|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In reality it describes a wild population quite well, with the variant alleles well distributed through the population. Which, I am sure, was the intent.
quote: You don’t know how to stop using your own private meanings for common words? Meanings which change to suit your convenience?Just stop doing it. It really is that simple for any rational person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What do I mean by a "brand new" phenomenon.
I do have trouble following your post, but nothing you've said suggests evolution beyond the species, but only microevolution within the species, variations on the genes possessed by the species and nothing that would produce something "brand new." Just to try to give an example: Something brand new would be the change from reptilian hide or skin to the fur or hair covered mammals. Or the change to the mammalian ear from the reptilian. I know you say that is already evidenced in a transitional but the argument didn't get through to me. As for what the animal in the picture would become I assume it is one variation on a specific species or Kind and would change in accord with the genetic material in the genome of that population.l Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The WEASEL program and others like it assume open-ended genetic variability so that changes can just go on and on and on and on, but they can't. WHY CAN'T THEY? Give us a valid reason. Give us a mechanism. So why can't they?
The example I give all the time is how we get purebred domestic animals because the genetics has to be the same in the wild too although random. Uh, no. Not even close. How we work artificially with animals we wish to breed (or have already bred) and what happens in the wild are completely different.
As you isolate animals for their chosen characteristics you eliminate alleles for other characteristics until you finally have fixed loci for whatever pure breed you've chosen. This is the old fashioned method of breeding which is now considered to be bad for the animals' health but the genetics is the point here The underlying mechanisms are still in place, but how have your breeding actions perverted those mechanisms into being unnatural? A PhD Chemistry friend told me that he could not ever do anything in the lab that couldn't also happen in nature under the exact same conditions. What breeders do is to create conditions that do not exist in the wild. Artificial selection in breeding served as a basic analogy for natural selection, but that analogy falls apart as all analogies do. Therefore, it is fallacious for you to misrepresent evolution in the wild as being the same as artificial selection in breeding human-domesticated plants and animals. Have to rush off to school now. Today's class is in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The WEASEL program and others like it assume open-ended genetic variability so that changes can just go on and on and on and on, but they can't. WHY CAN'T THEY? Give us a valid reason. Give us a mechanism. So why can't they? BECAUSE THEY RUN OUT OF GENETIC MATERIAL, GENETIC FUEL AS IT WERE, GENETIC DIVERSITY, GENETIC VARIABILITY. The changes that are supposedly open ended USE UP genetic material as it were. To get a new phenotype means GETTING RID OF alleles for other characteristics. This is why I keep referring to breeding practices where at least the phenomenon ought to be easily recornized. To get a neew breed you have to GET RID OF all the genetic material for all the other breeds. And this is what happens in the wild too when a new population becomes characterized by a new composite phenotype. The genetic material that underlay the composite phenotype of the parent population has been left behind and a new set of alleles is now getting expressed. Nothing new has been adde3d, it's just a new combination of a different set of alleles while the original set has been eliminated or reduced to the point that the new ones can emerge. It takes GENETIC LOSS to get new phenotypes. The WEASEl program is just an expression of the usuel wishfulness of the ToE. What is assumed to happen cannot in reality happen. Back later. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
But what I usually mean by "species" is pretty simple: the major groupings of creatures we name all the time: cats, dogs, elephants, horses, pigs, snails, crows, ferns, oaks and so on. Subpopulations, daughter populations, subspecies of all these groups are still the same "Kind." But I do need a consistent and clear way to designate all these things. I do try, however. Those groupings are, of course, completely arbitrary. Why 'crows' and not 'birds'? And if we're sticking with crows, does that include ravens? What about jackdaws? Jays? If you mean 'kind', just say 'kind'. It avoids confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're right, make it "birds."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I feel I should add that I am just about never able to get the whole model I have in mind into one post. For one thing it isn't usually relevant to the question I'm answering. But I just want to say that I know anything I say along these lines always raises questions, and I've already thought through and have answers to most of those what would come up. Just want to say that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
You really think that hummingbirds and ostriches are the same species? Really? Because I don’t see much chance of hybridisation, even if birds are rather more prone to that than mammals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
By Faith's definition all mammalia are the same species.
Works for me. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I do think hummingbirds and ostriches are the same species. They have all the same body parts, same basic body structure.. They are both clearly birds -- beaks, feathers, wings, bird legs etc. By one species I mean that they share the same genome. Their genome does not include hair or fur for instance.
Many species have varieties that (micro) evolved to the point of inability to interbreed with one another. Mammals are not one species however. Bears are bears and are not horses or cows or dogs or cats etc. I've been wondering about rodents. Have to spend some time on that one. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Ma’am, you are finally totally off your ever-lovin’ rocker.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So, in the same way that humans and chimpanzees are the same species. In other words your private definition of species has no real meaning other than the fact that you want to call them the same species. (ABE for some sanity look here Wikipedia it’s utter nonsense to say that ostriches and hummingbirds have the same genome while humans and chimps do not)
quote: In other words you use your word-magic to deny the fact of macroevolution. But silly word-games don’t control reality.
quote: Try owls and woodpeckers with their specialised adaptions.
quote: Since it only comes down to what you want, how much time could you possibly need? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Why do you continually refuse to ever learn anything? It would very much be to your own benefit to learn something about mutations, if for no other reason than to keep from continually hoisting yourself on you own petard of ignrance.
In John Maynard Smith's book on population genetics, Evolutionary Genetics (1st ed, page 54), he lists four types of mutations:
Those are not the only possible types of mutations; see Wikipedia's Mutation: Classification of types. Note that #4 can, and often does, increase the amount of "GENETIC MATERIAL". For one thing, it can and has created duplicate copies of genes; that is how the gene for lysozyme (anti-microbial enzyme in animal immune systems) could mutate to instead produce alpha-lactalbumin (regulates the production of lactose) without the organism losing the ability to produce lysozyme since multiple copies of its gene have been added to the genome though duplication mutations. IOW, your nonsense about mutations not adding more "GENETIC MATERIAL" to the genome is just that, nonsense. And if you had bothered to learn about mutations, then you would have known that and known to not make that mistake.
BECAUSE THEY RUN OUT OF GENETIC MATERIAL, GENETIC FUEL AS IT WERE, GENETIC DIVERSITY, GENETIC VARIABILITY. The changes that are supposedly open ended USE UP genetic material as it were. To get a new phenotype means GETTING RID OF alleles for other characteristics. First, what you are saying about WEASEL programs such as my MONKEY is absolutely false and completely misrepresents what they do and what they are based on. All you demonstrate is your abject ignrance of them. Yet again, taking a small amount of time to learn what WEASEL and MONKEY are and what they do would have kept you from hoisting yourself on your own ignrance petard. But you just refuse to ever learn. No, natural selection does not result in the loss of "GENETIC MATERIAL" which you describe as "GENETIC FUEL", which is a very bad analogy that doesn't even apply. You don't burn up genetic material! Instead, it changes! New functionality can be added and old functionality can be lost, but the genes for that old functionality doesn't simply disappear and could even be restored by a future mutation. For example, birds still have genes for growing teeth. In experiments, placing embryo mouse gum tissue on a chick embryo jaw triggers those teeth genes causing the chick embryo to start growing teeth. Similarly, baleen whales do not have teeth, but at one point in the development of their embryos they start to grow teeth, which are later reabsorbed. More trivially, a trait can go away through natural selection and then come back again in full force when the environment changes. The best known example is the peppered moth. It started out with light coloration so that it could camouflage itself on light-colored tree bark. Then when soot from the Industrial Revolution darkened the bark, the moths lost their light coloration and became dark instead. Finally, when the air pollution was alleviated and the tree bark became light again, the moths went back to being light colored. The genes for coloration never went away. Natural selection changing gene frequency does not remove those unexpressed genes from the genome (as you have repeatedly and falsely claimed would be the case). Old genes rarely go away; they just stop being expressed. Genomes don't lose "GENETIC MATERIAL", but instead accumulate more genetic material along with changing what they had or just simply stop using some of the old stuff, but that old stuff is still there. Your silly nonsense about genomes becoming smaller is just that, silly nonsense. BTW, I told you, "Give us a valid reason. Give us a mechanism." You have done neither! All you did was to repeat your contrary-to-reality nonsense assertions that are based on nothing but your abject ignrance and wishful thinking. The WEASEl program is just an expression of the usuel wishfulness of the ToE. Absolutely false and a gross misrepresentation.
Learn something about WEASEL programs! Read Chapter Three, "Accumulating Small Changes", of Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. It is in the first half of that chapter that Dawkins describes his WEASEL experiment. Or you could read my page, MONKEY. In writing my program, I used Dawkins' description of his program as the design specification -- Dawkins did not provide a program listing; I seem to recall that he had written it in BASIC while I wrote mine in Turbo Pascal and then recently rewrote it in C. In a collection of WEASEL programs, mine was pointed out as being truest to the original (as I said, I used Dawkins' description as my spec). I provide the source code, an executable (Windows), and an analysis of the probabilities that enable it to work so fast and successfully. No WEASEL program that I know of deals with genetics in any manner, let alone genetic variability, nor do they make any assumptions whatsoever about genetic variability. Rather, WEASEL tests cumulative selection both to illustrate how it works, to demonstrate its speed and power, and to compare its performance with the single-step selection that creationists (yourself included) constantly misrepresent as how evolution must work -- yet again, evolution uses cumulative selection as does life itself, not your puny single-step selection. But last I saw, you seemed to have switched to cumulative selection. In Message 262 you said, "Cumulative selection" is a crock." But then in Message 407 you changed your tune with "The trial and error that must happen is going to make tiny changes over huge swaths of time, ... ", which I pointed out in my reply (Message 417) describes cumulative selection:
DWise writes: Which is contrary to the single-step selection nature of trial-and-error. Rather, what you are now describing is cumulative selection which you pronounce as not existing! The accumulation of tiny changes over huge swaths of time, one little selection per generation. Does this mean that now suddenly you accept cumulative selection? Or are you just being inconsistent and self-contradicting yet again? So far, you have neither admitted switching nor denied it. In Message 249 I described MONKEY to you. You never replied. Here's what I wrote:
DWise1 writes:
Indeed, your emphasis on the non-evolutionary model of "trial and error" and "bazillions of tries" (no such number exists ; refer to my page, Number Names) tells us that your misunderstanding of evolution is far worse. Please read my pages, MONKEY and MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS) (they are a pair: Monkey explains my experiment while MProbs explains why it works). Basically, when I read Richard Dawkins' description of his WEASEL program in The Blind Watchmaker, I could not believe it so I tried it myself -- since he didn't give a program listing (probably written in BASIC), I used his description as the specification for my own program, MONKEY (in honor of Eddington's model infinite monkeys typing Hamlet -- refer to the Internet The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS), RFC 2795), which I implemented in Turbo Pascal. That worked so incredibly well and quickly (compiled Pascal is much faster than interpreted BASIC) that I still could not believe it. So I analyzed the probabilities involved (and wrote that analysis up in MProbs) and finally understood why it was virtually impossible for it to fail (SPOILER: the probability of every single parallel attempt always failing becomes vanishingly small). I uploaded it to a CompuServe library where for the next half decade that I remained on that service it continued to be downloaded at least once for each and every month. On a web page collection of all such WEASEL programs, mine was rated as being most faithful to the original (small wonder, since the original was my specification). And all creationist attempts I've seen to "refute" WEASEL relied on adding features (eg, "locking rings") that did not exist and certainly do not exist in mine. WEASEL was so named because it would produce a single line from Hamlet in which the characters look for shapes in clouds: "Methinks it is like a weasel." That reference is why I named mine MONKEY, which I chose to produce the English alphabet in alphabetical order (though I provide the option to enter your own choice of target string). Dawkins wrote WEASEL to illustrate one of his points, the difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection:
So, Faith, when you go on about "trial and error" and "bazillions of tries", you are obviously using single-step selection. We know that that is not in any way how life works and hence is not in any way how evolution would work. Because of your gross misunderstanding of evolution using your abysmally bad single-step selection, you fool yourself into the false belief that evolution could not possibly work. Which we can clearly see is not the case. So by not having learned what evolution is nor now it works, you have fooled yourself into filling your head with pure crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
First define what a species is to you.
Would for example egg laying reptiles to live birth reptiles do it for you, or are you going to move the goal post. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think I'd include all reptiles in one species, sharing one genome, but I'm not committed to sorting all this out. I don't think it's particularly relevant to anything. Right now just having some agreement on terminology is the main point and I'm not sure this discussion really helps with that, such as how the word "species" is to be used, which is where this topic came up. I just need to be able to use the word or alternative words to get across what I'm talking about where there is confusion about what I mean..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024