Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
29 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,852 Year: 18,888/19,786 Month: 1,308/1,705 Week: 114/446 Day: 10/104 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 29 of 1362 (843821)
11-21-2018 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
11-21-2018 2:18 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

gto the extent that this is going on it is about microevolution, period

Microevolution is still evolution.

quote:

. There isn't one iota of evidence for evolution beyond the Kind

I really don’t know why you tell these lies. The nested hierarchy of Linnaean taxonomy, the genetic evidence of distant relationships, the many transitional fossils are all evidence of common ancestry well beyond the limits creationists would accept. There is not one iota of evidence that many unrelated “kinds” exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 2:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 2:32 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 80 by Dredge, posted 03-07-2019 12:33 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 33 of 1362 (843827)
11-21-2018 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
11-21-2018 2:32 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.

No. You have never shown it. You have repeatedly asserted it, but the fact is that mutation does increase genetic variability, so it never runs out short of extinction.

quote:

Nested hierrarchy and transitional fossils are simply interpreted to support the ToE but there is no ACTUAL evidence of such a relationship, it's merely assumed.

Of course they are evidence of evolutionary relationships. Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do. If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear.

Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one.

quote:

And you get distant genetic relationships also by assuming the ToE, otherwise you'd have to explain it more realistically.

That’s just silly. Gene sequences aren’t assumed nor do assumptions make the matches between them appear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 2:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 10:12 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 271 by Dredge, posted 03-26-2019 1:36 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 41 of 1362 (843856)
11-22-2018 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
11-21-2018 10:12 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

I've explained how any genetic increase -- which would include beneficial mutations if they actually existed in the necessary numbers, which they don't -- would meet the same fate as any allele in such a situation, ending up as fixed loci from which further variation is impossible

First, the “necessary number” is very, very low. Second, neutral mutations will do. Third, there are cases where selection will preserve variation. Finally - and most importantly - your argument proves you wrong.

If evolutionary change cannot happen the population cannot genetically change. But a new allele has appeared and taken over the population. Evolution HAS occurred. And it can happen again.

“It happened therefore it couldn’t” is a ridiculous argument. But here you are making it. The only thing it proves is your irrationality.

quote:

Once you have fixed loci for a great number of traits you have this situation that further evolution is effectively impossible. Even if you get a single mutation that is passed on it is a trivial change that is hardly cause for optimism for any change on the scale required by the ToE. Fixed loci are essentially the end of the evolutionary road

It’s a slowdown, not a stop. And the evidence indicates that it hasn’t got near that stage yet.

quote:

And this is where an evolving line has to end up. In the same condition as the cheetah and the elephant seals, and the fact that they got there a lot faster doesn't change the fact that it's the same situation, and if mutation could provide the basis for further variation that might save either from extinction it would have by now.

The fact that other species haven’t gotten there is evidence that it won’t happen to everything - or, at worst, that it will take a long, long time to happen. Your claims about timescales are just your assumptions.

quote:

Evolution defeats evolution: it "spends" genetic diversity in order to produce new phenotypes, and if this trend continues to its logical extreme that's the end of evolutiion for that line of variation. And that has to be the definition of the boundary of the Kind: where evolution stops for lack of genetic diversity.

So the boundary is a theoretical limit that hasn’t occurred yet - and there is still no evidence of separate “kinds” on Earth.

quote:

But if they aren't they aren't, or they are except that onfirmation bias has prevented this from being seen. Transitional fossils do not occur in anywhere near the numbers Darwin himself said would be necessary to prove his theory. You have a very scanty collection, and there is no reason to think of them as anything but variations on a Kind, or another Kind unto itself.

They don’t exist in the numbers we would expect if the fossil record was complete - but we know it isn’t. Worse for you the missing fossils are mostly those you would call “within kind” evolution - fossils showing the transition from one species to another. But we do have plenty of fossils linking larger taxonomic groups -for instance dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, fish to amphibians. To blithely assume that these are just “variations in a kind” and not evidence of an actual relationship is to blind yourself to the evidence.

quote:

According to the ToE though, which is self-confirming.

Wrong on both counts. Evolution should form nested hierarchies but there is no reason for independent creations to form a nested hierarchy. We don’t need the ToE to tell us the latter.

quote:

In any case the FACT, and it is a fact, that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity in the formation of new phenotypes, means none of these other considerations carry any weight at all. Evolution beyond variation within the Kind can't happen. Period.

It is not a “FACT” that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity. The evidence says that it hasn’t, that there are no separate kinds and your theoretical speculations can’t defeat evidence. Build your castles in the air if you like, but the real science will just ignore them, as it should.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 10:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 3:06 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 54 of 1362 (843903)
11-22-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
11-22-2018 3:06 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

You don't need a new allele for new variations to occur, all you need is new combinations of existing alleles to come to dominate in a new population, and all that is required for that to happen is the isolation of some number of individuals from the original population.

I see that you’re desperate to change the subject. It must be embarrassing to be caught trying to cover over the fact that you were proven wrong.

Alrpthough I do wonder how exactly you manage to get “new combinations of alleles” in a population that is homozygous at every locus - which was the situation under discussion. Want to explain that one.

quote:

Oh it must have occurred many times, in many places where a new isolated population that no longer breeds with the parent population has formed and gets called a new "species."

Oh, please explain why it “must” have happened.

The rest is your usual empty theorising. I guess “mental conjuring” is all you have,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 3:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 3:27 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 56 of 1362 (843905)
11-22-2018 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
11-22-2018 3:27 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

NO change is possible at all once a population has reached the point of homozygosity at most loci

That’s been proven wrong even in the case where a species is homozygous at every allele. You unwittingly admitted it. That’s why you were changing the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 3:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 3:47 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 60 of 1362 (843911)
11-22-2018 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
11-22-2018 3:47 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

Your endless slimy insinuations remind me of the character so often described in the Book of Proverbs who sets traps for the righteous. Sometimes he gets caught in them himself.

Sure Faith. Nobody should dare tell the truth about YOU. You’re an evil lying slanderer! As you keep reminding us. Funny how it never works.

quote:

You rarely ever explain what you mean which makes it possible to accuse me of all kinds of things, in this case of admitting something I have no idea of admitting.

By which you mean that you are incapable of following the conversation. Or perhaps you pretend to be, because you keep getting refuted.

quote:

NO idea what you are saying, but that is of course what you intend

And yet if you follow the thread back a few messages you could easily see what I was referring to. It is your intent to avoid that knowledge, not mine.

quote:

Maybe you'll slip in your own slime and knock yourself out some day.

Sure, it’s the truth that’s “slime”, not lies and hypocrisy.

quote:

In any case there is no way to get further change from a condition of homozygosity at even most gene loci let alone all.

Since mutation can create heterozygosity you are obviously wrong.

You implicitly admitted it in Message 39


I've explained how any genetic increase -- which would include beneficial mutations if they actually existed in the necessary numbers, which they don't -- would meet the same fate as any allele in such a situation, ending up as fixed loci from which further variation is impossible.

As I pointed out in Message 41


If evolutionary change cannot happen the population cannot genetically change. But a new allele has appeared and taken over the population. Evolution HAS occurred. And it can happen again.

“It happened therefore it couldn’t” is a ridiculous argument. But here you are making it. The only thing it proves is your irrationality.

Which you “answered” by trying to change the subject in Message 52
As I pointed out in Message 54

But of course you can’t possibly remember what was posted yesterday (or even an hour ago) or look back to refresh your memory.

(And, BTW what about haploid life forms? They seem able to evolve just fine even though they can’t be heterozygous)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 3:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 71 of 1362 (844007)
11-24-2018 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
11-23-2018 5:27 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

So I guess you are merely arguing the usual, that because mutation produces the occasional viable allele that therefore we have an increase in genetic diversity which falsifies what I'm saying

On the evidence it seems to be true, so it’s a pretty good answer. Which is why you haven’t been able to refute it yet - and why you avoid the evidence so much.

quote:

But it doesn't because any increase gets eaten up as it were by the selection processes that reduce genetic diversity in order to bring about a new species or subspecies, ---a new population with new phenotypic characteristics

In your opinion. But you have yet to make a case that this produces a real ongoing decrease rather than a fluctuation in diversity.

quote:

As a matter of fact, however, beneficial mutations simply do not show up in any frequency that would interfere with the processes of reduction (and if they did you'd never get new phenotypic groups anyway).


More of your unsupported opinions. You can’t support either claim.

quote:

The cheetah has been waiting a long time for mutations to save it from extinction.

They are a lot further from extinction than they were at the time of the original bottleneck. They have survived a more recent bottleneck due to humans hunting them. You have zero data on what mutations have done to improve their situation.

It’s really telling that you have absolutely no examples from species that have not undergone severe bottlenecks. This “inevitable” result doesn’t seem to occur from ordinary levels of selection at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 11-23-2018 5:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 647 of 1362 (851761)
05-01-2019 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by Faith
05-01-2019 4:22 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
quote:

Yes an explanation of the fossil order would be nice but the evidence for the Flood is compelling without it.

There is no evidence for the Flood that gets anywhere near “compelling”. The order in the fossil record is compelling evidence against your views.

quote:

Also, I don't think the fossil order itself is all that compelling anyway, it's more of an illusion than a reality.

I don’t think that telling silly lies does anything to diminish the strength of the evidence.

quote:

There is not really anything objective that defines why one living form should precede the others over millions of years, it's all imaginative

Aside from the fact that the order exists independently of dating there is the fact that evolution does take considerable time in ordinary conditions.

quote:

AND the idea of millions of years belies the fact that variation in one species is quite extensive over merely a few hundred years in reality. AND that nobody has offered a pathway for getting genetic changes from one species genome to that of another species although I've asked and asked.

The first “fact” is not generally true of wild species and therefore not a fact at all. For the second the question is vague - and it has been pointed out the the differences between human and chimp are within the range of available mutations.

quote:

These questions are far more important than the supposedly fossil order.

But neither presents a solid case against evolution - and neither is evidence for the Flood at all. The order in the fossil record is far stronger as evidence against your views because there is no reasonable prospect of an explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by Faith, posted 05-01-2019 4:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 664 of 1362 (851813)
05-02-2019 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 659 by Faith
05-02-2019 3:34 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
quote:

But the main evidence of the Flood is the sedimentary strata found all over the planet and their fossil contents.

Funny how the “best” evidence for the Flood is evidence against it.

quote:

The idea that such layers of completely different sediments usually demarcated by sharp straight lines between them, would just happen to occur hundreds of millions of years apart so regularly up the geological column is laughably absurd.

And as we know there are plenty that are not flat and not straight. And it isn’t that odd that flat surfaces existed in the past. On the other hand massive halite deposits, sequences indicating gradual transgression and regression of the sea, volcanic eruptions occurring above water and so on rather kill the idea that the strata are due to the Flood.

quote:

And bazillions of fossilized dead things in them perfectly reflects the purpose of the Flood, to kill all the land creatures not saved on the ark.

A rather odd claim to make when most of the fossils found are sea life. And more odd when we find fossils of creatures that died in arid conditions.

quote:

*How* it could have happened is another subject,

Obviously it couldn’t.

quote:

...since nobody here has been able to answer my repeated question about how one species could genetically descend from another either, I think we can leave such questions for later.

There are two important differences. The first is that we have very serious objections to the idea that a Flood could account for the geological and fossil record, while you have no similarly strong objections to the idea of distinct species having a common ancestor.

The second difference is that you are trying to use the problematic features as the main evidence for your view. If you can’t actually explain them, then they aren’t good evidence at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 05-02-2019 3:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 665 of 1362 (851814)
05-02-2019 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Faith
05-02-2019 4:12 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
quote:

Mutation will only change the genes governed by the genome for a particular species, it's not going to change the function of those genes in order to produce something different from what the genome does

Changing the genome will rather obviously change what it does.

quote:

And natural selection happens all the time to favor new variations that are also built into the species genome.

And sometimes to favour completely new variations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 05-02-2019 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 691 of 1362 (851868)
05-03-2019 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by Faith
05-03-2019 1:30 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
quote:

I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain.

DNA certainly can be “snipped out of the DNA chain”. It’s called a deletion.

quote:

What really happens is that it's not expressed in the new population because other genes dominate.

That really doesn’t make sense. Even if we aren’t talking about actually sequencing the DNA. I think you’re failing to understand the terminology.

And what do you mean when you deny that mutations are a natural phenomenon ? Are you suggesting that they are human-created, or a supernatural phenomenon ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 1:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 2:09 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 694 of 1362 (851873)
05-03-2019 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by Faith
05-03-2019 2:09 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Apparently it’s quite common in bacteria.


Gene loss by deletion is a common evolutionary process in bacteria, as exemplified by bacteria with small genomes that have evolved from bacteria with larger genomes by reductive processes.

And this article explains how it can happen, although it’s rather technical


the loss of a gene can be the consequence of an abrupt mutational event, such as an unequal crossing over during meiosis or the mobilization of a transposable or viral element that leads to the sudden physical removal of the gene from an organism's genome

Now how about answering my question? Why do you say that mutations are not a natural phenomenon ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 2:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 12:42 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 702 of 1362 (851905)
05-04-2019 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 699 by Faith
05-04-2019 12:42 AM


Re: Side issue: Gene deletion
quote:

I gather it is a rare occurrence except in bacteria...

You should try reading the links provided.


The recent increase in genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity.

There are plenty of citations to papers about multi-cellular life there, too.

quote:

...and in any case it doesn't affect this discussion that I can see.

It is certainly relevant as to how species can evolve.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 12:42 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by edge, posted 05-04-2019 8:23 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 705 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:24 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 709 of 1362 (851932)
05-04-2019 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 705 by Faith
05-04-2019 10:24 AM


Re: Side issue: Gene deletion
quote:

What mutations do isn't important enough to my argument to spend time on it

That’s probably true for you, because you don’t care about whether your argument is correct or not. But your argument does rest on the claim that mutations cannot account for the genetic differences between species - and that makes it very, very important.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 11:13 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 714 of 1362 (851943)
05-04-2019 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 712 by Faith
05-04-2019 2:57 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
quote:

It makes sense to me and I don't know why it doesn't to you and I guess I never will because nobody can say why for some reason

You’ve been given reasons many times. To give just one recent example from this thread Message 664. And that only lists some of the major objections.

quote:

I can see in Taq's case that he's so deeply into the evo box he can't think outside it....

It’s pretty obvious that you are very deeply stuck in your “floodist” box.

quote:

I don't get people's inability to follow what seems like a straightforward argument. It's reasoned out from what ought to be recognizable observations.

People understand the argument alright. They just don’t understand why you think it’s any good. Especially when the “observations” are over-generalisations at best, and when you ignore many observations that don’t fit - or “explain” them away by inventing crazy nonsense.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 2:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019