Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 811 of 908 (818231)
08-25-2017 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 809 by Percy
08-25-2017 8:55 AM


Re: My summary of 800 posts of misunderstandings
Oh my, more silly semantic hurdles. The term "speciation" describes something real, a real population that can't interbreed with the rest of its species, but it isn't in fact speciation as the term is understood. That is, it does not represent a stage of evolution called macroevolution as a step to further evolution, it is merely a population that has some kind of genetic problem so that it can't interbreed, and very probably (we'd need examples) can't evolve further either.
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.
Where do you got this piece of craziness? Oh "others of its Kind" must be your excuse, It doesn't mean to you other populations of its Kind, oh I see, amazing how many ways you are able to completely distort anything I say. Yes I suppose if I could anticipate all your absurdities I would make an effort to cover all the possible loopholes but such weirdness is really beyond me.
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, but such simple context clues either elude you or are intentionally ignored for the pleasure of pretending I'm saying something stupid. When it's you being stupid.
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.
Grizzly to polar bear then, why do you make mountains out of molehills? The point is a simple one: different "species" in the wild may nevertheless be able to mate and have viable offspring. If a particular pair can't so what, the point is still valid. Sheesh The point is that Speciation as conventionally defined is NOT necessary to the formation and existence of Species as conventionallyl defined.
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. And a lot of it is still intact fortunately.
My Flood scenario does not require "speciation" meaning the genetic inability to interbreed with the rest of the species. All the formation of subspecies requires is reproductive isolation which after the Flood probably resulted from simple geographic dispersal to distant locations, as well as mating preferences. Speciation was not needed, and the context in which this case came up was the accusation that breeding can't be a model for evolution because of the lack of speciation, but my argument is that speciation doesn't happen in the wild either and where such a population does exist it isn't what is meant by speciation anyway.
Mutations can mess up all kinds of genetic relationships, no mystery there.
You're very good at stating the establishment paradigm. It's all an elaborate fantasy but you're good at it.
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.
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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 8:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 827 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 5:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 813 of 908 (818233)
08-25-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 812 by Percy
08-25-2017 9:40 AM


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..
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.
"Depleted" just means can't evolve further. Like the cheetah. It would have lots of fixed loci, for the genes that distinguish it as a subspecies, but there's no need for ALL loci to be fixed.
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 812 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 9:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 831 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 5:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 814 of 908 (818235)
08-25-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 812 by Percy
08-25-2017 9:40 AM


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. 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.
The boundary of the Kind is where further evolution is impossible. Like it is for the cheetah. Lots of homozygosity. It's only a boundary for a particular evolving line of course. Every evolving line will reach its own boundary. That's why it isn't a definition, just a marker.
Considering that you can get a whole new "species" of lizard in thirty some odd years from ten founders, and 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, especially given much greater heterozygosity and much less junk DNA in the Ark animals.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 9:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2017 11:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 833 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 6:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 817 of 908 (818238)
08-25-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 816 by Taq
08-25-2017 10:53 AM


Re: What Really Happens
Isolated inbred populations,k the selection being the collection of original founders. The Amish. Getting genetic diseases. I'm sure there are other examples.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by Taq, posted 08-25-2017 10:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by Taq, posted 08-25-2017 11:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 819 of 908 (818240)
08-25-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 818 by Taq
08-25-2017 10:56 AM


I was answering HBD, not you.
Since what you are asking doesn't exist I can't answer you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by Taq, posted 08-25-2017 10:56 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by Taq, posted 08-25-2017 11:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 824 by jar, posted 08-25-2017 11:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 826 of 908 (818259)
08-25-2017 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 825 by Percy
08-25-2017 3:50 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Objecting to evo theory must be ignorance of course. I'm pretty sure that eventually it will be seen that the evos are the ignorant ones. Not that my particular theories are all correct, who knows, but something in that ballpark is certainly the truth and evolutionism certainly isn't.
If I'm going to go blind from macular degeneration I'd rather it not be from reading stuff I abhor as much as I do evolutionary theory. If you don't mind.
My theory is SO elegant, so consistent, so fine, and SO unappreciated, alas.
But maybe if I continue in the pop gen videos something will come of it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 825 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 3:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 828 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2017 5:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 844 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2017 3:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 829 of 908 (818263)
08-25-2017 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 827 by Percy
08-25-2017 5:27 PM


Re: My summary of 800 posts of misunderstandings
I hope you don't mind if I just say that your entire post is a bunch of wacko accusatory nonsense, as most of them have been in the last few days. It's so much more economical than slogging through it all to point it out statement by statement.
Don't you think it's time to close down this charade?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 827 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 5:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 835 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 6:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 830 of 908 (818264)
08-25-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by Tangle
08-25-2017 5:39 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Oh I know what it would take and would pounce on it if it came my way, fear not. Meanwhile I have to put up with the snarky nonsense of evos who don't have any evidence either, just snark and pseudoscience.
I know it's hard to grasp but it is possible for an entire field to get off to such a wrong start that it just keeps compounding its errors and calling them science. And of course this applies to the evolutionary "sciences" rather than the true sciences, because it's all nprovable in principle. Really, it is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2017 5:39 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by jar, posted 08-25-2017 6:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 834 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2017 6:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 836 by JonF, posted 08-25-2017 8:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 837 of 908 (818276)
08-25-2017 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by Percy
08-25-2017 6:20 PM


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.
Not really. I used to wonder about evolution's strange lack of evidence way back when I believed in it. When I came to understand Creation it's like that gave me a sort of permission to consider it wrong, that's really the main difference.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by Percy, posted 08-25-2017 6:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 849 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 8:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 838 of 908 (818277)
08-25-2017 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 836 by JonF
08-25-2017 8:10 PM


Re: What Really Happens
The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by JonF, posted 08-25-2017 8:10 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 839 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 1:38 AM Faith has replied
 Message 848 by JonF, posted 08-26-2017 7:15 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 850 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 8:36 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 876 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 11:10 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 840 of 908 (818279)
08-26-2017 2:20 AM


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.
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. Take dogs. All the dog breeds are supposedly genetically capable of breeding with all others. So take cats: some can't breed wsith others, such as cheetahs. But they are all cats, yet the cheetah is regarded as a species unto itself. Was there a "speciation" event that brought this about? What about bears? I compared the grizzly with the panda which brought some kind of uproar because they are supposedly different species. But both are true bears of the family Ursidae so what is this ridiculous uproar about anyway? 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. Whatever brings about that inability doesn't remove the animal from its basic Species or Kind: a panda is a bear, a grizzly is a bear, a polar bear is a bear. A lion is a cat and a tiger is a cat, certainly at least as genetically different from each other as a golden retriever is from a cocker spaniel, and there is no problem with interbreeding between either group.
So stop with the hairsplitting semantics. My point holds: breeding is a good model of evolution on many counts.
There was another big uproar about my opinion on speciation. Simple English escapes some people who get themselves so steeped in technical terminology they can't think.
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. Whatever the reason yes THEY are making the discussion impossible and accusing me of being the problem. When there is one lone YEC against half a dozen rabid evos you'd think a little more effort would be made to understand the creationist. You'd think but you'd be wrong.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 842 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 2:50 AM Faith has replied
 Message 851 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 9:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 841 of 908 (818280)
08-26-2017 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 839 by PaulK
08-26-2017 1:38 AM


Re: What Really Happens
The logical argument has been given dozens of times here. I may not do it justice with any particular repeating of it, but I can try again: 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.; If they are purebreds in past generations before breeders were worried about genetic diseases they would have been homozygous for all their distinguishing traits, which is a condition of greatly reduced gentic diversity. 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.
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.
While such subspecies are probably not close to being purebred in the sense mentioned above, the processes that led to their original divergence from others of their Kind would necessarily have eliminated traits that do not belong to their own trait picture, which means they have some degree of reduced genetic diversity in comparison to the parent population they diverged from.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 1:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 845 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 3:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 843 of 908 (818282)
08-26-2017 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 842 by PaulK
08-26-2017 2:50 AM


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)
It was my theory. Theories are by definition "made up." I thought that was the likely cause of the inability to interbreed. As I said a number of times in recent posts I believe. It appears the theory is wrong. Why do you have to make it sound like something evil when it is a perfectly standard thought process?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 842 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 2:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 3:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 847 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2017 3:14 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 852 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 10:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 853 of 908 (818295)
08-26-2017 10:48 AM


Sorry if I don't read through insulting posts, they raise my blood pressure and it's not a pleasant feeling.
Yes I understand, nothing could possibly be true if it isn't in lockstep with evo theory. Definitions must all be in line with evo theory, you can't have an original thought because evo theory says something else. I understand, that's the rules here. Sorry I don't play by them but I don't.
I'm still not completely sure there aren't some cases where the cause of inability to interbreed is genetic depletion. It must at times at least be the result of normally occurring genetic differences brought about by microevolution. In any case it has nothing to do with what is called "speciation."
YEC isn't the ToE and I have many many objections to different tenets of the ToE. Utter heresy of course, and you can excommunicate me if you like since it's your church as it were, but I don't agree with the classification system, I don't agree with the definition of "speciation," I do think breeding is a good model of what happens in evolution which at the very least requires reduction in genetic diversity due to random selection; I know microevolution occurs normally in a very short period of time, hundreds of years being a pretty long time, and I find evidence for this in examples I've given both of living species and fossils, I know it only takes new combinations of the original created DNA to bring about new characteristics, mutations being an interference and unnecessary, and that this requires losing the genetic stuff for other characteristics, I believe that it is very rare that change is driven by the environment, genetic change being the usual cause of adaptations and "fitness," though I thinki the whole idea of fitness is overrated; and overall I know the ToE is a crock.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 854 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2017 11:23 AM Faith has replied
 Message 856 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 11:32 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 859 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2017 12:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 861 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2017 3:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 855 of 908 (818299)
08-26-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 854 by Tangle
08-26-2017 11:23 AM


SO many ways there are to state the status quo without bothering to think about the challenges to it.
ABE: And I'm quite sure that very little if anything I've said is an old idea.
And Percy, if you come back to this post: I'm not reading anything else you post.;
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2017 11:23 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 11:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 858 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2017 12:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 860 by Percy, posted 08-26-2017 1:53 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