Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 511 of 785 (856075)
06-26-2019 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
06-24-2019 7:52 PM


gene pools and ecological challenges and opportunities
Ignoring the duplicated material:
I use this situation all the time for discussing how reproductive isolation of a daughter population brings about new phenotypes by requiring the reduction of genetic diversity. I usually just suppose one such isolated daughter population but the same thing can be discussed for two or more.
And, sadly for you, every time you do this you are criticized for ignoring mutations that increase genetic diversity. Ignoring them does not make them go away nor render them ineffective.
Nor is reduction of genetic diversity required for (sub)populations that become isolated from one another. All that is needed to develop new phenotypes are three aspects of evolution that occur in such situations:
  1. The ecologies they inhabit are different. They have different plants and animals, the climates are different, the geology is different. These differences can be slight or pronounced.
  2. The populations accumulate different random mutations in their respective gene pools because there is little or no gene flow and they are effectively reproductively isolated. This results in different genetic diversity.
  3. Selection operates on the different gene pools to fit the different ecologies.
Therefore the gene pools of the subpopulations diverge over time. This produces different phenotypes. The black wildebeests and the blue wildebeests as examples.
Sounds to me llke you've never even seen my many discussions of this very phenomenon although you have expressed ********* at my frequently repeating it. Perhaps this is because you can only think in terms of your own scenario as you describe it above. So I'll break it down and discuss it in pieces:
I'm well aware of your falsified assertions.
The loss of gene flow, between the daughter populations as well as between the daughter and parent populations, is what I keep describing as reproductive isolation, which it is, and the whole point is that the new population breeds only within itself, combining its own separate set of gene frequencies, NOT MUTATIONS. the different "evolutionary responses" are the formation of completely different phenotypes within each subpopulation. (There could also be a change in the parent population depending on how large it is, that is, how much it lost to the daughter populations). YOU DO NOT NEED MUTATIONS FOR EVEN VERY DRAMATIC PHENOTYPIC CHANGES TO OCCUR IN A DAUGHTER POPULATION IF ITS GENE FREQUENCIES ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE PARENT POPULATION. BOTH DAUGHTER POULATIONS MAY DEVELOP STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT PHENOTYPIC PRESENTATIONS OVER MANY GENERATIONS OF BREEDING ONLY WITHIN THEMSELVES.
Again, you ASSUME mutations, they are not necessary, and if any are present you are not demonstrating that they are. In any case the dramatic changes that may occur do not depend on anything but the changed gene frequencies, no mutations are needed for that to happen. If you have a large enough original population you could have many daughter populations that each develop strikingly different phenotypes in reproductive isolation.
Mutations are a fact. They are found in every generation of every species. Facts are not assumed.
Ignoring mutations do not mean they don't cause differences in population traits. They are part of the genomes of the individuals and part of the gene pool of each isolated population, and they necessarily cause differences in those gene pools. Reproduction in each isolated gene pool is based on the genes in the pool, old (from the parent population) and new (from mutations).
Such as the case of the Jutland cattle which was a herd that broke into four separate isolated populations and developed into completely different "species" or "breeds" in a matter of years, just enough generations to thoroughly mix the gene frequencies possessed by each separate population.
Curiously I can find nothing about this.
In other words over these generations ORDINARY SEXUAL RECOMBINATION OF THE NEW SET OF GENE FREQUENCIES, ...
... the recombination of the different gene frequencies/"different hereditary traits available within each of the daughter population or populations. ALL BECAUSE OF THE NEW GENE FREQUENCIES. ...
Including the mutations in the gene pool that were not in the parent population. Ignoring them does not make them go away or become ineffective.
... Without mutations, without any ecological or other environmental input. JUST THE GENE FREQUENCIES. ...
... quite apart from any supposed ecological pressures, since nothing but the gene frequencies is necessary and nothing extra to bring about the changes you are talking about...
It is the ecological challenges and opportunities that do the selection. When those challenges and opportunities are different the results of selection will be different.
When the gene pools are different the selection process will have different hereditary trait combinations to operate on. This is especially valid for traits that were not in the original population that are beneficial for the current ecological challenges and opportunities for each subpopulation.
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 471 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 7:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 512 of 785 (856076)
06-26-2019 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 508 by Faith
06-26-2019 1:37 AM


Re: Right, the same old same old
Faith writes:
For one thing such populations form a lot faster than the ToE acknowledges, which is exemplified by the Jutland sheep and the Pod Mrcaru lizards, and mutations don't occur that fast to become part of a population in such short order.
Why do you think the ToE doesn't believe populations can experience rapid change. If the selection pressures imposed by breeders can effect change over the course of a few generations, then of course selection pressures in the wild can do the same.
Mutations are not thought to have played a role with the Pod Mrcaru lizards or the Danish Landrace sheep (Jutland sheep). They're still the same species. If you returned the Pod Mrcaru lizards to Pod Kopiste they'd revert to their original form in fewer generations than it took to change on Pod Mrcaru. Those are examples of selection, not of mutation plus selection which is something that breeders almost never get the opportunity to do.
As Percy mentions if they are mutations they've been around a while, but of course I don't think they are mutations at all because I don't think mutations account for normal alleles.
Ultimately all alleles are the result of mutation, and even in the creationist world only mutation can account for any gene that has more than four alleles (not counting clean animals).
And I'm more convinced than ever that this nesting hierarchy argument amounts to nothing.
But you're convinced by nothing more than the echoes of false ideas in your own mind. Simple descent of people results in a nested hierarchy, and we can see it in the DNA analysis of genealogical websites every day. And the same DNA analysis of species also reveals a nested hierarchy. It's there. You can pretend it's not, but you're just playing pretend.
And the debunkery of domestic breeding as a good example can be dismissed too. The same processes occur whether they are intentionally directed or random. Also the cheetah and the elephant seals are just fine to represent the end stage of the formation of species even though they were formed by severe bottlenecks.
I think you still don't understand that breeding is not an analog of evolution. Mutations play almost no role in breeding. The odds of a useful mutation occurring in a breeding population over the course of a breeder's career is tiny tiny tiny, and the odds of a mutation helpful to the breeding program is even tinier. That's why scientists use organisms with very short generation times (hours for some bacteria) for many evolutionary experiments.
And once species are established they don't change rapidly either,...
But how can you believe that after just citing an example of relatively rapid change in the Pod Mrcaru lizards, a lizard that was well established on Pod Kopiste but that was subjected to different selection pressures when moved to Pod Mrcaru?
...the way some here expect to happen with mutations cropping up.
I think everyone has been fairly consistent in stating that beneficial mutations are rare. Mutations are common, around a hundred in every new human, but mutations in coding regions that are beneficial are rare. We've said this over and over and over again in a variety of ways.
They don't often crop up in established breeds or in wild species, which you'd think they did the way people here carry on. But they don't, and there is no need to invoke mutations for any part of any of this, normally occurring alleles do just fine at making breeds and making new species.
Changing allele frequencies but not the alleles or the genes or the chromosomes cannot create new species. That's why breeders never create new species. That's why it's called breeding, not speciation. Breeding produces new breeds, not new species.
So any time someone wants to get rational and acknowledge any of this I'm listening, but I'm not holding my breath.
You haven't said anything that is true or anything that reflects an understanding of what people have been telling you for the past 18 years.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 1:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 513 of 785 (856078)
06-26-2019 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Faith
06-26-2019 3:18 AM


Re: Right, the same old same old
Where you have no argument and/or evidence for your position then you should remain silent.
Faith writes:
Not only did I find out in discussion with RAZD that there are species that don't form nesting hierarchies,...
Are you thinking of Message 431 where RAZD said that anagenesis "doesn't result in nested hierarchies because there is no branching"? He meant no branching of species, and only because there has never been a division into separate populations. Of course there is all the normal nested branching of reproduction, but with anagenetic species there is never a point where you can say the old species is gone and the new species has arrived because the change is gradual over time.
Explaining in a bit more detail, when a population divides into two or more separated populations then they can evolve into different species that is shown with branching:
A
              / \
             /   \
            /     \
           /       \
          /         \
         A1         A2
        /  \       /  \
      A1a  A1b   A2a  A2b
But with anagenesis a single population changes gradually into a new species. The causative factors are the same as with branching speciation, namely mutation, selection and drift. The chosen speciation points by necessity have an element of arbitrariness:
A
               |
               A1
               |
               A2
That's all RAZD meant by an absence of branching, because the species change is linear rather than branching.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 3:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 514 of 785 (856080)
06-26-2019 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Faith
06-26-2019 3:18 AM


Re: Right, the same old same old
Not only did I find out in discussion with RAZD that there are species that don't form nesting hierarchies
Really? Could you elaborate on this?
It is true that there are a substantial number of species that we don't know how they fit into the tree of life (referred to as incertae sedis), but that is different than "don't form nested hierarchies." There are a lot of factors that make classification complicated; such as horizontal gene transfer, the organism is unculturable, the organism has a cryptic lifecycle, and there is just not the financial resources available to study it in depth.
Nested hierarchies are one of the primary biological patterns that Biologists want to explain. It is virtually universal across all life (I only say "virtually" because of the issues mentioned above and that classifying life can be very challenging). So, what are some examples of organisms that "don't form nested hierarchies?"
but there is absolutely nothing at all meaningful about those that do.
It's about patterns, Faith. It takes some kind of organizing principal to create a pattern. When we observe a pattern, or when something is different than what is expected from random chance, that is an indication that some force or factor caused that pattern. Statements that only superficially address a phenomenon without actually offering an explanation for the observed pattern are not useful to science.
For example: Fossils are arranged in a distinctive pattern within the geological record. That pattern is an observation that was made before the ToE was proposed and that the pattern exists is undeniable. "Just a bunch of dead things buried in a massive flood" might be a suitable explanation for you, but for the rest of us, it does not even begin to explain the pattern we observe. Sure, it looks like a bunch of dead things buried in rock, but why the distinctive pattern?
Nested hierarchies are not an artifact of the ToE, but were recognized even before the ToE was proposed (ie. Linnaeus). This pattern is objective and has real biological significance. Many theories have been proposed to explain this pattern but they were all insufficient until the ToE. I don't claim that the ToE is absolutely true (and no one should be making that claim) but it is currently the best explanation for the pattern we observe in biological life.
So you propose a new theory that you claim explains why life falls into this nested hierarchy pattern we observe. I say your explanation for nested hierarchies is as useless as your explanation of the fossil record. Here are a couple reasons why:
1. Your theory only considers sexually reproducing diploids. Roughly 75% of the organisms on earth are not sexually reproducing diploids, but asexual haploids. That means they do not undergo sexual recombination. A theory that only attempts to explain less than 25% of the diversity on earth is useless.
2. The pattern of neutral markers (those that do not affect phenotype) follow the same general pattern as markers that affect phenotype - meaning they also fall into nested hierarchies that fit the same basic patterns as morphological markers. There is just no good reason why a creator would have started off with a pattern of neutral markers that would mimic the patterns we observe. Could it have been done that way... sure. But unless there is an explanation of why that pattern exists, it is meaningless. Consider cytochrome c that Taq mention earlier. Why would the creator use different sequences of cyt c in every organism he created so that when those sequences change over time, the pattern is of a nested hierarchy that includes separately created organisms?
3. Shuffling of alleles alone doesn't account for the diversity we actually observe. If all we had to deal with is 4 alleles at any locus and diversity was due to the reorganization of those 4 alleles, genetic studies would be super easy. But that's not how it is; that just doesn't match our observations. Diversity is much more complicated than that.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 3:18 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 515 of 785 (856085)
06-26-2019 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Faith
06-26-2019 3:18 AM


Re: Right, the same old same old
quote:
Most of your posts to me are full of nasty interpretations of my motivations. That's pretty foul debating tactics.
That’s pretty rich coming from someone who calls opponents blind for seeing that your claims are false and who implies that anyone who disagrees with your claims is irrational.
quote:
...if I say I'm not convinced of something it's because I'm not convinced of it, not because I "can't refute" it. Not only did I find out in discussion with RAZD that there are species that don't form nesting hierarchies, but there is absolutely nothing at all meaningful about those that do.
No, you didn’t.
quote:
And by the way your posts in general are obviously meant just for debunkery without any concern at all for truth.
That’s not true. I do in fact take care to get things right - while you are repeating an argument shown to be fallacious, pretending that it is a good argument - and denying known facts.
quote:
I'm sure you know that but it needs to be said once in a while...
I’m sure you know that it is a hypocritical lie.
quote:
...because the powers that be at EvC are very much llke the media who oppose Trump, they have no interest in truth at all, they are only interested in killing whatever they dislike, as are you.
Yes, we get it, you are an evil lying hypocrite who hates the truth.
That is why I don’t accept you as any sort of real Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 3:18 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 516 of 785 (856090)
06-26-2019 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Faith
06-24-2019 11:12 PM


anagenesis and cladogenesis, mutations and selection
I answered the first part in the previous post by giving my view that the differences that accumulate between the different daughter populations don't require ecological pressures, or mutations, but only their respective set of gene frequencies. Nothing else is needed for each to produce its own completely different appearance after enough generations of breeding within the population.
This is refuted, falsified, rendered inadequate of explaining what is actually observed.
Now you are saying that there is some "critical level" that gets reached when interbreeding stops? Why would there be any "critical level" anyway, and what is that critical level? Why would that happen? Even after the gene frequencies of the new population are thoroughly blended so that its a very homogeneous population (is this the critical level?) distinct from the other daughter populations and the parent population, interbreeding certainly continues, why not?
Interbreeding between daughter populations becomes less and less viable over time due the occurrence and selection of different mutations in the different populations. Mules an example where interbreeding is almost blocked by the differences in genes/chromosomes. Greenish Warblers an example of reduced gene flow between adjacent subpopulations and reproductive isolation at the ends of the ring with no interbreeding.
quote:
Evolutionary genetics: A ring of species
... It had been known for some time that north of the Tibetan plateau, a huge treeless desert uninhabitable to a forest-dwelling warbler, there are two forms of greenish warbler that differ in plumage and song, but do not interbreed (viridanus in the west, plumbeitarsus in the east). These populations coexist as distinct biological species in the Siberian lowlands, but are connected through an until recently contiguous breeding range all around the Central Asian mountains. Using amplified fragment length polymorphism markers to survey a large number of anonymous nuclear gene loci, Irwin and co-workers show that there is a genetic continuum throughout this ring-shaped range, except in the zone of overlap in Siberia, where genetic divergence reaches its maximum. The physical distance around the ring is about 9000”km, orders of magnitude larger than the distance an average young greenish warbler will travel from its birth place to its later breeding territory. Genetic distance is strongly correlated with geographic distance throughout the ring of intergrading populations, ...
quote:
Genomic divergence in a ring species complex
Ring species provide particularly clear demonstrations of how one species can gradually evolve into two, but are rare in nature1,2,3. In the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides) species complex, a ring of populations wraps around Tibet. Two reproductively isolated forms co-exist in central Siberia, with a gradient of genetic and phenotypic characteristics through the southern chain of populations connecting them4,5,6. ... Levels of reproductive isolation and genetic introgression are consistent with levels of phenotypic divergence around the ring, with phenotypic similarity and extensive interbreeding across the southwestern contact zone and strong phenotypic divergence and nearly complete reproductive isolation across the northern contact zone. These results cast doubt on the hypothesis that the greenish warbler should be viewed as a rare example of speciation by distance6, but demonstrate that the greenish warbler displays a continuum from slightly divergent neighbouring populations to almost fully reproductively isolated species.
The genomes are different for the different subspecies and the further apart they are the more different are the genomes ... except at the overlap where the differences from one side are so different from the ones from the other side that interbreeding rarely occurs.
The genomes show losses and gains from one subpopulation to the next.
Once again your model fails to explain the reality that occurs.
Why "after this?" It's BEEN microevolving all along, since the split and isolation event that started the differentiation between the various populations.
Indeed, but now they have become incompatible for interbreeding, and thus they will remain different species.
Right, except it's only the working through of a set of gene frequencies to develop a particular variation of a particular species, so that to call it "speciation" rather blurs the reality of what is happening. In a way it makes sense to call it that because you do now have a distinctive new population, **** a dog breed or a cattle breed though formed in the wild, but since such terms falsely feed the assumptions of the ToE it's a deception.
Including mutations is not deception, it is including observed objective empirical evidence that mutations exist, that they become part of the gene pool for each new generation that add their own mutations to the pool.
Selection operates on the gene pool of each generation, and as the gene pool changes the selection options change.
Yes but you think those processes involve mutations and ecological pressures and so on and so forth, while I'm at pains to point out that none of that is necessary, that normal sexual recombination of existing alleles in a new set of gene frequencies within each new population, is all that is required to bring out the new phenotypes, and some number of generations of interbreeding is all that is required to work them through the population until it has the homogeneous appearance of a new "species." **** the blue wildebeests that went through this process after breaking off from the main herd.
Curiously it is not a matter of what is necessary, rather it is a matter of what actually happens. Mutations exist and they do get selected. This results in changes that cannot occur with just "normal sexual recombination of existing alleles" -- when we see new alleles we know mutations are involved.
But now this really does come across as trivial, since I've been describing these very events in the formation of new "species" or subpopulations for years now, and the mere fact that if you group them in relation to the parent population they form this nesting phenomenon doesn't say much about any of this. What I'm always focused on is the fact that the very processes of evolution that form such new daughter populations ALWAYS REQUIRE REDUCED GENETIC VARIABILITY, ...
The nested hierarchy pattern involves the total gene pool, including mutations, and the gene pool changes from generation to generation due to new mutations added with each generation.
The evidence shows that mutations add genetic variability, increasing over time in any population. This renders your remaining argument false or misleading, inadequate in explaining what occurs in the real world.
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 473 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 11:12 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 517 of 785 (856101)
06-26-2019 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Faith
06-25-2019 7:07 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
In the case of separately created Kinds, however, there would be no older parent ancestor species before the original created Kind. ...
Exactly. So the question of whether or not the evidence of older parent ancestor species continues back to first life (single cell organisms over 3.5 billion years ago), or stops at several points identifying original created kinds, and this becomes a test of the creation model versus the EoT model.
So far the evidence points to a single first life (single cell organisms over 3.5 billion years ago), invalidating the creation model but congruent with the ToE model.
AND, as I've been arguing, there wouldn't be anything further either, AFTER a certain number of daughter populations have formed, because each population has to reduce genetic variability in order to develop as a species distinct from both the parent population and the other daughter populations. If there is a lot of genetic diversity it will take longer than if there isn't a lot, but the end result is inevitable if the series continues.
And this too has been falsified. We can see genetic evidence of certain traits being changed by mutatons. They aren't lost but replaced.
PaulK argues that there is a "steady stream of mutations" that should supposedly prevent this from happening, but that's really a pipe dream. It doesn't happen in reality. If it did we'd see it in domestic breeding series and we don't. ...
But, as noted by others, we do.
... In the wild the development of one species from another isn't going to take much longer either: it only takes whatever time is needed to produce enough generations to blend the new gene frequencies from any founding group. ...
Except in the wild selection can be much slower. What we do see is increased genetic variation over time as mutations accumulate in each generation. They are in the gene pool for each generation, thus the time "to blend the new gene frequencies from any founding group also includes blending in the mutations that have occurred since the founding group.
Well in the examples given there is nothing but microevolution happening. ...
Indeed. As I keep saying "macroevolution" is the result of microevolution over multiple generations. The accumulation of random mutations and the continued selection for survival and reproduction in a changing ecology result in "macro" changes that are more than what occurs in a single generation.
... Daughter populations may increase in PHENOTYPIC diversity, certainly, but for that to happen genetic diversity has to be reduced and eventually severely reduced as new populations develop from previous populations.
For the PHENOTYPIC diversity to increase, the GENOMIC diversity has to increase in order to be expressed as new phenotypes.
See my discussion above of your similar points for the earlier example. What's happening is normal sexual recombination from species to species and of course the first new population will have more recognizable traits from the parent population, and new gene frequencies that form as the series progress will be using the recombined genes of the second and later populations. Same situation as what I describe above. It's all a matter of a new set of gene frequencies occurring with the founding of each new population/species, simply the result of a new set of individuals with their own unique set of alleles.
insofar as you've accurately described the sequence this is all the result of different founding sets of gene frequencies for each new population/species. Nothing new has to occur, no mutations, just recombinations of the alleles that existed in the original/parent population.
Except that random mutations are added to the gene pool in every generation. Again, it is not a matter of what minimal combinations that have to occur to produce new phenotypes, it is a matter of what does occur, and that includes mutations that are added to the gene pool generation by generation with measurable results.
These random mutations can be tracked to show what are added by each generation. Some alleles may be lost (or modified by mutation), but loss alone is not sufficient to explain the observed genetic combinations with mutations that do not exist in the founding population.
Yes they should begin with the original Kind ...
The evidence shows that all life is related to the first life formed over 3.5 billion years ago, and not divided into different created kinds with no previous ancestors (other than LUCA).
Maybe it's because I interpret the processes involved so differently than you do, but I don't see this at all.
Curiously that does not change the fact that the evidence falsifies creation of Kinds. Ignoring the evidence does not change this fact. If your interpretation does not match reality then it is flawed.
This, however, is clearly a failed assumption because nothing you've shown above demonstrates anything but normal microevolution through sexual recombination from population to population until a particular lineage runs out of genetic variability.
Except that the real world includes mutations added to the gene pool generation after generation, which results in changes in the breeding population that at some point is outside the variations seen in the founding population. That is macroevolution according to the scientific definitions: the accumulation of mutations over time, changing the gene pool, changing the phenotypes derived from the changing gene pool.
Your exclusion of random mutations from your model renders it inadequate and terminally flawed in explaining what occurs, because mutations are part of evolution, of all life as we know it.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 479 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 7:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 4:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 518 of 785 (856102)
06-26-2019 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by Faith
06-26-2019 3:18 AM


Re: Right, the same old same old
Faith writes:
if I say I'm not convinced of something it's because I'm not convinced of it, not because I "can't refute" it.
Flat Earthers are not convinced the Earth is round, and yet it is still round. Reality has this strange property of not conforming itself to our beliefs.
More to the point, your creation model can not explain the observed facts.
The evolutionary model does explain these facts, and you have not presented any arguments showing that the evolutionary model does not predict these observed facts.
All we are left with is your denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is nothing more than Flat Earthism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 3:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 519 of 785 (856105)
06-26-2019 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by RAZD
06-26-2019 1:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Concerning the argument that genetic diversity is lost:
And this too has been falsified. We can see genetic evidence of certain traits being changed by mutatons. They aren't lost but replaced.
And you've missed the whole point that anything that gets added has to get cut down to create a new species.
But I've made the case so many times to such utter futility I'm too tired, if that's the word, to continue it now. I just wanted to say that much.
Once the establishment has its teeth sunk so deeply into its point of view there's no hope. Not at EvC anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2019 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Theodoric, posted 06-26-2019 4:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 521 by PaulK, posted 06-26-2019 4:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 522 by Taq, posted 06-26-2019 4:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 523 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2019 8:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 520 of 785 (856106)
06-26-2019 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Faith
06-26-2019 4:09 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
And you are still wrong.

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 519 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 4:09 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 521 of 785 (856108)
06-26-2019 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Faith
06-26-2019 4:09 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
quote:
And you've missed the whole point that anything that gets added has to get cut down to create a new species.
No, he hasn’t. You are missing the point that the evolution is a balance between mutation and selection.
If the amount cut down is equal to the amount gained since the last speciation event there is no net loss of diversity. It comes down to the numbers and we can only work out the numbers through evidence. Purely theoretical arguments that ignore the numbers cannot work (an obvious point, one would think but one you have missed again and again through the history of this argument).
quote:
But I've made the case so many times to such utter futility I'm too tired, if that's the word, to continue it now. I just wanted to say that much.
You have never made the case. You have failed time and time again because you don’t have the evidence.
quote:
Once the establishment has its teeth sunk so deeply into its point of view there's no hope. Not at EvC anyway.
So you are actually complaining that we don’t change our minds and agree with you when you obviously have no real case, when the evidence is against you and even the purely theoretical arguments don’t work in your favour ?
You don’t change your mind that easily, so why should we ? And your dishonest and arrogant and nasty attitude don’t help. Do you think they should ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 4:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 522 of 785 (856109)
06-26-2019 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Faith
06-26-2019 4:09 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Faith writes:
And you've missed the whole point that anything that gets added has to get cut down to create a new species
You don't have to remove new mutations to create a new species. You can select for the new mutations and remove the original alleles through selection. Rinse and repeat.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 4:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 06-27-2019 5:27 PM Taq has replied

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


(1)
Message 523 of 785 (856119)
06-27-2019 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by Faith
06-26-2019 4:09 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
And you've missed the whole point that anything that gets added has to get cut down to create a new species.
Sorry, but your opinion is incapable of altering reality. There is no reason for this blind assertion to be valid.
But I've made the case so many times to such utter futility I'm too tired, if that's the word, to continue it now. I just wanted to say that much.
You have made the assertion many times, but you have not made the case for it ... because (a) you have not presented any evidence to support it, and (b) the evidence of speciation events that have been observed invalidate it.
Possibly you are tired because it is a symptom of reaction to the cognitive dissonance. It is one way to cope with the continuing presentation of contrary evidence, the mountain of evidence that you are wrong. You don't want to confront it, so you become tired. and cranky.
Once the establishment has its teeth sunk so deeply into its point of view there's no hope. Not at EvC anyway.
Once the evidence of reality has its teeth sunk so deeply into its point of view there's no hope. Not at EvC anyway.
There fixed it for you
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 519 by Faith, posted 06-26-2019 4:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by Faith, posted 06-27-2019 5:44 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 524 of 785 (856122)
06-27-2019 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by Faith
06-25-2019 5:31 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
The evidence of genetic loss through evolution is in domestic breeding where ...
... mutations are intentionally culled to preserve the breeds ... once they have evolved by mutation from a parent stock.
... it's obvious that you can't get your chosen breed without losing all the genetic material for anything that would interfere with it. ...
Curiously, you can't have a "chosen breed" until it has evolved by added mutations that didn't exist in the parent stock.
... That could actually sum up the whole method of domestic breeding: eliminating everything that doesn't fit the chosen set of traits. ...
Which is precisely why it is NOT a model of natural evolution. It is a model of selection, as noted by Darwin, and nothing more. Selection is only part of evolution, and the other part is mutations:
... It's good evidence and it has to apply to the development of species in the wild too, ...
Except that evolution in the wild doesn't have to eliminate "everything that doesn't fit the chosen set of traits" because in the wild there are many different "set of traits" that can benefit survival and reproduction.
If you would but open your eyes you would see that there is a much wider range of traits that can benefit survival and reproduction than occur in selective breeding, where the purpose is to preserve the breed. The purpose of breeding is to prevent evolution from changing the breed/s.
You can't get change when the purpose is preservation of the breed.
... but I realize that since the ToE depends on increase rather than decrease I'll just continue to be trashed for saying it. ...
Evolution depends on whatever is good for survival and reproduction.
What you get trashed for, is repeating points that are falsified. By Evidence.
... I've also of course many times given the example of the cheetah and the elephant seals, and those are rejected too. I wonder why I keep hoping that it will eventually get through when it never does? ...
Because evidence from the real world invalidates your opinions/assertions.
... There are other places I can take the argument. ...
Yes, there are mutual admiration groups of want to believers, but they don't confront reality.
... But it would be nice if diehard believers in the ToE would open their eyes.
You want to chane the minds of people who accept evidence, then you need to present evidence, not assertion upon assertion.
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 498 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 5:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 06-27-2019 6:18 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 539 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 2:42 AM RAZD has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 525 of 785 (856128)
06-27-2019 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by Faith
06-25-2019 5:31 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Loss? But we've seen gains. Consider the development by early humans of new species of wheat.
quote:
Varieties of wheat that have forty-two chromosomes are the most recently evolved and most used types of wheat. All of these varieties have been cultivated by humans (as opposed to growing wild). They are hybrids of twenty-eight-chromosome wheats and wild fourteen-chromosome wheats or grasses. Early bread wheat was the result of the crossing of goat grass (Aegilops tauschii ) with Triticum turgidum. Modern bread wheat varieties have forty-two chromosomes and evolved from crosses between emmer and goat grass, which is the source of the unique glutenin genes that give bread dough the ability to form gluten. Goat grass grows abundantly in the region stretching from Greece to Afghanistan. Descriptions of the fourteen species of wheat that yield the thousands of wheat varieties grown today are provided here.
Just a moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 5:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by Faith, posted 06-27-2019 5:19 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024