Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 278 of 830 (869961)
01-09-2020 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Sarah Bellum
01-08-2020 9:42 PM


Re: Message 107, topic 7: other stuff
Creationist ignorance is what says the fossil order is defined by increasing complexity? I'm sure I got MY "ignorance" from one of you people here. Where else would I get it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-08-2020 9:42 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 01-09-2020 5:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 281 by JonF, posted 01-09-2020 5:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 287 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-09-2020 10:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 289 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2020 12:15 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 279 of 830 (869962)
01-09-2020 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Meddle
01-09-2020 2:00 PM


Re: Message 107, topic 7: other stuff
...
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Meddle, posted 01-09-2020 2:00 PM Meddle has not replied

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


Message 291 of 830 (870005)
01-10-2020 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by caffeine
01-10-2020 7:16 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I have been told that eye color is governed from many different DNA locations but I'm not sure what they are. I also had the idea some time ago that many different genes were involved in determining eye color. Not sure what the truth is but also not sure it matters.
And I'm afraid I've lost track of what this thread is about, at least this current topic. Apparently I was making a distinction between normal variation by normal sexual recombination within a given species, and what I figure it would take to evolve a new species. It's true that I think of mutations as changing only whatever a given species genome already makes for that species, that there shouldn't be any kind of mutations beyond that.
But when I'm thinkinng about how it could be possible at all ever, to evolve a new species from an old one the only possibilities that come to mind involve mutations, drastic mutations that change the structure of the creature rather than just incidentals like eyes, fur, skin, size, etc. However, even mutations of HOX genes in fruit flies produce the same fruit fly structures, they just rearrange them, so it's probably not possible at all.
But the thing is I was trying to imagine how it could possibly be and all I could come up with is trial and error as the method since there is no built in pathway to the characteristics of some new species as there is within the speice.s And trial and error, meaning mutations all over the genome changing all kinds of things over millions of years, is still not possible. Perhaps I haven't been clear about what I'm imagining here, which is probably because it IS hard to imagine, but I notice nobody else has even tried to imagine it or suggested an alternative pathway to a new species. Probly cuz it isn't possible?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by caffeine, posted 01-10-2020 7:16 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 6:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 329 by caffeine, posted 01-14-2020 1:29 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 294 of 830 (870026)
01-10-2020 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 6:15 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
What is needed is a GENETIC pathway. How do you get from the GENOME of say reptiles to the GENOME of say mammals?
Population genetics actually proves that evolution comes to an end, by the way, runs out of genetic diversity and can no longer produce genetic changes. I've argued this to death before, not really up to it now. But the point is population genetics isn't going to work for you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 6:15 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2020 2:35 AM Faith has replied
 Message 305 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:05 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 296 of 830 (870032)
01-11-2020 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 6:15 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I cannot follow your example of the worms so if you want me to have a response to it I'll need some more explanation.
Skipping to the third example just because I recognize the kind of example it is:
3. Mice brought from Europe to Madeira islands diverge into new species.
quote:Are new species still evolving? Ask an Expert (ABC Science))
A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species.
Why is this anything more than the usual microevolution? It reminds me of the Pod Mrcaru lizards example. Ten individuals or five pairs of a species of lizard found on the mainland were released onto Pod Mrcaru island where they interbred in isolation for thirty years before anyone checked on them. At that time their population had increased a great deal though I don't know the numbers, and they had all developed features different from those of the parent population but universal throughout the island: Large laws that allowed them to eat tougher food than the parent population ate, and adaptations in the gut that made it possible to digest this kind of food. This occurred in only THIRTY years. Perhaps after hundreds of years they'd differentiate into niches as the mice in your example did. But my point is only that this is what you get from normal built in genetic variability, it is not macroevolution. It doesn't matter whether these lizards could interbreed with the parent lizards and I don't recall that being mentioned, but that definition of speciation has always struck me as bogus. There might be many reasons why a new population of the same species can no longer interbreed with the parent population and there be no legitimate reason to consider it anything but the same species. For one thing when you have only a few founding individuals for your new population you are severely restricting its genetic diversity in relation to the parent population and that alone over generations of breeding among the new population could lead to a genetic mismatch that would make such breeding impossible. Although of course there could also be merely behavioral reasons for it.
The concept of "speciation" based on inability to breed with the parent population is one of the biggests hoaxes going on in Evo Land.
Sorry, I get tired easily lately, or depressed, or whatever, and it's hard to respond to a long post. But I hope to get back to this.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 6:15 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 316 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 4:17 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 297 of 830 (870036)
01-11-2020 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 6:15 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Here is an example of humans breeding new species.
quote: The Natural History of Wheat | Encyclopedia.com
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./quote
This is not macroevolution, this is the usual kind of breeding people have done forever with all kinds of plants and animals, simply making use of the built in variability in each species. Basic Mendelian genetics. It is a huge fraud to claim this ordinary principle known to bhumanity forever is now co-opted to the ToE. Using the term "species" creates this illusion for one thing. It's just semantic manipulation, word magic. Call them "subspecies" perhaps, but "species" implies something false.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 6:15 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:46 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 298 of 830 (870037)
01-11-2020 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by PaulK
01-11-2020 2:35 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Anything I say about chimps and humans is too easily rationalized away by suppositions about the similarities between the body types without the slightest sense of what in the underlying genetic situation would need to change in ways that are not shared by both species. So I'm not going to fall into that trap.
The reptile to mammal example is therefore more useful. It is claimed that the mammals evolved from the reptiles and we have some specific organs such as the ear design that supposedly could be traced if someone wants to try. When I try it I immediately run into to such a plethora of unuseful mutations I'm immediately struck by how utterly impossible it would be to get from one to the other. The ear alone requires the repositioning of chambers and the addition of at least one, and without a built in set of DNA instructions for the mammalian ear all you are going to get is wild mutations that go nowhere or create weird useless changes akin to the fruit flies that have their bodies and heads in reverse position. Getting even ONE change that could conceivably be useful seems mathematically impossible to me but I'm no mathematician, so "impossible" is just "impossible" to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2020 2:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by jar, posted 01-11-2020 7:12 AM Faith has replied
 Message 306 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2020 8:11 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 300 of 830 (870042)
01-11-2020 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by jar
01-11-2020 7:12 AM


Re: Basics Faith, learn the basics.
Give us a sequence of mutations and selections that could get us from a reptile to a mammal, or just a reptilian organ to a mammalian organ. The generalities are just a way to hide the fact that it's impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by jar, posted 01-11-2020 7:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by jar, posted 01-11-2020 7:41 AM Faith has replied
 Message 302 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2020 7:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 303 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2020 7:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 317 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 4:44 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 304 of 830 (870047)
01-11-2020 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by jar
01-11-2020 7:41 AM


The Basics are on My Side
Sorry, the generalities are just a fraud in the end. They mean nothing if there is no way to even imagine how you could get genetically from one to the other. They are better explained as independent separately created species. You can't get a mammal from a reptile, can't happen.
It's all wild imagination. It was wild imagination when Darwin dreamed it up and it's still nothing but wild imagination. The genetic stuff is simply not there for the job you imagine happened. Just as you run out of genetic diversity down any given track of normal variation, and here it may help to think breeds, say dog breeds, cattle breeds, whatever, there is no place you can go after you've reached a certain point genetically. You've got your purebred, with its multiple fixed loci and that's the end of it. Sorry, there's nothing after you reach that point and it has to get reached in nature same as in domestic breeding.
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 301 by jar, posted 01-11-2020 7:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by jar, posted 01-11-2020 8:15 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 01-11-2020 11:21 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 310 of 830 (870057)
01-11-2020 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 8:05 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
When you say evolution "comes to an end" do you mean it only goes so far (the examples of new species evolving that I gave you, for instance) and then just . . . stops?
I deny first of all that those are new species, because I deny the whole idea of "speciation" which I consider to be an artificial definition. All you have is the same species that has lost its ability to breed with the parent population, sometimes because of reduced genetic diversity which I'm talkinab tout here as what brings evolution to an end down any particular track. A track would be like a breed. It comes to an end when you get a purebred. The rest of the dog population or whatever it is can keep on microevolving down their own particular tracks to their own purebred position. The point is that at purebred that's where you run out of genetic diversity and when you've run out there's no more evolving that can happen because there isn't the genetic stuff for it to happen. Think cheetah or elephant seal. They arrived there by founder effect but it's the same thing genetically: they're at the point of fixed loci for all their salient characteristics and there is no more genetic stuff at a fixed or homozygous locus for continued change. That's the "end" I'm talking about. And it's all within the same species; it's all microevolution, this idea that speciation is macroevolution is a big delusion.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:05 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 10:23 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 311 of 830 (870058)
01-11-2020 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 8:11 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
How does one define a different species?
\
Yes for the ToE that's supposedly difficult, but it isn't for a creationist. If it were REALLY difficult, that is if evolution were actually true then you could never define a species at all, it would all be one big blur of "transitionals." Which is what I think Darwin was really talking about when he talked about transitionals. A few here and there is nothing like what he had in mind. He had a near continuous blur of differences. Anyway there's really no problem identifying a species if you don't let yourself get all confused by such a bogus concept as "speciation." A cat is a cat is a cat. There are no transitional cats they are all cats. Dogs are dogs are dogs. Same thing. There are very few species where you might run into such a problem.
For organisms that do not reproduce sexually that's not an easy question. But for two sets of living creatures that do reproduce sexually but cannot interbreed it does seem reasonable to say they belong to different species. That's why we consider horses and donkeys different species, for example.
Yes it seems "reasonable" but in the end it just confuses things. They are still the same species that have lost the ability to breed with the parent. That's a lot clearer and it describes the facts just fine.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:11 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2020 9:22 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 312 of 830 (870059)
01-11-2020 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 8:46 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
PLEASE DO NOT IMPUTE THE USUAL CREATIONIST CANARDS TO ME. I HARDLY EVER USE ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
You say new species have been observed to evolve and want my response, which is it's a monumental delusion. It's "word magic," you CALL it evolution, you call it MACROevolution and all you've done is call it something it isn't, by using the completely artificial definition of inability to breed with the parent population.
Do you call the achievement of a purebred Hereford or Angus to be "speciation? Do you? How about a purebred Great Dane or Chihuahua?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:46 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 655 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2020 9:04 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 315 of 830 (870074)
01-11-2020 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 10:23 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I said nothing about time. It's not macroevolution because it's not macroevolution, it is not a new species, it's nothing but what I've called "word magic," just a new definition based on the artificial idea of speciation as based on inability to breed with the parent population. In many cases that could just be due to the decreased genetic diversity in the new population brought about by high homozygosity, i.e. fixed loci, which is very likely to have occurred at the end of a series of populations, such as in ring species. I don't know how many situations are similar to this one so I'm guessing that some are. After a series of such population emigrations with reproductive isolation you run out of genetic diversity which coule cause enough of a genetic mismatch to make breeding impossible. And that means that the situation is the exact opposite from what we should expect from "speciation," which implies further ability to evolve; but as a matter of fact if the cause of the inability to breed with the parent population is genetic mismatch due to fixed loci then there is in fact LESS ability to evolve from that point.
But I'm not stuck on this, I just think it's very likely one common explanation but there could be others.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 10:23 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 574 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-16-2020 3:10 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 318 of 830 (870095)
01-12-2020 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by RAZD
01-11-2020 4:44 PM


Re: It's your claim -- support it.
Give us a sequence of mutations and selections that could get us from a reptile to a mammal, or just a reptilian organ to a mammalian organ. The generalities are just a way to hide the fact that it's impossible.
Give me the genome of specific animals you want compared.
Then find all the genetic differences.
Then show that specific mutations from one to the next could not occur.
You are the one making the claim that evolution cannot account for these differences.
Please show how this is possible.
They could not occur in the right sequence and the right combination and stay in place for hundreds of millions of years while the whole transformation of the whole creature gets put together mutation by mutation. I believe this is simply intuitively obvious. But you guys are the scientists, you should already have made the case for getting from one to the other genetically. Obviously it's impossible.
... or just a reptilian organ to a mammalian organ.
The development of the mammalian ear from the reptilian ear is well documented in the fossil record.
What's "documented" in the fossil record is lots of different kinds of animals that lived before the Flood, including different varieties of animals with different organ designs. You are kidding yourself that there is any evidence of evolution there. And not having a clue how you'd get from one to the other genetically pretty much seals the case.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 4:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by vimesey, posted 01-12-2020 7:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 320 by vimesey, posted 01-12-2020 7:19 AM Faith has replied
 Message 322 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2020 7:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 323 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2020 11:51 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 321 of 830 (870103)
01-12-2020 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by vimesey
01-12-2020 7:19 AM


Re: It's your claim -- support it.
Yes two of every kind were preserved. So?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by vimesey, posted 01-12-2020 7:19 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024