Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
558 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 550 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,340 Year: 4,452/6,534 Month: 666/900 Week: 190/182 Day: 23/47 Hour: 7/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


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 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 676 of 785 (856902)
07-04-2019 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by PaulK
07-04-2019 12:24 AM


Re: Flood stuff
Sediments don't lay themselves down so nicely flat and straight over millions of years. The inability to appreciate how reality works is on your side.Reality suggests a lumpy burial ground of motley sediments, and a gradual increase in your evolved creatures rather than a preponderance, even an exclusion, in each amazingly flat and straight burial ground.

THE WIDE PART OF THE CANYON WAS CUT BY catastrophic flow, while the plateau surrounding it was washed flat and after that the remaining water formed meanders in the flat surface and then emptied into the canyon.

But we've **** the thread topic WAY behind. We need to get back to macroevolution.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 12:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 677 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 12:33 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 677 of 785 (856903)
07-04-2019 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 676 by Faith
07-04-2019 12:28 AM


Re: Flood stuff
quote:

Sediments don't lay themselves down so nicely flat and straight over millions of years.

Don’t they ? And don’t forget that the rock layers are compressed in the lithification process which would tend to flatten them. And, of course, we do have erosional features in the strata, too.

quote:

Reality suggests a gradual increase in your evolved creatures rather than a preponderance, even an exclusion, in each amazingly flat and straight burial ground.

I don’t know what you are trying to say in that first part.

quote:

But we've **** the thread topic WAY behind. We need to get back to macroevolution

I guess that jumping between the idea that the Colorado river couldn’t carve the Grand Canyon and the idea that it carved it in a few thousand years must be a real strain on even your closed mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 678 of 785 (856904)
07-04-2019 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 677 by PaulK
07-04-2019 12:33 AM


Re: Flood stuff
The strata are really really really flat and straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 12:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 12:50 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 679 of 785 (856906)
07-04-2019 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by Faith
07-04-2019 12:34 AM


Re: Flood stuff
quote:

The strata are really really really flat and straight.

Except where they aren’t. We’ve got buried sand dunes, rivers, even massive monadnocks in the strata - just to name some of the things we’ve discussed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 7:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8502
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 680 of 785 (856910)
07-04-2019 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by Faith
07-03-2019 7:00 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
Faith writes:

However, I've discovered from being at EvC that most creationists who come here have a completely different point of view, something unique to themselves that I often can't even follow. I don't understand this but it means there's no way for any of us to build on each other's thoughts.

This should tell you something shouldn't it?

If you can't find a consensus theory between you, you're making it up individually. This is happening because you are all making up stories ad hoc and none of them are consistent with the observed facts. If they where you'd have an alternate theory that science would have to take note of. In fact it *would* be science.

But it's not just alternative science that you have difficulties with it's alternative gods and alternative beliefs about the same gods within the same religion and even the same church and sect.

What it all boils down to is your beliefs are personal and unique to you. You can never present a unified idea because your ideas are all driven by your own personalities and psychologies.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 7:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 6:58 AM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 681 of 785 (856917)
07-04-2019 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 680 by Tangle
07-04-2019 2:16 AM


Re: Creationist mindset
All it really tells me is that different creationists choose different problems according to what they think they can work with best. Same as I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2019 2:16 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by Tangle, posted 07-05-2019 2:58 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 682 of 785 (856918)
07-04-2019 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 679 by PaulK
07-04-2019 12:50 AM


Re: Flood stuff
The existence of foreign objects and other things in the strata doesn't change the fact that the strata themselves are very very flat and straight.

Which, again, along with the peculiar collections of particular fossils, besides often being of just one identifiable sediment, seems to me to be very hard to explain in terms of time periods of millions of years.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 12:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by Pressie, posted 07-04-2019 7:40 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 688 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 11:12 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 683 of 785 (856921)
07-04-2019 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
07-04-2019 7:00 AM


Re: Flood stuff
So, the existence of buried sand dunes, rivers, even massive monadnocks in the strata, all are "foreign objects"!

Way to go. Those features, found in the rock record, are so Un-american.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 7:00 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 684 of 785 (856926)
07-04-2019 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 627 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:48 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
I know PaulK has already responded to this, but I wanted to add a bit more.

Faith writes:

You do nothing but assert you have evidence, you don't show it, so as far as I can see it doesn't exist.

Much evidence is constantly being presented to you. You deal with this evidence in various ways. You deny it was ever presented. You deny it actually exists. You claim it's too white. You claim it's too complicated. You claim it wasn't what you were actually discussing. You ignore it entirely. Actually taking up the evidence, comprehending it, and then discussing it is something you rarely do.

I wonder how many of the new "species" according to the ToE have actually varied beyond their current situation.

According to the fossil record, the deeper you delve into the past the more different species were from modern forms.

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?

Why are you asking PaulK these questions - the elephant seal is your example. What does "level of vitality" mean? Why are you asking PaulK about "further variation" when phenotypic change was your claim?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:48 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 685 of 785 (856932)
07-04-2019 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 630 by Faith
07-01-2019 5:07 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
RAZD already replied to this message, but I wanted to comment on a few things that he chose not to.

Faith writes:

There are no new combinations of alleles that were not possible in the parent population,

It's possible but not necessary.

This is dead wrong. RAZD stated something that is true by definition. The possible allelic combinations in a subpopulation must, by mathematical necessity, be a subset of the possible allelic combinations in the main population.

Of course, if mutations are added to the mix then this is no longer true.

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.

The most interesting species of a ring in the context of this discussion are those on opposite sides of the ring end point where the original species and the last species inhabit the same region and can no longer interbreed. They represent two different species, and this is due to mutation. The more recent species does not have a subset of the alleles of the original species. Both species have lost and gained alleles. The only way to gain alleles is by mutation. Entirely new genes are also possible, though probably unlikely given that indirect gene flow around the ring still exists between the two species.

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.

Your casual criteria of "general homogenous appearance" has no meaning. "Motley traits" has no meaning. Allele frequencies between two populations may be very different, but if both populations have all the same alleles, just at different frequencies, then they must, by necessity, be the same species. This is because any particular allele combination is possible in either population.

Genetically, if two different species have the exact same genes and chromosomes, only differing at the allelic level in terms of allele set and frequency, then even if they refuse to interbreed naturally, sperm could still fertilize egg in a test tube. Species is simple conceptually but complicated when you get into the details. In this case the two populations are different species simply because they never mate, but genetically they're still the same species. There's no single term describing this situation, so it can only be described.

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.

But breeding pigeons only manipulates allele frequencies. It doesn't create new species.

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...

This is completely untrue. Have you understood so little of what people are saying? No one has ever argued that it takes mutations to create those pigeons. We've said over and over again that mutations play an almost non-existent role in breeding.

...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.

I think you misunderstand what has been explained. No one is arguing against the dramatic phenotypic changes that can be achieved in pigeon breeding. The unusual pigeon breeds do not appear in the general pigeon population because of the extreme unlikelihood of the sequence of mating pairs chosen by the breeder occurring at random in the wild, particularly since there are no natural selection pressures that could duplicate the choices of the breeder.

At best you get a variety of racoon, not a new species that cannot reproduce with the parent or other similar sub-populations.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 5:07 PM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 686 of 785 (856935)
07-04-2019 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 670 by Faith
07-03-2019 9:35 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
We've pointed out your ignorance with examples many times. My favorite is the idea that entire inconceivably heavy and extremely brittle rock formations could be picked up and carried and deposited whole.

Lifting would require an upward force exerted from below (or else the bottom would crack off) and almost perfectly even and simultaneous force (else the bending moment between unequal forces would crack the formation in two or more).

A crude analogy: bake a huge and unusually thin sheet cake. Invert the pan so the cake is on the counter. Leave it there until it's totally stale.

Now, with your hands only, lift it off the counter in one piece.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 9:35 PM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 687 of 785 (856936)
07-04-2019 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Faith
07-03-2019 11:15 PM


Re: Flood stuff
Besides cutting those formations, the draining action scoured off plateaus such as at the Permian (Kaibab) level in the Grand Canyon area, across which the last streams of water ran and formed meanders and became rivers some of which still exist.

The meanders extend from top to bottpm. Therefore whatever created the meanders also created the canyon. According to you, that's the river.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 11:15 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 688 of 785 (856943)
07-04-2019 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
07-04-2019 7:00 AM


Re: Flood stuff
quote:

The existence of foreign objects and other things in the strata doesn't change the fact that the strata themselves are very very flat and straight.

Erosional features are hardly “foreign objects”. Nor is the structure of the stratum itself. So the fact is that the strata are nowhere near as flat as you insist.

quote:

Which, again, along with the peculiar collections of particular fossils, besides often being of just one identifiable sediment, seems to me to be very hard to explain in terms of time periods of millions of years.

The first is not at all hard to explain given long periods of time. It is explaining it without long periods of time that is the trouble. The second is, I think, less common than you think. Most formations seem to be pretty mixed. As you certainly ought to know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 7:00 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 689 of 785 (856956)
07-04-2019 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by Faith
07-03-2019 9:48 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Faith writes:

I don't think anyone here has ever been convinced of ANY creationist's views about anything. So I wouldn't take that fact as meaning much.

It wasn't a fact I mentioned, but since you bring it up, scientists don't find creationist views convincing because their conclusions trace back to religious myths instead of to facts from the real world.

And I do give evidence but it gets sucked up into the EvC twisting system.

There's no "EvC twisting system." There's only science which seeks to build theory upon facts, something you have in very short supply. There's nothing special about EvC. The only reason you're here is because it has light text on a dark background. We're I to reverse it you'd be gone in an instant.

sI'm happy with a lot of what I've said here.

The quality of your thinking is not how convincing you find it, but how convincing it is to others. The inability of an idea to persuade anyone in a fact-based context is a measure of its poor quality.

It's discouraging to be subjected to all the false accusations...

There were no false accusations. You've done everything I listed you doing, and multiple examples can be found of each. When you hit a dead end you make up excuses for why you can't continue the discussion. They include, but are not limited to, claiming that it's not the standpoint you're arguing from (very recently with HereBeDragons), claiming that it's too white or too complicated, claiming you're too tired, claiming you'll come back to it which you never do, claiming you've been insulted, refusing to talk to anyone who in your assessment has offended you, and just plain ignoring messages, 161 in this thread alone so far.

...but I'm used to discouragement by now. Most of the time anyway.

If you'd like to be discouraged less often then identify the facts and present views consistent with them.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 9:48 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 690 of 785 (856960)
07-04-2019 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 644 by Sarah Bellum
07-02-2019 4:53 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022