|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: For individuals, perhaps. For the species it is good to have a wider range of immunities. It seems entirely possible that the range of immunities is greater than a single individual could carry.
quote: No, it wouldn’t have to be true, since you only need one allele for protection and I don’t expect strong, sustained selection for any single allele.
quote: That doesn’t make sense. Aside from the fact that diseases also mutate so the resistances needed would not be constant, why would mutation “scatter” resistances ? You are also ignoring the fact that heterozygosity is an advantage, giving the resistances of both alleles. The smaller the number of alleles the smaller the proportion of the population to have that advantage. Edited by Admin, : Fix quoted sections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: If you don’t even understand what the nested hierarchy is - and you obviously don’t - then it is not surprising that you are having trouble. The nested hierarchy is a feature of taxonomy going back to Linnaeus. To give a general overview (there are niggles in the details) it is like this: If you classify species according to their traits you find that there are traits defining groups at various levels. And you find that the smaller groups are entirely contained within the larger groups. E.g. all mammals are vertebrates or all sparrows are birds (and all birds are vertebrates). It doesn’t need to be this way, so the question is why it is. Evolution from a single common ancestor predicts this. Separate creation does not. There is no reason why a Creator would have to make things fit so neatly into a single nested hierarchy - but evolution from a common ancestor has to.
quote: First, micro evolution is very much a part of the ToE. Second the nested hierarchy is evidence of a pattern of inheritance going beyond the species. The distribution of traits observed in life is entirely consistent with the inheritance of traits from a common ancestor, augmented by extra traits accumulating over time - which are also passed on.
quote: Of course we know that mutations do happen and do add new traits. If you want to argue that it didn’t happen over the hundreds of millions of years life has existed then you need more than the assumption that sexual recombination could account for the differences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Well let’s see.
quote: So in other words they are scientific facts you can’t explain. But you ignore them because you are doing bad religious apologetics rather than science. They are scientific facts. They are relevant. If Creationism can’t explain them - which is what you mean when you say they aren’t relevant - too bad for Creationism.
quote: It’s not about evolution versus creation - it’s about science versus bad apologetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Yes, he did. The Taxonomy of Linnaeus divided three “Kingdoms” (animals, plants and minerals) into orders, orders into genera and genera into species.
The classification of animals is still recognisable, although there have been many changes over the years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Bradypus appears to refer to the sloths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You’d probably find it easier if you paid attention to the explanations that Jon and I have already given. Nevertheless here is how it works. The whole two-page spread covers the Animal kingdom. The six major columns are the classes. The first is “QUADRUPEDIA”. Defining traits are listed below (so we can see that the “QUADRUPEDIA” are mammals - I can grasp Latin enough to see that they are hairy, have four “feet”, females give live birth and lactate) The subdivisions of those columns are the more detailed parts of the hierarchy. Thus on the left we have the order “ANTHROPOMORPHA” which is subdivided into the genera “Homo”, “Simia” and “Bradypus”. Traits are again listed. The next sub-column to the right is the defining traits of the genera. The next sub-column divides the entries into species, and includes division into subspecies. (Homo has the entry “H” and the sub-divisions are bracketed together - humans subdivided into Europeans, Americans, Asians and Africans). The entries for “Simia” are not bracketed together, nor are the entries for “Bradypus” - they are full species. Traits are not listed. So there you have the nested hierarchy, kingdom, order, genera, species, subspecies. Each subspecies is fully contained - nested - within a species. Each species is fully contained within a genus. Each genus is fully contained within an order. Each order is fully contained within a kingdom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Do you mean Taq ? Because this doesn’t seem to be one of Razd’s subtopics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: That’s your opinion, and one that is almost certainly wrong.
quote: 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: As you know perfectly well we believe that mutation replaces genetic variation. And the evidence supports us.
quote: Interestingly the most rapid evolutionary change occurs while selection is weak. And, of course, we all know how selection works.
quote: I think you mean that you don’t like them because they do work.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Less so than your post. Besides I am recapping points already covered in past discussion.
quote: Your post was notably free of evidence. Of course I did do better than you did, showing that ring species support macroevolution and explaining why breeding is not so good a model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That seems rather unlikely to me. What makes it more likely than mutations reducing interfertility ? Do you have any evidence or is it just your opinion ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Just to clarify. While the origin of the sequence in question may be a random mutation the pattern - the species it is found in - is explained by common ancestry.
E.g. ERVs - the origin is a viral insertion event, but after that it’s just ordinary vertical transmission, parent to offspring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
There are a lot of assertions there but no real evidence.
quote: The pocket mice demonstrate that mutation can produce new selectable variation. Your assertions don’t even make sense. Even if evolution did reduce a species to being genetically homogenous- something we have never seen - new variations would still allow evolution to proceed. Why should we accept your unsupported opinion when it defies evidence and reason ?
quote: The obvious error here is that you are considering only one mutation when there is a constant stream of mutations arriving. Whether a species becomes “genetically depleted”, as you put it is down to rates as I have explained from the very start. That is obvious from the mathematics. But you don’t supply any evidence that the rate of mutation is low enough to support your claim - and the evidence we have says that there is no “genetic depletion” except in species that have undergone unusually severe bottlenecks.
quote: If that were true then the trait would be very hard to breed. It isn’t. If all you have is speculations untempered by the evidence - which appears to be the case - then you lose. Because we do have evidence and reason on our side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It certainly matters for your argument.
quote: And more mutations will come along to replace them. That is what it means to have a constant stream. Again it all comes down to relative rates. Until you can address that properly - and you never have even though I brought it up right at the start - you don’t have a real argument.
quote: What matters far more than who you reply to is whether you produce real evidence - rather than taking the attitude that that is just for other people. You would think after all the years you’ve been pushing this argument that you would have something, but no.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024