Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 76 of 1311 (807771)
05-05-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Davidjay
05-05-2017 11:26 AM


On open mindedness
Consequently evolutionists are not open minded.
And we are to take advice and criticisms from creationists? What a joke!
You want a closed mind just talk to a creationist who believes the bible is word for word TRVTH. They will twist, manipulate, ignore, or deny any evidence that shows their beliefs are wrong.
And then they have the gall to lecture scientists about being open minded.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
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.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Davidjay, posted 05-05-2017 11:26 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 77 of 1311 (807774)
05-05-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
05-05-2017 10:24 AM


Re: The Definitional word games come from the ToE, not the creationists
When Darwin extended the principles of variation beyond the species a new name was needed for what was already understood to be normal intraspecies variation, or descent with modification confined to the species, so it was the ToE that forced the redefinition to "microevolution" to keep the distinction clear.
Here you argue that variation was confined to species, and in your addendum you argue that the immutability of species was a "wrong idea."
Faith writes:
It is also true that there were some very wrong "creationist" ideas that Darwin did in fact deal with effectively. ... another was the immutability of species,
This is exactly the type of word play I am talking about. Which is it? Is Felidae all one species or does the family consist of numerous species?
If it is all one species, then you are manipulating the definition of "species" that was recognized prior to Darwin by taxonomists like Linnaeus.
If it is multiple species, then you are manipulating the definition of "macroevolution" that was coined by an evolutionary biologist, not creationists.
And that's all you're doing here. You're insisting on a definition that has nothing to do with the reality of the actual genetic situation which is INTRASPECIES variation, or microevolution.
So Felidae IS all one species. OK then, it is you who are insisting on a definition that has nothing to do with reality.
The point is, Faith. Instead of arguing definitions (which you have demonstrated my point that 90% of discussions with creationists focus on definitions) argue mechanisms. Argue processes. So what if Felidae is an example of macroevolution, what you are concerned about is that it does not connect or share an evolutionary history with any other family. Can you demonstrate that without resorting to definitional manipulation?
Sure you have proposed some ideas about genetic variation and how speciation occurs, but they are not very convincing to those of us who have actually studied genetics and biological variation. Of course, you can fall back to the accusation that I am deceived and that I am a false Christian and the myriad of other accusations that negate my experience, but ultimately I have to put biological principals to the test and use them to solve problems. You don't. You just get to sit there and accuse and speculate.
Have you come up with a research approach to the problem I presented? No. You only accuse me of doing something deceitful and manipulative. But those are the kinds of problems I have to work at solving, they are real biological issues with real world applications.
I challenge you to come up with a viable solution using only creationist principals and not employing principals that were derived from evolutionary biology research.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 12:34 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 1311 (807775)
05-05-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by herebedragons
05-05-2017 9:48 AM


quibble
... While Darwin was generally correct in his theory, and he deserves recognition as the grandfather of evolutionary theory, ...
One of the grandfathers.
Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography: Wallace came to the same basic conclusions at virtually the same time and if not for Huxley urging Darwin to publish we would be seeing his name instead of Darwin in creationist posts, and they would call it Wallacism.
Science builds on science, and ideas accumulate and then some one -- or as has happened many times -- many people come to a new concept that provides the explanatory structure. What this shows is that science does not depend on any one individual, as someone else will unravel the reality that the evidence reveals.
In The Law of Sarawak Wallace laid out the constraints on new species to the temporo-spacial matrix, in 1855.
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 68 by herebedragons, posted 05-05-2017 9:48 AM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 79 of 1311 (807778)
05-05-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by herebedragons
05-05-2017 9:48 AM


Unraveling the knot
Another example is including universal common descent in the definition of evolution.
I avoid that but it's perfectly understandable after all.
Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection (or descent with modification). It is the process by which different organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Unfortunately defining it doesn't help. Up to a point it works for intraspecies variation or evolution but you obviously don't mean to restrict it to that. You are implying interspecies evolution. Without that implication a YEC wouldn't object. (I said this before I thought it through and correct it below)
NOTE: the word "process" in that second part of the definition! Evolution or the ToE is the process of diversification not the diversification itself.
Somehow I'm failing to grasp your point here.
So let's accept that the entire family Felidae descended from a common ancestor. What was the process by which that happened? Evolution. Evolution is the process that scientists study and understand fairly well (there is still a lot yet to learn) and think it explains the diversification of the Felidae. So it is inconsequential to the theory or to the definition of evolution if Felidae and Canidae are related by common ancestry or not (maybe both "kinds" began through an act of special creation). Either way, the theory is supposed to explain the diversification of those groups.
This defines microevolution just fine, as long as you are leaving out that part about Felidae and Canidae being possibly related, which apparently you are at this point. There is no problem DEFINING the diversification of a particular species this way, although when it comes to explaining how it comes about we may run into some problems, such as what you say above: " change in heritable traits of biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection (or descent with modification). "
Cuz I think this is already a BIG problem and doesn't even really describe microevolution accurately.
Mutations weren't known in Darwin's day, but that didn't prevent him from talking about "change in heritable traits" because that was observable in his day too. His experiments with breeding pigeons took him to some rather dramatic changes just by careful selection of mating pairs. But when he left them to their own devices they eventually reverted to the original pigeon type. His idea that selection could have eventually produced something that wasn't a pigeon was pure fantasy. But I digress: Mutation is now assumed to be the basis for these heritable changes but there is no reason for that assumption if you understand that each gene can vary in four different ways, and that there may be many genes for a single trait. You don't need mutations and since everything that is actually known about mutations suggests they only rarely ever do anything beneficial it is a tremendous leap in illogic to make them the cause of it all.
So remove the mutations and you get "change in heritable traits of biological populations over time due to mutation built-in allelic differences and natural selection (or descent with modification)" the definition would be getting closer to the genetic truth. The "over time" part isn't really necessary either since the heritable changes occur from generation to generation. And natural selection isn't the only way these heritable changes can form a new population or subspecies: all it really takes is the reproductive isolation of a "selected" portion of a population, which could be by natural selection or random selection it doesn't matter; could be drift, could be migration and geographic isolation it doesn't matter. It's the change in gene frequencies brought about by the new collection of individuals that leads to the phenotypic changes.
So even the definition isn't true to the reality of what happens genetically.
Now, what we need to recognize is that if a pair of felines did survive on the ark and founded the current population of Felidae a mere 4,400 years ago, that would be, for the most part, incompatible with the ToE.
Some of it anyway.
An alternate model for diversification would need to be put forward. The closest answer to that I have seen is the idea that all the diversity was "built in" to the original pair. But I don't see that model as being compatible with the data and at this point, it is pretty much unworkable.
Too bad because it IS the model for how heritable changes come about within species. I doubt it's the "data" that is the problem. Rather it's the definition that is the problem.
Darwin contributed nothing to biology that could be considered useful... who rejects Darwinism outright.
This obsession with Darwin is a creationist phenomenon, not an evolutionary religious tradition. Darwin is mentioned on the first day of Evolutionary Biology courses for about 5 minutes and then the discussion moves on to other historical figures. While Darwin was generally correct in his theory, and he deserves recognition as the grandfather of evolutionary theory, we pretty much don't study Darwinian evolution any more, we have moved way beyond the topics that Darwin discussed. Darwin is not the "evolutionist's patron saint," it is creationists that are obsessed with Darwin.
But it is Darwin who started the whole miserable mess by positing that heritable changes are not confined to the species but that natural selection could proceed indefinitely making all kinds of changes. He'd seen dramatic changes with his pigeons through his extreme selection and isolation of traits and made the utterly unwarranted leap to the ToE, the idea that all change is open-ended.
Personally, I accept that life was "intelligently designed" and I accept and believe that the God of the Bible is the Creator of all seen and unseen. Yet I believe that evolution is the process that God used to create. I would say, form a personal position, that God "causes" a flower to grow and bloom, and yet that is not the process he uses to do so. The process by which flowers develop and bloom can be explored and understood. This does not diminish my belief that God is the ultimate "cause" but my belief that God is the "cause" does not create a roadblock to my scientific curiosity and investigation. They are two separate but yet also inseparable things, if that makes sense...
ID and creation science do not offer any alternative to evolutionary theory, they only try to pick apart the theory and assume their premise (intelligent design or special creation) is true by default if evolution is false. In my mind, all they do is create a false dichotomy that does nothing to promote understand in biology.
The problem in reality is that the ToE has co-opted all the actual processes and definitions of biological variation/evolution to its own ends and made it just about impossible to separate out the truth from the elaborate fiction Darwin invented -- yes Darwin invented it though his fantasy has been perpetuated by others. You blame the problems on the IDers and creationists, who are in fact struggling to extricate the truth from the big fat lie of the ToE in which it has been submerged.
In my mind, all they do is create a false dichotomy that does nothing to promote understand in biology. Science is the study of natural processes, such as flower development and evolutionary development. Creationist's and IDist's rhetoric places road blocks to understanding those processes.
Not so. It's the ToE that has created the road blocks. Without all that weight of twisted fantasy the study of natural processes would be a lot easier.
It's quite OK to object to particular aspects, such as universal common descent and non-teleological origins, but changing and manipulating the definitions doesn't help your case at all.
Sad but true. Once a false paradigm has a death grip on a subject forget finding any convincing way to demonstrate the actual truth of the matter. The definitions are wrong, they have to be changed, but oh does the Evo howl and bash us when we try.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by herebedragons, posted 05-05-2017 9:48 AM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 80 of 1311 (807784)
05-05-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by herebedragons
05-05-2017 11:46 AM


Re: The Definitional word games come from the ToE, not the creationists
When Darwin extended the principles of variation beyond the species a new name was needed for what was already understood to be normal intraspecies variation, or descent with modification confined to the species, so it was the ToE that forced the redefinition to "microevolution" to keep the distinction clear.
Here you argue that variation was confined to species, and in your addendum you argue that the immutability of species was a "wrong idea."
Apparently I misunderstand that term, if it allows for intraspecies changes, which of course it should. I thought it was being used to suggest no change at all occurred or even that variations and races were confused with species. I see that it couldn't have assumed absolute immutability in any case. So my mistake. Too bad to contribute to the confusion here, it's bad enough without my help.,
Faith writes:
It is also true that there were some very wrong "creationist" ideas that Darwin did in fact deal with effectively. ... another was the immutability of species,
This is exactly the type of word play I am talking about. Which is it? Is Felidae all one species or does the family consist of numerous species?
Tried to correct that above.l Sorry, my mistake, not being familiar enough with the term "immutability of species." Apparently I agree with it as properly understood.
If it is all one species, then you are manipulating the definition of "species" that was recognized prior to Darwin by taxonomists like Linnaeus.
Just a mistake, not understanding how the term immutability was used. Felidae are all one species.
If it is multiple species, then you are manipulating the definition of "macroevolution" that was coined by an evolutionary biologist, not creationists.
All one species. Just another definitional headache for me. I would never call a species "immutable" because of INTRAspecies variation, but apparently that is not how the term is used.
And that's all you're doing here. You're insisting on a definition that has nothing to do with the reality of the actual genetic situation which is INTRASPECIES variation, or microevolution.
So Felidae IS all one species. OK then, it is you who are insisting on a definition that has nothing to do with reality.
The point is, Faith. Instead of arguing definitions (which you have demonstrated my point that 90% of discussions with creationists focus on definitions) argue mechanisms. Argue processes. So what if Felidae is an example of macroevolution, what you are concerned about is that it does not connect or share an evolutionary history with any other family. Can you demonstrate that without resorting to definitional manipulation?
It wasn't a manipulation, it was a misunderstanding of the term.
Sure you have proposed some ideas about genetic variation and how speciation occurs, but they are not very convincing to those of us who have actually studied genetics and biological variation.
I think this is probably more a problem with the definitions than with the data, processes etc.
Of course, you can fall back to the accusation that I am deceived and that I am a false Christian and the myriad of other accusations that negate my experience, but ultimately I have to put biological principals to the test and use them to solve problems. You don't. You just get to sit there and accuse and speculate.
Lucky me.
Have you come up with a research approach to the problem I presented?
What problem is that?
No. You only accuse me of doing something deceitful and manipulative.
Probably has to do with context, but I would guess that the accusations are a lot thicker flying in my direction than yours. Not necessarily from you, but it is particularly hard to be criticized by a fellow Christian.
But those are the kinds of problems I have to work at solving, they are real biological issues with real world applications.
I don't know what you are talking about. I recall a somewhat recent exchange in which I thought it was you who dropped the ball, but I don't even remember what it was about.
I challenge you to come up with a viable solution using only creationist principals and not employing principals that were derived from evolutionary biology research.
I don't think you know what you are asking. The principles are so muddled together where would I begin?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by herebedragons, posted 05-05-2017 11:46 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 81 of 1311 (807838)
05-06-2017 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
05-05-2017 2:07 AM


Tangle writes:
ToE is very obviously very useful - it's one of the most important discoveries mankind has ever made about the natural world.
Poor Tangle, you keep throwing up this line, but it's simply a mindless regurgitation of something you learn in atheist Sunday school. You have obviously never stopped to consider it's validity - probably because you are afraid to. Is it often quite difficult for members of a cult to see past the fog of conditioning that they live in. Coming out in the light of reality can be a scary process; I understand that. But you need to first realise that Darwinism is a cult. It hides itself under the cloak of science, but it is a full-blown cult nevertheless.
Try this exercise (which I would recommend to every member of the cult of Darwinism) - write out 30 times every day, "Mr. Charles Darwin is really Mr. Useless", and then, "Evolution = biology + the atheist cult of Darwinism" 30 times, and then, "Evolution is not a fact" 30 times.
And instead of reading atheist bedtime stories about whales evolving from deers and such like, try reading about something more in tune with the real world - Alice in Wonderland, for example. Start out with little simple things like this and slowly add more to the regime. Eventually your resistance to Darwinist conditioning will reach the point where you are not longer psychologically addicted to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2017 2:07 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2017 9:35 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 05-06-2017 9:36 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 82 of 1311 (807839)
05-06-2017 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by CRR
05-04-2017 7:48 PM


This is an excellent post, CRR! I must try and find out more about these blokes, Witham, Moroz and Pigliucci. However, I suspect Pigliucci's reference to "evolutionary theory" helping understand "developmental and molecular systems" is being a bit overly generous to the influence of Darwinism. It probably has nothing to do with living organisms, for starters.
-----------------------------
I wonder why Darwinists haven't cited the evolution of the car as a practical application of the theory of Common Descent yet. lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by CRR, posted 05-04-2017 7:48 PM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 05-06-2017 2:43 AM Dredge has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 83 of 1311 (807844)
05-06-2017 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dredge
05-06-2017 1:44 AM


2 - 0. Own goals.
Dredge writes:
This is an excellent post, CRR! I must try and find out more about these blokes, Witham, Moroz and Pigliucci.
Actually, an own goal. The Moroz article completely disagrees with you. Pigliucci would disagree, as you've spotted, and the link to the other guy, a journalist FFS!!!!, doesn't work
Dredge writes:
I suspect Pigliucci's reference to "evolutionary theory" helping understand "developmental and molecular systems" is being a bit overly generous to the influence of Darwinism.
An opinion, like your claim on another thread that genetics doesn't explain increases in information, that certainly wasn't formed based on any knowledge of biology, was it?
Dredge writes:
I wonder why Darwinists haven't cited the evolution of the car as a practical application of the theory of Common Descent yet. lol
Another own goal, in a way, because Darwin's theory is certainly useful in engineering. Variation and selection has found optimum results for aeroplane bodies and antennae.*
*Click pic. to enlarge.
Evolved antenna - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2017 1:44 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 6:51 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 143 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2017 1:41 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 84 of 1311 (807848)
05-06-2017 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
05-05-2017 10:24 AM


Faith, re #70, 71
It is also true that there were some very wrong "creationist" ideas that Darwin did in fact deal with effectively. [One] was the immutability of species
In Origin of Species Darwin argued strongly against the fixity of species but that was already something of a straw man. Linnaeus for example originally believed in fixity of species but later in life rejected that hypothesis. It was already a dying concept in Charles Darwin's day.
But there are problems with the definition of Species. The biological species concept does not match the conventional Linnaean classification. We get, both in the wild and in captivity, examples of cross species hybrids and also cross genera hybrids. Hence we get the situation in the cat family where we can get a chain of hybrids linking tabby to tiger. So perhaps this is an example of a ring species where although there is a chain of hybrids the extreme ends, tabby and tiger, can not interbreed. This would mean that all the cats could be one species within one definition of species but divided into different genera and species using another definition.
So Darwin was probably correct regarding the origin of species within the kind but wrong about extending that to common ancestry from one or a few original ancestors.
I also reject mutation as contributing anything beneficial ...
I disagree with you there. Whether something is beneficial or not depends on the environment. Take human adult lactose tolerance as an example. All mammals normally produce lactase as infants so they can digest their mother's milk but this normally ceases after they are weaned. A mutation allows lactase production to continue into adulthood and where milk is available from cows or other sources for adults to consume this becomes beneficial. However it is still something broken within the original system rather than the production of new genetic information. Similar situations cover most (possibly all) examples of antibiotic resistance.
While the mutations can have a net benefit in some situations it usually has some detriment as well. Antibiotic resistant bacteria gradually lose resistance if the antibiotic is discontinued. An example is sickle cell trait. This is definitely detrimental but where malaria is prevalent can give a net beneficial result. Roughly, the benefit for the population is directly proportional to the frequency of the sickle cell allele but the detriment is proportional to the square of the frequency. At low frequencies the benefit outweighs the detriment but at higher frequencies the detriment outweighs the benefit, so even in areas with a very high incidence of malaria the frequency doesn't get above 20%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by bluegenes, posted 05-06-2017 4:51 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-06-2017 6:37 AM CRR has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 85 of 1311 (807850)
05-06-2017 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by CRR
05-06-2017 4:17 AM


CRR writes:
So Darwin was probably correct regarding the origin of species within the kind but wrong about extending that to common ancestry from one or a few original ancestors.
What's the mechanism that limits change? How many new alleles can reach fixation in a population before this kicks in?
When did the cats start to diverge from a common ancestor? Why can't you get a cat and a linsang from a common ancestor?
Asiatic linsang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 4:17 AM CRR has not replied

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


Message 86 of 1311 (807851)
05-06-2017 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by CRR
05-06-2017 4:17 AM


is a creationist model possible
Hello CRR, thanks for your post. You are much more up on the technical side of all these questions than I am, and the definitions too. I'm still not clear what immutability of species means, or fixity if that's the same thing. I'm sorry I got into that with HBD. I did want to say that I'd had the impression from reading the Origin of Species that there were some ideas in Darwin's day that did need correction. There was the idea for instance that a particular animal on an isolated island had been specially created by God to be there, which contradicts the Biblical account of God's finishing all Creation within the first six days. The point of all this being that theory in Darwin's day wasn't something we'd want to go back to. But since I goofed up the terminology I'd like to drop the whole thing for now.
About mutations, yes we disagree about that.
I also reject mutation as contributing anything beneficial ...
I disagree with you there. Whether something is beneficial or not depends on the environment.
Yes, in some cases, as you go on to discuss, but the point overall is that mutations are not a normal process of variation, they're mistakes that in most circumstances don't change the function of the gene, sometimes change it to a disease process, and occasionally change it in a way that allows for the beneficial effects you go on to discuss, which are usually some kind of trade-off, sickle cell being the clearest example of that.
Take human adult lactose tolerance as an example. All mammals normally produce lactase as infants so they can digest their mother's milk but this normally ceases after they are weaned. A mutation allows lactase production to continue into adulthood and where milk is available from cows or other sources for adults to consume this becomes beneficial. However it is still something broken within the original system rather than the production of new genetic information. Similar situations cover most (possibly all) examples of antibiotic resistance.
While the mutations can have a net benefit in some situations it usually has some detriment as well. Antibiotic resistant bacteria gradually lose resistance if the antibiotic is discontinued. An example is sickle cell trait. This is definitely detrimental but where malaria is prevalent can give a net beneficial result. Roughly, the benefit for the population is directly proportional to the frequency of the sickle cell allele but the detriment is proportional to the square of the frequency. At low frequencies the benefit outweighs the detriment but at higher frequencies the detriment outweighs the benefit, so even in areas with a very high incidence of malaria the frequency doesn't get above 20%.
About lactose tolerance, it's hard for me to see the normal development as weaning us off milk, because so many cultures are very big on milk products, particularly cheese of all sorts, yogurt, etc. etc. etc. I'd be more likely to see the normal function as favoring milk and the loss of tolerance as the disease process. But this is more of a side point and not really much about biology anyway.
However, I don't think any of those considerations speak to the main point I have in mind in rejecting mutations, which is that they are not part of the process of producing viable alleles, even if occasionally it seems to be the case. Mutation seems to me to be a mistake, a disease process.
I don't know where you stand on biblical issues but to my mind mutation is one of the disease processes we inherit from the Fall, which introduced death in every form to all living things. Some accept evolution for animals but not humans, so attribute death to animals before the Fall. I find this indefensible myself, but just want to note that I'm aware there are different ways of putting these things together.
So mutation isn't normal, overall it's part of genetic deterioration. As I think of it, all normal variation is built into the genome of each Kind. Yes the terminology can get very difficult, because the word "Species" is just the Latin form of the English word "Kind" and basically we end up with a hierarchy of kinds or species and can easily get lost among them. But let me continue trying to clue you in to what you may think is a somewhat idiosyncratic system of thinking about these things:
Speaking only of sexually reproducing creatures, all variation is a function of the maximum of four different alleles a couple can have. Adam and Eve had two each. It's possible there is a maximum of two rather than four, but since there are two people I go with four. Since some populations have many alleles or different forms of a gene for a while I pondered how that could have come about from one male and female pair, and considered that maybe there is a normal form of mutation for that purpose that degenerated. But recently I changed my mind, mostly based on the impression that most of those allelic variants in a population are neutral mutations that don't change the function of the allele. This led me to the conclusion that the original built-in mechanisms for variations are the two allelic variants per gene in the original male and female, but that there may be many genes for a particular trait which increases the possibilities of variation quite a bit.
Bear with me, I know I'm not following standard scientific thought. I'm trying to spell out a creationist point of view that goes down a different path while hopefully not contradicting actual fact. A creationist model, which we're always being asked to come up with.
So what I said above is where I ended up about the basic built in genetic system for variation within a Kind. The original pair had to have all the genetic capacity to produce every variation of the Kind that exists today, but also probably a lot of different forms that died in the Flood. In human beings that would mean all the different races were built in to Adam and Eve's genomes, and those who were saved on the Ark. Although again many variations would have been lost in the Flood. The genetic possibilities in the people on the Ark (animals too of course) had to be able to create every race and variety of everything living today. How that is possible was a puzzle for a while, but I think the answer is pretty simple in the end: they had more functioning genes with more intact allelic variants than we have now. One creationist source (I'll remember his name eventually) said human beings now have about 7% heterozygosity IIRC, and all our variations come from that; on the Ark the percentage must have been much higher. 50% would be enormous. All the cats and dogs today could easily have "evolved" from that degree of heterozygosity.
My main argument since I came to EvC has been that there is a natural barrier to evolution beyond the genome of the Kind, which is that the processes of evolution themselves decrease genetic diversity, so that ultimately wherever evolution is continuing from population to population a point will be reached where no further evolution is possible. I have my own cutesy slogan for this: Evolution defeats Evolution. Each population that develops from a portion of a former population, which is a common situation, has new gene frequencies that bring out new traits -- this is how how new phenotypes evolve -- but also a trend toward loss of alleles (some creationists think in terms of information here, I think in terms of alleles) -- and this loss of alleles, which is necessary to developing new traits from the remaining alleles, will eventually continue until you have nothing but homozygosity or fixed loci for all the salient traits of any race or variety.
I have to stop here for now, but I want to come back and finish the thought when I can. I've never had a creationist here to try to spell this out to, at least not a YEC type creationist, and I don't know at this point even if you are a YEC. But I've been very happy to have you and dredge here who are more like YECs than any others who have been here. We should at least try to sort out our differences and similarities on these things. HBD is a creationist but to my mind way too much of an evolutionist. Kbertsche is also a creationist with some evolutionist thinking. You and dredge seem to have less of the evolutionism.
More later God willing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 4:17 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 6:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 87 of 1311 (807852)
05-06-2017 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by bluegenes
05-06-2017 2:43 AM


Re: 2 - 0. Own goals.
OK I fixed the links.
Moroz? Yes he does disagree; as I noted in my post #53 when I said "What is revealing is that people actively promoting the importance of the theory of evolution admit that it is little used in day to day biology."
Dredge writes: "I wonder why Darwinists haven't cited the evolution of the car as a practical application of the theory of Common Descent yet." Yes they have. It's often referred to as Berra's blunder.
bluegenes:
Another own goal, in a way, because Darwin's theory is certainly useful in engineering. Variation and selection has found optimum results for aeroplane bodies and antennae.
Another own goal. Douglas Axe discusses this "evolution" of antennas in Chapter 11 of "Undeniable"* where he says "As a finder of inventions, Darwin's evolutionary mechanism is a complete bust, but as we saw in chapter 7, it sometimes comes in handy as a fiddler. ... Fine tuning involves the adjustment of many small details, so trial and error is often the best way to do it."
In fact I'd say it is more a trial and error solution aided by the power of computers than it is an application of evolutionary theory.
*How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That life Is designed.
Highly recommended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 05-06-2017 2:43 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by bluegenes, posted 05-06-2017 7:43 AM CRR has replied
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 12:15 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 88 of 1311 (807853)
05-06-2017 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-06-2017 6:37 AM


Re: is a creationist model possible
Some interesting points but it's probably getting too far off the forum topic to explore further. Maybe we need another thread called "is a creationist model possible"; or you could pm me.
Yes I am a YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-06-2017 6:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 89 of 1311 (807855)
05-06-2017 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
05-05-2017 2:07 AM


It's obviously pedantically inaccurate to say that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution - it's obviously a deliberate exaggeration.
Yes, as I said at #5. Several other people agree but some don't.
It is very wrong-headed idea that a scientific concept needs to be practically useful to be correct. On the other hand sometimes an incorrect theory can be practically useful.
I have amended the last sentence of #53 for clarity:
None of these require any evolutionary history to be understood. In any case the fossil evidence of transitional forms for the giraffe is so lacking that any evolutionary history becomes mere conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2017 2:07 AM Tangle has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 90 of 1311 (807858)
05-06-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by CRR
05-06-2017 6:51 AM


What mechanism stops evolutionary change?
CRR quoting Axe: writes:
"Fine tuning involves the adjustment of many small details, so trial and error is often the best way to do it."
In fact I'd say it is more a trial and error solution aided by the power of computers than it is an application of evolutionary theory.
That's pretty much Darwin. Fine tuning by variation and selection (trial and error) until you've fined tuned into new species.
You haven't told me at what point change stops. What is the limit to the number of changes that can go to fixation across a population group by mutation, natural selection and drift, and what is the mechanism that halts change?
You could try asking Douglas Axe, couldn't you?
You like talking about giraffes, so how would you explain the genetic differences between the 7 existing sub-species without doing so in the light of evolution? Were there 14 giraffes on the Ark?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 6:51 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 8:16 AM bluegenes 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