|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I said I think chimps are less similar to humans than goats are to horses so there's my disagreement. I also have to note that the picture you posted of the foot doesn't show what I was referring to about the big differences in the flesh of chimp versus human. But this is going nowhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Each stage is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the previous stage. That's what intermediate means. And this takes me back to my original point which is that this sort of change is impossible by trial and error of random mutations, let alone their having to be coordinated with similar staged changes all over the body. What you are calling intermediates in the sense of their having supposedly evolved to that position, are really just built-in genetic variations of the creature, whether ape or human being. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
And this takes me back to my original point which is that this sort of change is impossible by trial and error of random mutations, ... Why is why we keep telling you that that is not what we are talking about. Rather, we are talking about how it would have evolved! Instead, you keep prattling on about your nonsensical "trial and error" that you continually refuse to describe and which has nothing to do with evolution and definitely not with how life even works.
Learn something instead of pontificating about things that you know nothing about! And refuse to learn anything about while falsely claiming to know more than a great many who have taken the time to study and to learn the subject. Ambassador Londo Mollari could just as well have had you in mind: "Ah! Arrogance and shtupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you." Edited by dwise1, : added "and definitely not with how life even works"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry, but trial and error of mutatiobns is obviouslyu the only possible way evolution could ever occur and it's impossible and that's the end of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1049 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
I also have to note that the picture you posted of the foot doesn't show what I was referring to about the big differences in the flesh of chimp versus human. Possibly because differences that are not explicable in terms of anatomy, nor visible in pictures, don't actually exist. They're just something invented in a desperate attempt to maintain an special creation for humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: I'm sorry, but trial and error of mutatiobns is obviouslyu the only possible way evolution could ever occur and it's impossible and that's the end of that. You keep saying stuff like that but never provide any evidence or even reasoning of why it should be correct. Time for you to actually defend your assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And this takes me back to my original point which is that this sort of change is impossible by trial and error of random mutations, ... Except, as you have been told so many times, it's not just mutation but selection. Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. The "trial" is surviving to breed and pass on the mutation/s to the next generation, where it all starts over.
... let alone their having to be coordinated with similar staged changes all over the body. ... There are no "similar staged changes all over the body" that need to occur. Each mutation stands or dies on its own by surviving to breed and pass on the mutation/s to the next generation, where it all starts over. You can have hands evolving separately from feet, leg bone lengths evolving separately from arm lengths and body size. The only criteria is that the individual survives and breeds to pass on the changes to the next generation. In fact evidence shows this to be the case, with some traits occurring at different times than other traits. Such as bipedal gait before hand and foot shape before skull size increase.
... What you are calling intermediates in the sense of their having supposedly evolved to that position ... Are fossils that show mutations from a parent population that are passed on to offspring that undergo further mutation and selection. It's a continuous process.
... are really just built-in genetic variations of the creature, whether ape or human being. And yet we can show many intermediates evolving between ape and human being ... doesn't that mean that human beings are part of the "built-in genetic variations of the" ape genome ... if your view is correct? It isn't, but for the sake of this argument we can assume it is: if we can show the same kind of "built in genetic variations" see in dogs -- slight changes in size, slight changes in shape, changes caused by interruption of development (HOX gene) say in dog skulls (ie - bull dog vs collie), etc -- then doesn't that mean we have "built in genetic variations" going from ape to human? Compare a human child with a chimp child and they are more similar than some dog breeds. The major differences notable in the heads of adults occur through development after birth. But evolution has an advantage over your concept: it can add genetic variation with random mutations, while your concept is stuck with an (albeit totally unknown, because you can't elaborate why) limited number of "built in" variations (how many? where are they built in? where are they hiding?). Evolution is only limited by survival and breeding. That is why evolution will always be a better explanation than your concept. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Selection.
But you have to hold on to your ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Time for [Faith] to actually defend [her] assertion. First she needs to explain just what she's talking about. Which she refuses to do despite repeated requests/demands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I'm sorry, but trial and error of mutatiobns is obviouslyu the only possible way evolution could ever occur and it's impossible and that's the end of that. Except for the inconvenient truth that that is completely wrong! If you just keep repeating the same groundless false assertion over and over again, then we cannot get anywhere. And you steadfastly refuse to describe or explain or discuss it which only generates unnecessary confusion and acrimony. Though I wouldn't be surprised to learn that that is exactly your purpose, which would be to create a ludicrous strawman that you refuse to describe or explain just so you can throw your hands up and shout "Impossible!". The confusion and acrimony that that generates is a side-effect which you welcome. Typical creationist dishonesty! Evolution works because of how life itself works. More specifically, evolution is the collective result of populations of individuals doing what living individuals do (ie, mature, survive in their environment, reproduce, etc). Every description of how evolution would work must be according to how life works. By all appearances, whatever your idea of "evolution" must be has nothing to do with how life works, which is the problem. Here in yellow is what I see you as describing your "model" -- if you disagree with this list, then please submit (finally!) your description:
) When we speak of physical changes, then we are talking about the expression of changes in the genotype regardless of the source of those changes (which could be mutations or not). Furthermore, many mutations will not even show up as physical changes. A further complication is that genetic and physical changes are not proportional: a small amount of genetic change could create a lot of physical change, while a lot of genetic change could amount to little if any physical change -- each individual case is different.) That is a list of the best guesses I can make of what the hell you are talking about. It details many of the questions that you must answer in order for us to figure out just what the hell you are talking about.
If any of my guesses are incorrect (which is likely, since you are forcing us into a guessing game), then you must provide us with corrections. Not just a say-nothing "nope, not what I said", but rather an actual explanation of what you are actually saying. Obviously, if any of my guesses are correct, then you must acknowledge that fact. And if you refuse to do either and just remain silent, then I will have to assume that I was correct on every count and that your entire "model" has nothing to do with evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not going to spend any time on this right now. Just one thing: selection of normal variation just gets you normal variation within a species, if artificially selected it gets you new breeds; it's what I'm always talking about as what eventually leads to the point where further evolution is impossible as it leads to fixed loci.
Evolution that could get from species to species HAS to be based on mutations, therefore, and that means bazillions of trials, because the variability is NOT built in, it's all random, the changes have to be created from scratch as it were. And as I've thought it through the errrors involved and the numbers of trials required are impossible; evolution is simply impossible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It would if mutations did not occur. But they do. In large numbers. We’ve been telling you that for years.
quote: And I’ve been telling you that for years.
quote: You haven’t really thought through it though. You have no real idea of the number required or the number that actually occur. All you have is another uninformed opinion. That isn’t something that should carry much weight at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
And as I've thought it through the errrors involved and the numbers of trials required are impossible; evolution is simply impossible. What is your estimate of the number of trails actually conducted in the human population over a 10 yr period? Note: this is not "what is required" which you should be able to supply but rather a simpler number -- the trials actually conducted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually conducted? Make it per generation rather than ten years. And of course I don't know but what I think would have to occur to get any kind of evolutionary change is thousands per gene at least, and getting a beneficial change just in one gene wouldn't accomplish much anyway, you still have to have beneficial mutations in all the other genes. And even defining a change as beneficial is very iffy until you have the whole genome changed in a new beneficial direction.
Here's an interesting article I found that tries to compute how many mutations occurred in the human population over some time period or other but I haven't been able to read the whole thing.
We would like to comment on the rates of evolution that must have occurred under the accepted model of geologic time. First we present an oversimplified analysis that illustrates some problems with evolution. Then we correct this analysis and show that many of these problems can be solved. Finally we show that there are interesting and problematical consequences of this corrected analysis for the theory of evolution. To me it's basically open and shut that such trial and error which is the only possible thing that COULD bring about evolution from one species to another, is impossible. The usual idea that normal variation with natural selection is sufficient is utterly ridiculously impossible. All you can ever get is the same species, and eventually you do run out of genetic diversity which makes further evolution absolutely impossible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s an article written by a Creationist Computer Scientist. At the least you should be reading articles by researchers working in the field. My correction, it’s a laughable article written by a hopelessly ignorant Creationist Computer Scientist who thinks that every base pair has to be added by an individual mutation. Someone tell him about gene duplication! Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024