Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
104 online now:
dwise1, nwr (2 members, 102 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,180 Year: 6,292/6,534 Month: 485/650 Week: 23/232 Day: 23/28 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 141 of 785 (854886)
06-13-2019 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by AZPaul3
06-13-2019 6:21 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
Either mutations are random mistakes or they are somehow organized in a way nobody has yet described that I know of. If they are random mistakes they cannot do what you all claim they do.l

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2019 6:21 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2019 8:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 785 (854896)
06-13-2019 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by AZPaul3
06-13-2019 8:07 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
I would expect it to alter it, but not in any beneficial way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2019 8:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2019 9:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 164 by Taq, posted 06-14-2019 12:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 145 of 785 (854905)
06-13-2019 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by AZPaul3
06-13-2019 9:19 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
I still don't really get how B and b get expressed on the DNA strand, but I'll have to think about that later.

Not only do I think this idea of millions of years is nutz, I think the idea that mutations create healthy alleles is also nutz.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2019 9:19 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2019 10:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 149 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2019 10:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2019 12:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 06-14-2019 4:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 785 (854977)
06-14-2019 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Taq
06-14-2019 12:17 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
What I "expect" isn't about my own guesses, it's about what I've picked up from YOU GUYS by reading various web sites and so on.

So I gather genetics is getting more complicated, which is as it should be I'm sure. Where I used to think a single trait such as eye color was probably governed by many genes, it seems now that it's governed by different regions of a single gene?????? How that works I don't yet grasp since I thought a whole gene made a particular protein, which protein is what brought about the trait.

I've been trying to find the best book on basic genetics for some time and none of them seem to cover enough of what I want to learn, or they add a whole bunch of stuff about human inheritance which I'm not interested in at the moment, and so on. And I'd suppose it doesn't explain enough of the things you are talking about to be useful in this discussion either. Yes????

I did get Genetics for Dummies for the PC Kindle but now I can't open that page for some reason. If it isn't one thing it's another....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Taq, posted 06-14-2019 12:17 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by AZPaul3, posted 06-14-2019 4:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 265 by Taq, posted 06-17-2019 10:43 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 172 of 785 (855009)
06-15-2019 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by caffeine
06-14-2019 4:28 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
Thank you. I'm sure there are things I'm misunderstanding but I also have the impression that the definitions of things change every time there's a new episode of this kind of discussion. I get the idea for instance that there are many genes for a particular trait, and the next time the subject comes up, no, it's that a single gene can make a protein or proteins that make many different traits, and so on and so forth. I don't even know if it really matters since when I try to get into a new version of the discussion I end up with a similar answer each time anyway.

The main thing seems to be that you all see mutations where I see normal built in variation and this has never been satisfactorily sorted out. Even if you can show me some mutations in the mix the overall process by which the variation occurs still doesn't need the mutations as I see it, the normal alleles are quite sufficient for creating all the variations that make new phenotypes.

I've argued this over and over and over again and I think it still holds but you are always throwing new things at me and haven't REALLY addressed my arguments. My main argument is that to get new phenotypes all that has to happen is reproductive isolation of a portion of a species population. This can happen as genetic drift within the population or it can happen as geographic isolation away from the main population. The new isolated population merely has to reproduce for some number of generations to create a completely new set of phenotypes, even a new "species." This is because of the new set of GENE FREQUENCIES that the founders of the new population carry with them. I acknowledge that there may be complicating factors going on as well but I do believe this is the basic formula for creating a new "species" from a larger population, though it's really the same species, just now changed because of the new gene frequencies. This is why I point a lot to "ring species" where phenotypic changes occur from population to population around some kind of geographic obstacle. You all believe this is due to mutations. I don't. I think the only thing necessary is the isolation of a small number of individuals from the previous species/population. All it takes, ALL it takes is a new set of gene frequencies brought about by this isolation of a portion of the previous population breeding together for whatever number of generations it takes to blend the new alleles into a new phenotypic presentation.

I've given the examples that came up years ago many times too. The Pod Mrcaru lizards that developed from five pairs that were released onto an isolated island. Thirty years later scientists found that the descendants of those five pairs had developed very large heads and jaws and were eating tougher stuff than the parent population. There were also changes in the gut as I recall. In only thirty years. Muations again were assumed and again I say, no, that is not necessary, the genes built into the creature are all that's necessary. When you isolate a small number of individuals you get new gene frequencies that bring out new traits. THAT IS ALL YOU NEED. YOU DO NOT NEED MUTATIONS. And this demonstrates too that evolution, which is of course microevolution in this case, does not take much time at all. It was thirty years before they were seen again but it's possible the whole population had changed some time before that.

Then there were the Jutland cattle, or was it sheep, whatever. This herd of whatever it was had spontaneously split into four smaller herds that somehow got reproductively isolated, by preference perhaps as in genetic drift, or some geographic isolation, I'm not sure. It's been a long time. But the point of the story that was posted here was that striking changes developed in each of the four different groups in a very short period of time. Microevolution again, no need for mutations, completely new phenotypic presentation in short period of time.

I also bring up the wildebeests, the African gnus that form a huge herd, millions I think. They all look alike, but there is a smaller population some distance away that has a different look to it. The big population is called I think the black wildebeests, the smaller population is called the blue wildebeests because there is a bluish tone to their hide. The blue wildebeests all look alike too. Nobody knows in this case but my guess is that the blue group started with a small number of individuals that wandered off and got isolated from the main herd. They would have had a set of gene frequencies that differed from the main herd's and all that had to happen to bring about their different appearance was being reproductively isolated among themselves for some number of generations until their new traits blended and they became a new "species" as it were. Smaller than the main herd, bluish where the main herd was brown or black, different form of antlers too I think. Enough differences anyway to mark them off as a separate "species."

Dogs and domesticated cattle are also examples I've used, and I've even suggested a laboratory experiment with mice. I think all that ever happens is that I get ignored or insulted, told I just don't understand evolution etc., or evos come along and insist it's all due to mutations and that's the end of the discussion. Maybe they can even show a mutation or two, but that's not enough to defeat this general argument.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by caffeine, posted 06-14-2019 4:28 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2019 3:31 AM Faith has replied
 Message 186 by JonF, posted 06-15-2019 9:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 173 of 785 (855010)
06-15-2019 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by AZPaul3
06-14-2019 5:52 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
She is resistant, because of religion, to any system, realistic or not, that challenges the catechism. That’s why she opposes evolution.

No, the reason is that I have a coherent other theory or explanation for the changes you all impute to mutations. As I just argued for the umpteenth time above. I suppose Dr. A or someone else thinks that's been answered, but it hasn't. Really it can't be because it has to be true.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by AZPaul3, posted 06-14-2019 5:52 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 174 of 785 (855011)
06-15-2019 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by AZPaul3
06-14-2019 5:52 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
We have an opportunity to maybe, just maybe, change a wee bit of that by showing that evolution does not work in her straw man way. That mutation is not the disaster she is led to believe.

That genomes are not static.

Despite all your proliferating hundreds of alleles you haven't shown that a species genome ever changes to the extent of producing something outside its built-in variations. This might be difficult because you don't believe in such variations, you ascribe it all to mutations. This may be why this discussion never goes anywhere. It isn't a matter of evidence, but a matter of commitment to our own model.

That minor change by minor change, micro step by micro step, the phenotype of a far future lineage of dog will vary significantly from any dog today because the future dog gene pool will be considerably different from the dog gene pool of today.

You haven't shown this and you can't show it. All dog breeds have reduced genetic diversity, in some cases depleted to the point of fixed loci for all the major characteristics, which used to be how a purebred was defined, and there is simply no further variation possible beyond that genetic condition. So you aren't going to get your future dog gene pool from any established breed.

You'll say, Oh but mutations... Well, once you've got such reduced genetic diversity mutations become destructive rather than helpful. Consider the cheetah with its severely depleted genetic diversity. They hope for a beneficial mutation to improve its health but it hasn't happened and unfortunately a deleterious mutation could wipe them out.

If you want to start with a mutt rather than a breed you'll have more genetic diversity to work with but you'll have to prevent it from becoming a breed or "new species" , probably by continually mating it with other mutts to keep up the genetic diversity and increase it. Actually all or most of the breeds would revert to mutts anyway **** on their own so you'll have a lot to work with. The problem with that is that you never will get a new species of dog, because that does require reduced genetic diversity which brings variation/evolution to a halt.

Yeah I know: Oh but mutations....

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 170 by AZPaul3, posted 06-14-2019 5:52 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2019 3:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 184 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2019 6:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 176 of 785 (855013)
06-15-2019 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
06-15-2019 3:31 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
I am not going to go through this same argument with you again for the umpteenth time. Sorry. Time to let caffeine or AZPaul argue it. If they want to rephrase what you are saying that's up to them. I'd prefer something new myself.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2019 3:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2019 3:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 178 of 785 (855015)
06-15-2019 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Tangle
06-15-2019 3:34 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
The pocket mice are a similar example. So what. That is not what this argument is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2019 3:34 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2019 3:42 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 785 (855018)
06-15-2019 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Tangle
06-15-2019 3:42 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
No, the argument is about what it takes to get from one species to another and all the examples of new "species" (that aren't species at all but merely new populations of a species with a new look to it) brought about merely by breeding together a new set of gene frequencies in reproductive isolation. This is how distinctive new "species" are made without any mutations, but although I'm using the word "species" this is nothing but changes within a species from built in genetic variability. We don't need the hundreds of alleles AZ was conjuring up, all we need is a new set of gene frequencies in reproductive isolation. Your moths, and the pocket mice, are not a new species.

ALL THIS IS THE USUAL IRRELEVANT DISTRACTION FROM MY ARGUMENT, WHICH ALWAYS GOES BEGGING IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.

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 180 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2019 3:42 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2019 3:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 183 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2019 4:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 785 (855032)
06-15-2019 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by caffeine
06-14-2019 4:37 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
Since the usual predictable (and I dare say mindless) debunkery has been the only response to my posts I figure I'll probably just go watch some Netflix for a while. I'm working my way through "Forensic Files." Taq deserves an answer though. Maybe later.

But you said something here I want to answer:

First to acknowledge that I know humans are not said to have evolved from chimps but from a shared ancestor.

Chimps and humans have exactly the same organs. All of them. We have exactly the same bones. All of them. They're all in the same place. And everything is made out of the same stuff.

Not exactly the same, of course. As we discussed in a previous thread, there are slight differences between human and chimp keratins. But these differences are small and simple, and quite probably non-functional. I would be willing to bet that if you replaced the gene that produces human fingernail keratin with the gene that produces chimpanzee fingernail keratin, you would not notice - the fingernails would **** the same.

Yes, but for the moment taking the chimp as the ancestor we descended from, the task is getting ALL the keratin differences in the chimp body to become human keratin. Is this going to happen bit by bit, fingernail by fingernail or is there a place in the DNA that governs the whole thing? And since you note that there are recognizable differences between chimp and human organs and bones although we have the same organs and bones, evolution has the task of making all those "small" changes in all those parts of the body. Seems to me that's a case of the usual wishful thinking that fuels all the assumptions of the ToE. The smallness of the differences doesn't really make a difference since the overall changes that have to happen are really enormous.

Few, if any, of the 40 million odd mutations separating us from chimps would have a large and noticeable effect. But 40 million is a huge number. All 40 million together have a very noticeable effect - it's the difference between a human and a chimp.

You are of course assuming that the differences you are talking about were brought about by mutations. You all keep talking about how we all have many mutations but aren't most of them in the body where they won't be passed on anyway? This doesn't get spelled out every time someone makes such a statement. The mutations, to matter, have to be in the germ cells, but not saying so leaves the discussion in a suspended state. Anyway, according to my model -- yes I believe in my model -- the chimp genome is simply the chimp genome. It may have variability built into it but not the kind of variability that could eventually make a human being. And as I keep arguing, which keeps getting treated llke trash, you don't need mutations to produce even a dramatically new population of any given species. This may not be possible with the apes because they've already differentiated as far as they are going to, but it seems to happen with lizards and cattle and wildebeests, AND even now if a small human population isolated itself for many generations it would likely acquire a distinctive new look. It would be a new race.

But there are literally no major structural changes necessary to move between a chimp and a human. What differences do we have from chimps that are not simply changes in the colour, size and shape of existing structures?

This is really what I wanted to answer, but I got into the rest anyway. To my mind the structural differences are enormous despite the similarities. The whole posture of the body has to change, the torso has to shorten and straighten, the legs have to lengthen and straighten, the feet have to become feet, the arms have to shorten, the spine has to straighten, the skull has to make some pretty dramatic changes and get repositioned on the neck, the nose has to change dramatically, the mouth and teeth have to become much smaller and repositioned in the skull, and of course the brain has to undergo some enormous changes, etc etc etc. I don't see how mutations could do any of this no matter how much time you give them. And I'm pretty sure that the differences between the supposed shared ancestor and human beings would be on a similar order. I think this is all a pipe dream.

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by caffeine, posted 06-14-2019 4:37 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2019 5:07 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 190 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2019 6:30 PM Faith has replied
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 06-17-2019 10:55 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 191 of 785 (855040)
06-15-2019 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by AZPaul3
06-15-2019 6:30 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
Well, that was a bust. Thanks at least for affirming that you are always talking about germline mutations.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2019 6:30 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 193 of 785 (855042)
06-15-2019 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Tanypteryx
06-15-2019 7:33 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
It's come up before that the location isn't clear so I asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-15-2019 7:33 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 785 (855043)
06-15-2019 7:40 PM


You all cannot change my mind by asserting your own beliefs and your expertise to determine their truth. You are so sure of yourselves you aren't interested in entertaining anything I say or how I arrived at it, I'm just wrong and that's the end of it. I don't find that at all convincing, you're just being arrogant know-it-alls, and yes, of course, I'm going to continue with my own beliefs, you've affected nothing, you're just being offensive and arrogant. So the conversation is over, you think you won and that's where it always goes.

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by JonF, posted 06-15-2019 8:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2019 1:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 762 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 785 (855049)
06-15-2019 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by JonF
06-15-2019 8:01 PM


They aren't facts, they are bald assertions that leave no room for any further discussion, they just cut it off. All my examples remain good examples that never get discussed because evos ha te creationism and that's all they are capable of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by JonF, posted 06-15-2019 8:01 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by JonF, posted 06-15-2019 9:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022