Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 792 of 908 (818204)
08-24-2017 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 785 by Faith
08-24-2017 6:17 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Faith writes:
Darwin's finches didn't need mutations,...
Of course they did. These finches were blown to the islands from the mainland and possess genes and alleles not present in the most closely related mainland species.
...just the appearance of different beak types due to changed gene frequencies due to random selection of portions of the finch population.
Research has demonstrated that the selection forces on Darwin's finches were distinctly non-random.
Then they gravitated to whatever food best suited their beak.
Actually, just the opposite. Food availability drove selection.
Nope, a created Kind is a physical reality. Religion is something else.
Now you're just in denial. You can't even define kind, let alone find its expression in "physical reality".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 6:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 793 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 6:57 PM Percy has replied
 Message 794 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 7:03 PM Percy has replied
 Message 795 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 7:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 796 of 908 (818211)
08-24-2017 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by Faith
08-24-2017 6:26 PM


Faith writes:
I think what YOU need to do is stop accusing me of everything in the book and think fairly about what I'm saying.
If you don't like attention being called to your bad behavior then don't behave badly.
I have critiqued your ideas in detail, explaining why they lack any evidence, conflict with existing evidence, and often don't make sense. The way to fix that is to find evidence, account for existing evidence, and make sense. When you fail to do that then it is not the responsibility of others to pretend that you have, and you have no one to blame but yourself.
At heart what you're doing is religion, and it should come as no surprise that there's no science in it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 6:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 797 of 908 (818212)
08-24-2017 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 793 by Faith
08-24-2017 6:57 PM


Re: What Really Happens
You're wrong.
Responses like this just reinforce the criticisms you keep objecting to and work against your own best interests. You need evidence and argument, not expressions of pique.
The problem at the core of your views of macroevolution is the way they ignore existing evidence and often fail to make any sense. Until you remedy these lacks you're going to continue to experience the frustrations that cause you to strike out at others. We can't fix this for you. You have to fix it yourself.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 793 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 6:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 798 of 908 (818213)
08-24-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 794 by Faith
08-24-2017 7:03 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Well this is just more nonsense.
Faith writes:
Nobody can define Kind because there's been too much change since Creation.
So nobody can define kind.
But I have a functional definition which is more than anybody else has:
But even though nobody can define kind, you can define it.
...the point at which selection depletes genetic diversity in an evolving population.
Since "depletes" is uselessly vague, you don't have a definition.
You've talked in the past about genetic diversity being reduced to the point when it can't be reduced any further, but that could only be the case when all genes have reached fixation, which can't be true of any species anywhere. And given mutation, fixation isn't a permanent state anyway.
That reminds me of something that should be clarified: selection only reduces diversity when the last copy of an allele is eliminated from a population. This of course does happen, but it is a tiny, tiny percentage of all selection events. For example, let's say an individual dies without producing any offspring, i.e., is selected against. Unless this individual possessed the last copy of a particular allele in the population, diversity has not been reduced.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 7:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 804 of 908 (818224)
08-25-2017 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 795 by Faith
08-24-2017 7:48 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Faith writes:
Of course they did. These finches were blown to the islands from the mainland and possess genes and alleles not present in the most closely related mainland species.
Different genes even?
Yes, different genes even. See On the Origin of Darwin's Finches. The split with the mainland species, most likely an ancestor of a type of Tiaris (T. obscura is likely the nearest modern relative), is thought to have occurred around 2.3 million years ago from an original population that numbered in excess of 30. Species boundaries are not fixed and the Galapagos species do hybridize.
There are probably many genes that govern beak size and type that already existed in the genome, which is all it would have taken to produce any given beak type from simple population splits.
Population splits by themselves do not create new phenotypes. It takes a split accompanied by different selection pressures.
The whole variety of beaks needs no mutations at all.
And yet the different species of Darwin's Finches possess mutational differences in the alleles of key genes.
If all the known skin colors are available from two genes of two alleles each, as I've shown many times before,...
Shown wrong, you mean. Skin color is determined by a variety of genes. From Genes, Skin Color and Vitamin D:
quote:
Human skin color is a polygenic trait, meaning multiple gene loci are involved in its expression. At last count, the International Federation of Pigment Cell Society has determined that there are a total of 378 genetic loci involved in determining skin color in human and mice.
...there is no reason for any extra genes or alleles above and beyond those originally created to explain all the different beaks in the finch genome.
What is true is that your wrong ideas about skin color provide no support for your wrong ideas about beaks.
The standard Darwinian explanation is that the food drove the selection. That is immensely costly and unnecessary, especially since all it takes is ordinary genetic recombination to produce every kind of beak for every kind of food.
This is clearly wrong. Selection drives change. Organisms develop and maintain fitness from the selection pressures exerted by their environment.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 795 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 7:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:02 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(3)
Message 806 of 908 (818226)
08-25-2017 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 801 by Faith
08-24-2017 10:51 PM


Faith writes:
I also think it's useless to try to define Kinds,...
See, there you go changing your mind again. Here you declare "it's useless to try to define Kinds" when just a few short hours before you tried to define kinds in Message 794:
Faith in Message 794 writes:
Nobody can define Kind because there's been too much change since Creation. But I have a functional definition which is more than anybody else has: the point at which selection depletes genetic diversity in an evolving population.
Moving on:
But of course I would argue that there's nothing absurd about all of what we see today having evolved from original pairs.
It has been described in detail for you many times how absurd this is. Since you exclude mutation, it is impossible for there to be more than 4 alleles per gene in any non-clean creature, yet many creatures have genes with more than 4 alleles. Your idea is mathematically impossible.
Or stated another way, since in your bizarro world evolution includes only selection, which can only remove alleles from a population and can never add them, it is impossible for creatures in the present to have "evolved from original pairs" from the ark.
...the assumption that every genome had no junk DNA but it was all functional genes...
Not only does this make no sense and is impossible, it is contradicted by the evidence of ancient DNA showing it to have roughly equivalent amounts of junk DNA as life at present.
...that there were probably many times the number of genes per trait that we see today,...
Why do you keep repeating things that are clearly not true? I'm struck by the absurdity of your demands for more consideration when you repeat the same ludicrous and already disproved ideas over and over again. Accept the feedback, face the fact that evidence that exists can't be ignored, incorporate it into your ideas, then move on. Repeating the wacky and ridiculous will get you nowhere.
...that there were only two alleles per gene and still are...
Are you stupid? Every population has many examples of genes with more than two alleles. This is as basic as anything can be. The evidence is copious and indisputable. In your dumb scenario of only two alleles per gene, every gene in every population is just one lost allele away from fixation.
I trust you to be honest if you are willing to make the effort.
Honesty requires being truthful and forthright with you. Your ideas are a fantasy, some of them contradicting the most basic and widely available of evidence.
Then of course you'll run into the Flood and those calculations should be interesting.
The Flood, as you've presented it, is already disproven by existing and widely available evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 10:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 808 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 8:33 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 809 of 908 (818229)
08-25-2017 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 803 by Faith
08-24-2017 11:21 PM


Re: My summary of 800 posts of misunderstandings
Faith writes:
I've finally realized that producing a new species is just one of those evo assumptions that is a meaningless distraction, just as I've finally had to recognize that speciation is some kind of delusion. Oh not that it doesn't exist, but that what it is is not speciation, it's just a population of a particular species that for some reason or other can't interbreed with the rest of the species, and I suspect most of such populations are probably rather short on genetic diversity, though I'm no longer sure that's necessary. Could just be the normal destructive work of mutations. See, I do learn from these discussions.
You have once again produced a paragraph of complete nonsense. You don't even seem to care anymore about at least giving the appearance of making sense. (sic) "Speciation does exist, but it's not speciation." "Speciation is when a species can't interbreed with itself yet is still the same species." "New species are short on genetic diversity." "New species are the result of deleterious mutations." You even seem to have lost knowledge of simple word definitions. Inability to interbreed is the very definition of the boundary between species.
So it doesn't have to be the case that a breed must cease to be able to interbreed with others of its Kind to be a model of what happens in the wild.
Speciation definitely is not inability of a species to breed with itself. By definition there can be no such thing. And breeding is not a model of speciation. Breeding cannot produce new species because offspring are always genetically compatible with the rest of the species.
The formation of new populations with new characteristics always has to follow that pattern of selection=loss of genetic diversity no matter what. It's a Principle.
It's not a principle, it's just something you made up, and selection does not inevitably lead to loss of genetic diversity.
The grizzly bear doesn't have the alleles for the salient traits of panda bears and vice versa, and yet who knows if a panda could mate with a grizzly given the right circumstances.
So you're thinking maybe they're the same species, we just don't know it? Given that the result of horse/zebra crossings are invariably sterile or nearly so and the chromosome numbers are 64/46, since the chromosome numbers for grizzly/panda are even more divergent at 74/42 it would make the crosses more difficult to produce and the offspring even more likely sterile. In other words, a virile grizzly/panda cross is unlikely in the extreme. The Ursid hybrid article at Wikipedia says:
quote:
Bears not included in Ursus, such as the giant panda, are probably unable to produce hybrids.
So much of the ToE is just assumption based on faith in the Theory.
So it must seem to someone so ignorant of so much evidence.
Since mutations are ASSUMED rather than proved in most cases it is certainly right to doubt the role assigned to them. But what I've actually said is not that they CAN'T be responsible but that there is NO NEED for them because the original created genome has all that is necessary for every variation, race and subspecies that exists now and many many more besides,...
There is no evidence for an "original created genome". All the evidence tells us that species are a result of the combined processes of natural selection and descent with modification (mutation and allele mixing). Mere reduction of genetic diversity cannot produce new species.
That being the case, and there being no need for mutations, I go with the more elegant theory, which IS a principle of scientific authenticity.
If elegance is what you're looking for then understand that being consistent with instead of contradictory to existing evidence is a major contributor to elegance.
It adds to the argument that mutations are just useless accidents that are only beneficial in certain contexts by fluke and not design.
You've finally said something with an element of truth. Mutations are random with respect to fitness. Those that are neutral can get passed on, those that are beneficial will be actively selected for.
Not what I've said. What I've said is that there is no need for loss of ability to interbreed for species to to be "a real thing,"...
Inability to interbreed is the very definition of species.
...that it's the supposed need for something called "speciation" that's the illusion, not the existence of species.
But you describe a flood scenario that also requires speciation, from the "original created genome" of the few species from the ark to produce all the species we see today.
Yes because they are just different varieties of the species they evolved within. There are a great many "species" out there that are not genetically incompatible with others of their Kind, so the cause of the genetic incompatibility, whatever it is, is not definitive of "species."
So if pandas and grizzlies are the same kind that had a single pair of representatives on the ark, how did they up with widely different numbers of chromosomes, genes and alleles without a great deal of mutation?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 803 by Faith, posted 08-24-2017 11:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:34 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 812 of 908 (818232)
08-25-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 808 by Faith
08-25-2017 8:33 AM


Faith writes:
I know you see contradictions everywhere in what I write, but I don't see saying there's no point in defining Kind as contradicting the idea that there's a functional boundary to the Kind. Surely a boundary that is only discovered through the processes of evolution isn't the same thing as a definition of what constitutes a Kind.
If there were any truth to the idea of original created kinds it would have been discovered by genetic analysis long ago. There is no evidence for any classification category like the Biblical kind. It's a religious invention and has no scientific merit.
The definition you attempted to offer for kind, that it's when selection depletes genetic diversity, is useless because of the inherent vagueness in the word "depletes". Selection depletes genetic diversity each time it removes an allele from a population, but such a minor thing as removal of a single allele can't define the boundary of a kind. So does it take the removal of two alleles. Three? How many? And how does genetic depletion define the boundary of a kind, since it was already a kind. You're saying things that are both untrue and that don't even make sense. Try to get a handle on the part about making sense. Even if "original created kinds" were true, you're still saying things about kinds that make no sense.
Two alleles per gene is plenty, all the extra alleles are superfluous even when they seem to do something.
Now you're way off into la-la land and making things up. Diversity ("all the extra alleles") is important to the fitness of a population.
I do doubt that you have DNA ancient enough to prove junk DNA was never functional. Timing isn't very trustworthy in that context.
The evidence we have says the timing is trustworthy, and you have no evidence that it isn't. Check out the Wikipedia article on Ancient DNA. DNA from millions of years ago has been studied, and DNA from humans back as far as 17,000 years, way before creation and the flood. I know you reject the evidence of age, but you do so because of your religious beliefs, not because of any supporting evidence of your own. Some of the DNA comes from Egyptian mummies, whose great age of as much as 5,000 years can't be disputed.
How is supposing there were probably a lot more genes per trait "clearly not true?" With 95% of the genome junk DNA, if it was all once functioning it had to do a lot of things that don't get done now and as I think about the weakness of so many of our capacities, such as our senses, and the "vestigial organs" it just seems logical to me that they would have been much stronger at the beginning. And I'm talking about human capacities, not HBD's absurd parody implying I think we'd have NONhuman capacities like breathing underwater, flying and walking up vertical walls. Makes sense to me that all the animals would have had better versions of what they have now given the greater vigor of life at the Creation.
And none of this ancient DNA contains any evidence of the kind of incredibly significant differences you're describing, including that most of the junk DNA was functional and only became junk DNA in the period after creation and the flood. You also ignore the evidence that a great deal of junk DNA does have a function in the realm of gene regulation. There is no evidence of better senses or greater robustness or longer lifespans or anything. Life in the past was pretty much the same as life today.
I don't trust the evidence offered by your side, sorry.
You're committing false denigration again. There's every reason to place the greatest trust in the evidence that has been gathered and analyzed with the greatest care. You certainly have no evidence of equivalent quality, or even any evidence at all.
ABE: Oh and anyone who says the Flood has been disproven certainly deserves no trust. Strata to three miles deep and fossils in the bazillions. (Strata turned into Time Periods is the most absurd thing the human race has ever come up wityh.)
I was referring to your ideas of what happened genetically after the flood. Disproven is too kind a word. Most of your genetic claptrap is self-evidently impossible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 8:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:44 AM Percy has replied
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 10:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 825 of 908 (818258)
08-25-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 810 by Faith
08-25-2017 9:02 AM


Re: What Really Happens
Faith writes:
Not reading a stupid article that claims anything is 2.3 million years old, especially birds that would evolve all kinds of forms within hundreds of years.
I wasn't suggesting you read it. For one thing it's very long. I was just providing a reference to the source of my information.
And the article is glaring white.
Most articles are. You're using your eyesight as an excuse for maintaining your ignorance.
Population splits by themselves do not create new phenotypes. It takes a split accompanied by different selection pressures.
Depends on the size of the population whether the split itself is selection enough to bring out new phenotypes from its new set of gene frequencies.
What I said is self-evidently true. Let me repeat it more precisely. The generation in which a population split occurs experiences no new phenotypes. It takes selection pressures over succeeding generations to produce any phenotypic change. You left that out of your description, and I was just calling it to your attention.
Actually that shouldn't be a problem, but genetic diversity may not show a lot of reduction in the first rounds of population splits, some but not a lot.
You're still leaving generations of reproduction and selection out of your description. A population split cannot by itself change phenotype.
Population splits ARE selection.
I suppose, but if you split a population into two, the phenotypes of the individuals won't change. That can only happen in succeeding generations through selection.
The idea of selection pressures is way overrated.
You're being absurd again. Manipulating selection pressures is how breeders get different phenotypes, and it is analogous to natural selection in the wild.
The finches probably possess lots of mutations but mutations are not needed for the emergence of different kinds of beaks.
I don't know if mutations were "needed" or not (and neither do you), if there were perhaps other ways the beaks could have been achieved, but mutations are how the beaks happened.
What I said about skin color is that all it takes to produce the whole range of colors is two genes of two alleles each, and the fact that there are more genes than that governing skin color does not contradict that simple statement.
Actually, it does pretty much contradict that simple statement. The proteins produced by the different alleles of hundreds of genes cannot possibly be replicated by "two genes of two alleles each". Simple math says no.
And the point holds that if all the skin colors can be produced by two genes, there is no problem producing the whole range of beak types and sizes with a very small number of genes too.
If you were doing the genome design yourself then maybe you could accomplish things with fewer genes and alleles, but genetic analysis says that Darwin's finches didn't follow your path.
A fine parroting of the establishment view but I don't accept the establishment view.
Yes, we know, but not for any reasons based upon evidence from the real world.
If the environment was responsible for selection all living things would have gone extinct a long long time ago.
You're being absurd again. It's because the environment is responsible for selection that there's such a thing as adaptation. Adaptation to selection pressures has been established by breeding experiments and field work over and over again.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 810 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 4:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 827 of 908 (818261)
08-25-2017 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
08-25-2017 9:34 AM


Re: My summary of 800 posts of misunderstandings
Faith writes:
Oh my, more silly semantic hurdles.
No, it's you mangling language. You can't invent your own definitions. You can't say anything meaningful while using terms you can't define.
The term "speciation" describes something real, a real population that can't interbreed with the rest of its species,...
A species is a population of organisms capable of interbreeding. A population that can't interbreed with the rest of its species is a different species. One population that can't interbreed with another population is a different species.
...it is merely a population that has some kind of genetic problem so that it can't interbreed,...
How pray tell, does one tell when the reason one population can't interbreed with another is because it's a different species versus it's the same species but has a genetic problem? Do you have any examples from the real world of a species population with genetic problems preventing it from interbreeding with another population of the same species? Does the absurdity of your own ridiculous claims never strike you?
...and very probably (we'd need examples) can't evolve further either.
Yes, you would need examples, because that's impossible since all life can evolve. The DNA copying that occurs during gamete formation is not without error, mutations are invariably introduced, and so the genes and alleles that are passed down through the generations inevitably change.
Where do you got this piece of craziness? Oh "others of its Kind" must be your excuse,...
Have you forgotten that you haven't yet provided a definition of "kind"? Either provide a useful definition of "kind" or stop using the term.
The context alone should have told you I'm talking about the standard definition of speciation as a new "species'" inability to breed with other populations of its Kind,...
One more time, you haven't defined kind. No one can know what you mean when you refer to the inability of a new species to breed with other populations of its "kind".
Selection in any given situation "does not inevitably lead to loss of genetic diversity" but as I've said many many times it's a trend that will ULTIMATELY end there if it gets that far.
You've never been able to provide any support for this. Instead you ignore mutation. You can't say anything accurate and true about evolution when you ignore half of it.
Grizzly to polar bear then, why do you make mountains out of molehills?
Why are your posts so full of errors? When you make a nonsensical statement, who knows what you really meant? You keep requesting that people make a greater effort to understand what you're really trying to say, but where is the effort on your part to say things that are true and make sense?
And once again you haven't looked things up. While grizzly bears and panda bears are very unlikely to be able to mate, grizzly bears and polar bears can most certainly mate. They have exactly the same number of chromosomes, and the polar bear is so closely related to the brown bear (the grizzly bear is a subspecies of brown bear) that it's likely just another subspecies of brown bear.
The key point is that there is no evidence supporting your supposition that there are many fewer species in the world than we think, that in many cases what we think are different species are actually the same species genetically, just with different allele frequencies. If that were the case it would have been detected long ago.
There is plenty of evidence for an original created genome. Just eliminate the mutations and suppose the junk DNA to once have been functional operating genes and there it is.
Uh, you do know what evidence is, right? You know that evidence doesn't emerge from ignoring things and supposing things, right? You know it comes from observation and experimentation, you know, research, right? So let's try again. Where is the evidence for an original created genome?
My Flood scenario does not require "speciation" meaning the genetic inability to interbreed with the rest of the species...etc...
There is no evidence for any of this, and the evidence we do have contradicts it.
Mutations can mess up all kinds of genetic relationships, no mystery there.
Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial.
You're very good at stating the establishment paradigm. It's all an elaborate fantasy but you're good at it.
What you're actually referring to is the evidence that has been gained using the best techniques of observation and experimentation. The same techniques behind all scientific research. You have nothing equivalent.
Except in those cases that get called "speciation" but are really just members of the same species that have undergone some kind of genetic glitch.
As I said earlier, if this were the case then it would have been detected long ago, because modern taxonomic classifications have become increasingly based upon genetic analysis. There isn't even a glimmer of a possibility that your statement is true.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 5:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 831 of 908 (818265)
08-25-2017 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 813 by Faith
08-25-2017 9:44 AM


Faith writes:
Science isn't going to discover anything that contradicts its favorite system of interpretation, especially since all the terminology is interwoven with the system, making the recognition of different interpretations impossible for those of a lockstep mentality.
We've had no trouble recognizing your "different interpretations." They're wrong, and we've explained why. Your religious beliefs seem to be getting in the way of your reasoning powers and interest in learning anything.
And "Kind" is just the English word for "Species" which is necessary in these discussions because "Species" is so wrapped up in evo definitions. I'd happily use "Species" instead except for that problem.
Please either define kind or use the word species.
"Depleted" just means can't evolve further. Like the cheetah.
But the cheetah *can* evolve further. There's nothing that could possibly prevent it, except extinction.
It would have lots of fixed loci, for the genes that distinguish it as a subspecies,...
How is having "lots of fixed loci" the same thing as "can't evolve further"? What could possible prevent a species with "lots of fixed loci" fixating one additional loci, which of course constitutes evolving further? What could possibly prevent mutation, which of course also constitutes evolving further?
...but there's no need for ALL loci to be fixed.
Even a species with all loci fixed can evolve further. There's nothing known that can prevent mutation.
So we're left still not knowing what you mean by "depleted," and so you still have no definition of "kind".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 833 of 908 (818267)
08-25-2017 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 814 by Faith
08-25-2017 10:44 AM


Faith writes:
Yeah I know, I'm way out in la la land because I think the ToE is the biggest delusion ever foisted on humanity. As for "denigrating" it by distrusting the evidence for it, I don't regard it as a legitimate science.
But you don't think that based on evidence or reasoning, you think that because of your religious beliefs.
REAL science however I do appreciate. I've been watching a series on Netflix about Forensics, REAL science that really proves things of real value. Very satisfying to see real science in action.
Forensics? You mean analysis of evidence to reconstruct events from the past without directly observing them, that kind of forensics?
The boundary of the Kind is where further evolution is impossible. Like it is for the cheetah.
Boy, you're like a broken record. Again, there's nothing preventing the cheetah from further evolution. There's nothing preventing any species from further evolution, except extinction.
Considering that you can get a whole new "species" of lizard in thirty some odd years from ten founders,...
How interesting! When did the Pod Mrcaru lizards get promoted to species status? And how could this happen since they're genetically identical to their ancestors on Pod Kopiste?
...and four distinctively different breeds of cattle in a few years just from separation of parts of the original population,...
I don't know what you're referring to by the other three breeds, but I presume one of them is the Jutland breed of cattle, which took a few centuries beginning in the 1600s, not a few years.
...certainly backs up my "claptrap"...
Producing different breeds that are genetically indistinguishable does not support your 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,...
So now you're changing your story again, and new species *were* produced after the flood? Or did you just misspeak.
...especially given much greater heterozygosity and much less junk DNA in the Ark animals.
And one more time, this time with gusto! We have lots of DNA evidence of ancient animals, and ancient DNA is much the same as modern DNA. There is no evidence whatsoever for your claim, and much contrary evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 10:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 837 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 835 of 908 (818269)
08-25-2017 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 829 by Faith
08-25-2017 5:39 PM


Re: My summary of 800 posts of misunderstandings
Faith writes:
I hope you don't mind if I just say that your entire post is a bunch of wacko accusatory nonsense,...
Oh, my, what insightful rebuttal. About the same in quality as most of your stuff.
Don't you think it's time to close down this charade?
The charade, involving baseless assertions, refusal to consider evidence, refusal to read sources, refusal even to read carefully crafted messages posted to you, is all coming from your side. If you're growing weary of making stuff up then I suggest you find some evidence that supports your views. Obviously at some level you must sense the need for evidence, else you wouldn't keep mentioning the Pod Mrcaru lizards and the Jutland cattle, but that evidence is useless to you because it's already consistent with what is known about evolution. Plus breeders have no trouble producing greater differences than those examples in shorter time periods - there's nothing exceptional about them.
If you decide to continue that's up to you, but if you do then I suggest you: a) find supporting evidence; b) stop ignoring existing evidence. When your arguments acquire a more solid foundation then you'll likely find discussion much easier and more enjoyable.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 5:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 849 of 908 (818291)
08-26-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 837 by Faith
08-25-2017 9:58 PM


Faith writes:
I used to wonder about evolution's strange lack of evidence way back when I believed in it.
Your lack of awareness of evidence and irrational rejection of evidence don't make the mountains of evidence disappear. It just makes you ignorant and irrational and incapable of carrying on an evidence-based discussion. You live in a fantasy world where you think it valid to say, "I reject your evidence," while providing no reason, no contrary evidence, no counterargument. You rarely make it through a post without making a number of evidential and logical errors, not a good source of valid ideas.
When I came to understand Creation it's like that gave me a sort of permission to consider it wrong,...
This might make sense if you were engaged in a religious discussion, but you're not. This is a scientific discussion, so far distinguished by your inability to bring any evidence or rational argument to the table. The only permission needed for you to consider evolution wrong is actual evidence and rational argument in your favor. So far there's been none.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 837 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 9:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 850 of 908 (818292)
08-26-2017 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
08-25-2017 10:00 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Faith writes:
The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically.
Yet another one liner restatement of something already rebutted in detail multiple times.
The idea that there can be an "inability to evolve further" is starkly contradicted by what we observe happens in the real world. There is nothing besides extinction that can bring evolution to a halt because mutations are continually added to populations' gene pools generation after generation. We know the mutation rate of many species, and it is well above zero. The Wikipedia article on mutation rate estimates the number of new mutations per generation in humans to be 64.
Mutations may be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. Sufficiently deleterious mutations will be selected against and will tend to be eliminated from a population. Beneficial mutations will be selected for and will tend to spread through a population. Neutral mutations that do nothing (e.g., they're in a non-coding region) can spread or be eliminated through genetic drift. Neutral mutations that are neutral because they do the same thing as the old allele will be selected for or against at the same rate as the old allele.
Another way evolution keeps going is gene flow with closely related populations, which introduces new alleles and sometimes even new genes. Yet another way is viruses that insert new genes. And of course there's always varying gene frequencies, since genetic diversity never drops to zero.
Bottom line: claiming that reductions in genetic diversity can bring evolution to a halt is one of the most obviously false things you could say.
--Percy

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