|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well, there's reasons... they're just stupid religious ones. Without evolution, biology just doesn't make much sense. You could also say that with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense. Perhaps that's why there are so many confused creationists ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Nice try, but all you're describing is microevolution. A creationist biologist could potentially tackle any task applied biology throws at him because applied biology operates only at the level of microevolution. ... Correct, ALL evolution occurs through microevolution.
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
... For all intents and purposes, macroevolution exists only in the La La Land of theorectical biology; ... Can you define what you think "macroevolution" is? In my experience no creationists get this right. Hint: see Anagenesis Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... Microevolution allows you to explore the limits of the available gene pool; but beyond that you need macroevolution. Microevolution + Time ≠ Macroevolution. Can you define "macroevolution" so we will be talking about the same thing? Creationist literature usually (99%+) gets it wrong, so you may be misinformed. Hint: see Anagenesis Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No I'm not. If mutation adds statistically significant amounts of functional information then it is macroevolution. Microevolution does not add statistically significant amounts of functional information. First, you need to define "statistically significant amounts of functional information" ... and I suggest that you do that on the Can mutation and selection increase information? thread. Second, that is NOT how macroevolution is defined by evolution scientists (I said you would get it wrong), and your definition is not even usable until you've defined "statistically significant amounts of functional information." Scientists don't use unmeasurable parameters. Third, there is Pelycodus:
quote: I think you will agree that there is "statistically significant" change over time, and that there are fully functional critters from bottom to top -- they keep reproducing new critters. And I think you will agree that there is a "statistically significant" alteration at the top where the population divides into two separate breeding populations. By the Evolution Science definition of "macroevolution" (ie a correct one) this shows "macroevolution" occurring, both Anagenesis and Cladogenesis are seen, plus we see the formation of a clade. "Information" ... what do I need that for? What does it add to the observed facts showing "macroevolution" occurring by "microevolution" over time spanning many generations? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ' Edited by RAZD, : stby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sigh ... Here we go again - another Darwinist mistaking theory for reality. ... Actually reality is what scientists use to test theories. The reality of genome sequence comparisons validates the theory of evolution, as does every fossil found that continues to fit the spacial-temporal matrix of all the other fossils, leaving a story line in the rocks.
Your kind are so hopelessly brainwashed that you can't even tell the difference between a theory and a practical use for a theory. Actually evolution is useful in dealing with diseases like flu that evolve every year, being able to predict likely changes to adapt the vaccines sooner for the next flu season. Or diseases like ebola and cholera and so many others. If you don't think this is a practical use, feel free to use last years vaccines.
Bizarre stuff. The universe is stranger than you can imagine. Enjoy ps - I always though Chico was one of the Marx Brothers ... Edited by RAZD, : stby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Interesting. Have you got pictures showing what they looked like? Sadly no. There is a complete fossil skeleton of one on the website
quote: So the basic distinction from bottom to top is size ... as far as can be seen from the fossils. In modern monkeys we see close relatives have virtually identical skeletons while having distinctively different fur patterns (see tamarins), and I expect this occurred with Pelycodus as well. Notice that Notharctus nunienus at the top left is about the same size distribution as Pelycodus ralstoni so it is probably re-occupying the ecological niche of Pelycodus ralstoni in the trees, able to forage smaller branches than the larger Notharctus venticolus while Notharctus venticolus may be taking more advantage of their size to dominate on the ground. That could have lead to the sexual isolation that occurred between the two populations. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Those are fossils of the animal for sure, but their depth of course says absolutely nothing about their age. As usual they all died in the Flood and were buried wherever they were buried. Some were young, some old, just as you'd find in a catastrophic mass burial, accounting for differences in size, ... Each layer has size variations, different layers have different distributions of size.Magically sorted to fake evolution. You forgot that part. ... and if there are some features that suggest microevolution that would make them cousins, not a later macroevolved generation. There is no such thing as a "later macroevolved generation" as each generation evolves from the last by microevolution. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolved traits over many generations, and you have been told this before. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And you have been told before many times that the Flood is a much better explanation for this sort of example. SO much better, so much more sensible. Snort Only when you ignore reality, Faith, as usual. Look at that diagram again, and tell me how the Magic Flying Flood sorted those fossils so that each layer had an assortment of sizes overlapping the sizes below them, but shifted towards larger sizes.
Why are ALL of the Pelycodus jarrovii fossils larger than ALL of the Pelycodus ralstoni and why are ALL of the Pelycodus trigonodus fossils intermediate, none larger than Pelycodus jarrovii and none smaller than Pelycodus ralstoni How on earth would a flood do that except by magic, and magic done in order to deceive people. 'Splain it Lucy Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Snort Are you pawing the ground too? Derision. The kind with coffee coming out of your nose because something is ridiculously totally wrong.
Water sorts stuff, RAZD. It does. ... Yes, we've had this discussion too. It sorts the heaviest densest materials at the bottom and the smallest lightest materials at the top, some taking weeks to deposit out of suspension. What it does not do is repeat layers with different density objects. As I recall I did a rather long post on this regarding the layering of diatoms and silty clay in Lake Suigetsu ... See Message 23 on Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD. If you want to debate this I can start a new thread on it.
Message 299: I suspect the order is an illusion but I can't prove it so why try? ... So all you are doing is hand-waving, not making an argument based on any substance beyond fantasy. Because that is the difference between science and fantasy ... fantasy is an illusion you can't prove. The Magic Flying Flood is fantasy, never happened. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
CRR writes: Microevolution does not add statistically significant amounts of functional information. Not even lots and lots of microevolution? Like maybe, 3.8 billion years worth of microevolution? There's a hidden admission here that microevolution can add functional information, just that it isn't significant in the population at the time. This leads us rather inevitably to each generation adding a little functional information, so the question becomes when is it significant? For evolutionary biologists, traits are accumulated in each generation, and after a while it becomes significantly different enough from the original population to declare a new species by anagenesis. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
macroevolution = microevolution + millions of years. Can you define what you think "macroevolution" is? Why not say billions or trillions of years? You want to make it impossible by definition after all. Biologists measure evolution time in generations rather than years, because different species have different generation time lengths, and evolution is observed from generation to generation -- the population evolves, not the individuals. In some cases that means macroevolution = microevolution + tens of years. See how that changes the possibilities?
But life on earth is only 5778 years old ... So you are a Gap Creationist - old earth, young life. Well you can participate on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 then, because the first 35,987 years are based on evidence left by life -- tree rings and diatoms -- and those are fully developed life forms.
... not enuf time for macroevolution to occur (assuming it occurs at all). Only because you arbitrarily defined it that way to fit your opinion first.
Microevolution might be compared to a merry-go-round - there is motion and change, but it doesn't actually go anywhere. Which again is only because you false analogy traps your thinking. Evolution is like a drunken walk, it staggers about and ends up in different places. See how that changes the possibilities? Sadly, for you, like opinions, self-serving definitions and analogies don't change reality. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I agree - but there's no need to believe in any of that useless stuff about humans and apes having a common ancestor, ... Curiously that relationship was useful in finding vaccines for HIV which is a mutated form of SIV:
quote: Just as understanding the genetic similarities with pigs was useful in finding vaccines for
quote: So you'll excuse us if we keep using evolution to make useful predictions. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Says the guy that thinks ... kangaroos travelled to an ark in the Middle East ... Getting to the ark is not a problem (see CRR response), the problem is getting from the ark to the remote places of the earth for all species to end up where they are now. How did all those marsupials end up on Australia with no placental mammals? Why are there NO marsupials on the African, Asian, European continents, including the middle east ... and no fossils of them? There are marsupials in South and North America, but they are few compared to the numbers of placental mammals. This bio-geographic distribution is easily explained by evolution, but is rather difficult for creationists ... so the come up with some amusing explanations. One imagined that Koalas got to Australia on a raft of eucalyptus branches as the flood receded. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: ... Then God divided this monolithic land mass into its present fragmented arrangement. the problem is getting from the ark to ... where they are now So magic then. Okay. Carefully herded so that only marsupials ended up in Australia and none strayed to end up in Africa, Europe, Asia. So still not explained, and now you have added wicked fast continental movement with no basis in the bible, so THAT is not explained except by imagination, and no thought to the consequences of this fantasy -- boiled seas and massive tidal waves for which there is NO objective empirical evidence. Stick to the magic explanation, don't try mock reality. Biology makes so much more rational an explanation. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : return to topicby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... Some marsupials did end up in America ... From Antarctica to South America, as did the ones in Australia. The opossum is the only marsupial in North America and it came from South America.
... and there are marsupial fossils in Europe. I can find no information on this -- can you give link? I can also not find any information on a mouse-like marsupial in Africa. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024