|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you for your argument based only on bias against the researcher.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It isn’t an argument. It’s a caution against trusting biased and likely poorly-informed sources. Which should be obvious. But I guess you just have to be nasty about it. But anyway see my edit. The article is worthless nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Your answer (and maybe the article) seems to be focused on what would be needed. That is the question I explicitly said we weren't looking at right now.
The question was the number of "trials". That is how many different mutations would there be in the human population in 10 years. Or if you want a generation (take it as 20 years if you want).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How many trials is hard to estimate because the whole shebang is random. Just to get one beneficial mutation at any given locus could involve hundreds of trials as it were, and meanwhile the same hit-or-miss process would be going on all over the genome, hundreds per locus perhaps. And the changes have to be coordinated with each other to produce a coherent phenotype. Above all, to get an actually new species you have to have changes in the structural parts of the genome, otherwise all you'll get is variations on the species itself rather than any kind of changes that could lead to something completely different.
I guess I could try to describe all the misses I expect would have to happen, the mutations that would have to be weeded out by selection because they are deleterious in some way. Some mutations would have to be like those that put the fruit fly parts in the wrong positions. Think it through yourself. The whole thing is simply impossible. We keep getting these flat statements about how evolution is just the continuation of normal microevolution. It can't be. You run out of genetic variability at the point you get a "pure" breed or subspecies. There is no way to get from there to something the genome does not have instructions for. That would require all this trial and error because it isn't built in, and that is simply impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
My 2 sense worth ...
How many trials is hard to estimate because the whole shebang is random. Just to get one beneficial mutation at any given locus could involve hundreds of trials as it were, ... Each of us carries hundreds of mutations our parents did not have. They are either beneficial, neutral, or mildly harmful (such as a predisposition for cancer). One generation, one "trial" ...
... and meanwhile the same hit-or-miss process would be going on all over the genome, hundreds per locus perhaps. ... Yep, going on now in every individual in the (very large) breeding population. We are also seeing large changes in our ecology due to our habit of cutting down trees and digging up ores, burning fossil fuels that alter the atmosphere, etc. so mutations that may have been neutral or mildly harmful may be more beneficial than previously. Remember, the "trial" is to survive and breed. Any existing mutations that are passed to the next generation have done that and passed the trial.
... And the changes have to be coordinated with each other to produce a coherent phenotype. ... Nope. This is where you go wrong. There is no goal other than survival and breeding, that is all that is required. The conditions for this change with the ecological changes, but the goal to survive and breed remains the only goal necessary for evolution. Any individual that survives and breeds obviously has a "coherent phenotype" so that is irrelevant.
Above all, to get an actually new species you have to have changes in the structural parts of the genome, ... Nope. All you need is divergent evolution between two breeding populations such that they don't interbreed. That of course uses the scientific definition of speciation, not the Monty Python "and now for something completely different" definition.
... otherwise all you'll get is variations on the species itself rather than any kind of changes that could lead to something completely different. According to your erroneous definition/s of species, but not according to science.
I guess I could try to describe all the misses I expect would have to happen, the mutations that would have to be weeded out by selection because they are deleterious in some way. Some mutations would have to be like those that put the fruit fly parts in the wrong positions. You could, but it would be pointless, being based on a false precept, that there is more than survival and breeding involved.
Think it through yourself. The whole thing is simply impossible. We keep getting these flat statements about how evolution is just the continuation of normal microevolution. It can't be. ... Except that it is observed, a fact you try to get around by saying that it is "normal variation in a species" while ignoring the science. Nor have you in any way demonstrated that "It can't be."
... You run out of genetic variability at the point you get a "pure" breed or subspecies. ... Except those hundred of new mutations in each individual resupplies genetic variability, as you have been told hundreds of times.
... There is no way to get from there to something the genome does not have instructions for. ... The genome "has instructions" for new individuals to survive and breed, mutations alter some of these "instructions" and they are tested by survival to breed. Those that pass become part of the genome for the next generation, which is slightly different from the one before. This process is repeated every generation.
... That would require all this trial and error because it isn't built in, and that is simply impossible. Except you have not demonstrated it is impossible, rather you have demonstrated denial and denial generated ignorance of how evolution actually works, and how it succeeds every generation. Speciation is something that happens, not because there is a goal, but because the population genome is constantly changing with every generation and the ecology that "tests" the population for survival and breeding is constantly changing, especially when populations divide into two or more different ecologies. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : stby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about. Way it goes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It helps to work out what you’re counting as trials. And you really haven’t even been clear about that,
quote: It sounds like you are counting any mutation as a trial - and there are a LOT of those.
quote: No, there is no need of any coordination. And what would an incoherent phenotype be, anyway?
quote: What do you mean by the structural parts of the genome? What do they do?
quote: Why would you need to? That they are misses is enough. And changes that big will be rare and aren’t likely to leave traces.
quote: If you had actually thought it through you could do better than this vague rambling.
quote: So you say, but you haven’t offered any real support - or any reason to think that you’ve really thought it through.
quote: So you say again, and again the reasoning is lacking.
quote: Which never happens, excluding species reduced to a single individual.
quote: Sure, the Scottish fold cat must be an individual creation by God himself. Or you’re talking nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
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 There are no human genes that differ from the equivalent gene in the chimp by thousands of changes. Human genes differ from their mouse equivalents by a little more than a thousand changes on average. I don't understand why you think just randomly guessing at numbers is the way to figure these things out. Why not investigate the findings of all the people who've spent careers getting the real answers by actually looking at real genomes and seeing how they work? It's all really quite fascinating (although very confusing), and more educational than pulling ideas out of thin air.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about. Way it goes. Except that you are not even trying to "get across what [you're] talking about." Instead, you are actively preventing "[getting] across what [you're] talking about." In Message 385 I laid out a series of simple questions that you need to answer so that you can finally get across what you're talking about. Your "response" was the ultimate creationist non-response of vaguely suggesting that you're get to it later -- in over three decades of dealing with creationists, I have seen that promise many times and have never ever seen any creationist honor that promise. It's a damned dishonest trick almost known as "smiling you out the door". As I concluded:
DWise1 writes: 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. Why are you fighting so hard to avoid telling us what you are talking about?
Those few questions I raised are what you must answer at a bare minimum. By refusing to do so, you are refusing to allow anybody to understand "what [you're] talking about." I'm reminded of a scene in Chasing Amy, which I've tailored for our situation here: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about. Way it goes All evolution is done by microevolution because it occurs in breeding population. It is not possible to happen in dead populations, or ones that have not yet been conceived. each generation is composed of individuals being tested for survival and reproduction. Whatever you are talking about, or trying to get across is bogus scientifically. You want something completely different? Wait. It takes generations of accumulated small non-lethal changes that generation by generation pass the survival/reproduction test. The question for you: how do you define completely different in a way that can be scientifically determined. You’ve never done this, and I doubt you know how. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
RAZD replying to Faith:
Whatever you are talking about, or trying to get across is bogus scientifically. As I pointed out to Faith with my modest list in Message 385 of very simple direct questions that she must answer, while she is not almost completely unclear about what she is talking about she has also been dropping clues about her misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of evolution that she is using.
I think that's a good point being raised that in life, every individual who has survived long enough to reproduce and pass its genes on to the next generation can be counted as having succeeded that "trial".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: There's no such process as macroevolution, that's just a term used to describe the point (which in reality doesn't exist, or at least can't be found in real life) where the evolution of a population of organisms can no longer interbreed with its parent population. OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about. The two terms micro and macroevelotion didn't exist when I studied the subject - there was and is just evolution. The process of evolution. It never stops and it never changes one species into another in a single leap. It adds variation, it doesn't reduce it. You're just factually, proveably wrong about these things.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
There are 131 million humans born a year. According to Wikipedia each has 60 mutations. So in a generation (20 years) we have:
131 million times 60 x 20 is 157 billion mutations. But that is a severe underestimate since about half of all conceptions spontaniously abort. Some for mechanical reasons and some, I am guessing, do to failed mutations. That is another 157 billion mutations but presumably a large fraction of those are all harmful. So in the human population an estimate of the trails you go on about is about 15 billion per year. The article you linked to seems to make a very basic mistake of not considering whole populations.Let's go back a couple of billion years. There would have been trillions of unicellular things multiplying every day. So those would have 100 trillion "trails" per year for 2 billion years. That's around 200 million million billion trails. Very unlikely things can occur if you just keep rolling the dice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Interesting, Nosy, an enormous number of mutations in the human population, no doubt similar in other species.
And not a single hint of any partcularly special new phenotype that could build to a new species. Bazillions of failed trials in other words. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As I pointed out to Faith with my modest list in Message 385 of very simple direct questions that she must answer, while she is not almost completely unclear about what she is talking about she has also been dropping clues about her misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of evolution that she is using. Well I've been trying to understand for a couple years now, and I have a feeling that if one logged all the claims and sorted them, one would find inconsistencies and contradictions, as each argument she makes addresses only part of the issues at a time.
Her view of the appearance of a new trait (eg, chimp foot to human foot) appears to be that it must happen abruptly as within a single generation or within a few generations at most. This is coupled with her assertion that all these physical changes must all suddenly arise and come together randomly "at the same time". That is of course saltationism: Or what I call a "Monty 'and now for something completely different' Python's change. (you had to watch the show).
That is popularly known as geneticist Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster". Not only does that appear to be what Faith is thinking of, but over the decades I have also observed many creationists using the same kind of arguments which would lead them to the same false conclusions (though none of them were ever willing to discuss it). Yes, the only thing that comes close is polyploidy sudden speciation, more common in plants, but known in mammals. But even here the creationist complaint, as we get for all observed speciation events, is that it still isn't enough change to be macroevolution. I tried to address this on EvC Forum: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?. Faith made 219 posts on that thread that you can review here: Faith's Posts enjoyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024