|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can the creationist model explain the data? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Oh FFS give us a decent reference; not a Google search.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: Pot, let me introduce you to kettle. Dear Tangled Twit, I gave a quote from and a link to a single relevant article which is fair dealing and not a breach of copyright.In contrast RAZD gave a link to a Google search. If you think I have breached copyright feel free to report me to DI.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
When there are a thousand studies that show diversification of fruit flies, a single reference is inadequate to show the number of such studies. This argument that diversity always decreases is so much toast in the real world that the sheer number of such studies is like an avalanche to bury the poser.
It was Google. Go back and check you previous post. Not that it matters; a bing or google search is not a valid reference. That's what you seem to miss in your whining about getting a bing (not google - they track your uses for ad companies) search. N Joi.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Yes there are thousands of studies on fruit flies.
Embryologist Jonathan Wells sums up the research on fruit fly mutations. "There are only 3 possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0BdziP3HBs at 6:00
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
See Message 36 for examples, one from 1915 that shows a mutation causing white eyes arising. Now in Jonathan Wells' view this may be "defective" but the eyes work as well as the red ones. Drosophila collected from the wild have dark red eyes. That's all you need to know to conclude that "white eye" is a deleterious defect. If it worked "as well" then it would not be eliminated from wild populations. "We further show that white mutant flies are not only optomotor blind but also dazzled by the over-flow of light in daylight." Influence of the White Locus on the Courtship Behavior of Drosophila Males - PMC Looks like Jonathon Wells was right in this case. N-Joi Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
The facts do support the conclusion. It is almost inevitable that the white eye mutation has occurred in the wild and it has not persisted so we can conclude that it is a deleterious mutation. This is further confirmed by the quote from the ncbi. I suppose we could release white eye fruit flies into the wild and see what happens, and my prediction is that the trait would not survive.
If we can't predict what evolution 'would do", then evolution has no predictive capacity; we just look at what happens and say evolution would predict that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So a quote from an embryologist which you can verify for yourself is not good enough for you? Or will you just reject any reference I give?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What I have trouble with is assuming that because this mutation occurred in the lab that it would also occur in the wild It's quite likely that if it happened in a short time in a small laboratory population then it will also have happened in a much longer time in a much larger wild population. However the effects of this mutation have also been documented showing clearly that it is detrimental and not beneficial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
And even deleterious changes are additional evidence and confirmation of both the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Deleterious changes which are removed by selection are called purifying selection and this is required in both the ToE and Creationism to prevent error catastrophy from destroying species. But since that acts to preserve the current allele frequencies it does not result even in microevolution! But the Theory of evolution requires much more. Since it hypothesizes ascent from a microbial ancestor with a minimal genome (which appeared by unspecified magical means) the evidence must show that beneficial mutations that increase the genome can occur in a cumulative manner within the time available. Deleterious changes do not support that at all. Darwin had sufficient evidence to propose this as a hypothesis but the evidence since then is predominantly against it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
All the ToE (scientific version) says ...
Reference required to the official definition of the TOE (scientific version).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Thanks for that information from Universities of Michigan and Berkley, it’s most interesting.
I agree with you that There is no single "official" definition of the Theory of Definition. Definitions 1 & 2 given in the first quote are definitions of the process of micro and macroevolution respectively. Neither is a definition of the Theory of Evolution. As you say Definition 1 is what results from process of evolution in a breeding population, while definition 2 is what results from the processes of anagenesis and cladogenesis, which are the long term, multigenerational, accumulation of the results of the process of evolution in a breeding population. From Michigan we getUniversal Common Ancestry, Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor. Abiogenesis, Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms. This is an assumption prior to rather part of the process of evolution. Microevolution, Definition 1: Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation. [this] definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. Macroevolution, Definition 2: The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity. [this] emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution. Similarly from BerkleyUniversal Common Ancestry, Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. Abiogenesis, they include as an event in Important events in the history of life, Unicellular life evolves. So according to Berkley and Michigan all life evolved from a common microbial ancestor that arose naturally from non-living matter. Microevolution, is evolution on a small scale within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life. Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population. Macroevolution, generally refers to evolution above the species level. So both sources appear to agree with what is included in the theory of evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024