AM


Kimura
Slightly deleterious mutations were recognized first by Kimura in his neutral theory of molecular evolution ...
Although much progress has been made in biology since Darwin's time, his theory of natural selection still remains as the only scientifically acceptable theory to explain why organisms are so well adapted to their environments. (Kimura, The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Chapter 6)
We cherish Darwin for we owe to him our enlightened view of the nature of living things, including ourselves; our civilization would be pitifully immature without the intellectual revolution led by Darwin. (Kimura, The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Chapter 1)
Emphasis mine.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 11:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 173 of 968 (590042)
11-05-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 10:40 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
What you are missing is that the strongest are mutants also relative to their ancestors. They are the most fit in that generation in that selection environment. However, they are less fit than their ancestors. That's what relative fitness is.
This is not true. If the parents are heterozygotes for a given deleterious mutation then 1 in 4 of the offspring will be homozygous for the fitter allele. 1 in 4 of the offspring will be FITTER than the parents, and fitter than their siblings (especially those that are homozygous for the deleterious allele).
You also are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say that these deleterious mutations make it past selection, but then you claim that these mutations are deleterious enough to cause the offspring to be non-viable. You can't have it both ways. Either a mutation lowers fitness and is therefore selected against or it does not lower fitness and therefore no extinction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 10:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 174 of 968 (590048)
11-05-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Common Descent rebutted
I haven't ever made a claim that I am a scientist, but I am.
I do not believe you. I think you're lying.
Does that bother you?
It bothers me that you would lie about it yes.
I have never made my authority an issue.
Why then do you even bring it up, if not to add weight to your opinion?
You have made several vague claims around this topic, without ever telling us specifically what your alleged expertise consists of. Are you a professional biologist or not? Because if not, you should stop trying to imply that you are.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 11:45 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 11-05-2010 3:15 PM Granny Magda has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 175 of 968 (590056)
11-05-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Granny Magda
11-05-2010 2:52 PM


Re: Common Descent rebutted
GrannyMagda writes:
I haven't ever made a claim that I am a scientist, but I am.
I do not believe you. I think you're lying.
In Message 150 AlphaOmegakid said:
AlphaOmegakid in Message 150 writes:
Great! I love science. I learn from it all the time. My job is in the "science" world.
I wonder why he put science in quotes?
I wouldn't worry about whether AlphaOmegakid is really a scientist. He hasn't had any qualms about making other claims at odds with the evidence, I don't see why this claim would be any different. Besides, I'd pit my two Nobels against his science degree any day!
I guess my point is that those of us who prefer to remain anonymous on the Internet, which I still think is a good idea, can make any personal claims we wish without fear of challenge. We're all familiar with the fallacy of argument from authority, especially when the authority cited is the person making the claim, so we can just ignore such arguments.
And anyway, AlphaOmegakid is not the topic of this thread. It should be possible to eventually uncover whether AlphaOmegakid has any coherent evidence-based support for his claims.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Granny Magda, posted 11-05-2010 2:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Granny Magda, posted 11-05-2010 3:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 176 of 968 (590064)
11-05-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Percy
11-05-2010 3:15 PM


Re: Common Descent rebutted
Hi Percy,
I wonder why he put science in quotes?
I think I have fair idea. Another candidate for the engineering/computer programming hall of shame perhaps?
Besides, I'd pit my two Nobels against his science degree any day!
Only two? Amateur.
And anyway, AlphaOmegakid is not the topic of this thread.
Duly noted. I'll back off.
Mutate and Survive
PS: Personally, I work in a shop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 11-05-2010 3:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 177 of 968 (590066)
11-05-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 1:06 PM


Re: Population genetics?
Im not sure of your reasoniing here. Dr. Sanford is a Biologist in the field of genetics who specializes in agriculture. Everything in agriculture is realted to populations. All of his individual papers do not address populations as such, but his work can and is applied to populations.
That is not population genetics. Sanford does not have any population genetics papers in any biologically related peer review journals that I am aware. The MA paper is in a computer journal and was never peer reviewed by biologists.
Well that's what MA is. It is a forward population accounting program. It accounts for the genomes and compares populations relative to fitness.
MA does so in an artificial environment that does not model real life. As I demonstrated earlier, the MA program predicts that mice and mosquitoes should have gone extinct by now. Not just a few species, but ALL OF THEM. Not only that, but the program only allows ~1700 beneficial mutations in the simulation. If any more appear in the simulation they are ignored. This is not so with deleterious mutations which are allowed to accumulate well past the 1700 mark.
It's almost as if the computer was designed with a pre-determined outcome. . . . hmm, how strange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 178 of 968 (590100)
11-05-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Wounded King
11-03-2010 3:20 PM


Re: MA Source
Nope, even in Linux there are no source files in that tarball. At least I was able to extract the second executable, fmendel.exe , this time.
At Mendel’s Accountant - Browse Files at SourceForge.net, there are only two files in the Linux distro: the tarball, mendel_v1.4.7.tar.gz , and a release-notes text file.
Edited by dwise1, : sub title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Wounded King, posted 11-03-2010 3:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 11-06-2010 7:44 AM dwise1 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 179 of 968 (590105)
11-05-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 9:08 AM


Re: Common Descent rebutted
Well so far, you haven't pointed out any, but to the contrary, I have pointed out a bunch of yours.
Where? Be specific.
Except that's exactly what a "kind" is ...a grouping.
No, a "kind", according to creationists, is a family of organisms that share unique descent from a single pair of male and female organisms as created by God. Scientific cladistics has groupings, sometimes we call them "species" or "genus" or "phylum", etc., but "kinds", or baramins, is a concept unique to Biblical creationism. So, you're completely wrong.
Then you should have no trouble producing fossil evidence of these common ancestors.
Sure. Cimolestes fossils, for instance.
So I specifically ask for you to bring it forth.
Bring it forth to where? I don't understand. Do you want me to mail you a Cimolestes fossil? I don't have any - you'll have to check with your local museum. Since we're just exchanging text on the internet, all I can do here is tell you that Cimolestes fossils exist.
Sounds like there are alot of these common ancestors. Well then I know now, that you are extremely confident that you can produce the fossil and population genetics evidence of these commoners.
Sure.
Tree of Life Web Project
Obviously I can't cut and paste the entire field of phylogenetics into a single forum post, nor get you up to speed on an entire field of science you've completely neglected.
You mean these common ancestors are theoretical critters?
Did I say that? No, they're not "theoretical critters", they're Cimolestes.
You don't have any fossils of them?
Did I say that? No, we have an abundance of fossils.
That's like saying...".Except for the evidence that we can see the sun, feel its heat, measure its EMR etc., etc., etc., there is no evidence that the sun exists!"
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that, looking through the panoply of species on Earth, it's trivial to find species that bear the hallmarks of design. For instance, actor-creationist Kirk Cameron famously embarassed himself by pointing out the designed features of the Cavendish banana that made it so suitable for human consumption. His assumption was that the banana was designed that way by God. Quite quickly the banana breeders got back to him and informed him that, in fact, bananas are well-designed for human consumption because human beings designed them that way.
This isn't a complicated or obscure point, Alpha. It's beyond me why you keep missing it. Sure, there's design in places in the biological world. Most species show absolutely no design of any kind, at all. And the few species that do - agricultural cultivars, livestock, de novo proteins, GM organisms, bespoke bacteria, and the like - were designed by human beings. Naturally, all these organisms are no older than human civilization. There are no examples of design in organisms prior to when humans began to design organisms.
Failure the second time thru to recognize self refutation and contradiction.
There's nothing about my argument that is contradictory. You just don't understand it. Some organisms appear designed and most do not. The few organisms that do were all designed by humans.
It's not that hard to understand. This is the third time you've failed.
I challenge you to logically argue that a beaver's dam is not intelligently designed.
A beaver's dam is not intelligently designed, it is beaver designed.
No one has asserted that "only extant species are descended from LUCA".
Well, you asserted exactly that. I've quoted you making that assertion twice now.
How can such a blundering rationality make any meaningful argument about any design?
I don't know, Alpha, how can you? In fact, aside from a torrent of nearly-incomprehensible, sputtering name-calling, is there any argument you're capable of making?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 9:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 11-06-2010 7:58 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 180 of 968 (590106)
11-05-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 10:40 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
So who is more fit? It is the ancestral population.
False. 100% of the ancestral population is dead.
The dead do not win fitness competitions, as a rule.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 10:40 AM AlphaOmegakid 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