|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,839 Year: 4,096/9,624 Month: 967/974 Week: 294/286 Day: 15/40 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Really ? You have evidence that a mechanism suddenly kicks in and prevents further mutations from happening ? Then why are we able to observe mutations happening ? Or is your “reality” just your fantasy ?
quote: Yes we do. The scotch fold cat is a recent example that we know to be a mutation. And again, it comes down to rates. Domestic breeding has a rapid rate of selection so it is not surprising that it goes faster than mutation - at least as far as obvious phenotypic changes go. That is exactly what we’d expect.
quote: If you consider a good number of centuries to be a short time - given ideal conditions.
quote: Are they a new species ? The last I heard nobody was claiming that.
quote: But they are not a new species at all.
quote: Aside from the fact that evolution obviously cannot sustain the rate of change we see in domestic breeding. Aside from the fact that species often last hundreds of thousands of years. Aside from the fact that suitable conditions for speciation are not so frequent. Ignorantly jumping to conclusions is hardly the way to get things right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That’s pure crank nonsense.
quote: In other words the rate of mutations isn’t insanely high. That’s not exactly helping your case.
quote: Because why should you believe real examples ?
quote: Only if the rate was insanely high. And it isn’t.
quote: Have you noticed that pretty much all your arguments in this thread are theoretical ? And not even in a good way since you need to rely on dubious assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Your stuff is not being ignored and it deserves to be trashed.
quote: RAZD is mainly explaining. But it is a fact that our side has produced evidence - and you have produced none of any worth. You would think that after years of repeating the same argument you would have more than opinions at odds with the evidence and reason. But you don’t. And that is why it is a very bad argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That argument has been shown to be falllacious. Species aren’t just breeds. The shorter timescales reduce the role of mutation. Even then mutations have added new variations which breeders have used. You make it obvious that you have no case.
quote: From the real facts - see above - we should expect mutation to play a more important role in the wild. And the evidence supports that too. We do see evidence of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, we do see evidence of new traits appearing, we don’t see any evidence that evolution is running out of variations.
quote: The real reason why your argument is being “trashed” is because it was shown to be fallacious years ago. If you keep making obviously false claims what other response should you expect ?
quote: For the simple fact that neither example offers any support for your position. The loss of genetic variation is not due to the typical processes of evolution. You haven’t even shown that either has changed enough to be considered a different species from their pre-bottleneck ancestors. If there is evidence for your position in either case you haven’t found it,
quote: I think it must be your faith in Satan. I can’t think of any other reason you could hope to deceive us by repeating the same false claims over and over again.
quote: By which you mean you want us to blind ourselves to the truth. Our eyes are open. That is why we aren’t deceived.
quote: Of course it is futile. It is futile because you are repeating arguments that have already been defeated. If you really cared about the truth you would have abandoned the whole argument - or at least looked for real evidence. But you don’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Feel free to be as irrational as you choose. It won’t change the fact that you have no real case.
quote: Because you can’t refute it. The fact remains that the pattern exists on a massive scale. Evolution from a common ancestor explains it. Separate creation does not.
quote: Again you dismiss it because you can’t answer it. Because it proves your argument is wrong.
quote: Indeed they do. But the rates may differ and the rates matter. More, the fact that mutation can contribute useful variation to breeding programs - despite the differences between breeding programs and natural evolution - is itself evidence against your position.
quote: Let us note that that is an admission that neither is evidence for your assumed inevitable decline in variation. In other words you are conceding my point.
quote: The only one who expects rapid change is you. Personally I’ve made the point that the time between speciation events is one reason why evolution is so slow.
quote: Which is why domestic breeding is so successful in producing new species ?
quote: Sure Faith, agreeing with falsehoods is just so rational. Perhaps you can explain why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: No, you didn’t.
quote: 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 it is a hypocritical lie.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: You have never made the case. You have failed time and time again because you don’t have the evidence.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In reality there is no reason to think that it disrupts anything other than your assumed inevitable decline. There is absolutely no problem in the new species having as much genetic variation as the parent species. If it were impossible for a species to have that much genetic variation then obviously the parent species could not have that much variation either. This is another of the quite obvious points that you have left unanswered for years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It is also possible to gain new variations which are not immediately selected in or out, but persist for very long periods of time. It is not the eventual fate of variations which matters, it is the number of variations that are present at whatever time we are considering.
quote: You assume that there will be an overall loss but the evidence doesn’t show any such thing. The evidence trumps your opinion.
quote: And that is also just your opinion. The fact that you have great difficulty imagining that this opinion could be wrong is a flaw which interferes with your ability to reason on this matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: But you haven’t proved that there needs to be any overall decline. Consider the facts. The evidence supports evolution to a degree which would be impossible if you were correct. You know this because your whole argument is an attempt to refute it. But - so long as you stay in the realm of theory - that only shows that your theory can’t account for that evidence. There is no need for an overall decline in variation. As I point out above there is no problem in a new variation appearing and persisting for a very long time - much more than the lifetime of an individual species. To succeed you must rule out this possibility, yet you have never done so.
quote: And you fail to discuss the objections raised which you have not been able to answer. The fact that domestic breeding has relevant differences in both the application of the processes and in the outcome. You don’t mention that your examples are just assumed examples. You don’t mention that the lifetime of a natural species will include periods where selection is relaxed and new variations may appear and survive. RAZD at least presents reasons why you are wrong. You just assert that you have proven your point when you have not.
quote: Your arguments are not ignored, they are addressed and refuted.
quote: And that is quite obviously not the case. In fact you rely almost entirely on theoretical arguments while denying real evidence.
quote: We can demonstrate some relevant mutations. The fact that you set a very high bar for such demonstrations - one that is not practical to reach in many cases - is a good reason to think that there are many more mutations that cannot be demonstrated. The evidence for long term evolution is further evidence. Your “ultimate fact” on the other hand is purely theoretical and based on arguments which are clearly inadequate. Your agument is not ignored, it is rejected because of it’s weaknesses and because of the evidence.
quote: Which is strange since the real reason we reject your argument is plain to see. The question is not why we reject your argument - the question is why you would expect us to accept it after we have shown that it is lacking in both the reasoning and in evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Selection is needed and so is mutation. Increases and decreases. That doesn’t mean that we need a long term overall decrease, even if temporary decreases occur. That is the point you fail to grasp, and have failed to grasp for many years.
quote: Your opinion is not accepted because it is not established as a fact. If it were a fact then the evidence should support it. But it does not. Unless and until that changes it is just your opinion.
quote: And this is just silly nitpicking. We do make the distinction, it simply isn’t explicit because it is too obvious. Neutral mutations do account for some of the variation, and we only need enough beneficial and viable mutations to keep the process going. And again, the evidence indicates that sufficient are available in enough cases (let us not forget that extinction is a reality).
quote: And once you have a new phenotype, what stops new variations to that phenotype occurring ? You assume it, but you have no valid case against it - even after all these years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The pocket mice and the scotch fold cat are demonstrated examples. So we can, and you know that we can.
quote: Since we are interested in what happens in natural evolution both timescales and population sizes are very relevant - and impractical to reproduce in a laboratory. Unless you can come up with something that compensates for those factors the experiment would be rigged in your favour - which would make it an obviously bad way of answering the question.
quote: Obviously this doesn’t address the issue of timescale at all, and it fails to capture the population dynamics. It won’t address the question we are interested in at all. I suppose it will address your idea that population splits are enough for speciation without selection or mutation but I don’t think that is plausible enough for anyone else to go to the trouble of running the experiment. Domestic breeding hardly supports your idea since that involves selection and still doesn’t produce speciation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The point is that we do not need an overall long term decrease in variation - that variation can recover. You have just admitted that it is “ridiculously obvious” that your theoretical argument doesn’t work. And that is all you have. The evidence does not show any overall decline. You have just admitted that you have no case and that it is “ridiculously obvious” that you have no case,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I will point out that species are never entirely homogenous. There are often subspecies - populations distinctive enough to be considered worthy of their own label, but not separate species. But there are also more widely-spread variations. Mutation adds to this variation and gene flow is more about spreading variation around. However, some traits do become fixed in a species and that is usually due to selection. (But drift fixes a lot of neutral variation at the genetic level) But again we come to the fact that we do have all this variation. It only starts to run out when there is very heavy selection or a very severe bottleneck. And in both cases that is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true. Drastically speeding up subtractive processes alone will produce a net subtraction. That should be completely obvious. But it is also obvious that subtractive processes alone don’t tend to produce much phenotypic change. The elephant seal bottleneck was in historical times but it hasn’t affected the phenotype much. Breeding relies more on selection than simply reducing the population - and indeed, mutation has provided variation that breeders have selected. Even so, breeding has not produced a new species of animal. You say that there is no evidence but this is really quite devastating evidence. Your own chosen examples do nothing to support your view and tend to favour the opposing viewpoint. How then can you complain that we don’t change our minds ? The evidence is firmly on our side. Even the evidence that you raise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: “Genomic tools” would be looking at the genome - the genes. Diversity on a whole genome level would be looking at the diversity of the genomes - comparing complete genomes, not, as HBD said, individual genes. It is all talking about genetic diversity. Edited by Admin, : Minor punctuation fix.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024