Summations Only

The evidence is obvious if you think about what happens in breeding. If what I'm doing is not science, then what Darwin did is not science either. What I'm doing is called giving a reasoned argument, which is one of the procedures accepted for the debate at EvC. Darwin reasoned the ToE into existence based on the same kinds of observations I'm making use of. I don't "belittle" them, I say they have nothing to do with active evolution of new phenotypes characteristic of a new subspecies, and they don't, and where they are introduced into such a population they interfere with that phenotype. My focus is on the subtractive or selective processes because that is where you see evolution in action, creating new subspecies (or breeds) while losing genetic diversity.

Those are not breeds in the sense the term used to be used. I'm assuming they are all formed by the same process but at least the American Curl is not a breed in that sense, it's a completely different concept of a breed in which you increase genetic diversity while retaining a chosen trait until the trait is firmly established, but it is established in a great range of different kinds of animals, unlike classic breeding where the entire animal is the breed. And you are quite aware of this difference so it's just a word game to distract from the point I'm making. With breeds formed as the American Curl is formed you are getting motley variations, you are not getting clearcut breeds like terriers and Great Danes and Golden Retrievers and so on, where the entire animal is the breed, which illustrates evolution whereas your examples don't, since evolution is about forming new animals, not just changing an ear type. Galapagos tortoise, many kinds of finches, Pod Mrcaru lizards, all specialized breeds of cattle, I think there are hundreds of them, same with horses, even sheep and goats as well as dogs. What I'm describing is evolution developing a whole new subspecies, a homogeneous new population. All you are describing is preserving a single trait. That is not evolution.Stop playing games. What you are describing is not how evolution works.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

and still all we have gotten from the Creationists is whining and assertions that standard theories are wrong and yet not one shred of evidence, no model, no method, no process, no procedure, no indication that there is any Science in Creationism.No wonder Young Earth, the Biblical Flood, Creationism and Intelligent Design are DOA and tossed by all but the lunatic fringe into the trash bin of history.

They're breeds in the sense that breeders use the term. You don't want to use the term because you don't think breeders should produce breeds that way, but they don't care what you think and nor does nature. They have given up on the idea of producing artificial homogeneity as being bad for the breed; and of course natural selection never "tried" to produce such homogeneity, for exactly the same reason. I said cases where we can see it happening, not cases where you can imagine it happening.(Also, do you remember the information I showed you about coat color in dogs? No, of course you don't.) 'Tis so. It's just a small amount of evolution, since it only requires the origin of one trait. BUT IT'S STILL MORE EVOLUTION THAN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, FAITH, since you only want to discuss evolution that requires the origin of no traits.

For what? It's all a matter of context. Of course, that's a common condition. But it's not where the creature is EVOLVING. It's evolving where you have reproductive isolation allowing a new phenotype or trait picture as it were to become characteristic of the isolated population. I'm ONLY talking about active evolution. That is where you must lose genetic diversity to get new subspecies or breeds. Which you don't know so why are you guessing? Either population could have a great deal more or less for a given trait than the other population. There is no way to know which population is more or less genetically diverse unless you check the DNA of all the different types, and this is totally irrelevant to what I'm arguing in any case. You are not talking about evolution but that's what I'm talking about. I'm sure I'm wrong about whatever straw man you are constructing here, whatever it is. Well, you are totally confused about something. The point is that it is only where new subspecies or breeds are developing that EVOLUTION is happening. I have no idea what "being a dog" has to do with anything I'm saying. According to the ToE it's where you are getting the changes in the creature that evolution is occurring that supposedly ultimately leads way way in the future to something that ISN'T a dog. Being a dog doesn't get you to something that isn't a dog, but according to the ToE if enough changes occur eventually you will get something that isn't a dog. (If enough changes occur in the reptilian ear eventually supposedly you'll get a mammalian ear -- which of course implies thousands of other changes from reptile to mammal in the process. Likewise if enough changes occur in the pre-hominid creature you'll eventually get a hominid.) However, the changes that occur require the loss of genetic diversity, which means that you'll NEVER get something that isn't a dog no matter how dramatic new species or subspecies of dog you can get. As I've said myself a million times. Good grief. AND EVERY RACE WILL HAVE ITS OWN trait picture and reduced genetic diversity by comparison with the whole human population. Not drastically reduced in most cases but reduced. And that's MICROevolution of course, you'll never get anything that isn't a human being, just endless races or variations on human beings. But most illustrative of my argument, where you have populations built up from a small number of individuals that are reproductively isolated from other populations of human beings, which I believe was the case on Iceland, then you'll get a definite racial type with drastically reduced genetic diversity. The Amish are another example of this effect. Loss of genetic diversity is what has to happen in reproductively isolated populations. Yes, but you are insisting on talking about everything BUT the processes of evolution that ARE evolution, which are the subtractive processes that require reduced genetic diversity. You seem to want to talk about everything that happens in nature EXCEPT evolution. But I'm talking about how evolution defeats itself, so naturally I'm talking about evolution itself, not all the other stuff that isn't evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you are saying is something akin to noting that oxygen powers fire while ignoring the requirement for fuel to burn. You are completely misconstruing and as a result misrepresenting Darwin's work, which in any event is not the be all and end all of the theory of evolution anyway.I suggest a re-read of On the Origin of Species. I don't believe it is possible to perform any kind of serious reading of the work and to still come up with the description you have provided. But perhaps from your expressed understanding we might perceive the roots of what I see as the error in your thinking. It seems that you believe Darwin expressed exactly the same role for selection that you express in your proposition. Unfortunately you are wrong about Darwin, and clearly so. If I were to sum up Darwin's work briefly I might offer 'natural selection operating on variation in a competitive environment produces diversity.'The beginning (first two chapters) of On the Origin of Species is dedicated to Darwin's speculation about the source of variability first in domestic animals and then in nature. His speculation fails to come up with the source of variation. Darwin did not have available to him a science of genetics and could not come up with the term mutation. Accordingly during his speculation about the source of variation, he attributed the variation to environmental factors, diet, and other natural forces.In chapter 3, Darwin talks about competition in nature.Darwin begins talking about selection in the fourth chapter of his work. But even in that chapter we can find the following:

quote:

---

Such considerations as these incline me to lay very little weight on the direct action of the conditions of life. Indirectly, as already remarked, they seem to play an important part in affecting the reproductive system, and in thus inducing variability ; and natural selection will then accumulate all profitable variations, however slight, until they become plainly developed and appreciable by us.

---

The paragraph above properly accurately balances Darwin's view on the roles of selection and variations. It also shows us that Darwin understands very little regarding the source of that variation.About breeding: Never? That's a pretty strong statement. You understand that a single counter example is enough to prove you wrong.Regarding Golden Retrievers.

quote:

---

The origin of the Golden Retriever, in contrast, lies in the careful work of one man, Sir Dudley Marjoribanks (later the first Lord Tweedmouth) who also set out to breed a good hunting dog. A colorful folk tale has him buying Russian circus dogs, reportedly 100+ lbs., 30 inches at the shoulder, pale blonde and extremely intelligent as the foundation for his breed. This fanciful story even appears in the GRCA's Yearbook as late as 1950. However, examination of his Stud Book, covering the years from 1835 to 1890 and finally made publicly available in 1952, records no such purchase but instead details a careful line-breeding program unusual at that time and place for dogs.

​

In 1865, Lord Tweedmouth purchased a yellow retriever "Nous" from an unregistered litter of otherwise black Wavy-Coated Retrievers. Nous was later bred with "Belle", a Tweed Water Spaniel, and the resulting litter produced four bitches that were instrumental to his breeding program. One of them, "Cowslip," he bred back to for over twenty years. Over the years, several outcrosses, to black Wavy Coated Retrievers, an Irish Setter, and later a sandy-colored Bloodhound occurred as he sought to improve and fix his new breed. The coat textures of the Goldens of this time reportedly varied, as did the color, which ranged from fox red to light cream.

---

Total nonsense. That is your personal definition of evolution, but it is not a definition that exists from the TOE. Evolution is the variation of the frequency of traits in a population from generation to generation. Speciation is one possible result of evolution but it is not the only one.

Oh nonsense yourself. It describes exactly what evolution is, according to the ToE, whether I'm exactly aping official definitions or not. Actually it is when you get down to what evolution really is, what natural selection really is. But if you want to say it's only one way, then it's the main way the frequency of traits varies that leads to recognizable new subspecies. And you have to get recognizable new subspecies or you don't have evolution, and all the ways this comes about require the reduction of genetic diversity because some traits are being spread in the population to the exclusion of others, and that leads to fewer and fewer possibilities for further evolution until finally there is an end to evolutionary processes altogether in whatever line of evolution is occurring. It may or may not end in what is officially defined as Speciation but it always leads toward genetic depletion in any case. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seriously. Is repeating your denial all you've got? I've demonstrated by citing Darwin's work exactly what his theory was. You need to do better than simply saying, "Is too!" and repeating your own assertions.But you cannot do any better, can you?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

To avoid a semantic argument, OK. But what you forget is that between where the creature is evolving is a period of time where the creature is VARYING and this is where you gain genetic diversity before getting a new subspecies or breeds. Well no, that's the very definition of the nested hierarchy. A dog will always be a dog in evolution. If a dog ever gives birth to something that is not a dog - evolution has no explanation for this phenomena.Here is a story according to evolution, simplified for space and ease. There were some creatures, and these creatures split into varying species. One of these species was the Animal. The Animal species grew and grew, increasing in genetic diversity until it too split into varying species. One of the species had tissues and a novel cell type called the neuron. They were called the After-animals. They were still animals, just a split off from the main group animals. Again this groups grew and increased in genetic diversity before splitting into further groups. One of these groups were called Ropers. Ropers were still After-animals and they were still animals. But they had a trait many or all of the others lacked, a rope of nerves and other tissue running down its back. The process repeats and one of the new species, the Lambcauls. Again they are still ropers, after-animals and animals, but they are specific subgroup called lambcauls. They started developing special membranes to protect their offspring. Skipping this process forward a bit more groups form, one of those groups are called the Lizard-faces and Beast-Faces. As their name implies, their differences lay in their skull structure. Beast-Faces and Lizard-Faces are different but they are both lambcauls, ropers, after-animals and animals. The Beast-Faces split into groups, some went on to become Boobers (who were hairy and developed breast tissue), while the Lizard-Faces went into groups such as the River-Lizards and Terror-Lizards. The Boobers who were still part of the Animal family tree and can never leave it and were also lambcauls and ropers too for that matter, went on to lots of different groups, but we're interested in the fun ones. The Flesh-eating Boobers. Still boobers, still ropers, still lambcauls, but these ones were specialised at killing eating lizard-faces and other boobers. Many more groups form, one group were the Wolves. Wolves are flesh eating boobers, lambcauls, ropers, boobers, after-animals and animals. But they are also wolves, a close 'family' within all of the above 'families'. And a subgroup off the wolves is called the dogs.To date there are no subgroups off from dogs barring the specific breeds, but genetic transfer can make its way around so we're at dogs. Dogs are wolves, flesh-eating boobers, lambcauls, ropers and animals. All of their descendants will be dogs, wolves.... etc. It's a giant family tree and your children will always be part of your biological family, just as you will always be part of your ancestor's family.Eumetazoa = after-animal
Chordates = Ropers
Amniotes = Lambcauls
Sauropsida = Lizard-faces
Synapsida = Beast-faces
Crocodiles = River-Lizards
Dinosaur = Terror-Lizards
Mammal = Boober
Flesh-Eating Boober = Carnivora

quote:

---

descent with modification
--Darwin

---

You ARE insisting on ignoring the modification part of Darwin's theory.

quote:

---

NATURAL Selection is not Evolution.
--RA Fisher

---

Who is this Fisher guy and why should you care? Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS[2] (17 February 1890 — 29 July 1962), who published as R. A. Fisher, was an English statistician, and biologist, who used mathematics to combine Mendelian genetics and natural selection, helping to create a new Darwinist synthesis of evolution known as modern evolutionary synthesis, as well as a prominent eugenicist in the early part of his life. - Ronald Fisher - Wikipedia

quote:

---

It has often been remarked, and truly,
that without mutation evolutionary progress, whatever direction it
may take, will ultimately come to a standstill for lack of further
possible improvements.
--RA Fisher

---

Hrm, that's what you are saying, only you aren't not saying 'without mutation' part at the beginning. For some reason.

quote:

---

If therefore the effect of the factor
is so small that it will contribute at most one part in 100,000 to the
total variance, a mutation rate of the order of one in a million might
well effect its gradual establishment. Such would be the situation of
factors affecting human stature by about one -fortieth of an inch.
--RA Fisher

---

quote:

---

The range of selective advantage
which may be regarded as effectively neutral is, however, extremely
minute, being inversely proportional to the population of the species.
Since it is scarcely credible that such a perfect equipoise of selective
advantage could be maintained during the course of evolutionary
change, random survival, while the dominant consideration in respect
to the survival of individual genes, is of merely academic interest in
respect to the variance maintained in the species, which must be
mainly supplied by definitely advantageous mutations.
--RA Fisher

---

Are you sure you are talking about evolution?

I just want to answer this for now. Of course you may get scattered new phenotypes in a population by migration or mutation etc., but again, GAINING genetic diversity contributes nothing to the active evolution I am talking about. To get a new subspecies still requires selecting from that genetic diversity, losing more or all of it. This may come about by random population split or direct selection or anything that brings about an isolated subpopulation, which brings about new gene frequencies from which the new phenotypes are expressed in the new population, which eventually come to characterize that population.I know it's hard to accept but increases in genetic diversity do absolutely nothing to further evolution as such, you still need to isolate or select from that diversity to get the new characteristics of a new population, which is what we all think of as evolution although you all are at some pains to try to deny it here. It's CHANGE that is considered to be evolution, change that becomes characteristic of a whole new population, subspecies, breed etc. Random scattered changes within a population are not evolution, they have to be selected from, isolated, worked through to the point of characterizing a new population. And that process reduces genetic diversity OF NECESSITY, which eventually makes further evolution impossible.

You mean to tell me that when my whole argument was from the design argument, you couldn't figure out i was doing abductive reasoning.My further point was that you were menacing words to confuse these so Suttle distinctions. They don't matter they are a smoke screen in this proposition. Deduction, inductive and abductive. These have a small application in semantics but they don't affect the overall point of what involves an investigation Well of course, all of these things matter, connection to reality, chain of causation and types of reasoning, if we don't play the word game. If we let reality define words, if we don't put special rules on our investigation, if we don't dismiss actual evidence that is evidence, because we decided to call it Ontology and say Ontology, doesn't come under the heading of science since it doesn't follow our made up rules, so it doesn't matterI keep giving the example of chain of causality from the brain to consciousness, because it points up a truth and how evidence is established.All the elements are there, the brain, it's functions, mechanisms and consciousness. But if you can't show the chain of causality, are you now NOT doing science?Well of course you are, it's just a different aspect of science or investigation.It would be better to say what makes design, design and how can I identify it. Well the same way i can identify purpose or consciousnessSimply because my "science" is simple doesn't mean it's not evidence, the same way, much in the same way I would establish any other obvious truth, like those I've mentioned above.You ask, "what makes something science and only science"? Well, reality is what makes science science. How involved it is, will be determined by what you are doing. Not much "science", is necessary to know some Truths, unless we invent wayso to exclude obvious things, then say it is not science Both, any investigation into the natural world is science, yours mine or thiers. The distinction between Astrology and ID, is one of degree and how my investigation can conform to reality.No I am not saying to be science it must only involve the search for the how and why of things. But that distinction is what makes it Cleary distinguishable from Astrology. That's not thier goal or purpose. Thier looking for direction from inanimate objects, not gods. Oh, so by Human Affairs, you mean the intricate design we find in the human brain or eye or the intricate design in nature over all, and the corroborating evidence that supports specific revelation, in the scriptures, correct? OK, well, if Astrology can tout that kind of science, I'd say that's science.. but its not even close. But I doubt this is what you or they mean by Human Affairs. But at bare minimum it's Evidence of the process, even if the conclusion can't be proved. Much like the process and conclusion of evolution, correct Perhaps you could inform me how this would affect my propositionThe proposition is not whether I can prove my conclusion absolutely, the proposition is, does it qualify as science in its process, the answer is simply yes. It could not be otherwise, reality won't allow itNow if Astrology can tout other evidence for its conclusion, the way creation can in the form of the scriptures, we might take another look at its process and conclusion. Since it cannot, there's no reason to give it serious consideration.But to keep things in perspective, design and purpose are as easy to recognize as consciousness, existence and other obvious truths. The process by which we recognize these truths need not be complicated and indeed they are not.But these things clearly and obviously exist, dont they? So science, if you wish to call it that, can involve nothing more that simple observations.So my first proposition in this thread is established, without any real effort. Now if you would like to test our conclusion against what evolutions Conclusion posits, verses what the Bible' conclusion posits, concerning creation, as evidence and truth, that would be another topic and another discussion, which I am happy to engage.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It was comments such as

quote:

---

We deduce evidence of a creator from intricate design in nature

---

quote:

---

Now my deduction is one of indirect evidence

---

quote:

---

Now, we use the very same method to deduce a designer
It's a valid investigation and science by any NORMAL use of the word
That is the heart of my argument

---

quote:

---

I've seen nothing yet that eliminates the deduction of design

---

and most importantly: But OK, you are using abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is, on its own, 'guessing'. If you want to tell me you are using guesswork as part of your process I will believe you. But since you admit that you have no way of testing your guesses, we can't trust them. Good.Then show the chain of causation from the designer to the realization of the design. EG., from an Intelligent Designer through to the finished product, say, the eye. I need a definition that distinguishes science uniquely so as to include all the things you want to call science whilst excluding all the things you want to exclude. So tell me what that definition is. You can't, because it doesn't exist. No, I mean who I fall in love with, how much money I will make in the markets this week, who will win the election, which side will win the war? When should a person start a religious ceremony. That kind of affair. The kind that humans have. Because the only way you can say that what you are doing is science is by saying that the Laws of Motion are not science. And that's clearly absurd. It can. As you produce your evidence I will produce evidence for Astrology. So far I have observer Human Affairs, and inferred something must cause them. That's what you have done in the field of biology. Yes, fine. But none of your observations have supported that life is Intelligent Design the existence of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer, you have provided any causal link from the Creator to the Created, so you've done nothing but look at something. I don't see why it's of any interest. All you have supported is design and some kind of thing that explains the design, this is nothing to do with what most people would call 'Creationism'. The problem is....it doesn't mean anything to anybody. The only meaning it has to anybody is to someone that thinks wordgames are useful. This is your 'science'I observe 'p'
I expect there is an explanation, 'q'That's all you've done. I observe there are purposes and goals in nature and there must be a reason. That's it. If that is science, it isn't creationism. You failed, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

I know it's hard to accept but increases in genetic diversity do absolutely nothing to further evolution as such

---

It is hard to accept because it is obviously false. It's simply what you want to believe.

quote:

---

To get a new subspecies still requires selecting from that genetic diversity, losing more or all of it.

---

Losing some of it, which will be replaced in future generations - if the lineage continues, as many do not. You have neither evidence nor reason on your side here.Why should it not be a shifting dynamic equilibrium - as reason tells us to expect - rather than a continuous decline

quote:

---

It's CHANGE that is considered to be evolution, change that becomes characteristic of a whole new population, subspecies, breed etc

---

Commonly, since population genetics came to the core it is "change in allele frequencies". The appearance of a new allele and its spread into the population is such a change.

quote:

---

Random scattered changes within a population are not evolution, they have to be selected from, isolated, worked through to the point of characterizing a new population. And that process reduces genetic diversity OF NECESSITY, which eventually makes further evolution impossible.

---

"Random scattered changes" are a part of evolution and permit it to continue onwards. There is no need anywhere in your argument for a continuous decline in diversity. Why should there not be a cycle of increase and decrease ? Fluctuations about a mean, rather than decline ?

No I was intimating that you are using these terms, to confuse and distinguish science with investigation, trying to make a distinction, that does not exist.You still need to demonstrate by reality, not by words, that science is nothing more than an investigation. Since you have already conceded this, it would follow that I don't need to demonstrate better science for it to be science, abductive reasoning not withstanding Not necessary here,since all I need to do is show that my procees in Creationism is science, since I have done that by any definition of the word, I've established my proposition.Unless your prepared to show how deduction is not science.The chain of causality is by deduction and indirect evidence, the same way i know consciousness exists I have no inclusions or exclusions. I don't decide what science is or is not, reality does, not you. Asking for an explanation outside what reality allows is nonsense.How's that for something that doesn't exist What a person want or imagines he needs, is not the same as the reality that can be witnessed in intricate design in the human eye or brain. One is real the other are imagination. Process to process. The laws or motion are what they are, they have nothing to do with someone's imagination of what they might be doing for,them. Hardly comparable to design Pay close attention Modulous, my "observations" are not what support Intelligent Design, the design in realty,which would exist even if I didn't observe them are what support design. They are realityWhat most people would call creationism, is not what demonstrates creationism. Thier perceptions are not reality. Principles that exist in reality, ie, existence and in this instance design, exist independent of our ability to observe it. It's just nice that we can. There are no word games, there is only reality,you are ignoring it and how it establishes what you Call science. If you want IT to MEAN SOMETHING TO YOU, then pay attention to realityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.