Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 612 of 785 (856552)
07-01-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 611 by Taq
07-01-2019 3:50 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
I still haven't figured out where you get your very strange readings of what I'm saying, such as dogs breeding with catfish and humans having anything to do with chimps at all. Nothing you say about these things makes any sense to me at all.
I'm sure new characteristics COULD emerge due to mutations but in my scenario they aren't needed so I don't include them. And in any case the mutations aren't going to be brand new are they? I'm guessing they would have developed in the parent population and now act like any other allele.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 3:50 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:11 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 614 of 785 (856554)
07-01-2019 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by Taq
07-01-2019 3:40 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
I'm "ignoring" mutations because I don't believe they have anything to do with what I'm talking about. Remember, I'm describing MY model which is entirely different from yours. At the absolute most I figure a mutation here and there could become part of the scenario but there's no point in making an issue of that. That's YOUR model and you are free to describe it as you will.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 3:40 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 651 by Percy, posted 07-03-2019 8:16 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 615 of 785 (856555)
07-01-2019 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by PaulK
07-01-2019 3:57 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
You persist in your weird illusion that you argue from evidence and I don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 3:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 652 by Percy, posted 07-03-2019 9:07 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 617 of 785 (856557)
07-01-2019 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by PaulK
07-01-2019 3:57 PM


Speciation is an illusion
The inability to interbreed seems to be an obviously natural dividing line. Especially when it is an inability to produce fertile offspring even when mating occurs.
This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet. According to the ToE this situation is called "speciation" and "macroevolution" but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion. In any case it can't be a springboard for further variation/evolution as the ToE assumes it is. So I regard this situation as an illusion foisted on us by the ToE without the slightest actual evidentiary support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 3:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 623 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:21 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 619 of 785 (856559)
07-01-2019 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by PaulK
07-01-2019 4:03 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Since your evidence is an illusion in many cases, such as in the case I've been discussion of "speciation," it's no fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:03 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 621 of 785 (856561)
07-01-2019 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Taq
07-01-2019 4:11 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Every generation is born with new mutations.
That says absolutely nothing. You'd have to show that those very mutations, or some of them or even one of them, 1) did something new, and 2) made some difference in the next generation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:11 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 622 of 785 (856562)
07-01-2019 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by Taq
07-01-2019 4:13 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
How can I give an example when all you guys do is assert it without evidence anyway? I've seen examples of a frog that is supposed to be a new species on this standard but I haven't seen a DNA analysis of it. Plants are often given as examples, similarly without any DNA analysis. I'm giving a different interpretation of what you describe as a fact but is also only an interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:13 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 664 by Percy, posted 07-03-2019 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 624 of 785 (856564)
07-01-2019 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 623 by PaulK
07-01-2019 4:21 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
The evidence should come from the ToE supporters who push this definition of "speciation" -- They are the scientists after all. DNA analysis would show whether there is enough genetic diversity for further variation or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 665 by Percy, posted 07-03-2019 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 626 of 785 (856567)
07-01-2019 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Taq
07-01-2019 4:11 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Why wouldn't we need mutations to produce different species? Chimps and humans are different species, so wouldn't we need mutations if they evolved from a common ancestor?
I suppose you would need mutations to get from one species to another as the ToE requires, although I don't think mutations could accomplish that anyway, but since in my model there is no genetic relationship whatever between humans and chimps no mutations are needed. Since the way they are described is pretty muddied I can't even get a grip on what they actually do so I've not be able to say much about how my model would deal with them except to say that I regard them as mistakes that don't contribute to the normal mechanisms of variation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:11 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 5:15 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 627 of 785 (856568)
07-01-2019 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 625 by PaulK
07-01-2019 4:42 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
You do nothing but assert you have evidence, you don't show it, so as far as I can see it doesn't exist.
I wonder how many of the new "species" according to the ToE have actually varied beyond their current situation. I think they'd be lucky to increase in numbers, that would at least show a level of vitality such as is possessed by the elephant seals, but further variation? Any examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 5:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 684 by Percy, posted 07-04-2019 8:49 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 630 of 785 (856571)
07-01-2019 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by RAZD
07-01-2019 4:49 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
There are no new combinations of alleles that were not possible in the parent population,
It's possible but not necessary. In any case they are going to get emphasized in this new population until they become part of a new general appearance that is different from the parent population, which is what I'm saying is all there is to the formation of new species, such as ring species for example.
and if you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces (as you have claimed), in what you call a "homogeneous" population, then those combinations should exist in the parent population.
As I say above, they could, but it's not necessary for them to have been expressed there beyond the occasional occurrence which is hardly noticeable in a large population of motley traits with a general homogeneous appearance. It's all a matter of gene frequencies.
Variations in markings would be due to modified development (see silver foxes) from changes in hormone levels or modified genes for markings. Otherwise they should be in the parent population as well.
I assume they were all in the parent population but for some reason more potential than expressed. This is why I got interested in the exaggerated traits of the pigeons and the lizards of Pod Mrcaru, and the question of how you can have a pretty homogeneous population such as the original lizard population, or the wild pigeon population Darwin had to start with, and get dramatically new phenotypes from it through reproductive isolation. Darwin selected individuals with very slightly enlarged chest or chest feathers, or fan-shaped tail feathers from the normally very homogeneous pigeon population, traits that most of us would probably not notice at all looking at a flock of pigeons, or even examining them individually. He kept breeding those with the most noticeable versions of those selected traits until he got what you see in the pictures. Somehow genes build on themselves: that's what I've been wondering about. You can start with a whole flock of birds of a feather as it were and end up with something dramatically different simply by controlling the gene pool.
So there is also the case of a very large herd population with high genetic diversity that can be the source of strongly different traits in daughter populations. So I now have the idea that traits don't necessarily manifest in some obvious way at first, just enough to be selected in breeding, or even in nature, but not enough to show up in a herd unless you go through it individual by individual. It takes the new gene frequencies to begin to emphasize such traits and bring them to observable expression in the new population. You all rely on mutations to explain all this although I don't think that's even possible, but in any case my model has new characteristics emerging even in dramatic ways in daughter populations that didn't get expressed in the parent population, or not to any noticeable degree.
At best you get a variety of racoon, not a new species that cannot reproduce with the parent or other similar sub-populations.
Yes, but this becomes a semantic problem because one often runs across such phrases as "species of raccoon" and "species of wildebeest" although there is no reason to think they can't interbreed. I can go back to "variety" if necessary" but I keep finding that no particular terminology is sufficient.
To the rest of your post:
"whatever." I'm dealing with your objections so you don't need to resort to insults.
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 628 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2019 4:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 633 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2019 10:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 685 by Percy, posted 07-04-2019 10:12 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 693 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2019 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 632 of 785 (856579)
07-01-2019 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 631 by Taq
07-01-2019 5:15 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Because mutations can only do what the gene does, they can't go outside the genome and make a human being out of a chimp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 5:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 635 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-01-2019 11:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 639 by JonF, posted 07-02-2019 9:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 641 by Taq, posted 07-02-2019 11:20 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 642 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2019 1:05 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 636 of 785 (856668)
07-02-2019 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 635 by Sarah Bellum
07-01-2019 11:29 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
But since the living organisms on the earth nowadays are different from those on the earth millions of years ago
and the only way for mammals to produce more mammals is to give birth to them (similar arguments apply to creatures that hatch, spawn, etc.), some significant changes must have occurred during that lineal descent. ...
Well, I don't believe there have been any mllions of years, you know, and all living things today, at least on the land, only go back to the ark, I figure normal built in variation is sufficient to have brought it all about.
Unless you think lots and lots of miraculous creations happened instead of ordinary births...
The Creation was a one time thing, it's been normal reproduction since then.
This message is a reply to:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-01-2019 11:29 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 644 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-02-2019 4:53 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 637 of 785 (856669)
07-02-2019 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 633 by RAZD
07-01-2019 10:05 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
I'm OK with varieties or subspecies but as I said one often hears such populations referred to as species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 633 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2019 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 640 by JonF, posted 07-02-2019 9:42 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 705 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2019 8:28 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 645 of 785 (856801)
07-02-2019 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 644 by Sarah Bellum
07-02-2019 4:53 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
The Colorado River DIDN'T carve out the Grand Canyon, that's one of the ToE's most ridiculous notions. The most likely explanation is that it was catastrophically carved out by retreating Flood waters.
The coral reefs no doubt survived the Flood, it doesn't have to have been a particularly violent event once the water was at its height. No idea about the galaxies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-02-2019 4:53 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2019 12:24 AM Faith has replied
 Message 671 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-03-2019 10:49 PM Faith 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