Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,652 Year: 4,909/9,624 Month: 257/427 Week: 3/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 225 (757552)
05-10-2015 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
05-10-2015 2:08 PM


Re: How evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity
I am very sorry to find out that you don't understand my argument after all this time. The most basic error people make is to confuse phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity.
But I obviously don't, which is why I keep using dominant traits as examples, as in all six of the cat breeds I instanced and in my previous post.
Would you like to try again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 2:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 112 of 225 (757555)
05-10-2015 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
05-10-2015 2:19 PM


Re: How evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity
When you talk about all the diversity evidenced in such a huge array of dog breeds you show that you do NOT understand my argument. And no, I will not try again.
When you refuse to talk about the diversity evidenced in such a huge array of dog breeds you show that you do not understand genetics. Try again.
All your speculations about the wolves on the ark is ridiculous. I don't know what you can be thinking, supposing that diseases we see today were active then and that every gene had to have been expressed?
No, Faith. Just the dominant alleles of those genes. 'Cos that's what dominant means. Have you noticed how I keep talking about autosomal dominant traits? And how your argument apparently relies on ignoring them?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 2:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 4:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 118 of 225 (757561)
05-10-2015 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
05-10-2015 4:22 PM


Re: How evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity
Well, you now seem to be reduced to saying that by adding in ad hoc suppositions of things that we haven't observed, we can (just barely) imagine that evolution might have happened how you want it to have happened.
This is rather weaker than your original claim that by studying the known facts we can prove that it happened how you want it to have happened ... in the same way that saying that we can imagine the existence of dragons is a weaker claim than that you own several of them as pets.
Now, I am sure that with enough ad hoc hypotheses you could square your original hypothesis with reality --- because this is in fact true of any hypothesis. I think of this as the principle of Smacco's Rozar: to any hypothesis, no matter how contrary to the evidence, auxiliary hypotheses can be added to render it unfalsifiable.
But that would still leave as vastly preferable the theory that evolution did work the same way that it does, observably, work, since this theory requires no such desperate expedients to protect it from reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 4:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 7:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 125 of 225 (757568)
05-10-2015 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-10-2015 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I hope I answered Dr. A sufficiently on this point, pointing out that genetic diseases would not have been present on the ark etc.
So, mutations since the Flood have produced an increase in genetic diversity, yes? Then we're in agreement except for the part about the Flood.
To say this shows you also don't understand my argument at all. If nothing else, it would be nice if you and Dr. A got at least that much out of this discussion. I deal with the existence of so many breeds in my argument all the time, it's basic. You are here falling into the usual problem of confusing phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity. There is enormous phenotypic diversity possible with dogs, but for EACH NEW BREED there is a necessary loss of genetic diversity.
Unless mutations increase genetic diversity, which you have apparently just admitted is the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 126 of 225 (757569)
05-10-2015 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
05-10-2015 7:02 PM


Re: How evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity
Additive processes work against the development of a new subspecies.
Hey. You remember how when we look at breeds of domesticated animals, this turns out to be the exact opposite of the truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 7:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 225 (757570)
05-10-2015 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
05-10-2015 7:34 PM


Re: How evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity
I don't suppose that instead of giving disquisitions on what you imagine to be the faults of my argument you could favor us with some thoughts on the actual argument itself?
My thoughts on your argument are that it possesses the faults which it self-evidently possesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 7:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 128 of 225 (757571)
05-10-2015 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
05-10-2015 4:20 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
If these are normal traits, and not mutation-generated disease--producing alleles, they were most likely governed by quite a few different gene loci, that no longer exist in the wolf or dog genome, having joined the junk DNA cemetery since the ark.
So ... the E series alleles, for example, used to be distributed on more than one locus? But then one of the loci disappeared. But before it did so, the E series alleles, like rats deserting a sinking ship, moved to another locus. But it appears that mere survival was not their only goal. They also wished to hide their history from geneticists, and look like a perfectly ordinary case of genetic polymorphism. For this reason when they fled the doomed locus they left it for another locus which had E series alleles on it, where they'd be nicely camouflaged, rather than (for example) gatecrashing a locus for blood type, where they'd stick out like a sore thumb. Why they wished to deceive geneticists is an interesting question, but one must admire their ingenuity in doing so.
And, of course, you require that to have happened again and again and again, for every locus which now has more than four alleles.
Can you point me to a case where this has been observed happening even once?
You resally do need to try to understand my argument.
So do you. You appear to contradict yourself at every turn. One minute you're telling me that two wolves "contained enough genetic diversity to produce all the dogs we have today", the next minute you're telling me that "disease-producing alleles didn't exist then". Which? Either the ur-wolves had all the genetic diversity present today, or they didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 138 of 225 (757599)
05-11-2015 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:39 AM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
I don't know how a gene gets many alleles, it's something I think about.
And you say you've been working on this for ten years?
A geneticist would take five seconds to answer this question.
You assume mutations are the source of diversity ...
If, as you assert, the alleles weren't there then, and if, as we know, they are then now, then by definition what has happened in between to bring them into existence is mutation. This isn't an assumption, that's just what the word "mutation" means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 139 of 225 (757600)
05-11-2015 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:37 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
The usual error, Dr. A. I haven't denied that there are ways genetic diversity increases. I'm talking about what happens when SELECTION from among the diverse options occurs in the formation of new subspecies, breeds etc.
And selection does indeed reduce genetic diversity. But as selection is not the only process involved in evolution, it would be mind-bogglingly stupid to overlook all the other processes.
See above. To get new breeds you have to cull the diversity.
And to have diversity to cull, you need something to create the diversity. As happened in every single example of breed formation we have looked at so far.
It doesn't matter for this process whether the source of the genetic stuff was built in or mutations it still has to be culled to get new phenotypes, and that's when you have evolution ...
But when mutations occur, that is also evolution.
... and that's when evolution can be seen to eliminate the very grounds for evolution over enough time.
No, selection removes "the very grounds for evolution". While mutation creates more "very grounds for evolution" for selection to act on.
This has been explained to you, Faith. Examples have been given. It is not a difficult concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 147 of 225 (757621)
05-11-2015 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
05-11-2015 1:21 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
A geneticist isn't trying to account for how extra alleles got into one gene locus on the ark.
Quite so: this is why the geneticist can account for loci with more than four alleles and you can't.
Sure, I agree, if you are willing to accept that those new "alleles" are all destructive ...
Those particular alleles are, yes. That's how I chose them. That's why I chose them. So, are you now willing to admit that mutation has increased genetic diversity in Canis lupus?
... and not the stuff of valid inheritance.
I can attach no meaning to this phrase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 149 of 225 (757626)
05-11-2015 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
05-11-2015 3:43 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It's a very reasonable postulate, and what's funny is that mutation as the source of viable genetic material has NO evidence at all, is pure assumption
It's a direct observation, Faith. As has been pointed out to you some jillion times.
But this brings me to something I've wondered about which is sort of an aside: why is it that the emphasis among evolutionists seems to be so predominantly on NOVEL mutations, those that occur in individuals for instance, rather than the huge shared store of genes in the genome which are generally understood to have been the product of mutation anyway? It's that genetic store in the genome from which all those traits are developed by the processes I'm describing, that you zanily deny but is such a well known process I don't know how you can. Sexual recombination makes each of us different from our parents using their own genetic stuff. If a bunch of humans get isolated from the rest of the world, over generations the multiple recombinations of their own genetic stuff will eventually produce a characteristic type of human being. This is so ordinary a fact your denial takes the breath away. Beneficial mutations don't occur frequently enough to contribute to these scenarios, they come from the genetic material already in the genome. Whether that was put there by mutation or was built in isn't really important when focusing on these processes. The point is that the eventual appearance of our isolated clan after generations of inbreeding will be identifiably its own, and different from other clans. Surely you don't dispute that this simple process of isolation and inbreeding is how we have Mongolians and Navajos and Icelanders and Inuit and Pygmies and Italians and Bushmen and Samoans and Arabs and Indians and Filipinos and so on and so forth? These processes I'm talking about produce all the different types. Novel mutations probably contribute something or other here and there, but most often a disease.
Real genetics is more interesting than the genetics you've made up in your head. You should really try to learn something about it some time. Who knows, you might even enjoy it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 3:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 152 of 225 (757633)
05-11-2015 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
05-11-2015 4:02 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
Yes, I have to figure out how the many alleles per gene developed, as I already mentioned upthread. That the original genome had many more genes per trait than it does now seems clear enough, and more genes, period; but many alleles per gene is still a question. The best guess seems to be some kind of mutation but not the destructive stuff that we see going on now.
So, you now admit that non-harmful genetic variation is caused by mutation. Are we done here?
I can only think you've confounded new information with the vast variety of new traits possible from mixing the existing genetic possibilities. Simple sexual recombination alone of the extant genetic possibilities in the genome can produce a staggering number of new trait combinations. Consider the dog breeds we've been discussing for instance, all nothing but different combinations of the genetic possibilities in the dog genome
Well, apparently we're not done here, because a paragraph later you forget what you've just admitted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 4:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 155 of 225 (757640)
05-11-2015 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:14 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I see you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.
*yawn* New blood, old complaint
And if you were to go about preaching that two plus two equals five, you would become bored and fatigued by the number of people who tell you that you have a profound misunderstanding of arithmetic.
You could have saved yourself this irritation by listening to the first person who noticed that you don't know what you're talking about. But failing that, it might be as well to listen to the hundredth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 158 of 225 (757643)
05-11-2015 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:38 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Did you even read my post to Denisova?
Yes. It's the same old nonsense. We've explained to you why it's wrong. Anyone with a moderate understanding of genetics could explain to you why it's wrong. If you ever acquire a moderate understanding of genetics, you'll be able to explain to yourself why it's wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 225 (757646)
05-11-2015 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:59 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
These contentless posts of yours are just hot air. How do you bring yourself to write so many of them?
The more I write out this argument the more solid it becomes. I really wish you would try harder to get it.
This, I take it, is an example of a contentful post containing a solid argument?
---
I have already understood your argument. This is why I was able to explain why it's bunk. You seem to have admitted now that it's bunk yourself, since you have admitted the existence of mutations increasing genetic diversity. You're welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:09 PM Dr Adequate 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