Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
434 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, vimesey (7 members, 427 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,011 Year: 6,123/6,534 Month: 316/650 Week: 86/278 Day: 8/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 228 of 785 (855106)
06-16-2019 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
06-16-2019 2:31 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

No, the "problem" I'm having is that I've LEARNED from YOU **** that mutations are RANDOM and beneficial ones RARE. So when I hear that one has conveniently turned up "just in time" to save the day as it were, I have a "problem" thinking of this as a mutation.

I’m not convinced it was “just in time” and I don’t think you have a good idea of the time available either. Besides your extreme bias against mutations has been demonstrated here quite sufficiently.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 06-16-2019 2:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 06-16-2019 2:38 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 06-16-2019 3:50 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 233 of 785 (855111)
06-16-2019 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
06-16-2019 2:38 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

Now there's another perfect example of nothing but "noise." You put out a lot of it.
"

I will point out first that if the “just in time” is part of your assessment it is valid to question that. Compare my reaction to your similar point above.

And it is a fact that you are biased against mutations - to the point where you tried to suggest actual mutations weren’t mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 06-16-2019 2:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 235 of 785 (855114)
06-16-2019 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
06-16-2019 2:47 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

The problem is that the explanations aren't convincing. Why aren't YOU skeptical of the timing?

I’m not because I am not convinced the timing was that tight, because melanism is fairly common (so likely there are other ways for it to happen) and because unlikely events do happen.

quote:

...it doesn't fit the usual idea of a mutation and yet you are all just accepting it anyway.

But it does fit the “usual idea of a mutation”.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 06-16-2019 2:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 239 of 785 (855120)
06-16-2019 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by AZPaul3
06-16-2019 3:03 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
95% of the population where? It was 98% in Manchester - a heavily industrial area. I really doubt that it was 95% of the national population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by AZPaul3, posted 06-16-2019 3:03 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 247 of 785 (855139)
06-16-2019 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
06-16-2019 3:07 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

But then I'm back to thinking no mutation was needed at all, just the usual built in variant.

The dark colour is a dominant trait (which contributed to it’s rapid spread). So it wasn’t hiding as a recessive.

And it just happens to be associated with a mutation in a region relevant to wing colour (and a transposition - not a point mutation - too).

Saying it appeared earlier does nothing to show that it isn’t a mutation. It simply undermines your “just in time” claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 06-16-2019 3:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 256 of 785 (855157)
06-17-2019 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
06-16-2019 8:26 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

But remind me again: how do they recognize it as a mutation? I mean what about the DNA sequence makes it a mutation?

It’s a transposition. A section of DNA from elsewhere in the genome has been swapped in for the DNA that is present in the white moths.

Transposable Element


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 06-16-2019 8:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by AZPaul3, posted 06-17-2019 12:57 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 06-17-2019 6:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 259 of 785 (855160)
06-17-2019 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
06-16-2019 9:37 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

Somethig messed up my post and I'm not up to repeating it.

Unless you actually found some real evidence it probably isn’t worth repeating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 06-16-2019 9:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 268 of 785 (855180)
06-17-2019 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
06-17-2019 6:41 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

OK, and how do you know that this transposition was the result of a mistaken in replication rather than a sequence that was already there?

It really would be vastly improbable that it would look like a transposition, wouldn’t it ? Tangle points out that it’s over 20,000 nucleotides. That sort of match doesn’t occur by chance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 06-17-2019 6:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 316 of 785 (855254)
06-18-2019 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
06-17-2019 6:03 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

All changes in DNA are called mutations by eve-os, that's not evidence

A change in DNA is a mutation by definition. So we’re back to your weird ideas about what constitutes “evidence”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 06-17-2019 6:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 317 of 785 (855255)
06-18-2019 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Faith
06-17-2019 9:36 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

But there is no need to discuss the religious basis of the theory, it should be possible to discuss the theory itself without all that

The evidence is conclusively against a recent Creation.

There is strong evidence of evolutionary relationships between species you assume to be separate creations.

Your assumption of original perfect genomes seems to lack any evidence at all. And it needs significant work before it even deserves scientific consideration (your ideas about the variation in the immune system have obvious problems).

In fact I think I can safely say that your ‘theory” is entirely based on religion, lacks an adequate model and struggles to even account for the evidence (indeed it’s more about ad hoc attempts to explain the evidence away).

Since your theory lacks any solid basis in evidence, if we stick to science, we should dismiss it because the evidence overwhelmingly favours the mainstream view over yours. The religious basis is your main case - you haven’t got anything else worth talking about (as we have seen).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Faith, posted 06-17-2019 9:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 5:30 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 332 of 785 (855284)
06-18-2019 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Faith
06-18-2019 5:31 AM


Re: My model: It's way different from evolution
I’ll just note that the evidence is strongly against some points - indeed we can say that the assertion that there are no useful mutations is definitely untrue - and there are a lot more details needed.

I don’t think you have any idea of how you could get the same range of disease resistance with only two alleles per locus, for instance. Don’t forget that in that case half the population would be homozygous at any given locus.

Nor do I think you have any sensible explanation for why the genetic difference in the peppered moth would look like a transposition (which is a known mechanism of mutation).

A coherent model which is at odds with the evidence and heavily relies on ad hoc assumptions to try and cope with that is scientifically worthless and doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t think that a single point in your model can be shown to be true or even likely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 5:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 339 of 785 (855315)
06-18-2019 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
06-18-2019 1:56 PM


quote:

I don't see a need to be able to explain that pattern of differences. It fits your model, not mine.

That’s an admission that the evidence is on our side.

quote:

It has never made any sense to me why evolution should form such a coherent pattern as a nested hierarchy anyway, so I don't see why I have to account for that either.

It is quite simple really. When a population splits into two or more species both populations will - in general - retain the ancestral traits, while developing new traits of their own. A nested hierarchy is the expected outcome of evolution. And I have to point out that your are not absolved of explaining the evidence just because you don’t understand your opponent’s explanation.

The nested hierarchy speaks very strongly against separate creations which can’t be expected to neatly fall into that pattern.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 351 of 785 (855383)
06-19-2019 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
06-18-2019 5:48 PM


quote:

It's meaningless in my model.

That’s the problem. We have an observation crying out for explanation and your model has none. Ours does explain it.

quote:

There are all kinds of facts that can be ignored in contexts where they are irrelevant.

Ignoring evidence against your model by declaring it irrelevant is not exactly honest argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 5:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 395 of 785 (855694)
06-22-2019 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Faith
06-21-2019 6:00 PM


quote:

Then it can be seen that it's based only on scientific facts and not crank ideas.

There are plenty of crank ideas that don’t mention God. If you want your ideas or be seen to be based on scientific facts you’d do better to base it on scientific facts. Leaving God out doesn’t make your ideas look any less cranky.

Repeatedly trying to dismiss the fact that you have no explanation for a lot of the genetic evidence doesn’t help either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Faith, posted 06-21-2019 6:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 7:19 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 397 of 785 (855704)
06-22-2019 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Faith
06-22-2019 7:19 AM


quote:

Everything after the Creation itself is a working out of observed natural facts

That still doesn’t make your ideas any more scientific.

In fact you can’t escape the religion by just leaving out the Creation. For instance, your weird ideas about the genes of the immune system aren’t based on any real understanding of the relevant natural facts - not at all. Your ideas about how God should have done it are much more relevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 7:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 7:46 AM PaulK 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