Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:49 AM
20 online now:
RAZD (1 member, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
53NextFF
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 76 of 785 (854800)
06-12-2019 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by AZPaul3
06-12-2019 10:50 PM


Re: ******* argument that
I can't deal with all your hot air right now, but a few comments:

No I am not trying to prove God here. I had some doubts about evolution before I became a believer. I can see how someone could argue against it without believing in any particular religion. In my case, yes, it was Christian Creationism that really got me into it. But I think evolution is wrong whether it contradicts Christianity or not. You make false assumptions about my motivations and therefore you don't bother about the arguments involved. No, my arguments are NOT "religiously motived." Evolution is a *** and the scientific arguments will eventually show it. Atheists can appreciate them too.

Time can't accomplish something that is in principle impossible. Mutations are going to make changes all over the genome, they aren't going to produce anything coherent enough to form a new species.

You are a Schyster as well as a Pisces.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by AZPaul3, posted 06-12-2019 10:50 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 06-12-2019 11:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6490
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 77 of 785 (854801)
06-12-2019 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
06-12-2019 11:11 PM


Re: shyster argument that
And you are a troll.

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 76 by Faith, posted 06-12-2019 11:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 78 of 785 (854802)
06-12-2019 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
06-12-2019 7:11 PM


I haven't finished reading to the end of the thread yet, but so far Dredge isn't engaging with any of the information provided to him. I'd like to see him explain how people are wrong in their criticisms of his views, but instead he's just ignoring them, making discussion impossible.

Discussion is obviously not the objective.

Some posters are simply not serious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 06-12-2019 7:11 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 79 of 785 (854805)
06-12-2019 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
06-11-2019 8:56 AM


edge writes:

Please demonstrate to us that human breeding of dogs introduced targeted mutations into their genomes.


Sorry, but I don’t understand your question (which is probably due to the facts that I have a fragile eggshell mind and my IQ is only 9).

Btw, do you know how to bred ancient “rodents” so that a whale will eventually evolve?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 06-11-2019 8:56 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-13-2019 7:55 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 97 by edge, posted 06-13-2019 10:13 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 80 of 785 (854806)
06-12-2019 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Stile
06-11-2019 9:15 AM


Stile writes:

Your test doesn't align with the claim.


The fact of the matter is, if you don’t know how to breed ancients “rodents” into a whale, you don’t know how whales evolved and you don't know how macroevolution occurs.

The explanation of your test, however, also begins relatively simply:
1. Start with a very large population of rodents - equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
2. Provide an environment equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
3. Provide selection pressures equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
4. Wait for the populations to reproduce and evolve due to selection pressures and mutations.
5. If the progressive evolution of the rodent into a whale isn't matching what occurred the 1 time it previously happened at any point in the "unlimited time" available for the breeding - kill off all creatures and begin again at step 1.
-due to the random nature of mutations, this is expected to occur many, many times before it matches the 1 time it previously happened again.
6. Viola - a large population of whales.

Point 1 makes some sense - except you have absolutely no idea how large the rodent population must be. So there’s problem No. 1 for any potential breeding program. If you don’t know how large the initial population must be, this means your knowledge of how macroevolution occurs is based on a certain degree of ignorance and guesswork.

Points 2-4 are irrelevant - artificial selection means you don’t need to reply on natural selection. If you don’t know how to artificially select the rodents you need to breed them towards whale-ness, this demonstrates that you don’t know how your alleged evolution occurred.

Point 5 indicates that you don’t know how an ancient “rodent” evolved to eventually become a whale. You’re just stabbing in the dark and hoping for the best.

Point 6 indicates that your so-called knowledge of whale evolution and how macroevolution occurs is childishly simplistic, based on blind faith and pseudo-science.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Stile, posted 06-11-2019 9:15 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Stile, posted 06-13-2019 12:23 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 81 of 785 (854807)
06-13-2019 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
06-11-2019 3:28 PM


Percy writes:

whales didn't evolve from rodents but from a now extinct ungulate (a hoofed animal), i.e., it no longer exists


Whatever. You’re splitting hairs - some articles describe the evolutionary ancestors of whales as a “rodent-like creature”. And I realize that this ancestral creature (whatever it is) is extinct.

Second, even if this ungulate did exist, because mutations are random repeating the experiment is unlikely to produce whales … Third, even if this original ungulate did exist, we couldn't keep it unchanged from one run of the experiment to the next because it would evolve too. The only way to actually run the experiment is to begin with an infinite number of ungulates and run an infinite number of these experiments simultaneously.

If you don't know how to breed whales from their ancestral “rodents”, you don't know how whales evolved nor how macroevolution occurs.

Can you even explain how the first step in such a breeding program? How are you going to bred these landlubber “rodents” such that a large enough population of them live permanently in the ocean?

And Fourth, we don't know the details of the changing environments that occurred in sequence, including the now extinct plants and creatures that populated them. Even if we did, they don't exist anymore. That is, we don't know what the selection pressures were, and even if we did we couldn't reproduce them.

You don’ need to know what the ancient environment was like and you don't need selection pressures - in the proposed breeding program the necessary features are selected artificially, not naturally. If you dont know which "rodent" features to select, then you don't know how whales evolved.

Since breeding leaves mutation out of the equation you are absolutely right that there are limits to the degree of changes breeding can effect.

I don't understand this. Breeding leaves mutations out of the equation? Aren’t mutations responsible for the natural variations in dogs, for example, which breeders have exploited to produce hundreds of different breeds? Dog breeders also induce unnatural mutations via inbreeding, which are also selected.

Dredge writes:

For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken. How can these genetic limitations be overcome to breed a whale from a sort-of-rodent?

Mutations.

Oh, do you mean the imaginary species-vaulting mutations of Darwinist folklore that thousands of years of animal breeding has no evidence of?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 06-11-2019 3:28 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 06-13-2019 10:05 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 82 of 785 (854808)
06-13-2019 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taq
06-11-2019 4:24 PM


Taq writes:

Dredge writes:

For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken.


You have never supported this assertion.

It's common knowledge:

"Health and welfare problems in pedigree dogs can arise as a result of the deliberate selection for exaggerated physical features or as a result of inherited disease. While some of the following problems can occur in any breed, cross breed or mixed breed dogs, purebred pedigree dogs are at greater risk and appear to be over-represented clinically. This is mainly due to traditional breeding practices.
Difficulty breathing
Difficulty giving birth
Difficulty walking
Serious eye problems
Serious skin problems"

https://www.rspca.org.au/...ve-common-problems-pedigree-dogs

Dredge writes:

How can these genetic limitations be overcome to breed a whale from a sort-of-rodent?


It is overcome by selection over millions of years.

So the story goes - which contradicts thousand of years of empirical evidence gathered by animal and plant breeders.

"In his recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence of Evolution, Richard Dawkins observes airily that human beings are "distant cousins of bananas and turnips." Yet minutely observant plant breeders, "daily and hourly scrutinizing" their productions (to quote Darwin on natural selection), are unable to turn purple roses into blue ones." (Tom Bethell, Natural Limits to Variation, or Reversal to the Mean: Is Evolution Just Extrapolation by Another Name, evolutionnews.org)

"The available data of biology indicates that in contrast to evolutionary theories, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that biological change has limits." (Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits of Biological Change, 1984, p.149)

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 06-11-2019 4:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 06-13-2019 12:22 PM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 83 of 785 (854809)
06-13-2019 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taq
06-11-2019 4:24 PM


Taq writes:

In other words, we would need to take millions of years to replay the evolutionary history.


Not necessarily.

"In just 26 generations, we managed to create relationships between the shape and size of (fruit) fly wings that were more extreme than those resulting from more than 50 million years of evolution." - Geir H. Bolstad, researcher at the Norwegian for Nature Research. (sciencedaily.com, "58,000 fruit flies shed light on 100-year old evolutionary question", 2015)

And btw, the OP did say the breeding program is hypothetical.

Thousands of years of breeding is not enough time to produce the needed variation.

Time is not a problem, as we talking hypothetically. Which "rodent" feature would you select first in order to get the breeding program rolling down the road towards whales-ness? Hind-legs fused together to form a tail, perhaps?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 06-11-2019 4:24 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 06-13-2019 2:26 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 06-13-2019 4:01 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 84 of 785 (854810)
06-13-2019 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tanypteryx
06-11-2019 6:34 PM


Tanypteryx writes:

This is incorrect. It is not a mutation here and a mutation there. If we use humans as an example, there are on average 100 mutations in every individual in a population. If we take the population of reproducers as 1 billion people, they have a combined 100 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS in just their generation of our population. If you take the whole human population there are 750 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS right now.


Yet humans remain humans … and dogs remain dogs, water rats remain water rats, E. coli remain E. coli ... funny that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-11-2019 6:34 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-13-2019 1:08 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 06-13-2019 3:02 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 785 (854811)
06-13-2019 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
06-11-2019 10:35 PM


RAZD writes:

Expandingng on this the process, the implied simulation of the actual known natural history of evolution of whales on earth would entail:
...
provide an environment similar to, but wetter, than their previous environments


No need to - a breeding program relies on artificial selection, not natural selection.

select the healthiest survivors, make single genetic changes to each individuals reproductive gametes that would make them closer to the whale genomes available

If you have to rely on genetic engineering to evolve your rodents, you are admitting you don’t know how to breed them in order to eventually produce a whale - in which case you don’t know how whale evolution happened nor how macroevolution occurs.

and breed them randomly
if they are whale-like, then you are done
if they are not whale-like, repeat from step 2
if they all perish, start over from the beginning

In other words, you don’t know how a whale evolved from a “rodent”. You’re relying on trial’n’error and luck, rather than knowledge.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2019 10:35 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2019 6:20 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 06-13-2019 3:26 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2277
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 86 of 785 (854812)
06-13-2019 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dredge
06-13-2019 12:59 AM


Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

This is incorrect. It is not a mutation here and a mutation there. If we use humans as an example, there are on average 100 mutations in every individual in a population. If we take the population of reproducers as 1 billion people, they have a combined 100 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS in just their generation of our population. If you take the whole human population there are 750 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS right now.


Yet humans remain humans … and dogs remain dogs, water rats remain water rats, E. coli remain E. coli ... funny that.

And humans remain mammals and humans remain vertebrates. What's your point?


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dredge, posted 06-13-2019 12:59 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dredge, posted 06-13-2019 1:54 AM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 87 of 785 (854813)
06-13-2019 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
06-12-2019 1:12 AM


=FaithMore likely your rodent is just going to get tired of being wet and long since would have emigrated to a more congenial climate.

LOL! But seriously, Faith, haven’t you seen those polar bears that live full-time in the ocean, whose hind-legs have fused together into sort of a tail, whose front-legs look kinda like flippers and whose nostrils have moved to the top of their heads?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 06-12-2019 1:12 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 88 of 785 (854814)
06-13-2019 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by edge
06-12-2019 9:33 AM


Dog breeders use inbreeding to induce unnatural mutations, but I fail to see what any of this this has to do breeding ancient rodents to eventually produce a whale.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by edge, posted 06-12-2019 9:33 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2019 6:24 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 101 by ringo, posted 06-13-2019 11:57 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 06-13-2019 12:08 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 06-13-2019 3:42 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 06-13-2019 4:03 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 89 of 785 (854815)
06-13-2019 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tanypteryx
06-12-2019 10:26 AM


Please tell me why you couldn't theoretically breed the alleged evolutionary ancestors of whales - rodent-like creatures - to eventually produce a whale.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-12-2019 10:26 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-13-2019 10:50 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 90 of 785 (854816)
06-13-2019 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Tanypteryx
06-13-2019 1:08 AM


Tanypteryx writes:

Dredge writes:


Yet humans remain humans … and dogs remain dogs, water rats remain water rats, E. coli remain E. coli ... funny that.


And humans remain mammals and humans remain vertebrates. What's your point?

Multiply the billions of mutations/generation you mentioned by the thousands of years that humans have been breeding animals and plants ... so we're talikng possibly trillions of mutations in one species ... yet breeeders ALWAYS eventually encounter genetic limits to how much the original organism can be changed.

Trillions of mutations that always lead to genetic dead-ends ... funny that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-13-2019 1:08 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by dwise1, posted 06-13-2019 2:57 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-13-2019 10:51 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 06-13-2019 4:43 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
53NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019