Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 42 of 259 (770746)
10-13-2015 2:55 PM


Issue to Focus On
Discussion seems to be unraveling somewhat, but Tangle just posted Message 39 about diverging populations that should help discussion refocus. In past discussions Faith has claimed that over time two isolated populations would diverge but not speciate, though they would eventually lose the ability to interbreed, which is the definition of speciation. Perhaps discussion can resume around resolving this apparent contradiction.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 4:30 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 44 of 259 (770748)
10-13-2015 3:00 PM


Another Issue to Focus On
Dr Adquate's Message 41 is another good issue. Discussion could explore the mechanisms required to produce the genomes and genomic diversity we observe in nature today from a 2 or 14 creature bottleneck around 4500 years ago.
Edited by Admin, : Minor correction.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 3:40 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 259 (770759)
10-13-2015 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
10-13-2015 3:40 PM


Re: Another Issue to Focus On
Dr Adequate writes:
Dr Adquate's Message 41 is another good issue. Discussion could explore the mechanisms required to produce the genomes and genomic diversity we observe in nature today from a 2 or 14 creature bottleneck around 4500 years ago.
Why is that an opinion of Admin rather than Percy?
I thought it was a sort of general outline of your issue from Message 41 et al, not my own opinion. If I misstated what you were saying then my apologies, and please correct.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 3:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 90 of 259 (770860)
10-14-2015 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
10-14-2015 4:30 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
Hi Faith,
Thanks for taking up the Tangle argument. I was hoping to get some resolution to the apparent contradiction in the way you view speciation. First you say this:
You can get new subspecies all the time without losing interbreeding ability, and losing it doesn't make it any more a species than any of the others.
And then later you say this:
Speciation occurs when you have a homogeneous population that can not interbreed with other (sub)species of its kind.
To summarize, first you say that losing the ability to interbreed doesn't make two populations into different species, despite that that's a key part of the definition of species, and then you say that speciation occurs when two populations cannot interbreed.
If I can add a little more clarification, the discussion is about a genetic inability to interbreed. I don't think anyone here cares about cases where the barriers to interbreeding are physical. No one here is claiming that, for example, Saint Bernards and toy chihuahuas are different species because they cannot physically interbreed, or that populations that are physically separated are different species because even though they *could* interbreed they never do because they're never in the same place.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 4:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 91 of 259 (770861)
10-14-2015 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
10-14-2015 6:52 PM


Moderator Concern
Faith writes:
The last three posts are not worth answering. First one is irrelevant, second one is wrong, third one is both irrelevant and wrong. Soon as someone says something at all worth answering I'll answer it.
Presumably the reason you're here is to discuss your ideas. People are trying to discuss with you.
What Blue Jay said about evidence is not irrelevant but was a response to your efforts at ignoring evidence. PaulK called your attention to his explanations of how your ideas are mistaken, but instead of rebutting them you just declared them wrong. NoNukes is trying to understand what you mean by speciation, and if breeding incompatibilities don't stem from "acquired diversity" (i.e., genetic differences) then since this thread is about your "Genetic Processes Argument" it's hard to see how his statement could be irrelevant, and if it's wrong then this has to be explained.
Please discuss your topic. Please do not take moderation into your own hands. If you feel someone isn't discussing in good faith please post to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 6:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 10:07 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(5)
Message 102 of 259 (770883)
10-15-2015 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
10-14-2015 10:07 PM


Re: Moderator Concern
Hi Faith,
In a discussion thread everyone argues their side, and whoever is right or wrong is for others to decide. If you're not going to argue your side and make your best case to those reading the thread, if you're instead just going to declare yourself right and others wrong, then please stop posting.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 10:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 114 of 259 (770945)
10-16-2015 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
10-16-2015 6:19 AM


Re: Faith doesn't get it
Hi PaulK,
You don't quote what in Faith's Message 108 you're replying to, and referencing back to Faith's 1600 word opening post doesn't help. Please clarify.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2015 6:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2015 10:39 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 118 of 259 (770951)
10-16-2015 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
10-16-2015 5:42 AM


Re: A simple refutation to Faith's argument
Hi Faith,
Though I'm replying to you, this is actually suggestions for subtopics for the general discussion to focus on.
Faith writes:
The scenario I keep describing, a series of population splits one from another, can lead to a similar situation of fixed loci, but my main point is to give an example where evolution is particularly active, and where it reduces genetic diversity from population to population, even perhaps arriving at the situation of fixed loci, which is always a possibility. Mutation is too slow to keep up in such a situation,...
About the very last part of this quote, the part about mutations being too slow, I think this is a key point that Faith believes she has demonstrated is true, and that no one else believes that she has. I'd like to see people encourage Faith to try to support this point. See if she'll elaborate on why she thinks the endangered species like the cheetah and artificial processes like breeding prove mutation is too slow. See if she'll explain her reasons for rejecting the possibility that mutations can provide adaptation.
But the REALLY main point is that since evolution does reduce genetic diversity...
I think what Faith really means here is that selection reduces genetic diversity. See if she'll verify whether that's the case, that she really does understand that evolution includes both selection and mutation (among other things), and that she understands what actually happens when mutations propagate through a population.
You don't have evolution unless you have this reduction in genetic diversity. You don't get new phenotypes without getting rid of the alleles for other phenotypes. Breeders know this. Conservationists know it too, though for them it's a problem situation rather than a desirable one.
...
So, if reduction in genetic diversity always occurs with the development of new phenotypes, and it must,..
This is perhaps Faith's central confusion. The error in this thinking has been explained to Faith many times, but none have succeeded. I encourage people to continue seeking novel approaches that might help Faith see the errors in her thinking. I encourage Faith to do the same, to continue seeking novel approaches that might help the evolutionists see the errors in their thinking.
I will here insert a reminder that no one should begin stating that they've already explained everything they have to explain, or that all the fault is on the other side, or that the other side is delusional, etc. Sorry for the impending emphasis, I don't usually do this, but I'm going to be very quick on the trigger, so I'm going to very clear that though I'm very happy to see these sincere attempts at productive discussion, I have been disclaiming about this until I'm blue in the face and it hasn't done any good, SO I WILL QUICKLY SUSPEND ANYONE WHO GOES OFF THE RAILS IN TERMS OF PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION. I DON'T CARE IF YOU THINK I'M ATTILA THE MODERATOR, THE MOST HEINOUS ADMIN SINCE HITLER, AND THE MOST INCOMPETENT DISCUSSION LEADER SINCE HOMER SIMPSON. I *AM* THE MODERATOR AND I *WILL* SUSPEND ANYONE WHO STEPS UNREASONABLY OUT OF LINE.
... the usual expectations of a steady progress up the evolutionary ladder so commonly visualized in descriptions of how evolution supposedly works.
...
...the ease of evolution just proceeding from one variation to another species to species to species up the fossil ladder and up the Linnaean tree...
This is a simple one that I'll handle myself. Faith, scientists do not believe in an evolutionary ladder. They accept explanations that include change over time, selection, competition and adaptation. Perhaps discussing evolutionary topics like competition and arms races might be helpful in seeing why the fossil record records many improvements over time.
What are the chances the cheetah will manage not to go extinct before this mutation comes along to rescue it? This particular mutation out of all the possible mutations too. This one that would give it new life, occur in the right place, and spread to the next generation reviving and reviving and reviving. Not good odds at all. And then it has to rebuild its former genetic diversity because you don't get evolution at all unless you have genetic diversity.
The cheetah is another good topic for discussion. How can Faith be helped to understand that the cheetah may well go extinct, as many species both in living memory and in the fossil record, have gone extinct, and it doesn't at all prove her point that mutations can't add diversity or affect the course of evolution? From Faith's perspective, how can she add something to her cheetah example to help people see how it disproves evolution?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 5:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 145 of 259 (771022)
10-17-2015 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
10-17-2015 12:05 AM


Re: Some "intelligent" questions
Faith writes:
herebedragons writes:
This is assuming the conclusion and is why your whole point is a premise rather than an hypothesis. You have no evidence that the original population started out with "tons of heterozygous genes and no junk DNA," you assume it is true because you assume your initial premise is true.
You seem to be in a mood to find things to accuse me of.
Herebedragons is challenging your ideas, which is what discussion here is for. He's not accusing you of anything, and you shouldn't be accusing him of anything.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 10-17-2015 12:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 10-17-2015 10:58 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 259 (771039)
10-17-2015 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
10-17-2015 10:58 AM


Faith Suspended 48 Hours
Faith writes:
Apparently I missed the "challenge." I don't get it. The whole thing hits me as a series of incomprehensible accusations of this or that fallacy or error, based on some preoccupations of HBD's own that have nothing to do with what I've been arguing.
I don't know if you're serious or playing games or feigning innocence or ignorance or what. You keep repeating the same pattern of going off the rails, as you did a couple days ago, then getting back on course, then going off the rails again. I told you just two days ago over at Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 that you could resume discussion as soon as you adopted a willingness to actually discuss, so you resumed discussion presumably because you had adopted an attitude of willingness to discuss, and yet here you are already accusing people of accusing you of things and jousting with the moderator. I see little likelihood of further interaction with this moderator helping at all, and I can't allow you to continue in this unconstructive way, so I think all I can do is give you a little time to think about it. See you in a couple days.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 10-17-2015 10:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 156 of 259 (771041)
10-17-2015 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by PaulK
10-17-2015 4:22 PM


Re: Some "intelligent" questions
As I requested of Faith, please keep the focus on the topic and on the problems you see in the arguments from the other side. Let the moderator take care of other things.
Edited by Admin, : Fix author.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 10-17-2015 4:22 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 158 of 259 (771043)
10-17-2015 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
10-17-2015 4:55 PM


Re: Misconceptions on evolution
Faith writes:
Curiously, I don't think you have thought this through.
I've read no further than this first sentence of your post, and I don't yet know if you're going to carry on in this vein, but it is disturbingly close to your earlier accusations that people just aren't thinking about your ideas deeply enough, and that you'll have nothing further to say. I want to nip this in the bud now. If that's the direction you're going, please stop now.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 10-17-2015 4:55 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2015 5:45 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 160 of 259 (771046)
10-17-2015 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by RAZD
10-17-2015 5:45 PM


Re: Cut some slack folks
You're right, they were your words, but Faith was already, as I said, beginning to go off the rails again. I think Faith could use the time away to fix her Internet and decide if she's going to try to work together toward a successful discussion.
AbE: If people want to discuss with Faith maybe her blog would be a better place.
Edited by Admin, : AbE.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2015 5:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 10-17-2015 8:32 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 163 of 259 (771050)
10-18-2015 8:54 AM


Scientists Find More Evidence for Ear Evolution
Message 1 briefly alluded to the evolution of the mammalian ear from reptiles, so it's worth mentioning here in this thread about genetic processes that scientists recently confirmed that the reptilian and mammalian ears evolved independently. A brief blurb in the July issue of Scientific American describes it like this:
quote:
Evolutionary biologists have long wondered why the eardrumthe membrane that relays sound waves to the inner earlooks in humans and other mammals remarkably like the one in reptiles and birds. Did the membrane and therefore the ability to hear in these groups evolve from a common ancestor? Or did the auditory systems evolve independently to perform the same function, a phenomenon called convergent evolution? A recent set of experiments performed at the University of Tokyo and the RIKEN Evolutionary Morphology Laboratory in Japan resolves the issue.
When the scientists genetically inhibited lower jaw development in both fetal mice and chickens, the mice formed neither eardrums nor ear canals. In contrast, the birds grew two upper jaws, from which two sets of eardrums and ear canals sprouted. The results, published in Nature Communications, confirm that the middle ear grows out of the lower jaw in mammals but emerges from the upper jaw in birdsall supporting the hypothesis that the similar anatomy evolved independently in mammals and in reptiles and birds. (Scientific American is part of Springer Nature.) Fossils of auditory bones had supported this conclusion as well, but eardrums do not fossilize and so could not be examined directly.
I did find this description somewhat confusing, as sometimes it talks about just the eardrum, sometimes also the ear canal, and other times the entire middle ear. If anybody wants to look into this and clarify a bit it would probably be appreciated.
But the main point is that it has now been confirmed genetically that the mammalian ear evolved independently from other non-ear reptile structures and not from the reptile ear itself. I wonder if they know what happened to the original reptile ears as our mammalian antecedents evolved.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2015 10:11 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2015 1:47 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 6:00 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 190 of 259 (771121)
10-20-2015 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
10-19-2015 5:13 PM


Re: Understanding Faith's argument
Hi Faith,
You cannot continue with unsupported assertions as foundations for your positions and arguments. I'm not going to suspend you this time, but these unsupported positions and arguments have been called to your attention over and over again, so because of this very long history they'll draw suspensions in the future. Calling to your attention just the first problematic assertions in this message:
Faith writes:
The processes of evolution, which are selective subtractive processes as I’ve been using the term for this purpose, in the process of producing a new subspecies, if using new high frequency alleles, results in loss of competing alleles, which is loss of genetic diversity. This occurs from every population split, but eventually it MAY lead to the state of genetic depletion beyond which further evolution is impossible. It depends on the continuation of selections or population splits. Whether that extreme is reached or not, there should be reduced genetic diversity from population to population to one degree or another.
Briefly, and supplying a couple details from things you said elsewhere, the two unsupported assertions are:
  1. Evolution is a subtractive process through selection. The opposite process, mutation, is either non-existent or too inconsequential to consider.
  2. There is no such thing as speciation, though in that particular paragraph you're just referencing this well known opinion of yours rather than stating it when you say, "The processes of evoution...in the process of producing a new subspecies..."
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 5:13 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