Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, jar, JonF (4 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,057 Year: 22,093/19,786 Month: 656/1,834 Week: 156/500 Day: 53/61 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Faith
Member
Posts: 33880
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1366 of 1371 (866649)
11-14-2019 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1365 by RAZD
11-13-2019 9:37 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
the problem is that the genetics isn't studied in order to check out what I'm saying. My theory goes **** this: A species has only certain genetic stuff and even if mutations change things they can't change it to something outside what the genetic stuff does: even the most drastic mutations don't change the parts of a fruit fly, they just rearrange them. They don't create some other kind of creature or even a part of some other kind of creature. The enormous number of generations of e coli in Lensky's experiments never even suggested anything other than a version of e coli. The genetic stuff of each species appears to be built into its genome. Evolution, mutations, can rearrange it but can't make something new out of it.

Normal microevolution brings out new versions of the traits that are built into the genome. It's always the same creature but it may be bigger or smaller or have dramatically different coloring or markings, some modification of the basic structure but without ever changing beyond what is clearly defined as that particular species. All these differences are built into the genome. There are many genes for some traits **** fur coloring and so on, and whatever there are genes for is all the change you can possibly get. So no, all **** is NOT related, simply genetically can't be.

And there is nothing **** trial and error in all of this either, though trial and error would be needed to get from one species to another because basic structures have to change, which doesn't happen in normal microevolution.

AND, you'll never recognize it I guess, but I'm very sure that as a species changes in a certain genetic direction it will eventually run out of genetic diversity and be unable to change any further. Which basically means the defining characteristics will all be homozygous, all fixed loci, which is what we see in drastically bottlenecked species **** the cheetah and elephant seal. And once the majority of their characteristics are fixed loci they cannot evolve any further. Presumably a mutation might come along and allow for it but that doesn't seem to happen. If they can be bred with other cats or seals then they can survive, but they won't be the same animal. Something **** this genetlcally depleted condition must be what happens in breeding programs -- a "purebred" is defined as having fixed loci for its main characteristics. It doesn't vary from generation to generation as species with high genetic diversity do. Evolution has a natural end point in other words, you can't get anything new at all, not even a variation on the breed, let alone something toward an entirely new species.

Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY the same species, humans and apes are not.

This is not the OP topic unfortunately.
AbE: OR, did you actually mean to identify a useful application of evolutionjary theory that I missed? And if so could you condense it down to a brief statement so I can get what you had in mind?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1365 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2019 9:37 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1367 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2019 9:06 AM Faith has responded
 Message 1371 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2019 1:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 1367 of 1371 (866658)
11-14-2019 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1366 by Faith
11-14-2019 4:05 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
the problem is that the genetics isn't studied in order to check out what I'm saying. My theory goes like this: A species has only certain genetic stuff and even if mutations change things they can't change it to something outside what the genetic stuff does: even the most drastic mutations don't change the parts of a fruit fly, they just rearrange them. They don't create some other kind of creature or even a part of some other kind of creature. The enormous number of generations of e coli in Lensky's experiments never even suggested anything other than a version of e coli. The genetic stuff of each species appears to be built into its genome. Evolution, mutations, can rearrange it but can't make something new out of it.

It doesn't have to be. The genetics as studied show this concept to be contradicted. We see mutations in the genome carried to descendants who are different, we see common ancestry in specific traits from one lineage to the next, and we see this pattern extending into the past back to a universal common ancestor.

That is how the DNA tree of life is built. Common ancestry is a prediction of the ToE. This evidence confirms it, thus showing that the ToE is the best known explanation for the natural history of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Normal microevolution brings out new versions of the traits that are built into the genome. It's always the same creature but it may be bigger or smaller or have dramatically different coloring or markings, some modification of the basic structure but without ever changing beyond what is clearly defined as that particular species. All these differences are built into the genome. There are many genes for some traits like fur coloring and so on, and whatever there are genes for is all the change you can possibly get. So no, all life is NOT related, simply genetically can't be.

The evidence says otherwise. The actual evidence show that "new versions of the traits" are due to mutations, and that there is nothing that limits mutations from occurring.

And there is nothing like trial and error in all of this either, though trial and error would be needed to get from one species to another because basic structures have to change, which doesn't happen in normal microevolution.

And again you are wrong. All evolution is trial and error: mutation (trial) selection (error) try again:

The "basic structure" changes is little steps, such as the changes in size, location and connectivity of the ear bones and jaw bones in the evolution of mammals from reptilian ancestors. There are many intermediate fossils found in this transition of "basic structure" and they are all fixed in the spatial/temporal matrix in the times and locations expected.

You will deny this of course, because it contradicts your ideology.

AND, you'll never recognize it I guess, but I'm very sure that as a species changes in a certain genetic direction it will eventually run out of genetic diversity and be unable to change any further. ...

Correct, I'll never recognize it, but that's because it hasn't happened yet. There is no barrier to change via mutations that has yet been discovered. What we do see is new genetic material occurring via mutations such that daughter species are just as robust in genetic variation as the parent population and that they differ from sister populations by having different sets of new mutations, genetic material that is absent in the parent population.

... Which basically means the defining characteristics will all be homozygous, all fixed loci, which is what we see in drastically bottlenecked species like the cheetah and elephant seal. And once the majority of their characteristics are fixed loci they cannot evolve any further. Presumably a mutation might come along and allow for it but that doesn't seem to happen. If they can be bred with other cats or seals then they can survive, but they won't be the same animal. Something like this genetlcally depleted condition must be what happens in breeding programs -- a "purebred" is defined as having fixed loci for its main characteristics. It doesn't vary from generation to generation as species with high genetic diversity do. Evolution has a natural end point in other words, you can't get anything new at all, not even a variation on the breed, let alone something toward an entirely new species.

Ideological rambling based on a falsified premise not worth addressing.

Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY the same species, humans and apes are not.

Again you choose to assert your ideology rather than look at the facts.

You can't handle the truth.

This is not the OP topic unfortunately.
AbE: OR, did you actually mean to identify a useful application of evolutionjary theory that I missed? And if so could you condense it down to a brief statement so I can get what you had in mind?

The common ancestry of traits as documented in the fossil temporal/spacial matrix shows evolution occurs, has occurred, and that there is no barrier to it continuing to occur. Common ancestry requires proximity in time and location for each breeding generation of species as a test prediction of evolution theory. The evidence confirms that the ToE is the best known explanation for the natural history of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•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 1366 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 4:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1368 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 9:17 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 1369 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 9:31 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33880
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1368 of 1371 (866661)
11-14-2019 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1367 by RAZD
11-14-2019 9:06 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
What you call "evidence," ************ in relation to the fossil record, is really just interpretation that can't be verified, in other words it's just the Evo fantasy.

And by the way you have shown no useful application whatever.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1367 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2019 9:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1370 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2019 9:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33880
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1369 of 1371 (866662)
11-14-2019 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1367 by RAZD
11-14-2019 9:06 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Just **** everybody else here you love to tit for tat. So you use my term "ideology" absolutely incorrectly, you have no idea how I use it or that it doesn't belong in your post.

However, I just want to comment on another thing you got wrong, wshich rally amounts to a straw man. I never said that a single generation would lead to the inability to evolve further, I said "eventually," meaning after a number of such generations, and to be more precise, a number of reproductively isolated genreations **** ring specieds. But I don't expect you to get anything I say so I'm not even talking to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1367 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2019 9:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 1370 of 1371 (866665)
11-14-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1368 by Faith
11-14-2019 9:17 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
What you call "evidence," particularly in relation to the fossil record, is really just interpretation that can't be verified, in other words it's just the Evo fantasy.

And by the way you have shown no useful application whatever.

More proof that you can't handle the truth.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•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 1368 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 9:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15643
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1371 of 1371 (866681)
11-14-2019 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1366 by Faith
11-14-2019 4:05 AM


Genes and more
quote:
the problem is that the genetics isn't studied in order to check out what I'm saying.

Genetics isn’t studied for that purpose, no. But that isn’t a problem. Genetics is studied to understand genes and that understanding shows serious problems with your ideas.

Mendelian genetics was a theoretical model which works well enough for breeding. But it has no understanding of actual genes or what they really do or how genes relate to traits. By making speculations based on Mendelian genetics and ignoring what real genes are and do you are just heading off into fantasyland.

quote:
A species has only certain genetic stuff and even if mutations change things they can't change it to something outside what the genetic stuff does: even the most drastic mutations don't change the parts of a fruit fly, they just rearrange them

Which, of course is in line with evolutionary theory. But those changes are not changes in genes, they are changes to regulatory sequences. So instead of triggering the building of an antenna, a leg might be built instead.

But genes code for proteins and proteins can have multiple uses. Genes can even code for more than one protein via Alternative Splicing. The idea that the gene does one thing and one thing only is known to be wrong. A protein may be a blood clotting agent and a venom, a structural element and an enzyme.

quote:
Normal microevolution brings out new versions of the traits that are built into the genome. It's always the same creature but it may be bigger or smaller or have dramatically different coloring or markings, some modification of the basic structure but without ever changing beyond what is clearly defined as that particular species. All these differences are built into the genome. There are many genes for some traits like fur coloring and so on, and whatever there are genes for is all the change you can possibly get. So no, all life is NOT related, simply genetically can't be.

As we know regulatory changes can bring about significant variations. Add to this the fact that genes may be lost and gained - and the clear genetic similarities and we see that your claims are purely assumptions. It is entirely possible for your assumptions to be wrong - especially when we know that your ideas about “what genes do” ARE wrong.

quote:
AND, you'll never recognize it I guess, but I'm very sure that as a species changes in a certain genetic direction it will eventually run out of genetic diversity and be unable to change any further.

No, you’ll never recognise that you are wrong, although it has been shown again and again. All you have is a bad theoretical argument, which doesn’t even stand up on that level, let alone the evidence.

quote:
Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY the same species, humans and apes are not.

Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY more diverse than the apes (including humans). There is no consistent standard by which you can say that trilobites are one species but humans are a different species from the other apes. We know, it has been argued in this forum. In reality trilobites are classed as an Order while the apes are classed as a superfamily - a lower taxonomic level. And that is because of the relative diversity (and quite likely biased in favour of the apes).

This catalogue of errors is hardly a convincing argument.

Edited by PaulK, : Changed title


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1366 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 4:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019