Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

If you mean species as the product of "speciation," that occurs when interbreeding with the former population has been lost in a daughter population, right? But there is no other difference from other varieties, and that loss can be the result of genetic depletion so it's rather a distinction without a difference or however that goes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But that is a lot of variability, especially for two individuals. And if a trait is governed by more than one gene each of which has four alleles, as human skin color is governed by four genes, then you have a great deal of variability in a mere two individuals. This was probably the case on the ark although by now there's no reason to expect that much genetic variability in any creature. There's no need for a fallback if two individuals have as much genetic variability at one gene locus as you postulate. Besides, junk DNA is really just dead or half-dead DNA, not of use for any constructive purpose. ? Which of course is a wild fantasy as all those dating estimates are.And of course the rate of mutations has nothing to do with genetic variation, being either useless or destructive.

quote:

---

If you mean species as the product of "speciation," that occurs when interbreeding with the former population has been lost in a daughter population, right? But there is no other difference from other varieties, and that loss can be the result of genetic depletion so it's rather a distinction without a difference or however that goes.

---

Actually I mean species as they are observed, without any judgement on how they came to exist. As for the rest that's just your hypothesis that you're passing off as fact. Or at least that's the most generous assessment.

Why did the variation end after some hundred of years then? I mean after the disembarkation there was only very little time before peeps started drawing and writing about them mighty lions.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

It's clearer if you think about what happens in domestic breeding, where the main method of getting a breed is to eliminate unwanted traits, which means eliminating the genetic stuff for those traits, meaning the alleles for those other traits. In the wild the culling may not be so drastic. Or if you get a bottleneck as happened with the cheetah, it may. and of course it will be random unless there is a strong natural selection involved. Gene flow and genetic shuffling add nothing new to the gene pool, and mutations are usually useless or deleterious so the idea they contribute anything to genetic variability is basically a fantasy, certainly an unproven assumption. The whole idea of the introduction of new traits is a fantasy. If you do have gene flow it can be a healthy factor in a population by keeping up the genetic variability, and yes a species can have high genetic variability, but I'm trying to keep in focus how new variations develop from former populations and, especially if we're thinking of the situation right after the Flood, that would most likely be from the formation of many daughter populations in reproductive isolation from the parent population. In that case the change in gene frequencies will produce new phenotypes, and over many generations a characteristic phenotype for the whole population. It's really only after many population splits that you should start to see appreciable reduction in genetic variability, but that is the normal trend. This could be proved in the laboratory by allowing animals to breed and then taking out a few and isolating them to let them breed, and doing the same from each new daughter population. You should get a lot of phenotypic variation with less and less genetic variability in each new daughter population. Yes, but think about it. The only ways you get an increase in genetic diversity are really just the REintroduction of traits already in the larger gene pool, nothing new, and when the population is winnowed you lose whatever does not contribute to the "genetically similar population." The only possible new genetic material would have to come from mutations, and since it is usually understood to take a very long time to produce any kind of beneficial mutation that can be passed on in the population, it's as good as useless anyway. This is true, but the point is that this is the DIRECTION of variation. You may only see it at the drastic ends of the processes involved. But I think this trend is probably growing for many species. Not required to BE a species, but reduction of genetic diversity IS required for the formation of NEW varieties/"species." Homozygosity is the extreme but I mention it to illustrate the direction. As you said above, "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." This is what the ToE requires. But in actual fact, the processes that most predictably bring about evolution or variation involve the reduction of genetic diversity. Or at least this is what happens with the processes that split populations and produce new varieties by reducing the number of individuals, which brings about new gene frequencies.Again, gene flow is the reintroduction of genetic material already in the larger gene pool back into a population. This will also change gene frequencies and bring about new variations. But is this really evolution and where does the population go from there? You can't keep adding back gene flow from former populations. You can get a new stable population of very large numbers that way, but it's not going to be a platform for further evolution. That comes about most visibly when you cut down the numbers of individuals and isolate them. And the trend in that case is to the REDUCTION of genetic variability. It brings formerly unexpressed alleles to expression and suppresses formerly more frequent alleles. Depends on how much genetic variability was already in the parent population. The reduction won't be apparent for some number of population splits if it was high, as lions aren't genetically impoverished as cheetahs are for instance. But after many population splits the trend should start to be noticeable: reduction of genetic diversity. Right. That's the point. Well, if what you want is actually evolution, which is change in traits, it DOES contradict the ToE. No, this is confusing the phenotype with the genotype. To get new phenotypes you reduce the GENETIC variability. It's not super evolution, it's simply microevolution. The creation of daughter populations of necessity is going to lead to reduction of genetic diversity especially over many such splits into further daughter populations, but each time that happens you'll get new variations or new phenotypes that come to expression because the competition from other traits that characterized the former populations has been suppressed or eliminated. Uh huh. So I keep hearing.

I don't know. Apparently a variation/breed/race can be quite stable without drastic homozygosity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Breeding is one way to bring out unique traits, and of course it is true that traditional breeding programs where mating pairs are selected based upon whether they possess desirable traits will tend to reduce genetic diversity.But breeding is not a way to create new species. It does not explain the diversity of species we see today, nor the great diversity of extinct species.--Percy

And breeding for new traits does not work without mutations -- you can't squeeze blood from a stone -- a problem that Faith has historically had with evolution.

My statement was based on a presentation on creationist arguments. Even back in 1984, when I was first encountering groups that had had experience with creationists, this creationist claim of hyper-fast evolution was well-known.Now, as for what the speaker's sources had based that figure on, for that you would need to talk with a biologist familiar with that research. I strongly recommend that you do talk with a biologist for information on speciation, what it is, what it involves, and how long it can take. And please do not fly into a fit of hysterical screaming as you did when I strongly recommended that you talk with a geologist with your requests for information of such great detail that only a professional would know the answer.At any rate, I trusted that presenter's figure, since he had gotten it from biologists who were familiar with the actual research on speciation. And the purpose in presenting it to you was to indicate the order of magnitude of the time that biological research has determined for the time it takes for a new species to form. As well as the fact that that should be taken as a minimal value, since most biologists consider it to be too short of a time. You ask this a few times. Do you really not know? Certainly, your conflating "species" with "sub-species" (what you call "variety/race/breed") does indicate that you in fact do not know what a species is. Again, talking with a biologist would really help you shed some of your ignorance of the subjects that you loudly pontificate about. Though in this case, any introductory biology text should more than adequately suffice.While there is some controversy within biology regarding the formulation of a precise definition of "species", since the question is more complex than it may appear on the surface (refer to the Wikipedia article, Species problem), a common definition as given in Wikipedia's Species article is:

quote:

---

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

---

As the article discusses, this does not apply well to all species, both prokaryote and eukaryote, but we can use it here. The basic idea behind speciation (see Speciation) is that isolated subpopulations of an existing species change genetically in different ways, diverging from each other, until a point is reached in which members of those two populations can no longer breed. At first, the reason would mainly be because their mating behavior and behavioral triggers (eg, specific scents or visual/aural displays) have become too different for them to recognize each other as potential mates, even though genetically they could still produce fertile offspring -- this is a situation which illustrates the "species problem". Then after more generations have passed (and hence also time), the genetic differences will have become too great for them to produce fertile offspring, but they could still produce sterile hybrids; eg, mules, "ligers" -- in that case, that common definition of species would be satisfied, because the offspring are not fertile. Then as even more generations (and time) pass, the genetic differences will have become too great for any offspring to be produced. What do you get when you cross a dog and a cat? A fur-ball maybe, but no offspring.And, of course, a "new species" is what is formed by a speciation event, by an isolated sub-population of an existing species having changed to the point where it is now a different species than its parent. Yes, but the point that you're arguing is the formation of a wide range of new species from a single pair of ark passengers possessing very great genetic variability. How long does that take? By concentrating only on variation within a single species and how long that takes, you are avoiding the question that your position (that all related species originated from one pair of animals on the ark, a "basic created kind" in standard creationist parlance), since your position does require multiple speciation events. And by misrepresenting the time needed to produce variation within a species as being the same as the time needed for speciation to occur, you are dead wrong.The standard creationist claim of "basic created kinds" is that the number of animals on Noah's Ark can be very greatly reduced if it carried single pairs representing "basic created kinds", such that those individuals carried a great amount of genetic variability pre-loaded in them, and that all the species within each "basic created kind" then descended from those representative breeding pairs. Thus, there would be a "basic canid kind" from which wolves, foxes, dingos, coyotes, and dogs descended. And there would be a "basic feline kind" from which all cats descended, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, panthers, pumas, and tabbies.What happens when you cross a dog with a wolf? You get offspring which I believe are fertile. In fact, there are breeders who do just that; there's a market for it. But then from biological research we find that there's not that much genetic difference between dogs and wolves; there simply have not been enough generations (AKA time) that has passed since we domesticated wolves and started breeding them.What happens when you cross a house cat with a tiger? Of course, we would employ artifical insemination or petri dish techniques for that experiment so that no animals would have been harmed. What happens? I'm willing to bet that house cats and tigers are not interfertile, that they cannot produce any offspring. Clearly, too many generations (ie, time) have passed since they diverged from each other. You can cross a lion and a tiger to produce a hybrid, a liger, which I believe to be sterile, so much less time (AKA generations) has passed since they nothing will happen, because they had diverged from each other more recently than they had from house cats.There can be some room to argue that dogs and wolves are just variations within the same species, but it is unavoidably clear that house cats, lions, and tiger are different species.You have deal with speciation and how long that takes to happen.But you have forgotten the Bible! You keep insisting that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and is so authoritative that they must supersede reality itself. Well, that must also include the ages given by the chronologies in the Bible, since that is the basis for your rejection of an old earth.OK, anybody can play the Ussher Game. A local creationist published somebody's study which traced through the begots and the reigns of the various kings to get a time-line with dates relative to the Creation. Then he got to a historical event that we have a date for and used that to tie his AC ("After Creation") dates with our Anno Domini system (AKA "Common Era"). He came up with Creation occurring in 4185 BCE, not quite 500 years earlier than the Jewish Calendar would have it.But even if we couldn't fix the date of Creation according to our system, that wouldn't matter. Because what does matter is that we can fix the date of the Flood relative to Creation. The Flood happened in 1656 AC ("After Creation"), in 2529 BCE to us (but that doesn't matter).Those "original basic created kinds" were created at the time of Creation, and with all their great genetic variability. Then 1656 years later, single pairs got onto the Ark. The problem is, as you yourself described, Faith, they would have already spent all that genetic variability long before the Ark. The individuals representing those "basic created kinds" would have had no more genetic variability left than extant species have now.You haven't thought this through, have you? You are avoiding the question!Why do you emphasize "variation within a kind"? The implication is that that disagrees with evolution. Why do you think that?Again: Or at least along the lines of how you believe that evolution is said to work?

Which is an event which is intentionally directed by human intelligence not a natural process. So your point is void. Again, one case of genetic uniformity and bottlenecking in an existing species does not descredit the entire TOE. All this shows is that genetic uniformity and bottlenecking caused by various natural factors may occur in geographically, socially, and genetically isolated populations of organisms.So in essense you are only showing once side of the genetic equation so to speak. The other side which causes genetic diversity are genetic mutations, gene flow, and natural selection. It depends on what you are defining as the "gene pool". Are you talking about the entire genetic makeup of a species. If so you correct. Gene flow by itself does not introduce new traits. However in relation to subgroupings of individual organisms of a species aka populations may have new traits introduced through these mechanisms from one population to the next.Genetic shuffling also increases the genetic diversity of a population by intermixing alleles (traits) within that species population and a result help to decrease (but not eliminate) the amount of speciation that occurs.As far as mutations being useless or deleterious that is a seperate subject. Most mutations which are know to occur are neutral not beneficial or harmful, in that they provide minimal impact on an organism. Of course the only ones that make a difference in speciation are those that occur in an organisms gametes.What you gloss over is that natural selection favors mutations that benefit a species effictively weeding out the deleterious ones. This is the main driver of evolution and you have shown no evidence which contradicts this. Again which begs the question of what prevents your in-species evolution from producing enough genetic variation to create new species of organisms that can interbreed. That is these new "daughter" populations are new species that evolved from parent populations just as you suggest. You are making the case for the TOE. What is the mechanism for this reduction in genetic variability?
You have not provided one. Obviously it is not mutation as it continuously adds diversity to the "gene pool". Gene flow causes more genetic diversity between isolated populations of a species. Genetic shuffling (aka sex) also increases genetic variability within a species.Two factors that can cause a reduction in genetic variability in a species are natural selection and genetic drift. However, at the same time as reducing genetic variability, these forces are counteracted by the forces of mutation, genertic flow, and shuffling. Occassionally genetic unformity wins out in a species and it becomes extinct or may bottleneck (i.e. the cheetah). Or in other cases genetic isolation of a population may increase to the point that a new species may occur. Mutations do not take a long time to occur. They occur an incalculable number of times every day in organisms around the world. Provide the evidence. Again you are unfavorably weighing one side of the equation. Mutations, genetic shuffling and genetic drift cause genetic diversity. If there is enough of a change that this new population cannot interbreed from the original population of organisms it is now a new species aka TOE. What keeps this from happening? You are muddying the water metaphorically here. Speciation only requires that one population of a species becomes genetically divergent enough that it can't breed with the original species. So in that respect, genetic diversity must increase between the original population and the new population not the opposite. I think you are possibly confusing this with the fact that genetic drift reintroduces genes between populations of a species and may produce a breaking effect so to speak on speciation (but not eliminating it). Again it is all a balancing act by nature, which can tip one way or another at times depending on the environmental (climate, ecosystem, etc) and other forces involved. How? What? That does not even make sense. Do you know what phenotypes are? They are the obserbable traits of an organism. How does a reduction of genetic variability cause new phenotypes. Again word salad. You have not shown any mechanism of how or why this is done. A reduction in genetic diversity is going to cause new variations? What?!? this does not even make sense. That is like saying that as you remove more and more Beetles of other colors from a Volkswagon car lot except for red Beetles you are going to see more and more Beetles of other colors than red appear. This makes no sense. Please read up on Mendelian genetics.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I think that highlights the points you and others have made, which is certainly a valid point, that we can only speculate according to our historical model.Often I am lying in bed at night and I sometimes think, or well, it's really a kind of wish, that scientists would invent a machine that they could place in space, like a satellite, and it could take pictures of the earth as it was in the past. It's pure science fiction, but the reason I wish for it is because sometimes we desperately want to just know for sure what really did happen. I guess that's just part of the human condition, because, and I'm sure evolutionists will agree with me here - let's face it, the universe just doesn't care what we do or do not discover.I must have had that daydream maybe ten times though, because sometimes you listen to evolutionists and they're so convinced that you kind of think, "Lord, could they be right?" Or at least any honest person does, because it's quite a thing to reject the tidal wave of people in favour of it.I won't be coming back to EvC, but I just wanted to let you know I think you've made some good points, I know it won't be acknowledged but don't worry, because I am cleverer than most people at this forum, and my opinion is that you've made some good, cogent points. Not to say that to boast, but that you should listen to the person that is perhaps in the best position to judge.

No inflated sense of yourself I see. Why not just stand on a pedstal and say "Nah, nah, nah nah nah, You are all wrong and I am smarter than you." You brought nothing to this debate but arrogance and ignorance.This is what many would categorize as Humble Bragging.

Calm down dear, I was only trying to encourage her, it can be hard being one soldier against the many. Nobody is going to encourage me, that's for sure, so I can at least state some positives about myself. Those two particular emotive terms, are called epithets. Epithets are usually used IN PLACE of arguments, as with this empty assertion.Notice your claim needs nothing but the accusation itself, rather than the proof of the accusation. Just the two terms spoken aloud are enough to your mind, to prove it. And since all evolutionists bandy such terms around about creationists, then as soon as anyone reads it, they are convinced. Forget the jury, forget the evidence, forget the judge, just execute, because we believed you at, "ignorant."It's the same with "homophobe", all you have to do to win the gay-debate, is call the Christian a homophobe, even it he isn't one. How thoughtful, how clever!But I don't feel the need to insult you back, as that would be ad hominem.And largely that's why I urge clever creationists like Faith to not hang around these parts too long, because if they do, they will soon realize that they are expending exponential energy fighting against an angry mob. I would have thought that was obvious if you had read my posts, it's because I prefer to provide a syllogistic and sound argument to back up my claims, as I so did, without refutation. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Mikey you aren't stupid but your prejudice and lack of thought do make your conclusions unreliable, to say the least. And that's the case with your judgement of Faiths arguments.Now you certainly didn't have to boast of your cleverness to encourage Faith, and really I don't think she should be encouraged to make foolish claims, like the idea that some sort of mechanical sorting is a viable explanation of the order of the fossil record. If only for her own sake.As for your response it is notable that you try to obscure the fact that DevilsAdvocate was responding to your false boasting. It's not as if you offered any evidence to support your claims is it ?So your claim of ad hominem is invalid. You made yourself the subject of argument by boasting of your cleverness (not mentioning that you've been caught making bad arguments - and I feel that has rather more to do with your retreat from this forum than you'd be prepared to admit).

quote:

---

And largely that's why I urge clever creationists like Faith to not hang around these parts too long, because if they do, they will soon realize that they are expending exponential energy fighting against an angry mob.

---

When it comes to anger and abuse Faith is more one to dish it out. Indeed, she is known to try to bully people into accepting her false assertions.If Faith had decent arguments and evidence she would do a lot better.Sadly, like you, she is too ruled by prejudice to tell good arguments from bad. Helping her to overcome that would be more useful to her cause than encouraging her to make a fool of herself.

You STATED I have a lack of thought, and my conclusions are unreliable, you didn't show it. It's nothing more than an ad hominem remark.I won't state anything personal about you. I don't need to.Secondly, I claimed Faith made some cogent points, which you incorrectly took to mean whatever you wanted it to mean. It did not mean what you thought it meant because you don't know what points I meant, given I never divulged the information. Think more carefully before jumping to preconceived conclusions about super-mikey. Perhaps a trip to specsavers might not allow you to convert "some cogent points" to, "Faith's arguments", in case you didn't notice, you conflated two different things. I haven't even read a lot of her arguments, which just shows the silly error you make, to jump to conclusions you have already made about me. Pretty obtuse error for someone that claims I need to think more and my conclusions are unreliable, given you jumped to an astoundingly incorrect one. I didn't try to obscure what you call, "false boasting", I actually shown that my reason to tell Faith I was cleverer than most here, was so that she could see that when I said she had cogent points, she could accept that judgement. Another empty assertion. I haven't been "caught" making bad arguments, you have concluded I have made them, in your unworthy opinion. I don't accept your counter-offerings, because you didn't flesh them out, whereas I provided a whole blog entry. Nice soundbite. But I don't value your opinion. Yet another empty, unproven assertion. Don't you notice the fact that you simply state these things?I've seen no evidence that you have any comprehension of what constitutes a good or bad argument given you seem to think that empty and opinionated assertions are sound syllogisms rather than sophistry. That's the first statement you've made that has any backing. There you go, you can back up statements after all!!You said I need to think more, I suggest you need to think more cleverly. PK.I see that you have predictably used my post as an opportunistic assassination of Faith's character. This is transparent, and predictable of your style, you used to do this with Buzsaw if anyone chose to state something positive about his posts. It's a kind of indirect, passive agressive dig at the other Christian, you use my post to get to her.It's all ad hominem argument, but you don't realize it because of your own biases, but your mistakes are so overwhelmingly OVERKILL to an almost absurd degree but what always amazed me is that you never noticed you were making them. You think it proves great things but it's all simply an attack of character, because you don't have the ability to form a sound argument. Notice how many times her name was used in your post even though your post was supposed to be in response to me.People that argue well don't need to use such tactics so we can safely rule out your opinion as having any credence.I suggest you concentrate on perhaps improving your debate skills. If you were not so quick to attack people on a personal level, and actually tried to show some form of syllogism, with some true premises, and some effort you have put in yourself, rather than trying to simply sit there like a spider, waiting for flies to get caught in your web.Your style now makes me predict you shall have your famous last word. By all means do, I won't be reading it, because as you have said, I am not stupid, therefore I already know I would not value it.All the best. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.