Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9077 total)
77 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 76 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,031 Year: 5,143/6,534 Month: 563/794 Week: 54/135 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 61 of 403 (850421)
04-07-2019 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
04-07-2019 11:43 AM


Re: still more comic relief
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. ...

No, the alternative theory proponents need new terminology to describe what happens.

... 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. ...

Sadly, for you, scientists will continue to use the term as defined by the biological science. But let's see if we can discuss the process without using the controversial terminology.

We can agree, I believe, that "microevolution" can be defined as follows:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

If we look at the continued effects of (micro)evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

We see this divergence happening in the crows in Two species of crow evolving ... and in the greenish warblers ring species and we see the fossil record of it happening in pelycodus, so this is observed fact that such divergence occurs.

Both anagenesis and cladogenesis occur due to (micro)evolution. Both of them can end up with descendant species notably different from an ancestral breeding population. This is how the science of evolution describes "macroevolution" ... the result of "microevolution" observed over many generations.

Based of the observations of these processes occurring we can form a theory of evolution as follows:

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

So far this theory has not been falsified.

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. ...

You've seen it before, but one good example is documented in Richard Lenski's E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project.

The processes listed above explain the evidence known, and they explain the E.coli evolution of a new ability not present in the original population. If you have an "alternate theory" then it is incumbent on you to show how it explains the evidence as well or better. Then you can quibble about definitions.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 11:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 7:08 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 12:14 AM RAZD has seen this message
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:54 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 11:47 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 403 (850426)
04-07-2019 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
04-07-2019 2:32 PM


Re: still more comic relief
o, the alternative theory proponents need new terminology to describe what happens.

I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions. Make up your mind. I use "microevolution" only to demonstrate to evos what I'm talking about when I say it's all variation within a species genome. I don't use the term "speciation" either except for the same purpose, to say how the actual event described by the ToE by that term is not really speciation, it's nothing but one variation within a species genome that happened to lose its ability to interbreed with the parent population, due to factors I think may explain it, just an ordinary event that is certainly not macroevolution.

Oh I'm bored to death with this, I'm going to have to come back to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2019 2:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 12:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2019 9:22 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 63 of 403 (850433)
04-08-2019 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
04-07-2019 7:08 PM


Re: still more comic relief
quote:

I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions. Make up your mind.

Using the same words with different meanings isn’t what RAZD meant. He meant using different words.

quote:

I use "microevolution" only to demonstrate to evos what I'm talking about when I say it's all variation within a species genome.

And if you thought about it you would realise that was a bad idea since it excludes mutation. Which means that any case where mutation is involved should be considered macroevolution.

quote:

I don't use the term "speciation" either except for the same purpose, to say how the actual event described by the ToE by that term is not really speciation, it's nothing but one variation within a species genome that happened to lose its ability to interbreed with the parent population, due to factors I think may explain it, just an ordinary event that is certainly not macroevolution.

Which is just your opinion - you’ve never offered any real support for it or answered the objections.

quote:

Oh I'm bored to death with this, I'm going to have to come back to it.

Take the time to actually think about the issues for once,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 7:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 12:13 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 403 (850434)
04-08-2019 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
04-08-2019 12:09 AM


Re: still more comic relief
I was talking about using different words too.

No point in any further discussion here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 12:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 12:36 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 403 (850435)
04-08-2019 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
04-07-2019 2:32 PM


Re: still more comic relief
I hope I'll be up to this tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2019 2:32 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 66 of 403 (850437)
04-08-2019 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
04-08-2019 12:13 AM


Re: still more comic relief
quote:

I was talking about using different words too

First, that isn’t relevant to your supposed contradiction:


I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions.

Second your whole justification for your false attacks is that we have to use your definitions of “macroevolution” etc. - just because your views are opposed to mainstream thought. Which is obviously silly if you bothered to think about it.

quote:

No point in any further discussion here.

Obviously making up more excuses to try to justify your bad behaviour is going to go badly for you. I just wish you had the honesty to apologise. But then that’s too much to expect from a Creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 12:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 67 of 403 (850444)
04-08-2019 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
04-07-2019 7:08 PM


Re: still more comic relief
o, the alternative theory proponents need new terminology to describe what happens.

I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions. Make up your mind. ...

Perhaps the point is to use very specific terminology instead of ones that are confusing. For instance I can discuss evolution without using either microevolution or macroevolution to explain what I mean. I essentially did this in Message 61, using the process of evolution, anagenesis and cladogenesis. This clarifies what I mean without getting into a debate on the meaning of macroevolution or who has the "right" to define it.

One thing I was taught was that you should be able to substitute the definition of a term for that term and still maintain your meaning.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 7:08 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 403 (850461)
04-08-2019 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
04-08-2019 12:36 AM


Re: still more comic relief
You don't have to use any particular term, you just have to be clear what you are talking about. The main point I keep making is that the examples people keep putting up as illustrations of the ToE are really just examples of standard variation within a Kind, determined by its genome which is nicely programmed for all the variations we see in separate species. The genome is a self-limiting closed system that provides the genetic stuff for a huge number of variations without any violation of the genome itself. Mutations do nothing but change the existing sequences within specific genes, they do not change the genome itself. It is genetically impossible to get from there to the kind of changes that would be required if species-to-species evolution were possible. And so far nobody has offered a single example of how that could come about, it's all nothing but variation within the Kind or individual species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 12:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 3:42 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 69 of 403 (850462)
04-08-2019 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
04-08-2019 3:32 PM


Re: still more comic relief
quote:

You don't have to use any particular term, you just have to be clear what you are talking about. The main point I keep making is that the examples people keep putting up as illustrations of the ToE are really just examples of standard variation within a Kind, determined by its genome which is nicely programmed for all the variations we see in separate species.

You mean that you say that they are. Whatever the evidence.

But that is hardly justification for your accusations, or for your hypocrisy.

quote:

The genome is a self-limiting closed system that provides the genetic stuff for a huge number of variations without any violation of the genome itself. Mutations do nothing but change the existing sequences within specific genes, they do not change the genome itself.

Oh dear, we are back to you letting your imagination run away with you. Genes can be lost or gained, chromosomes can split or fuse, and the proteins produced by genes can find new uses. And in what sense does the genome “not change” when genes change or the number of genes changes ?

quote:

It is genetically impossible to get from there to the kind of changes that would be required if species-to-species evolution were possible.

You say that but you offer no real support for it. Because you only pretend to understand the processes.

quote:

And so far nobody has offered a single example of how that could come about, it's all nothing but variation within the Kind or individual species.

Again that is what you assume, despite the evidence. And we have evidence of greater evolution. Evolution is the best explanation for the taxonomic tree of life, for the geographic distribution of species and for the order of the fossil record. And that was true in Darwin’s day and remains true now. The genetic evidence of relationships only adds to it. Imaginary objections can hardly stand against that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:32 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 403 (850463)
04-08-2019 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
04-07-2019 2:32 PM


It's all simple variation built into a species
If we look at the continued effects of (micro)evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

The amount of variation possible in any given genome of a given species is very large as long as there is still a lot of genetic variability available (usually meaning heterozygosity at a great number of gene loci). The differences will never ever be of a sort that is not clearly within the parameters defined by that genome, producing interesting variations on the species and nothing outside the species. New combinations of traits, even quite dramatically new and different, is what happens when a small part of a population gets isolated from the rest, otherwise known as selection. The differences from the parent population can be dramatic as the new population gets homogenized by breeding in isolation, all the result of built-in variations on the traits of that species and nothing else.

3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

Of course but this is not speciation, just standard variation. the parent population can be equally split or there can be any number of smaller parts of it that can split off and whatever new gene frequencies exist in each will " (micro) evolve independently of each other. " I've discussed these phenomena over and over on many threads here. I often imagine a large wild population of cattle, small numbers of individuals get isolated and domesticated over time, each new group developing its own typical character from selection, isolation and inbreeding. That is how all the different cattle breeds must have developed. In Africa there are millions of wild wildebeests, divided into a couple of different subpopulations that must have developed by isolation of the subpopulation at some point. That overall population has not been split by domestication but it might develop a similar range of different breeds if it were.

I've also used ring species as examples many time to show the large range of differences that can develop through mere separation and isolation of small numbers off the parent population. Such divergences are built into the genome of the species.

I've covred all these things in great detail in the past which obviously you either never read or didn't understand. I'm getting bored again. Back later.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2019 2:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 4:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2019 12:31 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 71 of 403 (850466)
04-08-2019 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
04-08-2019 3:54 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
quote:

Of course but this is not speciation, just standard variation. the parent population can be equally split or there can be any number of smaller parts of it that can split off and whatever new gene frequencies exist in each will " (micro) evolve independently of each other. "

Even if it were just your assumed “standard variation” saying that speciation isn’t speciation is an obviously self-contradiction. Perhaps you should try thinking more before making such obvious errors.

quote:

I've also used ring species as examples many time to show the large range of differences that can develop through mere separation and isolation of small numbers off the parent population. Such divergences are built into the genome of the species.

But you haven’t produced any evidence that they are examples of that. I’ll be generous and assume that you simply didn’t realise the necessity of showing that your “examples” really are examples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 4:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 403 (850471)
04-08-2019 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
04-08-2019 4:22 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
It isn't speciation. Speciation is a made-up concept to keep believers in the ToE convinced of the fantasy. It's nothing but variation on a given genome.

It's all a semantic game. Common sense should be enough to make the point.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 4:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 4:58 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 73 of 403 (850473)
04-08-2019 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
04-08-2019 4:47 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
quote:

It isn't speciation. Speciation is a made-up concept to keep believers in the ToE convinced of the fantasy. It's nothing but variation on a given genome.

Even creationists believe In speciation these days. Even you did until you found out it was macroevolution - and you have the bizarre idea that it is the word that is significant, not it’s meaning,

Indeed, in another thread we have an example of speciation in progress. Speciation is a fact. Ignorantly spouting nonsense won’t change that.

quote:

It's all a semantic game. Common sense should be enough to make the point.

Because common sense says we have to believe arrogant nonsense ? Hardly. And that is all you have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 4:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 11:29 PM PaulK has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7333
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 74 of 403 (850479)
04-08-2019 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by LamarkNewAge
04-06-2019 12:30 AM


Re: We are all isolated and stuck in our time.
I ask that there be less sarcastic commentary.

Then you should probably find a different forum. We have found that sarcasm is sometimes the only way to deal with the trolls and creos that come here. The sarcasm will not be stopping.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-06-2019 12:30 AM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 403 (850482)
04-08-2019 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
04-08-2019 4:58 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
No that is not what happened. I indulged the term for the sake of communication, or really, because of the usual misguided pressure to use establishment terms, until it was clear that it confused things instead. I always knew that what is called speciation is just an evo conceit.

As for what other creationists believe, it's always very disappointing to find out how much they accept of what they shouldn't accept. Right now dredge accepts an enormous list of evo tenets. Confusing and sad when creationists do that, and unfortunately all of us have different views on these things. Very frustrating.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2019 4:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2019 12:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 78 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2019 4:27 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022