Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 436 of 785 (855875)
06-24-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Faith
06-22-2019 12:13 PM


Faith writes:
What you are calling the "scientific facts" I'm supposedly "admitting I can't explain" are what I've been saying are relevant to the ToE but not to Creationism. That being the case there is nothing for me to explain.
The reason that reality is not relevant to the creation model is because the creation model is not a part of reality.
You have confirmed that your creation model is false since it can't explain what we see in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 12:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:23 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 437 of 785 (855879)
06-24-2019 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Taq
06-24-2019 12:40 PM


Saying it's not relevant to the creation model is not the same thing as saying I can't explain it. I would probably explain it as mutations that are mistakes that don't change anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Taq, posted 06-24-2019 12:40 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 2:33 PM Faith has replied
 Message 456 by JonF, posted 06-24-2019 4:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 465 by Taq, posted 06-24-2019 6:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 438 of 785 (855880)
06-24-2019 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Percy
06-24-2019 10:11 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Yes, a lot of mutations have arisen. Most of them doing nothing at all. And your point is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Percy, posted 06-24-2019 10:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Percy, posted 06-24-2019 6:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 439 of 785 (855881)
06-24-2019 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by RAZD
06-23-2019 5:15 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
So every species that has more than two alleles per gene NOW has them because they are beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations. That's a lot of beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations.
Yes, at least non-deleterious, meaning neutral, don't change the phenotype. In the creation model they are simply mistakes that fortunately for the most part don't cause any harm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 5:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2019 3:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 440 of 785 (855882)
06-24-2019 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
06-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
After you've posted it it's probably best not to break it up.
But I'm having the usual problem with the glaring white diagrams. I'll see if I can improve the situation by copying it all into Word.
ABE: I don't know how to make them easier to see.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 12:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2019 4:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 441 of 785 (855883)
06-24-2019 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:23 PM


quote:
Saying it's not relevant to the creation model is not the same thing as saying I can't explain it.
But it is saying that the creation model has no explanation. If the creation model dismisses facts as irrelevant then surely they are outside the model.
quote:
I would probably explain it as mutations that are mistakes that don't change anything.
But you aren’t being asked to describe the source of individual changes. You are being asked to explain patterns of genetic similarity - patterns which can obviously be explained by common ancestry, but have no obvious alternate explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 442 of 785 (855884)
06-24-2019 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by PaulK
06-24-2019 2:33 PM


You can't get "patterns of common ancestry" from random mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 2:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 2:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 457 by JonF, posted 06-24-2019 4:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 458 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2019 4:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 489 by Percy, posted 06-25-2019 1:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 443 of 785 (855885)
06-24-2019 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:34 PM


quote:
You can't get "patterns of common ancestry" from random mutations.
The patterns are there. Common ancestry is the best explanation. If they are outside the creation model as you claim then you have a problem. Ignoring them for an obviously spurious reason is not a sensible response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:43 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 451 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 3:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 444 of 785 (855886)
06-24-2019 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by PaulK
06-24-2019 2:39 PM


Sorry, I'm going to wait for RAZD to continue this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 2:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 3:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 445 of 785 (855887)
06-24-2019 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
06-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Indeed, microevolution is one part of macroevolution, and the other part is time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution.
But this is just the ToE assumption. In reality microevolution can't lead to macroevolution because the processes of variation require the loss of genetic variability. Domestic breeding always seems to be the best illustration: You can't get a Great Dane without losing most of the genetic material for Dachsunds and Chihuahuas and Golden Retrievers.
When Darwin formulated his theory based on Natural Selection he assumed it was open ended and didn't realize it requires genetic loss, and neither does anyone today it seems. You all talk about Natural Selection as if it could add something or at least not subtract, I guess because it does result in new phenotypes, but it HAS to subtract. And then of course when you do recognize it you try to make up the difference with mutations but all mutations could do is add to the pool of alleles, and it's only by reducing that pool with new gene frequencies that you get new phenotypes. Yes I know I say this over and over and you deny it over and over but it's the only way it can happen.
Getting a new population with new characteristics either in breeding or in the wild requires loss. That's what selection IS and DOES, it's a process of isolating a new set of individuals for a new set of gene frequencies and that's the ONLY way you can get new phenotypes. You get new gene frequencies with each isolation of a portion of the parent population, and it's the isolation that brings out the new traits, leaving other traits behind. This is a random process in the wild though intentional in breeding.
I know you have the usual ToE assumptions about all this but they don't work. In a ring species what REALLY happens is that a population multiplies for some time and then individuals migrate from it to a new location and start a new population. These individuals carry a new set of gene frequencies from the set that formed the first population, so if they are have reproductive isolation, which may not be perfect but for the sake of discussion we can assume it is, then after some generations of breeding within this new population you'll have a completely new "species" that may have some dramatic new characteristics simply because it is combining a new and probably smaller set of alleles. It can probably interbreed with the original population.
And then after this second population is well established and its numbers have grown a great deal, individuals migrate away from it and establish a third population and the process repeats: new phenotypes from new gene frequencies and NO mutations necessary at all.
And of course all this is microevolution, it's all the product of the same species genome losing alleles from population to population, until finally it should develop fixed loci for most of the salient characteristics of the last population. This is oversimplified but should hold up generally. In reality there will be some gene flow, maybe resumed gene flow, hybrid zones and so on and so forth.
So you are going to go on with an entirely different scenario which I'll come back to.
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 431 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 12:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 3:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 496 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2019 5:05 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 446 of 785 (855888)
06-24-2019 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:43 PM


quote:
Sorry, I'm going to wait for RAZD to continue this discussion
Do you mean Taq ? Because this doesn’t seem to be one of Razd’s subtopics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:43 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2019 3:11 PM PaulK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 447 of 785 (855889)
06-24-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:27 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Yes, at least non-deleterious, meaning neutral, don't change the phenotype. ...
But they do change the genotype and they do add to the pool of hereditary DNA for a breeding population.
And that also means that they can be included in later mutations (as is true for all mutations that don't kill the bearer).
We actually saw this happening with the e-coli citrus experiment, where the bacteria could consume the citrus after two mutations occurred, where one built on the other.
In the creation model they are simply mistakes that fortunately for the most part don't cause any harm.
Which fails to explain the e-coli citrus experiment beneficial results.
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 439 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 3:45 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 448 of 785 (855890)
06-24-2019 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by PaulK
06-24-2019 3:01 PM


In Message 431 I explain why evolution leaves a pattern of descent due to evolution, including nested hierarchies, and Faith is currently muddling through that post. That could be what she means.
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 446 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 3:01 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 449 of 785 (855893)
06-24-2019 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:59 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
quote:
In reality microevolution can't lead to macroevolution because the processes of variation require the loss of genetic variability.
That’s your opinion, and one that is almost certainly wrong.
quote:
Domestic breeding always seems to be the best illustration
Even domestic breeding makes use of mutations, if the breeder likes them. However, because of the shorter timescales and strong selection it is certain to underestimate the importance of mutations. Moreover, it does not seem to produce new species.
quote:
When Darwin formulated his theory based on Natural Selection he assumed it was open ended and didn't realize it requires genetic loss, and neither does anyone today it seems.
As you know perfectly well we believe that mutation replaces genetic variation. And the evidence supports us.
quote:
Getting a new population with new characteristics either in breeding or in the wild requires loss. That's what selection IS and DOES, i
Interestingly the most rapid evolutionary change occurs while selection is weak. And, of course, we all know how selection works.
quote:
I know you have the usual ToE assumptions about all this but they don't work
I think you mean that you don’t like them because they do work.
quote:
In a ring species what REALLY happens is that a population multiplies for some time and then individuals migrate from it to a new location and start a new population. These individuals carry a new set of gene frequencies from the set that formed the first population, so if they are have reproductive isolation, which may not be perfect but for the sake of discussion we can assume it is, then after some generations of breeding within this new population you'll have a completely new "species" that may have some dramatic new characteristics simply because it is combining a new and probably smaller set of alleles. It can probably interbreed with the original population.
And then after this second population is well established and its numbers have grown a great deal, individuals migrate away from it and establish a third population and the process repeats: new phenotypes from new gene frequencies and NO mutations necessary at all.
Of course you do not know what really happens, you just assume.
And you do not explain why more distant populations lose the ability to interbreed. That is what makes it a ring species rather than a collection of subspecies.
quote:
And of course all this is microevolution..
If you remove the intermediate populations, a ring species would become two species. That’s a good example of how microevolution can lead to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 4:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 450 of 785 (855894)
06-24-2019 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by RAZD
06-24-2019 3:07 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Yes, at least non-deleterious, meaning neutral, don't change the phenotype. ...
But they do change the genotype and they do add to the pool of hereditary DNA for a breeding population.
Yes, but again, adding to the genotype doesn't change the phenotype, which is what you are more or less acknowledging here. You have to subtract to get new phenotypes. When you add mutations you may or may not get a new allele, usually all you get doesn't change the phenotype at all, and if you do get something new it's only going to be a variation on what the gene already does. I'm talking about sexually reproducing creatures here though I know you are going to go on to e coli which to my mind is a wholly different kind of situation.
Anyway, ADDING to the pool of alleles, even if mutations did do that, which is highly suspect to my mind, certainly extremely rare in any case, at the very very best it could only supply a slightly different trait to a new set of gene frequencies, which might or might not be incorporated into a new isolated population. But to get a new "species" meaning a new look to a new population, requires subtraction, so the odds of getting a mutation incorporated into it aren't very high anyway. Just to repeat, it takes SUBTRACTION of alleles to get new phenotypes.
And that also means that they can be included in later mutations (as is true for all mutations that don't kill the bearer).
"Can," but not likely.
We actually saw this happening with the e-coli citrus experiment, where the bacteria could consume the citrus after two mutations occurred, where one built on the other.
And that has to be the result of a loss too, the loss of whatever the allele did that was replaced by the mutation. But could we please stik to sexually reproducing creatures? E coli doesn't say much about them.
In the creation model they are simply mistakes that fortunately for the most part don't cause any harm.
Which fails to explain the e-coli citrus experiment beneficial results.
That's still an accident to my mind, as would be the very occasional similar function brought about by a mutation in other creatures. But if you get a whole population of citrus-eating e coli they will have lost whatever function the mutation replaced and maybe that ends up being some kind of harm. But just because a mutation gets something functional in e coli doesn't make it a model for sexually reproducing organisms and again could we please stik to those.
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 447 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2019 3:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2019 5:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024