Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 226 of 2887 (769832)
09-25-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
09-25-2015 3:58 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
Yes, of course, as I've said myself many times. "Microevolution" happens all the time WITHIN SPECIES. It is only assumption based on the ToE that keeps on insisting it transcends the species ...
Nope. That is creationist thinking, not scientific biological evolution.
That speciation keeps occurring doesn't change the fact that all life belongs to the same species they were born in.
... What we SEE is only microevolution within the genome of a given species, we do not see evolution beyond those limits.
There are no limits to what a species can be as an organism, but it will always be the same species it was born in.
We see species change into new species, but curiously they are still a species.
Yes, even the new breed which is wrongly called a "new species" may not be fully genetically depleted. It may still have enough diversity for some further change.
In fact it may have enough for hundreds of new species ... because you will say the same thing when each new species occurs.
It only ends for those particular lines of microevolution that have formed from small numbers of individuals, which can occur as the result of enough population splits, small numbers of individuals splitting from the parent and becoming isolated from it, and then the same thing happening from this daughter population after it's become established. It's not the only way evolution occurs but it illustrates the processes I want to highlight. It's basically a ring species I'm talking about, a series of populations forming from a relatively small number of individuals moving away from the parent population and forming a daughter population. There are many different things that can happen to populations so there are many different ways they evolve, but they all roughly follow this pattern. Some populations remain stable for probably hundreds of generations, with some genetic drift however. What I'm describing doesn't HAVE to happen to any given population, but my point is that it represents the evolutionary processes most clearly and shows that their ultimate direction is to genetic depletion as the natural result of the formation of new phenotypes.
Of course as the creatures dispersed from the ark this pattern would have been the most likely, small numbers of individuals breaking off from an established population, becoming geographically isolated at some distance as they found a niche, developing new phenotypes, becoming a new breed, and the same process happening from that base again until the creature was as dispersed as it was going to get. Meanwhile the earlier populations would also have been sending out scouts as it were and developing completely separate populations of new breeds. In those early days there would have been enough genetic diversity to allow for dozens, maybe even hundreds of new breeds. It's only in our time that a continuation of these processes can lead to genetic depletion in some evolving lines.
Poppycock that belongs on your fantasy Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread not here.
I don't know what you mean by "why should it end today?"
Because so far there is no evidence that evolution is stopping or even slowing down.
Where did I say any such thing? See above for what I hope is a clearer description of my view.
Well you keep on making these long doomsday pronouncements I sort of expected that we would see some actual results, when instead all we see is evolution proceeding as it always has.
And your point is?
That your "outrage" at speciation occurring is pointless. It happens, and it happens as speciation is defined, and there is no point to you complaining about it.
Use the terminology of science as it is used and defined by that science: all you are doing is making yourself upset ... over a word definition.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 211 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 227 of 2887 (769835)
09-25-2015 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
09-25-2015 10:30 AM


Little Red Fishes
All the red herrings about genetics and such is beside the point of this thread.
The pattern of the fossils laid out above for reptile to mammal jaws is exactly what one would expect from an evolutionary scenario. It doesn't prove anything. Just as Jar suggests there are umpty other explanations that you could come up with.
What those undisputed facts do is NOT invalidate the evolutionary explanation.
What they also are is only one example of many, many that follow similar patterns.
It's at least interesting that all other explanations one can contrive start to look exactly that -- contrived. They don't follow naturally from the over all explanation for life's history in the rocks and what we know about biology, geology and all other sciences.
As others have noted: since we don't have the DNA of these fossilized organisms we can't see the genetic changes or link from one to the other at that level.
However, all the available evidence in the facts above suggests that at earlier times there were no mammals around at all. Since later on there are mammals around we have to ask who were their ancestors? One not unreasonable answer is that the reptiles that were around could have been their ancestors and therefore genetically linked to them.
Since we also see organisms that are part way from one end to the other even more strongly suggests that some reptiles of earlier days were in fact ancestors to some mammals of later days.
You statements about genetics have and are being discussed elsewhere. If it wasn't genetic changes that produced mammal descendants from reptile ancestors is your explanation the one given by Jar? Maybe you have another one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 10:30 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 228 of 2887 (769839)
09-25-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
09-25-2015 11:21 AM


Re: MORE transitionals ...
The dog breeds change AS A WHOLE, all parts at once, all the bones changing to conform to the overall design of the breed while still articulating according to the Basic Dog Template as it were.
Dead wrong. Every mutt mixture of breeds and half breeds and feral wild dog proves you are wrong. That would be creationist fantasy transformation, certainly not evolution. Every breeder will tell you that you are wrong.
The ear bones would have to change too many things. The Eustachian tube is completely redesigned; the stapes would have to be complete reshaped and lose its root that connects to the quadrate; I'm not quite sure what's going on with that malleus /articular area but it is completely repositioned in relation to the stapes-quadrate and proportionally much larger in relation to them. I don't see how anyone can say the changes dog breeds go through compares at all. Besides which, the dog breeds DO change as a whole, the size and shape of bones are proportional to the overall design. These ear differences are a selected area. It WOULD be remarkable if all the parts remained in "constant contact" through the imagined pathway but in fact it couldn't happen. All we are seeing in that diagram is two entirely different ways the ear was designed for each particular creature, and ears aren't going to work unless those parts are in contact.
Argument from incredulity. We were talking about the bones changing shape and alignment, and now that you have been given the evidence of the dogs showing similar changes in shape and alignment you bring in a whole new aspect.
The images show they remain in contact, so no matter how "remarkable" you think it is, that is what the evidence shows.
You don't see parts losing elements (stapes root), shrinking or expanding in relation to other parts except to a small extent to accommodate to the changing overall structure, or becoming completely different as the stapes did.
Except that the dog images show losing elements (sagittal crest) shrinking (boxer nose) and expanding (brain cases).
Curiously the stapes functions the same in both and has the same connections (from same source as previous post):
quote:
How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. ...
So you keep saying things that just are not shown in the evidence.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 221 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 1:21 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 229 of 2887 (769841)
09-25-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
09-25-2015 11:32 AM


Re: Isolation is key to independent evolution
Yes they need time to work through the new population. The new allele frequencies would start out by producing a variety of new traits in individuals scattered throughout the population and then over the generations develop a more general new look to the whole population as the traits get recombined generation after generation. Which I've many many times already discussed.
More fantasy poppycock that should be discussed on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity.
RAZD you don't understand my argument at all. I've covered every objection you are making a million times over and since you don't want this topic to continue on this thread let's drop it. But first I have to answer this:
Well I certainly understand that your fantasy genetics has nothing to do with this thread.
The problem you have Faith is that not one person, other than yourself, accepts your fantasy. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I have not seen a single reason, a single piece of evidence to support any of it, and I've seen plenty to refute it: I see no reason to pander to it. It's based on a falsified premise.
Here I'm talking about reduced genetic diversity, not the complete depletion that would lead to loss of interbreeding. You don't understand one thing about my argument and yet supposedly you've followed it through how many threads by now?
I'd really rather not have to go back through that argument in all its details on this thread.
No you do not have to regurgitate it on this thread. You need to take your fantasy back to it's thread. Period.
Yes the thread is about fossils but the thing is you can't talk about the fossils EVOLVING unless you can prove that it's genetically possible.
Which has been done with dogs. Not only is it possible for the bones to change but it is observed and documented to have occurred in dogs. So that has been done, and we know that similar evolution in other species is not only possible, it is feasible.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 222 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 11:32 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 230 of 2887 (769844)
09-25-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
09-25-2015 12:48 PM


Re: MORE transitionals ...
The dog breeds change AS A WHOLE, all parts at once, all the bones changing to conform to the overall design of the breed while still articulating according to the Basic Dog Template as it were.
Dead wrong. Every mutt mixture of breeds and half breeds and feral wild dog proves you are wrong. That would be creationist fantasy transformation, certainly not evolution. Every breeder will tell you that you are wrong.
I suspect that you think I'm wrong about something I didn't say, but let me expand a bit. When a breed is being developed, a particular trait or set of traits may be selected but what you get is the overall change I'm talking about: you don't get a bulldog head and legs with a greyhound torso, or a Chihuahua head on a Great Dane body, even if none of those body parts are selected. What you get is an overall proportional structure that goes with the selected traits. It appears that DNA does its thing within the general template or design of the species and not just by piecemeal changes of particular traits. This is perhaps more mysterious and even divine than anything else about how DNA operates.
But you are clearly not in a mood to pursue this topic and there's way too much discord between our views to spend more time on it right now. I don't want to say I'm leaving the thread because as usual I don't know if I will, but I think I should because everything I need to say I've said and I'll just get worn out trying to answer a million objections. We'll see how it goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 12:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 2:05 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 231 of 2887 (769847)
09-25-2015 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
09-25-2015 1:21 PM


Re: MORE transitionals ...
I suspect that you think I'm wrong about something I didn't say, ...
Or that you said something that you didn't mean. In any event this needs to be on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity not here. See Message 991
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 230 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

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


(3)
Message 232 of 2887 (769851)
09-25-2015 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
09-25-2015 10:30 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Ma'am
quote:
I don't dispute any of the facts. What I'm disputing is the evolutionist interpretation that this sequence of living things proves evolution, the genetic descent of the higher from the lower
we have a good explanation for the fossil record. You don't. That's a pretty big advantage to us.
quote:
but nevertheless there never has been any actual evidence of genetic descent, and now I've been arguing that in fact the changes required to get from the reptile bones to the mammal bones are genetically impossible.
Of course the sequence of fossils, with their similarities and differences IS evidence of genetic relationship, typically from recent common ancestors. We don't assume direct descent, only that the fossils representing branches on a family tree.
But asserting that that couldn't happen is something that requires rather more evidence than you've offered. Given that we are speaking of similar creatures with relatively small differences, is it not likely that their genomes are also similar with small differences ? And if that is true, why should they not be related ? Why can't it happen ?
Objections that are very likely false are not good objections. Especially in the absence of any reasonable alternative explanation.
quote:
I think I've made a good observation here: genetics doesn't work the way it would have to work to produce the gradual changes between fossils that is always assumed to be how evolution works. It doesn't produce gradual changes over generations, it produces variations.
That's not a good observation, that is a bad assumption. The gradual changes are wrought by the cumulative effects of variation and selection working together. It is the accumulation of new variations guided by selection that produces gradual change. That's one of the reasons it is slow - it takes time for suitable variations to appear.
And you really need to learn that your liking for an argument does nothing to make it stronger. Assumptions with - at best - feeble support are always weak, no matter how much you like them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 10:30 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 233 of 2887 (769861)
09-25-2015 7:14 PM


Not only does genetics not work incrementally, nor make such just-so changes as those needed to get from the reptilian to the mammalian ear bones --there is no need to change the reptilian ear, it works just fine. Nature has no reason to make a mammalian ear out of it -- that is, there is no selection pressure involved. No need to make a mammal out of a reptile at all. So why would there be any changes in that direction?
ABE: Oh and another thing I meant to include: the basic body structure of an animal is apparently hard-wired into the genome, and so are necessary features like ear design for pete's sake. The ear structure is just not going to change and neither is the basic reptile body structure. Genetics varies things like size and shape, whilekeeping the basic body design, fur, or scales in the case of reptiles? color etc. You always get a reptile. You always get a bear, though a small black one or a huge brown one. You always get a dog or a cat. The basic template is in the genome. Huge variations yes but it's always a dog a cat a reptile a bear or whatnot.
Random variation is what genetics actually does when there is no selection pressure. It's the most common way varieties and races form in nature. New finch beaks. No reason for it, no selection pressure, it's just a variation possible in the genome and when that genetic option becomes more frequent in a population that is reproductively isolated, the finch gets a new beak. Then it chooses a different food that the new beak can handle.
But then you've got those millions of years in there to make this reptile mammal thing happen. You'd only need those millions of years if you kept getting mistakes, unfunctioning ears. Lotta deaf reptile babies then. I guess they just died out or why didn't they adapt to their deafness? It would of course take time to come up with variations that maintain the necessary relation between the bones for a functioning ear. But there's no reason for that to happen even in a billion years. This isn't anything like how breeds form, this IS macroevolution and it's impossible.
The problem I'm trying to highlight here is that discussions of fossil evolution completely ignore what genetics actually does. Evo theory just goes on and on about how such and such changes occurred over those millions of years without knowing if it is even possible, and in reality it's just not.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2015 9:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 235 by edge, posted 09-25-2015 11:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 237 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2015 3:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 240 by Admin, posted 09-26-2015 7:54 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2015 10:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 234 of 2887 (769864)
09-25-2015 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
09-25-2015 7:14 PM


The problem I'm trying to highlight here is that discussions of fossil evolution completely ignore what genetics actually does. Evo theory just goes on and on about how such and such changes occurred over those millions of years without knowing if it is even possible, and in reality it's just not.
One can't just make things up in science, as there are tens of thousands of other scientists out there to check on anything that is proposed, and probably tens of thousands of additional graduate students looking to make a name for themselves. If they can show where the existing models, paradigms, or theories, or even small research papers, are wrong that's just what they'll do.
Creationists, on the other hand, engage in apologetics rather than science, and that is exactly the opposite of science. In apologetics, evidence does not count, rather coming up with plausible-sounding explanations that can explain scripture, satisfy fellow believers, and reinforce their beliefs, is the main goal. Belief is everything, evidence, when it contradicts belief, is ignored, misrepresented, or obfuscated.
Given the posting history of creationists on this, and many other sites, I don't expect any credible refutations of this.
And, given these facts, it is very safe to ignore any pronouncements creationists make about science. You wouldn't pay any attention to a witch doctor's pronouncements about medicine, now would you?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 7:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 4:55 AM Coyote has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 235 of 2887 (769872)
09-25-2015 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
09-25-2015 7:14 PM


The problem I'm trying to highlight here is that discussions of fossil evolution completely ignore what genetics actually does. Evo theory just goes on and on about how such and such changes occurred over those millions of years without knowing if it is even possible, and in reality it's just not.
Problem is that the changes happened; this and many others that we see in the fossil record.
The purpose of the Theory of Evolution is to explain the changes. The data are there whether you like them or not. And they also support long ages.
And, incidentally, you have no explanation, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 7:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 236 of 2887 (769874)
09-26-2015 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
09-25-2015 3:15 AM


Not necessarily. Imagination can come up with a lot of "coulds" that don't turn out to be possible in reality. And the many changes required for evolution to be true between different species defy any known genetic processes that I'm aware of ...
Ah, but what about the ones geneticists are aware of?
That's pretty funny if the fossil record is a lot of separate unrelated species. You'd just be imposing the theory on them, not getting evidence from them.
No. This has been explained to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:15 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 237 of 2887 (769877)
09-26-2015 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
09-25-2015 7:14 PM


quote:
The problem I'm trying to highlight here is that discussions of fossil evolution completely ignore what genetics actually does
It's not a subject that is covered in great detail because it's still not that well understood.
(Although I'm sure you could find work on the subject if you cared to. Have you even tried?)
However since it is clear that you do not understand what genetics does, and have not even made a good-faith effort to try to understand what genetics does, your opinions on the matter may rightly be rejected.
quote:
Evo theory just goes on and on about how such and such changes occurred over those millions of years without knowing if it is even possible, and in reality it's just not.
Your uninformed opinions and reality are two very different things. If you are foolish enough to get the two confused - as you so frequently do - be assured that we will not,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 7:14 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 238 of 2887 (769879)
09-26-2015 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Coyote
09-25-2015 9:13 PM


One can't just make things up in science, as there are tens of thousands of other scientists out there to check on anything that is proposed, and probably tens of thousands of additional graduate students looking to make a name for themselves. If they can show where the existing models, paradigms, or theories, or even small research papers, are wrong that's just what they'll do.
Yes and I'm sure this is generally true in most sciences. But two things come to mind to explain why this might not happen with evolutionary theory.
The first is that it IS just a theory, it really has no hard evidence, it is built out of the very sorts of conjectures I've been talking about here, IMAGINED sequences of how evolution between two creatures COULD HAVE HAPPENED. There is no hard evidence, that imagined sequence is all there is, and maybe the attempt at an analogy such as with dog breeds, that doesn't work at all, but it gets taken for fact because the fossil sequence itself is taken for fact as proving evolution. The ToE is held together with mental glue. I'm not intending to be insulting, merely descriptive. For some reason it happens that if one can imagine a plausible sequence from a reptile ear to a mammalian ear that is accepted is how it must have happened. So of course I'm raising the question about whether it is even genetically possible, and the more I think about it the less genetically possible it appears to be.
Second, any scientist who does begin to raise questions about the theory is on very shaky ground and knows it. The last thing anyone would desire in that position is being suspected of thinking like a creationist. And there is little in the way of hard evidence to be found on either side of this dispute; you're not going to risk your professional standing on even the very best reasoned argument.
I personally think that as genome studies continue it may well have to be faced that there is a hard-wired part of it that makes a species a species. I read somewhere that there is a part of the genome that doesn't vary. I don't know if I extrapolated to the fixed species structure myself or if it was part of that article.
I also believe that if studies were done on population genetics along the lines I've suggested, creating new populations from a few pairs in reproductive isolation and continuing to do that with each new population that forms - could take a decade or three or ten or more depending on the rate of reproduction -- that it would be seen that the development of new phenotypes always goes with reduced genetic diversity, which is the opposite of what is needed for evolution to progress to macroevolution. So: two tests.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2015 9:13 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2015 5:46 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 241 by Admin, posted 09-26-2015 8:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 09-26-2015 8:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 248 by edge, posted 09-26-2015 11:36 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 239 of 2887 (769880)
09-26-2015 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
09-26-2015 4:55 AM


quote:
Yes and I'm sure this is generally true in most sciences. But two things come to mind to explain why this might not happen with evolutionary theory.
Unfortunately there are substantial falsehoods in your reasons.
Firstly denying that the evidence exists does not make it go away. The fossil sequences in themselves are strong evidence for evolution. The mere fact that you cannot offer any reasonable alternative explanation - and that your counter-argument amounts to no more than assuming that evolution must be false - should at least give you pause for thought. And that is before we get into the evidence from taxonomy, biogeography and genetics.
Second it is quite possible to question evolutionary theory without bein labelled a creationist. Of course, because evolution fits so well with the evidence it is hard to come up with an alternative that works any better. But it must be noted that we do not see strong arguments against evolution.
quote:
personally think that as genome studies continue it may well have to be faced that there is a hard-wired part of it that makes a species a species. I read somewhere that there is a part of the genome that doesn't vary. I don't know if I extrapolated to the fixed species structure myself or if it was part of that article.
That doesn't seem to be true, and there is no reason to think that it is. And if this is a test, how could we determine if it failed?
quote:
I also believe that if studies were done on population genetics along the lines I've suggested, creating new populations from a few pairs in reproductive isolation and continuing to do that with each new population that forms - could take a decade or three or ten or more depending on the rate of reproduction -- that it would be seen that the development of new phenotypes always goes with reduced genetic diversity, which is the opposite of what is needed for evolution to progress to macroevolution.
That is not a fair test because we already know that artificial selection can reduce genetic variation quicker than mutation can replace it. A test that will give the result that you want even if you are wrong is a rigged test.
So both tests seem to be invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 4:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 240 of 2887 (769881)
09-26-2015 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
09-25-2015 7:14 PM


Moderator Request
Please take genetics arguments to the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 7:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024