Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 742 of 908 (818090)
08-23-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 739 by Faith
08-23-2017 12:01 PM


quote:
This example is too ridiculous to think about for half a second. WHERE IS THE SELECTION??? IT'S SELECTION I KEEP SAYING REDUCES GENETIC DIVERSITY AND BRINGS EVOLUTION TO A HALT. ALL YOU'VE GOT IS SOME DEMENTED MADE-UP SERIES OF MUTATIONS.
Since you include drift as selection the increase in the frequency of allele B is entirely due to what you call "selection". Really, how could you miss that ? The same way you missed the strong selection in the "weasel" program?
quote:
There is no point to this discussion at all until somebody actually deals with what I've actually said instead of giving such ridiculous answers and instead of just accusing me of a million crimes I'm not guilty of, which seems to be the bulk of both Percy and HBDs recent posts.
Of course people have been dealing with what you have said and - as HBD and Percy have noted - you have responded with your usual dishonest bullying.
Really what do you expect when you keep trying to argue a claim disproven years ago, when you won't even honestly answer the disproof and instead resort to tricks like misrepresenting your own argument ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by Faith, posted 08-23-2017 12:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 777 of 908 (818184)
08-24-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 766 by Faith
08-24-2017 3:33 PM


Re: What Really Happens
quote:
Since the discussion is impossible, and anything I say is mangled in the ToE paradigm anyway, I'm just going to sketch it all out again knowing that will happen and you can all go fly a kite.
What really happens is that your case is demolished with reason and evidence. Which is what you mean by "discussion is impossible".
So, you decide to declare yourself right anyway.
Too bad it won't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 766 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 3:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 779 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 5:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 823 of 908 (818246)
08-25-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 814 by Faith
08-25-2017 10:44 AM


quote:
Yeah I know, I'm way out in la la land because I think the ToE is the biggest delusion ever foisted on humanity.
You would have to be to think that, and that's not even the craziest thing you've said. It's not even the craziest in this thread.
quote:
As for "denigrating" it by distrusting the evidence for it, I don't regard it as a legitimate science
Of course you do. It contradicts your beliefs. And so you resort to your usual lies and slander.
quote:
The boundary of the Kind is where further evolution is impossible
Which is really not a sensible position. There can't be any fixed boundary of that sort.
quote:
Considering that you can get a whole new "species" of lizard in thirty some odd years from ten founders,
Can we ? Have the Pod Mcaru lizards been classed as a new species ?
quote:
...four distinctively different breeds of cattle in a few years just from separation of parts of the original population, certainly backs up my "claptrap" that it shouldn't have taken more than a few hundred years from the Ark to bring about all the species and subspecies we see today,
The fact that your examples are so weak rather suggests the opposite. And the fact that we know it didn't happen puts a further damper on the idea
quote:
...especially given much greater heterozygosity and much less junk DNA in the Ark animals.
Let's not forget that the "less junk DNA" is an ad hoc assumption that hardly makes sense in itself. In fact it's another good reason to think that you are "off in la la land".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 10:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 839 of 908 (818278)
08-26-2017 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
08-25-2017 10:00 PM


Re: What Really Happens
quote:
The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically.
If you have this great logical argument, why are you keeping it secret ?
Feel free to produce it if you really have one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 10:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 842 of 908 (818281)
08-26-2017 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:20 AM


quote:
A line of thought got derailed back there somewhere thanks to Percy's hairsplitting semantic distractions. Well, more than one line of thought met that fate for that reason, but at the moment I'm thinking of my attempt to answer the complaint that domestic breeding can't be a model for evolution because speciation doesn't occur in breeding, meaning that the point is never reached where interbreeding with other members of the species becomes genetically impossible
It is certainly an objection, but it should be noted that you DID frequently claim that the inability to interbreed was caused by your "genetic depletion". Are you admitting that you simply made that up ? (You did, of course, but it is rare if you to admit to that)
quote:
My answer is that I don't think speciation according to that definition occurs in nature either so breeding is a good model even by that standard
So how do you explain ring species ? Not so long ago you were asserting that ring species were evidence for your ideas (which was another thing you simply made up) but if the inability to interbreed never develops in nature, ring species aren't something you would expect to see at all.
quote:
I'm makig a simple point: inability to breed doesn't distinguish some different "species" in the wild same as it doesn't distinguish between domestic breeds.
I note that you offer only assertion here. However if, as you claim, the inability to interbreed never develops in nature the inability to interbreed must be fundamental. Your assertions are not only false - they are contradictory.
quote:
So stop with the hairsplitting semantics. My point holds: breeding is a good model of evolution on many counts.
Appealing to false and contradictory "reasons" hardly gives us reason to believe that.
quote:
All this is too tiresome. Either my opponents are low IQ or experiencing early dementia or just don't want to understand anything I'm saying.
Or alternatively your desperate rationalisations are obviously wrong and all your arrogant bullying backfires as usual.
quote:
Whatever the reason yes THEY are making the discussion impossible and accusing me of being the problem.
As usual "discussion is impossible" just means that you are being defeated despite your clumsy tricks. That's not a problem. The problem is your arrogance and dishonesty and refusal to accept that you are wrong even when it is absolutely obvious

This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 845 of 908 (818286)
08-26-2017 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:46 AM


Re: What Really Happens
quote:
The logical argument has been given dozens of times here
I don't think you understand the term "logical" correctly. The mere fact that you have to make excuses to try to deny the contribution of mutations would disqualify your argument, even if your usual excuse wasn't obviously false.
quote:
Domestic breeds are recognizable by their peculiar characteristics; they don't keep changing through mutations or any other kind of gene flow unless allowed to run wild
in case you have forgotten mutations do occur and are sometimes used by breeders. Adid that there are certainly mutations that will not affect the desired traits (many will affect traits that are not easily seen), and the relatively short time scale and your argument is already in trouble. The lack of gene flow is just an artificial constraint by breeders. So, not exactly a good start.
quote:
This reduction is NECESSARY to getting a breed. You HAVE to get rid of the alleles for other characteristics in order to maintain those of a particular breed.
Which is generally agreed.
quote:
In the wild the same situation must happen too. "Species" are recognizable by their peculiar characteristics and they too don't change over time, even thought they DO run wild. They preserve their reproductive isolation and therefore their particular characteristics even when they have not lost the ability to interbreed with others of the Species/Kind. Tigers and lions for instance can interbreed but normally don't, they remain recognizable tigers and ions.
The evidence shows that species have changed over time. Species may be stable over long periods of time by human standards but they do not last forever. Many are replaced by closely related species.
quote:
Since nature is just chock full of recognizable species and subspecies of their Kind that maintain their distinguishing characteristics from generation to generation, I think we can suppose that mutations aren't altering their basic genetic situation.
Why would we suppose something we know to be false ? You've had the example of the pocket mice. Mutation can and does add selectable diversity. Just because something happens slowly and mostly unseen is not a logical reason to conclude that it does not happen. (Strictly speaking it is illogical)
quote:
It may still be possible for further evolution in many wild animals.; Perhaps the grizzly could split into two different subspecies still. If so it would be by losing the traits of the parent species for some degree of reduced genetic diversity
Unfortunately for your argument the genetic diversity of the parent species is not static, and is very likely significantly increased since it was formed.
So, no, you don't have a logically unimpeachable argument or even a good one. And you have no excuse for not knowing that by now,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 846 of 908 (818287)
08-26-2017 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
08-26-2017 2:55 AM


quote:
It was my theory.
By which you mean that it was just an unsupported opinion that you presented as fact. Even after the obvious objections has been raised and not answered.
That may be normal for you, but it should not be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 2:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 859 of 908 (818304)
08-26-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 853 by Faith
08-26-2017 10:48 AM


quote:
Sorry if I don't read through insulting posts, they raise my blood pressure and it's not a pleasant feeling
You suggest that people who reject an argument that has repeatedly been refuted have low IQs or dementia Message 840 - yet you loudly object to any criticism that comes your way no matter how deserved.
quote:
Yes I understand, nothing could possibly be true if it isn't in lockstep with evo theory
Which is a complaint that you don't get to invent your own "facts"
quote:
Definitions must all be in line with evo theory,
Which is a complaint that you aren't allowed to confuse the issue by inventing your own personal definitions - and insisting that everyone else use them.
quote:
you can't have an original thought because evo theory says something else.
Which is a pretty much just an insult as well as a lie.
quote:
I understand, that's the rules here. Sorry I don't play by them but I don't.
Which is an admission that you intend to rely on lies and deceit. Glad to see you show some honesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 853 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 10:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 868 of 908 (818320)
08-27-2017 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 867 by Faith
08-26-2017 11:02 PM


Re: Sumry uv the weirdness
quote:
EvC is obviously some kind of alternative universe.
It isn't your fantasy world, no matter how much you try to drag us into it.
quote:
Nothing here makes sense, nobody makes sense, what people say about me would be funny if it weren't so bizarre.
You may not like to admit to what you're doing, but nobody here has any duty to be quiet about it.
quote:
In any case I'm no longer discussing anything with people who insult me in such bizarre ways with such a strange lack of understanding of the argument.
In other words you don't want to talk to honest people who dare to disagree with your daft opinions. Even if we did like your opinions better than the truth, honesty would still require us to disagree. And all your lying hardly helps.
But if you can't handle the truth, if you can't cope with people who won't give in to all your lying and bullying by all means run away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 867 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 11:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 869 by Faith, posted 08-27-2017 4:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 870 of 908 (818323)
08-27-2017 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 869 by Faith
08-27-2017 4:47 AM


Re: Sumry uv the weirdness"
What's amazing about it ? It's a direct and on-point response, and if you're claiming that I offered no evidence - then neither did you. Not to mention the fact that your assertions were so non-specific that there would some much point gathering evidence in rebuttal.
The fact remains that you are pushing an argument which was successfully rebutted years ago, that you have made no progress in addressing the rebuttals over all that time and you are "amazed" that you aren't believed. And you think that in the "real universe" asserting that your argument is good and pretending that it isn't understood would convince the very people that defeated you ? Really ? How could that possibly work ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by Faith, posted 08-27-2017 4:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 873 of 908 (818352)
08-27-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by Faith
08-27-2017 10:42 AM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
quote:
What is being called ignorance on my part is really disagreement.
There is no doubt that there is real ignorance on your part.
quote:
Domestic breeding is a good model for what happens in evolution, especially loss of genetic diversity from population to population but also even in its lack of "speciation."
It's funny that you seem think that inaccuracy is a virtue. Since your overall loss of genetic diversity is not supported by the evidence and speciation certainly is I don't see how those features can be considered as anything other than differences which make breeding a poor model. Especially as those differences can be attributed directly to differences in the processes.
Indeed, the success is f breeding shows the scale of diversity that a species may hold and still retain a recognisable form instead of your "motley collection", which calls your assertion of inevitable decline in diversity into severe doubt, and falsifies your assertion that adding diversity following speciation must - somehow - prevent the species from retaining a distinctive form.
quote:
I'm not ignorant of the idea of environment-driven adaptation, I just have the chutzpah to think adaptation is usually genetically driven and I think the Pod Mrcaru lizards are one piece of evidence of that.
I'm not ignorant of the idea of fitness-driven evolution either, I just think it doesn't happen much.
Adaption is obviously not going to be driven by drift. Pure chance will not favour increased fitness while natural selection obviously will. At best you are ignorantly misusing terminology so nobody can understand what you mean, or at worst you are talking complete nonsense.
quote:
I'm not ignorant of fossil evidence for evolution from species to species but the fact that trilobites and coelacanths exist in so many adjacent supposed "time periods" while reptiles and mammals were buried only one "time period" apart, is evidence against it.
This is a quite bizarre claim and more evidence of ignorance. But feel free to extend it to an argument if you can avoid silliness like blasting scientists for daring to discover the great variety of trilobite species.
quote:
I'm not ignorant of the idea that mutations are the source of genetic variability, I just think it's utterly screamingly ridiculous given their record of producing thousands of genetic diseases, and besides it's absolutely unnecessary given the elegant original design of DNA.
Since reality rarely restricts itself to what you think necessary and this "original design" is purely hypothetical - and advantageous mutations are fact that really isn't much of an argument.
As I said before there is nothing strange in the failure of your arguments. The really bizarre thing is that you expect to convince anyone with arguments that have quite clearly been defeated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by Faith, posted 08-27-2017 10:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 882 of 908 (818444)
08-28-2017 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
08-28-2017 1:44 PM


Re: What Really Happens
quote:
As so often is the case when discussing mutations, you make it sound as if they just come along exactly as needed to further the claims of the ToE.
Of course it is only necessary that mutations occur, which hardly seems to merit that description.
quote:
Also, you're talking change in ONE allele, so you have to be assuming that particular change is going to make a big difference in the new population? If you have to add other changes in other genes your odds are going to diminish too.
No such assumption is necessary.
quote:
Meanwhile ordinary recombination of a new set of gene frequencies from the genomes of the founders will bring out new characteristics in the new population within years without mutations.
And how is that relevant ? The point is that evolution will not stop as you claim. How does this assertion address the issue ?
quote:
Not only are mutations unnecessary to this process but they couldn't possibly occur as needed and their usual effect is destructive anyway rather than beneficial.
Mutations are necessary to keep evolution going. If you deny that then you are just denying the argument Taq set out to disprove. Happening "as needed" is happening at all - and we know that they do happen. Even the assertion that most are deleterious (which would need support even if it is restricted to mutations with phenotypic effects) isn't sufficient to answer Taq's argument.
Given that it's not even the first time that this refutation has been offered the fact that you can't adequately rebut it - or even construct a rational argument against it - shows that you are simply clinging to a failed argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 890 of 908 (818519)
08-30-2017 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 888 by Faith
08-29-2017 10:14 PM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
quote:
Been explained many times. Phenotypic changes occur as a result of random new gene frequencies. Lizards get big heads and jaws just from such random changes accumulating in their new population. The food doesn't drive the change, but the change causes the lizards to gravitate to food that their new jaws can handle
In other words you are misusing the terminology again and expect us to guess what you mean. Please stop that since it hardly helps honest discussion.
However, you are very likely wrong. The big heads alone might be just good luck - but the changes in head shape and the cecal valve as well would be an unlikely coincidence.
quote:
As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post I realize that if you'd bothered to follow anything I've been arguing at length on this subject you wouldn't have all the silly objections and questions you have.
And that IS pure insult, especially as it is obviously untrue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by Faith, posted 08-29-2017 10:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024