|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 20326 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
Please show your calculations. Oh, you don't have any? It's just an uniformed fantasy? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
Logic yes. Logic based on false premises is false.
Do you have any calculations or observations of the real world whether there are enough beneficial mutations (or neutral but beneficial when the environment changes, or detrimental but conferring some benefit before it's lost) to account for no inevitable loss of diversity? Of course you don't. You made it up, you believe it, and you think that everything you believe should be regarded by all as established fact. Doesn't work that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
Nope.
That's true, but irrelevant. They are very rare but that's not enough to support your argument. The evidence shows us that they aren't too rare to offset loss of genetic diversity. You claim they are too rare to offset that loss. That's the foundation of your claims. If it's false your claims are false. So it's up to you to produce some analysis or measurements that show they are not just rare but too rare to offset loss of genetic diversity. But you have none. Because the claim that they are too rare is false. {ETA} I've deleted those extra forward slashes three times and they keep coming back. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix italicized/bold text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
Show your calculations. Oh, wait, you have no calculations. It's just another of your fantasies. Each human has something on the order of 100 mutations. That's about 700,000,000,000 in all the humans on earth. Is that not enough to offset the loss of genetic diversity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
FIFY.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
Based on the assumption that mutations are too rare to compensate for loss of genetic diversity.
For which you have no support. "Rare" is not necessarily "too rare".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
I might well have missed something, but I can't think of any possible reason why increasing genetic diversity prevents the formation of new species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
Pretty obviously not. You are claiming that mutations can't happen at a rate fast enough to make up for lost genetic diversity. Pointing out that beneficial mutations are rare is not agreeing with you. Again "rare" does not necessarily mean "too rare". "Too rare" is the foundation of your argument. You've made no attempt to support that assumption. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
I don't have much to contribute to the technical aspects of this discussion, but it's worth pointing out that you are asserting what you thinkis the truth. There is a gigantic difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
You don't have what you need to demonstrate that your ideas are valid but you insist your ideas are valid and people who don't accept them as valid misunderstand or are brainwashed. Of course you see no problem there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
Maybe. But logic isn't sufficient. To produce a true result it must be based on true premises. Your false assumption that mutations cannot be significant renders the whole thing invalid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
Definitely untrue. We think it's ignorance to make claims about the real world that are known as false. Such as "mutations aren't required"; you fantasize a incoherent hypothesis that is soundly refuted. And you ignore the refutations. ETA such as the "elegant original design of DNA". You made it up from nothing, with no evidence at all, and all you offer is more accusations and wild claims. You certainly come across as a person with no understanding as evidence. You seem unable to distinguish between objective facts and your fantasies. I hope you aren't really like that, but I certainly suspect you are. (Cue flounce in 3 - 2 - 1...) Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 5610 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
Actually mostly they don't come along at the right time. About 99% of all the species that ever lived are extinct. They sure wouldn't agree mutations come along at the right time. Obviously that's difficult to measure but it is definitely a very high percentage. You are only seeing the winners. It's exactly the same as surveying lottery winners and expressing surprise that every one of them won a lottery! Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019