It matters to us, because we are looking at data that show what the most likely lines of descent are. The data are both molecular and paleontological.
But the conclusion you draw is purely imaginary.
Oh, good one.
All the things you imagine we conclude are completely incorrect as I pointed out. Have you gone completely daft?
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
All you can get is variations on whatever already exists.
Well, yes, I would agree with you there and that is all that you need. Variations on what already exists.
Microevolution is like walking across town and macroeveolution is like walking across the country. The only difference between the two is the number of steps. There are no boundaries between them.
No. Microevolution combines alleles to vary the creature from what exists in the creature's genome. Macroevolution would need something outside the genome to create a new creature.
You were talking about tracking the line of descent. I'm saying that's imaginary no matter what your data, the only line of descent possible is variation within the genome, it is not possible to get anything outside the genome which is what is necessary for one species to descend from another.
It matters to us, because we are looking at data that show what the most likely lines of descent are. The data are both molecular and paleontological.
But the conclusion you draw is purely imaginary.
Oh, good one.
All the things you imagine we conclude are completely incorrect as I pointed out. Have you gone completely daft?
You were talking about tracking the line of descent. I'm saying that's imaginary no matter what your data, the only line of descent possible is variation within the genome, it is not possible to get anything outside the genome which is what is necessary for one species to descend from another.
OK, so that is a yes, you are completely daft.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
quote:
Another version would be a different eye color from the eye color gene or genes, a different texture of fur from the fur texture gene or genes. Something completely new would be scales instead of fur perhaps, or a completely different kind of eye.
The begged question here is whether small changes can add up to something “completely new”). We have known since Darwin’s time that a human-like eye can be built from relatively small changes - many stages exist in modern life. While the evidence for the evolution of feathers is limited by the fact that the fossil record does not usually preserve them we do have evidence of simpler structures
Eg
The coelurosaur lineages most distant from birds had feathers that were relatively short and composed of simple, possibly branching filaments.[17] Simple filaments are also seen in therizinosaurs, which also possessed large, stiffened "quill"-like feathers.
Something you CALL "macroevolution" happens. It's all word magic, semantics, nothing in physical reality that deserves the name at all.
Something you CALL "speciation" occurs. ...
Correction: how science defines "macroevolution" and "speciation" ... rather than what you think they are, happens. It's not word magic or semantics, it's using words properly with their technical definitions. Anything else is misuse and misguided argument.
Message 49 (faith): ... Macroevolution would need something outside the genome to create a new creature.
Message 42 (faith): ... Something completely new would be scales instead of fur perhaps, or a completely different kind of eye.
These comments typify creationist misuse of the term "macroevolution" and the misguided argument that results from using an incorrect definition of the word. This is imaginary magical transformation, not any kind of evolution as discussed in the biological sciences. This strawman argument against something that does not exist does not refute the actual processes observed and documented by actual scientists using the terms correctly.
It reminds me of the Monty Python show line
Something so offbeat that it is hilarious.
... it is not speciation at all that you are calling by that name. It is a variation on the genetic stuff built into a creature's genome that occurs at a point in a series of variations where a lot of homozygosity has occurred, making breeding very iffy with the new variation. That's all it is. If you examined the DNA of every "speciation" event I'm very sure you'd find out that it has less rather than more ability to vary further, which is hardly a precondition for bringing about a new species. I don't trust science to do this honestly of course.
Nope. The "speciation" has produced something that has much LESS ability to go on evolving, so it isn't going to "continue to microevolve" except in the fevered imagination of evos. You assume it. Except for short time when the variation may play out to the very end of its capacity to vary you've never actually seen this. It's all theory. You imagine it happens because the theory says it happens. The most likely end result of the event you call speciation is extinction though it may survive for a while without any further evolution at all or just a couple of changes before the end comes.
That's the thing. You can't GET any truly novel variations. All you can get is variations on whatever already exists. You may get something that is novel in that context just because it's already fairly depleted, but you won't get anything truly novel, merely a variation on whatever exists in the genome.
This is your typical fantasy rant devoid of any actual evidence that there is any kind of limit to what mutation and selection can develop out of an existing genome. The claimed loss of genetic "ability" to evolve is completely offset by the introduction of new variations via mutations. This has been observed to happen and denial is just your way of deluding yourself.
Anything that isn't already in the stock of variations of the genome. Something the particular gene doesn't code for. Say a human shaped nose with human skin color for the chimpanzee's flat black nose or something like that. Something that is not in the creature's genome. Or an extra chamber to get from the reptile ear to the mammalian ear, and in the right place. Yes you have to have that kind of newness or you can't get a new creature. And that sort of newness isn't going to happen.
Anything that isn't already in the stock of variations of the genome is supplied by mutation and selection. The evidence shows this to be the case.
But that sort of variation is within the existing genetic stuff of the genome. It is not truly novel, it is just another variation on an existing trait. You cannot get a new creature with this sort of variation even if you have millions of them over millions of years. You will only get variations on the same creature. The genome itself has to be changed.
Except that the new mutations were not within the previous existing genetic stuff. All you have is an argument from incredulity and denial of actual evidence.
Correction: how science defines "macroevolution" and "speciation" ... rather than what you think they are, happens. It's not word magic or semantics, it's using words properly with their technical definitions. Anything else is misuse and misguided argument.
Sorry but when an alternative theory is in competition with yours -- you know, it's called "paradigm conflict -- definitions have to change because meanings change. What you call macroevolution is simply not macroevolution because all that is happening is normal variation within a genome; and what you call "speciation" is not speciation because all that has happened is that one variation from the genome has become genetically depleted due probably to many phases of reproductive isolation. It's still within the genome, the fact that interbreeding is no longer possible with the parent population is just a genetic or behavioral event that occurs within the genome. I keep emphasizing this because you can't get something new, a new creature, without something drastically changing in the genome, not just the usual variation of traits of the creature but something entirely new. You don't get a human being from a chimpanzee genome, the chimpanzee genome or that of whatever ape creature you prefer, has to be significantly changed, and absolutely nothing I've ever seen described amounts to such a change, all the descriptions are of the built in variation potentials of a particular genome, without any changes that suggest a change to a new genome. Show me one. Everything you've described is microevolution, change that is programmed into the genome.
Again, what you call macroevolution is a self deception preserved by your insistence on the establishment definition, but in reality it's meaningless and deceitful. Macroevolution has to refer to a new creature outside the variations of a particular genome or it means absolutely nothing and just makes a mockery of the whole ToE claim that species evolve from other species. It is indeed word magic which in this context basically means the reification of an idea which is purely imaginary into a "reality"you all believe in though it has no more actual reality than a string of words has in themselves. I know you believe in your definitions as pointing to actual realities but they don't. However the biological sciences discuss these things they are wrong.
T ... your typical fantasy rant devoid of any actual evidence that there is any kind of limit to what mutation and selection can develop out of an existing genome. The claimed loss of genetic "ability" to evolve is completely offset by the introduction of new variations via mutations. This has been observed to happen and denial is just your way of deluding yourself.
I very rarely "rant" but it's kind of a form of fake news to say I do, fake news of a common sort practiced by today's leftist media, which amounts to mischaracterizing the opponent, in this case me, in a derogatory way, hoping the term will suffice in the place of actual facts to persuade any readers that I'm simply a foul and stupid person rather than somebody who is actually thinking about these things fairly. It works for the Left, so why not for evos? (This form of fake news is no doubt the most common used against Trump all the time these days: no actual fact or evidence need be given, just the use of a derogatory adjective to characterize his style, tone, a phrase or anything at all, or something like "what is he trying to hide?" or other suggestions of immoral or criminal behavior when all he's done is say, perhaps, that he isn't going to hand over his taxes, probably because it is an intrusion on his privacy and he's not obligated to hand them over, as no other citizen is either, and Pelosi hasn't been asked to hand hers over although she is also in a position of influence and power -- although there is nothing at all wrong in them, especially since he's perpetually under audit and the IRS is good at its job.).
Sorry for the digression.
Anything that isn't already in the stock of variations of the genome is supplied by mutation and selection. The evidence shows this to be the case.
OK, give the evidence. But all the evidence you've already given shows no such thing. Mutation can only change what the genetic stuff of the genome already codes for anyway -- it can only come up with a new version of the same trait because that's what the underlying DNA requires. You can get a grey crow, but you can't get a small yellow warbler or a buzzard. And all selection does is eliminate some alleles in favor of others, isolating the grey crow from the black crow for instance. If mutation has produced a brown crow perhaps it might be selected for its own population, though the selection of a mutation has got to be a rare thing.
Except that the new mutations were not within the previous existing genetic stuff.
They can't not be because the gene determines what it codes for. You get a new series of codons for a new protein but there's nothing really new about the result. A different eye color is still an eye color and it's probably not really new anyway, just hasn't shown up for a while. A new fur color isn't really new either, it's still a fur color. A disease in the immune system is an interesting thing to contemplate since it is probably truly new, and has a destructive effect on the gene that is supposed to protect and no longer does. But I'm sure you don't count diseases as macroevolution.
Sorry but when an alternative theory is in competition with yours.
What is this theory, where can I read about it, what journal is it published in?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
quote:
Sorry but when an alternative theory is in competition with yours -- you know, it's called "paradigm conflict -- definitions have to change because meanings change
Your paradigm might use different definitions but that is not a reason for anyone else to use them. You’d do far better to invent your own terminology to avoid confusion. And it certainly isn’t a justification for your nasty accusations.
quote:
What you call macroevolution is simply not macroevolution because all that is happening is normal variation within a genome
You mean that it’s not what you call macroevolution. But that means you’re the one playing semantic games. And, in fact, the genetic level is not even the most important one.
quote:
It's still within the genome, the fact that interbreeding is no longer possible with the parent population is just a genetic or behavioral event that occurs within the genome
That depends on why interbreeding stops. And in the case if the crows being discussed elsewhere, it doesn’t even seem to be primarily genetic - the environment is probably more important.
quote:
I keep emphasizing this because you can't get something new, a new creature, without something drastically changing in the genome, not just the usual variation of traits of the creature but something entirely new. You don't get a human being from a chimpanzee genome, the chimpanzee genome or that of whatever ape creature you prefer, has to be significantly changed, and absolutely nothing I've ever seen described amounts to such a change, all the descriptions are of the built in variation potentials of a particular genome,
Are the genetic differences between chimpanzee and human really that drastic ? Do you have any direct knowledge that supports that? The physical differences certainly aren’t that drastic - the basic skeletal structure is the same, the same organs are present in each.
quote:
Again, what you call macroevolution is a self deception preserved by your insistence on the establishment definition, but in reality it's meaningless and deceitful.
What makes it deceitful ? You are the one confusing the issue so it would seem that the charge is better directed against you,
quote:
Macroevolution has to refer to a new creature outside the variations of a particular genome or it means absolutely nothing and just makes a mockery of the whole ToE claim that species evolve from other species.
Maybe you should try thinking about what you say. How can defining macroevolution as speciation make a mockery of the claim that speciation occurs ? Especially when it comes to giving examples.
quote:
OK, give the evidence.
How about the development of antibiotic resistance in a clonal population of bacteria ?
quote:
But all the evidence you've already given shows no such thing. Mutation can only change what the genetic stuff of the genome already codes for anyway -- it can only come up with a new version of the same trait because that's what the underlying DNA requires
And there we have another example of your failure to understand the processes. Genes code for proteins. That’s it. How you get from the gene to a trait is a whole lot more complicated and the idea that a gene has something it’s “for” better be tightly tied to the protein - and not to phenotypic traits that might be somehow affected.
quote:
You can get a grey crow, but you can't get a small yellow warbler or a buzzard. And all selection does is eliminate some alleles in favor of others, isolating the grey crow from the black crow for instance.
This is still assumption on your part. You still haven’t produced anything close to justifying it.
I did spell out some time ago the differences that have to be navigated to get from the reptilian ear to the mammalian ear....
You're not addressing the issue. The reptilian genome and the mammalian genome are made from the same building blocks, the same DNA, the same LEGOs. How would it even be possible to prevent one from being rebuilt as the other? What enforces the rule that a particular LEGO can only make a reptile while another LEGO can only make a mammal?
™ Version 4.2
