Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 824 (719062)
02-11-2014 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2014 1:12 AM


Evolution observably doesn't go that fast.
Then you aren't looking at the places I'm describing where it DOES go that fast: wherever you have a small daughter population breaking off the parent population and becoming reproductively isolated. That's the test case. And it seems to me that would be the most common situation that would occur after the Flood as the animals dispersed, all kinds of splits in population going off in different directions. Yes there are plenty of other situations where it doesn't happen so fast, such as where you have extremely large stable herds for instance, but this is how I'm sure it must have happened right off the ark, which is the context here after all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2014 1:12 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2014 1:55 AM Faith has replied
 Message 278 by saab93f, posted 02-11-2014 6:57 AM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 272 of 824 (719063)
02-11-2014 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
02-11-2014 12:17 AM


Blinded by Creationism
quote:
Paradigm clash I'd say. You guys think in terms of transitional forms, I don't because I don't share the evolutionist model. Your model expects gradations, mine doesn't. Mine expects variations, not gradations.
We're talking about evolution that YOU BELIEVE IN. It's not like there's any big difference between "variations" and "gradations".
quote:
The bones in the archaeological digs could have all sorts of different forms from those either on the ark or in the fossil record just depending on how the groups dispersed after the Flood. Larger, smaller, heavier, lighter, taller, shorter, any variation is possible depending on what mix of alleles was involved.
That only applies to the initial population. The question is how we got from your hypothetical initial population to the species-you-won't-admit-are-are-species today. How is that going to happen without any identifiable intermediates between your just-off-the-ark population and the multiple species descended from them ?
quote:
The alleles for human skin color for instance should produce the whole range of skin colors. You've got six reproducing individuals on the ark, each with four genes.
Only if you start adding to the Biblical account. If you stick with the Bible then we'd expect Noah's sons to get their alleles from Noah and his wife - so we'd expect only 4 different alleles between them, not 6.
quote:
I don't have the patience right now to try to calculate all this out and it wouldn't be something you'd find in the archaeological graves anyway. But this may illustrate the principle I have in mind. From the basic genetic variability you could get both very dark skinned and very light skinned individuals as well as everything in between, and depending on how they form groups and disperse from one another you will start getting whole populations with different skin color from the other populations. Not gradations, just different groups with different characteristics.
The problem here is that you've chosen just one characteristic governed by a single gene. And for a variation which is known to be found within a single species at that. Try accounting for multiple differences between your hypothetical cat-that-came-off-the-ark and all the modern cat species-that-you-won't-call-species. And then try that for other "kinds" too (especially the "unclean" ones).
quote:
No they shouldn't. As the animals dispersed from the ark and their population grew, you'd start getting different mixes of alleles in the groups that split off. Basic evolution: change in gene/allele frequency brought about by reproductive isolation of a daughter population.
So there shouldn't be any intermediates between the original just-off-the-ark pairs and modern populations ? How could that be ? Are you suggesting that each modern species-that-you-call-a-variety is descended from a single pair which were already had all the traits you'd expect from the modern species ? Or are you suggesting that all the change occurred in a single generation ?
Really, I think we're back to you not understanding your own argument. Which is why you make an assertion and then unknowingly argue against it.
quote:
You theoretically could get a population of wiry fast dogs in one place and another population of large lazy dogs in another, and yet another population of good hunting dogs and another of small dogs as pets.
But shouldn't there have been intermediates between all three populations and the original just-off-the-ark pairs they're descended from ? If not, how could it happen without any intermediates ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 12:17 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 273 of 824 (719064)
02-11-2014 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
02-11-2014 1:44 AM


quote:
Then you aren't looking at the places I'm describing where it DOES go that fast
Can you show us any of these places, and provide observations of the rate of evolution from them ?
Or are you just assuming that there is evidence to support your claims ? Wouldn't that be an extremely bad example of passing off a hypothesis as a fact ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 1:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 2:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 274 of 824 (719066)
02-11-2014 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2014 1:19 AM


Re: varieties, not transitionals
Well, are you talking about saltation or not?
No, as I already said.
A pair of ur-cats come off the Ark, yes? Some time later, we have lions which are descended from them, yes?
This would suggest that in between you have things which look less like ur-cats and more like lions. These would be intermediate forms.
Not necessarily. The question about the archaeological digs can't be thought of in terms of transitions because there's no way to know what line of variation found its way from the ark to that site. But if you are talking about a specific line of variation, at first it does seem that you should have a population of cats on its way to becoming lions, but as I think about it I'm not so sure you would be able to identify that trend for quite some time. Bcause first, within a few generations you'd be getting individuals with new phenotypes as compared to the originals but also different from each other in the new population. Think about it, the new allele frequencies are first going to bring about new characteristics in individual cats, and the combinations are not going to be predictable so you'll be getting a bunch of different types, the population should look pretty motley for a while. Maybe some will look odd enough that they don't find mates and get eliminated from the gene pool and so on and so forth. In any case it's going to take a while as the population inbreeds, some number of generations, I don't know how to calculate it, before the population as a whole starts to get homogenized into a lion type. So even here I'm not sure you could say you are getting a clear transitional type on the way to the lion..
The alternative is that you have things which aren't more like lions than they are like ur-cats suddenly giving birth to lions.
No, as I say above I think the actual situation would be the development of many different traits in individuals before the population as a whole develops into a lion type.
This would be saltation, the production of Panthera leo at a single bound.
Not what I think though.
You have to have one or the other: if you want lions to evolve from non-lions they can either do it gradually or suddenly, there isn't a third option.
Actually, if what I've said above is true, there is this other option that in the first few generations you should get a lot of different kinds of cats from the random mix of the new allele frequencies, sort of the way you do with your typical alley-cat house cats except I think the differences could have been quite large right off the ark, different body types and sizes perhaps as well as coloring and other characteristics. Then if the population remains reproductively isolated, eventually over many generations I'd expect it to get homogenized into the lion type.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2014 1:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 275 of 824 (719069)
02-11-2014 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by DevilsAdvocate
02-10-2014 5:56 AM


Why microevolution doesn't become macroevolution
What is to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution?
I've answered this hundreds of times on different threads and I'm almost afraid even to sketch out an answer here because it always means I get drawn into the debate about it whether I want to or not. I've started many threads on the subject in the past: Evolution Requires a Reduction in Genetic Diversity was one, Natural Limit to Evolution or something like that was one a long time ago, and then I've argued it within other threads too. I should have been keeping track I guess.
I think the processes that bring about evolution or the development of varieties or races, etc., require the reduction of genetic diversity because alleles for traits other than those of the identifiable variety or race have to be eliminated from the gene pool. For a trait to "breed true" requires homozygosity for that trait, that is, NO other alleles than those that determine that trait. What this means is that as any particular variety develops the GENETIC ability to keep on varying becomes less and less, which is the opposite of what the ToE requires. So you reach a point through evolution where evolution is simply no longer possible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-10-2014 5:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2014 7:56 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 282 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-11-2014 8:43 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 824 (719070)
02-11-2014 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by PaulK
02-11-2014 1:55 AM


Can you show us any of these places, and provide observations of the rate of evolution from them ?
There was an example somebody posted here some time ago about the -- spontaneous unintentional -- development of four completely different herds in a very short period of time from a larger domestic herd, and I don't even remember what animal it was, cattle, sheep, horses, what, don't remember and don't know what search terms to use to find it.
Otherwise I always have to fall back on domestic breeding for my examples, which isn't quite what would happen in the wild, but certainly demonstrates that you can get striking new varieties or breeds in a few generations.
Or are you just assuming that there is evidence to support your claims ? Wouldn't that be an extremely bad example of passing off a hypothesis as a fact ?
Yes, perhaps I shouldn't sound so definite about it even though I am.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2014 1:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2014 7:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 277 of 824 (719071)
02-11-2014 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by vimesey
02-10-2014 8:47 AM


Re: genetics
Assuming a population that starts out with pretty high genetic variability
What do you mean by that phrase exactly ?
I've come to think of this as basically a lot of heterozygosity in the population, giving it many genetic options for developing new breeds or varieties. Or to put it another way, the opposite of the cheetah for instance, with its many fixed loci or homozygous genes, so that it has no ability to vary or evolve further at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by vimesey, posted 02-10-2014 8:47 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Meddle, posted 02-11-2014 10:05 AM Faith has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 278 of 824 (719073)
02-11-2014 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
02-11-2014 1:44 AM


Then you aren't looking at the places I'm describing where it DOES go that fast: wherever you have a small daughter population breaking off the parent population and becoming reproductively isolated. That's the test case. And it seems to me that would be the most common situation that would occur after the Flood as the animals dispersed, all kinds of splits in population going off in different directions. Yes there are plenty of other situations where it doesn't happen so fast, such as where you have extremely large stable herds for instance, but this is how I'm sure it must have happened right off the ark, which is the context here after all.
Hi Faith.
Has evolution reached its peak in your opinion? I mean are the lions or cheetahs we see today final versions or should we ecpect to see uber-lions or cheetahs that can run at 70 mph for miles and miles?
Citing historical records (pics and writings) we can quite safely say that lions in their present form have existed for millenia. Did the baramin run out of variation only after so little time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 1:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 11:44 AM saab93f has replied

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


Message 279 of 824 (719078)
02-11-2014 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
02-11-2014 2:51 AM


quote:
There was an example somebody posted here some time ago about the -- spontaneous unintentional -- development of four completely different herds in a very short period of time from a larger domestic herd, and I don't even remember what animal it was, cattle, sheep, horses, what, don't remember and don't know what search terms to use to find it.
Even if your memory is correct, there is still a distinction between varieties of that sort and species, even if you insist that it is only a matter of degree. I don't think it could help you much, at. Least not without a much better measure and a proper comparison with the species-you-call-varieties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 2:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 11:48 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 280 of 824 (719079)
02-11-2014 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
02-11-2014 2:36 AM


Re: Why microevolution doesn't become macroevolution
So your only objection is a hypothesis without any significant supporting evidence ?
That's not much of a case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 2:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 281 of 824 (719084)
02-11-2014 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
02-10-2014 11:39 PM


The speed only seems "super" because of the weird expectations promoted by evolutionism that it has to take a long time. All it takes is the reproductive isolation of a smallish number of individuals over enough generations to combine all the alleles in the population. Because of the change in gene frequency caused by the new allele mix in the new smaller population you'll start getting new individual phenotypes within a few generations. Getting a completely new variety or breed that characterizes the whole population should just take however long it takes to mix all the alleles. Certainly no thousands of years. Maybe a couple hundred, maybe less.
In spite of this being factually wrong wishful thinking totally unsupported by any evidence, you would still have intermediate forms in those small isolated populations over several generations .... and there is still no evidence of this.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 02-10-2014 11:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 8:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 282 of 824 (719085)
02-11-2014 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
02-11-2014 2:36 AM


Re: Why microevolution doesn't become macroevolution
I think the processes that bring about evolution or the development of varieties or races, etc., require the reduction of genetic diversity because alleles for traits other than those of the identifiable variety or race have to be eliminated from the gene pool.
That is completely not true. Where do you get that evolution (whether micro or macro) REQUIRES a reduction in genetic diversity? There is no requirement for traits to be eliminated from the gene pool. Evolution itself is based on the introduction of new traits (heterozygous alleles) through mutation, gene flow, genetic shuffling and other factors to create new species. If you mean that species are subject to a genetic reduction of diversity that is partly true only in the fact that once a new species comes into existance, natural selection and other factors winnow out the outlier species population to create a more genetically similar population. However, this is a balancing act between forces which narrow down genetic diversity (i.e. natural selection, genetic drift, etc) and those that increase genetic diversity (introduce new genetic traits).
For a trait to "breed true" requires homozygosity for that trait, that is, NO other alleles than those that determine that trait.
Yes, but organisms do not need to be homozygous to be a species. In fact humans as well as many other animals are both homozygous and heterozygous for many of their traits (alleles). Pure bred (homozygous) is not required for the evolution of species.
What this means is that as any particular variety develops the GENETIC ability to keep on varying becomes less and less, which is the opposite of what the ToE requires.
Word salad. For a 'variety' or trait (allele) to perpetuate, that is somewhat true only in the fact that if the trait changed it would no longer be that trait. This may or may not have an effect (either beneficial or detrimental or neutral to the survival of that species) on the evolution of an organism. However, this in no way contradicts the TOE.
So you reach a point through evolution where evolution is simply no longer possible.
Which is completely opposite of what YEC teach. They require super-evolution to create the diversity of life from 'kinds' that existed after the flood.
You are self-contradictory and have a poor understanding of the TOE.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 2:36 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 12:53 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 283 of 824 (719088)
02-11-2014 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
02-11-2014 12:17 AM


Re: varieties, not transitionals
Paradigm clash I'd say. You guys think in terms of transitional forms, I don't because I don't share the evolutionist model. Your model expects gradations, mine doesn't. Mine expects variations, not gradations. The bones in the archaeological digs could have all sorts of different forms from those either on the ark or in the fossil record just depending on how the groups dispersed after the Flood. Larger, smaller, heavier, lighter, taller, shorter, any variation is possible depending on what mix of alleles was involved.
Amusingly variations are intermediate, are transitional.
Not so much paradigm clash as reality clash. If you don't understand what transitional means in evolution then the problem is yours.
Well, yes, there should be evidence of varieties of all the animals that were on the ark, but not gradations, not transitionals, but varieties. What you get depends on the combination of the alleles present in any given reproducing population.
Which are still intermediate between the ark population and the modern day population -- that is what transitional means.
The alleles for human skin color for instance should produce the whole range of skin colors. You've got six reproducing individuals on the ark, each with four genes. Say one has AABb, another has AaBB, another has AaBb, the fourth has aaBb, the fifth AAbb, the sixth AaBb. I don't have the patience right now to try to calculate all this out and it wouldn't be something you'd find in the archaeological graves anyway. But this may illustrate the principle I have in mind. From the basic genetic variability you could get both very dark skinned and very light skinned individuals as well as everything in between, and depending on how they form groups and disperse from one another you will start getting whole populations with different skin color from the other populations. Not gradations, just different groups with different characteristics.
I've seen your fantasy about preloaded genes before Faith.
Amusingly getting human species from human species is not that much of a stretch.
Now do beetles.
Case study: why so many beetles? - Understanding Evolution
quote:
Case Study: Why So Many Beetles?
If you were to randomly pick an extant animal species, odds are that it would be a beetle. While there are 250,000 described species of plants, 12,000 described species of roundworms, and only 4,000 described species of mammals, there are over 350,000 beetle species described, with many more beetles yet to be discovered!

And koala bears.
How did this slow moving, non-swimming, vegetarian that only eats eucalyptus leaves get from the ark to australia without leaving intermediates\transitionals (varieties) in between?
No they shouldn't. As the animals dispersed from the ark and their population grew, you'd start getting different mixes of alleles in the groups that split off. ...
Intermediates, transitionals ... where is the evidence? Not in fossils, bones in the dirt and soil?
... Basic evolution: change in gene/allele frequency brought about by reproductive isolation of a daughter population. ...
Intermediates, transitionals ... where is the evidence? Not in fossils, bones in the dirt and soil?
.... . You theoretically could get a population of wiry fast dogs in one place and another population of large lazy dogs in another, and yet another population of good hunting dogs and another of small dogs as pets. ....
And we have records of dog breeds and their intermediate forms ...
... But the point is the genetic variability of the pair on the ark is going to get distributed among their offspring in unpredictable ways based on how the groups split off from each other and disperse geographically. You are not going to get gradations or transitions, you are going to get a range of varieties.
Which are intermediates, transitionals ...
... where is the evidence? Not in fossils, bones in the dirt and soil? They should show up in the archeological evidence of the last 4500 years.
Edited by RAZD, : koala
Edited by RAZD, : +

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 12:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 284 of 824 (719090)
02-11-2014 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
02-11-2014 4:46 AM


Re: genetics
And as has been previously pointed out to you by others, if you get it down to two individuals you only have a maximum of four alleles per gene locus. I know the usual fall back is to cite 'junk' DNA, but the majority of that is full or partial endogenous retroviral (ERV) sequences which have a similar structure to modern retroviruses, such as HIV. We also have examples of pseudogenes in this 'junk' DNA, such as the gene for vitamin C synthesis and a second pseudogene for 21-hydroxylase so it's no like we can't find non-functional gene sequences. These last two examples also became pseudogenes by the exact same mutations that we share with chimpanzees.
Also if you are going to accept Biologists rate of mutations, then genetic studies have shown that dogs were domesticated between 15,000 and 33,000 years ago. Also the big cats shared their last common ancestor with other cats 11 million years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 4:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 12:07 PM Meddle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 824 (719099)
02-11-2014 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by saab93f
02-11-2014 6:57 AM


Then you aren't looking at the places I'm describing where it DOES go that fast: wherever you have a small daughter population breaking off the parent population and becoming reproductively isolated. That's the test case. And it seems to me that would be the most common situation that would occur after the Flood as the animals dispersed, all kinds of splits in population going off in different directions. Yes there are plenty of other situations where it doesn't happen so fast, such as where you have extremely large stable herds for instance, but this is how I'm sure it must have happened right off the ark, which is the context here after all.
Hi Faith.
Has evolution reached its peak in your opinion? I mean are the lions or cheetahs we see today final versions or should we ecpect to see uber-lions or cheetahs that can run at 70 mph for miles and miles?
This question makes no sense. Cheetahs can't vary any further because they don't have the genetic ability to do so (barring the appearance of a useful mutation or three, which hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to). Lions are not in such bad shape genetically but how they might vary I have no idea. Why would they become "uber" anythings? That's not how variation works.
Citing historical records (pics and writings) we can quite safely say that lions in their present form have existed for millenia. Did the baramin run out of variation only after so little time?
As I said lions apparently still have genetic variability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by saab93f, posted 02-11-2014 6:57 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by saab93f, posted 02-11-2014 12:43 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