Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
67 online now:
anglagard, dwise1, nwr, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,015 Year: 2,661/14,102 Month: 326/703 Week: 147/158 Day: 15/22 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A question for Evolutionists
robertleva
Member
Posts: 35
From: Seminole
Joined: 04-23-2021


Message 1 of 6 (886044)
04-25-2021 7:54 AM


I created an account here with the sole purpose of seeing how evolutionists can resolve the following problem with their theory:

My issue: ​Selection (either natural selection or human breeding programs) produces a life form that is more adapted or specialized, but is genetically less complex than the original.

-Example: You can take a population of wolves and through breeding recreate all the dog breeds we see today. You can never take dogs and breed them back into wolves. The genetic data has been lost in favor of specializations.
​Dogs are Genetically less complex than wolves in that they only have the data for their particular breed and do not contain the data for all dog breeds the way the wolf does.

So if all species are undergoing selection, how can anything be said to be "evolving"? Seems to me that everything is in a state of genetic decay. Now it's decay with a good purpose, to continue the species in an environment that is constantly changing, but the end result is a loss of genetic information.

Can evolutionists provide ANY examples of natural selection creating a genetically more complex life form than the original? If not, how can you say that selection leads to evolution and not devolution?


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2021 1:21 PM robertleva has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12716
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 6 (886046)
05-03-2021 12:40 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the A question for Evolutionists thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12716
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 3 of 6 (886047)
05-03-2021 12:42 PM


Apologies for Later Promotion
Somehow this thread proposal from RobertLeva got lost in the shuffle. I don't think Robert is still around, but I'm belatedly promoting this anyway.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8119
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 4 of 6 (886049)
05-03-2021 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robertleva
04-25-2021 7:54 AM


robert writes:

So if all species are undergoing selection, how can anything be said to be "evolving"? Seems to me that everything is in a state of genetic decay. Now it's decay with a good purpose, to continue the species in an environment that is constantly changing, but the end result is a loss of genetic information.

Thought game: take a population of 100 organisms, doesn't matter what they are. There's an earthquake, 50 of each find themselves on opposite sides of an impassible fissure. The terrains on each side are different.

You could say that each population has lost genetic diversity, though the total genetic diversity has not changed.

Both groups then spend the next million years going their separate ways.

The ToE predicts (and this is observed irl) that the two populations will evolve and diverge over time through different evolutionary pressures and mechanisms such that eventually there will be two totally different species which can no longer interbreed.

If you then examine their genomes you'll find more genetic diversity than in the original group of 100. Is that an increase in genetic complexity?

Can evolutionists provide ANY examples of natural selection creating a genetically more complex life form than the original? If not, how can you say that selection leads to evolution and not devolution?

I suggest you look at the case study of the peppered moth. It's a fascinating study in its own right but you'll see there that a genetic mutation changed the colour of the moth which helped it survive the change in its environment. Is that an increase in genetic complexity?

If not, I think you'll have to tell us what you think genetic complexity is.

https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=19177


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robertleva, posted 04-25-2021 7:54 AM robertleva has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2021 5:26 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4557
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 5 of 6 (886055)
05-03-2021 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tangle
05-03-2021 1:21 PM


I suggest you look at the case study of the peppered moth. It's a fascinating study in its own right but you'll see there that a genetic mutation changed the colour of the moth which helped it survive the change in its environment. Is that an increase in genetic complexity?

First, robertleva will just shout out as he had been taught to: "That is not evolution because THEY ARE STILL MOTHS!"

Second and more importantly, robertleva excluded from his question any mechanism that would increase genetic variability:

robertleva writes:

So if all species are undergoing selection, how can anything be said to be "evolving"? Seems to me that everything is in a state of genetic decay. Now it's decay with a good purpose, to continue the species in an environment that is constantly changing, but the end result is a loss of genetic information.

In the original:

robertleva writes:

My issue: ​Selection (either natural selection or human breeding programs) produces a life form that is more adapted or specialized, but is genetically less complex than the original.

You have to remember that, as a creationist, robertleva does not understand evolution but rather misunderstands it as he has been trained to do. Creationism claims to attack evolution, but in reality it attacks their misrepresentations of evolution while keeping well away from actual evolution.

Your reply uses actual evolution, which he will not understand since he's misrepresenting evolution.

To illustrate his fundamental error, here is a description of a generic single-objective genetic algorithm (which is based on how evolution works):

quote:
Step One: Generate the initial population of individuals randomly. (First generation)

Step Two: Repeat the following regenerational steps until termination:

  1. Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population (time limit, sufficient fitness achieved, etc.)
  2. Select the fittest individuals for reproduction. (Parents)
  3. Breed new individuals through crossover and mutation operations to give birth to offspring.
  4. Replace the least-fit individuals of the population with new individuals.

Instead, robertleva removes sources of increases in genetic variability, " ... through crossover and mutation operations ... ", reducing sub-step 3 to:

quote:
3. Breed new individuals to give birth to offspring.

Evolution works because of both increases in genetic variability and natural selection. Remove either one and it's no longer evolution but something entirely different. What he is trying to "disprove" is not evolution and really has next to nothing to do with evolution.

A possible analogy to make that more clear might be efforts to "prove" that heavier-than-air flight is impossible. A 737 is supposed to be able to fly great distances. So your test builds a 737 airframe minus the engines and you try to fly it. Gee look! It can't even take off, leave the ground. Doesn't work!

When they point out to you that it needs engines to work, you set up an engine separate from the airframe and start it up. At best it careens off out of control. Well! That's certainly not flight! It still doesn't work!

Even when they mount the engines properly onto the airframe and have you watch as they take off in controlled flight, you still don't believe them since you "already proved it couldn't possibly work."

 
BTW, even though robertleva has posted a lie, I have no doubt that he doesn't realize that it's a lie. That's just what he's been taught and he has made the mistake of believing and trusting them (as I'm sure that his immediate handlers have also done).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2021 1:21 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 6 of 6 (886058)
05-03-2021 7:25 PM


Even if what robert posted in the OP were true it would still have absolutely no impact on the fact of evolution.

Evolving only required increased complexity when there was only single cell organisms. A critter can evolve by becoming less complex or less genetically complex (whatever that means).

robert like all the other deprived kids that were educated in the Christian Cult of ********* simply grew up in an environment of total ********** and complete disconnection from reality.


My Website: My Website

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021