|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: LOL! Mindspawn says that the Triassic began 4,500 years ago ! What is more, even if you were right it would still be irrelevant to the point I was making.
quote: Want to explain how you can have MORE alleles than Mindspawn is assuming (two different alleles per individual per species) ?
quote: But humans also have genes with many more than the 10 alleles allowed by the usual interpretation of the Ark story. Obviously heterozygosity is far from the whole story. But I invite you to investigate genetics and discover if your idea is really an adequate explanation. I have good reason to think that you will find that it is not. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That's a fallacious argument. Even if it is a fact that reducing genetic diversity is good for making phenotypic changes it doesn't follow that phenotypic change is generally caused by reducing genetic diversity.
quote: So why can't you find a single species that is evolving to genetic depletion ? Something that is common should be common, not vanishingly rare.
quote: The question is not whether the traits show up, but how much natural selection can help them spread. Because there is only an advantage for homozygotes they benefit less from selection, just as disadvantageous recessive alleles are less efficiently removed by selection.
quote: You assume that, but you have yet to make a decent case for it.
quote: That isn't a problem. Especially as it is all but absolutely certain that the unaltered allele is present in other individuals in the population.
quote: A mutation can only remove an allele if there are no other copies in the population. That is so unlikely that it can be ignored. The rest of your rant makes no sense to me. Diversity is diversity. Claiming that it isn't is just silly.
quote: Which supports my point that attaining a large population is not the major barrier that you claim to be. (As for the "failure" of Elephant seals to recover I need only point to the timescale).
quote: Neither geographic isolation nor migration are examples of selection. And again you are making assumptions about rate that need to be supported by evidence. I've pointed out this error time and again but apparently you can't stop making it.
quote: Your whole attempt to avoid counting neutral mutations in your measure of diversity is obviously false. And the main "improvement" you have made in this version is dropping the silly idea of trying to exclude increases of diversity on the obviously spurious grounds that they would "blur" the new species. Not that you have come up with anything significantly better to replace it.
quote: In fact it isn't "telling". What is telling is that you refuse to consider 99% or more of a species lifespan.
quote: We've got a long, long time. That was one of my points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And you've just demonstrated why that's a mistake. You don't have to read what he says, but you do need to stop jumping to conclusions WITHOUT bothering to read what he says. And to show just out of step with mainstream YEC your attitude is try this:
Mentions of "Triassic" at Answers in Genesis quote: Mutation is the obvious answer. Edited by PaulK, : Made the title more acurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: As I've shown mainstream Creationists disagree. But let's make some points more relevant to the thread. You made a fool of yourself by jumping to conclusions - and you didn't even have a relevant point. The only timescale relevant was the time since the Flood. And that was given as 4500 years. So why do it at all ? If you don't know what you're talking about why risk showing it to everyone when you don't even have a point ? Think about that.
quote: Woodmorappe says a maximum of 16,000 animals (including amphibians, birds and reptiles as well as mammals) giving us an absolute maximum of 32,000 alleles per locus between ALL such species. So that's one influential creationist opinion. And let me add that we only need to count genetic variations to conclude that mutations have happened. (IIRC the most variable genes are in the immune system and for that reason it is very likely that many of the differences are functional).
quote: There's nothing in creationism that needs to deny that mutations happen. You don't deny it for positive reasons, but for negative ones - to protect your argument from inconvenient facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That really doesn't address the fallacy in your argument. It tries to replace it be a completely different argument. It certainly doesn't establish that speciation is only changes in the frequency of existing alleles. As I've said before there are reasons to think otherwise. If establishing reproductive isolation is an important part of speciation and if significantly reduced interfertility is a part of that (as it often seems to be) then it's rather more likely to be due to mutations than a simple redistribution of existing alleles.
quote: No, reduced genetic diversity often occurs - but most often as the result of human activity. Your idea of evolution alone producing a continuous loss of diversity has never been found.
quote: Faith you can't establish facts be decree. You aren't God. Evidence and reason say that mutations DO work to restore diversity, as I've argued. You haven't been able to refute my arguments or support your assertion. So why should I believe you ?
quote: If you think that I've made the claim that the lizards in the video lost a significant amount of genetic diversity and had it restored then you are very much mistaken. I haven't mentioned that case at all before now.
quote: You've claimed it. You haven't given us any reason to believe it.
quote: What makes it the "most likely" scenario ? What is your evidence ?
quote: Finding out the basis for the failure to interbreed would seem to be rather important before jumping to conclusions about how it happened. Have you done that ? What did you find ?
quote: So basically your point here is that if we don't assume that you're right we won't conclude that you're right. Please let me know how you came to your conclusions before simply telling me to accept them because you call them "facts". I prefer evidence and reason to opinions no matter how forcefully asserted.
quote: "Species" is both singular and plural and the term "ring species" tends to suggest a single species rather than multiple species as you understand it. Really this is just another example of life being too complex to fit into neat categories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I didn't say that you did. I said that you thought that a large population was needed as if that was a significant problem, It isn't.
But just to ponder your speculations about mutations, first, beneficial mutations are very few and far between as affirmed by Percy and possibly others here, so you need a large population even to get one;
Message 271 quote: And it's still a silly claim - as shown by the fact that even you can't explain how it makes sense.
quote: And we know why that is, and it isn't relevant to the point. The point is really very simple. You say that we need large populations - but we have every reason to expect large populations. So it isn't a problem.
quote: This is completely false. I neither assume that the elephant seals DO have thousands or millions of years nor would any such assumption be based on the theory of evolution.
quote: You didn't confuse me at all. You just made a mistake. And you're wrong again - natural selection is called natural selection because it has a selective element. Migration and isolation don't have a similar selective element - they don't "choose" based on traits.
quote: Clearly you're confused. We don't label processes purely by their outcomes - we also use the nature of the processes in question and it is this that disqualifies geographic isolation and migration.
quote: I'm afraid that your egotism is showing here. Not only do you label your opinion a "fact" when you have failed to show that it is one, you also try to write off an important distinction without even considering the real reason for making it. Instead it all has to be about your ideas. Well it isn't. A process that selects based on phenotypical traits is far more efficient at perpetuating "desirable" traits and elimination "undesirable" traits (if they are heritable) then a process that perpetuates or eliminates traits based on chance alone.
quote: Actually you seem to be postulating that the rate at which mutation replaces lost diversity is much SLOWER. And you haven't established anything about rates of loss with the lizards or ring species so you haven't even explained that. So not only are you defending the wrong claim, you're defending it with assumptions rather than facts.
quote: That's a moot point. For the purposes of this argument you should be allowing us the timescales established by science - because the timescales you prefer already rule out evolution. If your argument can't stand without your timescales then it is simply not worth making.
quote: That you refuse to accept scientifically established facts - on completely false grounds is telling. That you expect us to accept your opinions as facts just because you say that they are is telling too. Well I guess you're contributing to the topic again. Although maybe you should explain WHY you take these attitudes.
quote: It's scientific fact. And the main evidence supporting it is completely independent of the theory of evolution. Really, why say these things when any reasonably informed person knows that they are completely untrue ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: We've seen some pretty clear failures in this thread. While we're on the topic it's interesting that so many creationists either assume that all other creationists agree with them or should agree with them, even when it is pretty easy to see that isn't the case.
quote: The topic is "what's wrong with creationists". Evolutionary theory would seem to be altogether outside it. Besides that's clearly a topic you don't understand. To add to the ACTUAL topic, Faith's attitude to macroevolution really shows a problem. Back then she said that she believed in speciation and I pointed out - quite truthfully - that she believed in macroevolution as it was scientifically defined. (This may be why she now claims NOT to believe in speciation as such). And we got the usual angry rants because Faith just can't believe in macroevolution - as if the word itself mattered more than the meaning. We've seen related issues with "mutation" recently and not just in this thread. Irrational hate for words, a hate that doesn't consider the meaning (or even attacks a simple and correct description of the meaning!) isn't rational or wholly sane,
quote: You haven't really touched on that topic. The question is whether additional processes - beyond the mutation, natural selection and drift of microevolution - are involved in the formation of species and larger taxonomic groups. You insist that it's all selection and drift so you're mostly agreeing with the position that microevolution does add up to macroevolution.
quote: Having checked both posts I can say that you are in error on both points. Especially as Percy's post was clearly an attempt to return to the topic (how can you judge whether a point is on-topic or not if you don't know what the topic IS ?)
quote: You won't try an experiment to support your views BECAUSE most other people disagree with you ? How is that at all rational ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It's not at all bizarre. You refuse to do an experiment to support your claims. The reason given is other peoples beliefs, beliefs that you clearly disagree with and that you think would be refuted by the experiment. As usual it seems that you "bizarre misreading" is what you said,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If it's a misreading, explain what you meant. That should be easy for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That's not great but Faith's understanding of it is worse. How could anyone figure out that when she talks about migration, she means individuals from other areas bringing in alleles for phenotypic variations not found in the local population ? That is NOT reproductive isolation or a reduction in genetic diversity! It's gene flow and an increase in the genetic and phenotypic diversity of the local population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Funny that you have yet to demonstrate that at all.
quote: The amusing thing is that I was reporting the description of migration on the Berkeley site. Which presumably reports how the term is used in evolutionary science. YOUR usage isn't even a mechanism of change. In itself it is just a form of geographic isolation of a small population - and that small population and lack of gene flow with the larger population make genetic drift stronger - but drift is the mechanism of change there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Evidenced estimates of the loss and gain of genetic diversity over the full lifespan of a species would be a major improvement. In fact it's hard to see how your argument can possibly work without them. Showing proper humility about the limitations and weaknesses of your argument would be another. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The argument seems to be simple enough. Leaving out various minor problems with it it can be summaries as: 1) Speciation reduces genetic diversity 2) Genetic diversity inevitably decreases 3) Evolution stops when genetic diversity runs out. 4) Genetic diversity will inevitably run out and evolution would stop long before the timescales shown by geology and palaeontology 5) Therefore the theory of evolution is false. There are two big problems. First, you haven't made a good argument for 2). Second the evidence that we do have is strongly against it - showing that evolution has gone on for hundreds of millions of years despite a number of mass extinctions. Now if there's anything significantly wrong in that summary please explain it. Now I admit that nobody was able to make sense of your argument that increasing diversity would be a problem because it "blurred" the new species. But that was because you could never explain why such "blurring" WAS a problem - and quite frankly it's pretty obvious that you didn't know.
quote: I told you years ago that you needed to properly account for the increases and decreases in diversity and show that diversity DID inevitably decline. And I've said it again, since. So how can you say that you didn't know it ?
quote: Nope. You need to show that diversity inevitably declines in the long term. Show that the losses must be greater than the increases. That's it. It's the central claim of your argument so how you can imagine that you don't have to support it is completely baffling. What you've written above is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
I hope that you intent to answer my message above Message 341. It seems rather important if you want your argument to be understood.
quote: That's a pretty massive misunderstanding right there. Of course we've advanced since Darwin. Science doesn't stand still. And by combining Mendel's genetics with Darwin's theory the New Synthesis (which is no longer new) actually solved a problem that Darwin had no good answer to. But even Darwin knew that he needed a source of new variations for his theory to work, and recognised the appearance of "sports".
quote: If you don't like people pointing out that you don't understand the subject of discussion it really is down to you to get that understanding or avoid the subject. Change in allele frequencies is change, not a cause of change, and population splits in themselves do nothing to cause it. Natural Selection MAY be a cause of some reproductive isolation (though generally NOT in the case where the population is already isolated by geographical division !). It will only ever be a direct cause of reproductive isolation where breeding between two populations is disadvantageous.
quote: THe emphasis on mutations is due to the fact that they are a source of genuinely new variations. This counters your idea that diversity must decrease, the central point of your argument. That other issues are also raised to answer other points that you introduce does nothing to change that.
quote: I'm sorry Faith, but if you are unable to distinguish between cause and effect that IS your problems. Natural selection and drift CAUSE changes in allele frequencies. Change in allele frequencies is NOT a "driving element" - it's what the driving elements cause.
[quote]
Evolution by descent with modification is STILL the basic plank and that plank is assumed in my argument. Change (modification; new phenotypes) occurs down the generations ("descent"), but I think NS is only one not very typical way it occurs, WHICH I'VE SAID over and over. CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCIES is THE way change occurs, the way modification is brought about, the way new phenotypes are brought about. Natural Selection is one way allele frequencies change because it's one way a new subpopulation is created.[.quote] No. Natural selection does not create a new sub-population. Natural selection produces adaptive change within a population. And - like drift - it works faster in a small population. Natural selection is a driving factor in the CHANGE of small populations - but it rarely causes divisions.
quote: It shows nothing of the sort.
quote: Faith, I asked you to be honest about the limitations of your argument. You replied that it is difficult. But it shouldn't be difficult for you to admit that this is just your opinion. THat you haven't done the work to show that it is true - or even come up with an argument to show that it is true. Te evidence that we have show no sign of your trend being a significant factor over hundreds of millions of years of evolution, including a number of mass extinctions. It's all been pointed out to you. And even if it hadn't been you should known the difference between what you assume and what you've shown. So be honest and at least admit that mutations will go against your trend and could counter it instead of denying the possibility.
quote: Of course it doesn't have to, in fact it's very unlikely that it will. The loss of alleles will slow as more alleles are lost (going to zero when the population is completely uniform). The gain of new alleles is NOT slowed in the same way. And circumstances can favour increase over decrease (large population, weak selective pressures). So all you have is a rather implausible assumption. That is WHY YOU NEED THE NUMBERS. I really don't see why you can't understand that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
As I've been saying to Faith it mainly comes down to rates. Adaptive evolution is the combination of two processes, one generating variations, the other culling them.
Artificial selection drastically emphasises the culling, and in the short term it will deplete the variation needed fuel the process, because of the greatly accelerated rate of of selection. As a result any attempt to use the breeding process as a guide to evolution will get a very one-sided picture. (And, I will note, when even the limited role that mutations have played in actual breeding is denied or minimised the picture is even more one-sided and inaccurate.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024