Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 730 of 830 (875042)
04-13-2020 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by Faith
04-13-2020 4:23 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
After years of understanding that the cheetah was the result of a Founder event that rendendered them endangered I am simply not going to even consider your post.
But Faith, you made that up. Cheetahs went through a very severe bottleneck but you’re the only one who claims that it changed them much.
quote:
Evolutionists are always changing things around, moving the goal posts.
Nobody agreed with you Faith. There is no moving the goal posts. That’s another thing you made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 733 of 830 (875048)
04-13-2020 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by Faith
04-13-2020 4:48 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
Oh fer. Read up on the concerns of conservationists for the terrible endangerment of the cheetah due to its genetically depleted condition due to the bottleneck/Founder Effect. I didn't make that up.
?
I didn’t say that you made that up. I explained that what you made up was the idea that the bottleneck caused significant morphological changes.
I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah
Cheetahs were cheetah’s before the bottleneck. Your idea that the bottleneck produced the cheetah is an invention. I know because I asked you for evidence and you had none (and I looked and found none myself),

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 735 of 830 (875051)
04-13-2020 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 731 by Faith
04-13-2020 4:46 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
What I learned is that the Kind has very little to do with the Linnaean taxonomy.
I don’t think you can call it learning when you are making it up.
You haven’t made any serious effort to determine Kind boundaries.
quote:
The Kind is ultimately genetically defined and that works just fine for the Family level for dogs, but nothing above that on the taxonomic chart is relevant except for academic purposes.
And how would you know that? You haven’t discussed the actual genetics at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 738 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 736 of 830 (875053)
04-13-2020 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by Faith
04-13-2020 4:57 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
I see, well when you drastically reduce genetic diversity it stands to reason you are going to get phenotypic change because that's how it works.
So how did that work out for elephant seals? Oh, right. It didn’t, did it? I guess that it doesn’t really work quite the way you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:17 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 739 of 830 (875059)
04-13-2020 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 737 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:17 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
What ARE you taling about?
The fact that elephant seals are still elephant seals despite the bottleneck. The change you expect didn’t happen. That should be obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 737 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 741 of 830 (875062)
04-13-2020 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 738 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:22 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
You just aren't thinking at all. When I say it's genetically determined I am NOT saying I know how, I'm saying that has to be the case whether we know how or not
Assuming for the sake of argument that your Kind boundaries exist you would still need to look at the genetics to find where they are. You didn’t even try. If you had properly thought about it you would realise that. You obviously didn’t.
quote:
But I do, yes I do, stick to my argument about built-in barriers to evolution. I know you fail to get it, you keep throwing in mutations although they can't make a difference
Obviously I do get it because mutations can and do make a difference.
quote:
It does define the boundaries of the Kind functionally
Then the evidence indicates that there is only one Kind. The twin nested hierarchies are the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 738 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 742 of 830 (875067)
04-13-2020 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 740 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:31 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolut
quote:
Um, seals really don't change a lot. That proves nothing
But you think that cheetahs changed a lot. But the fossils disagree, according to Wikipedia the major bottleneck is dated to 100,000 years ago (by genetic evidence) but fossils of modern cheetahs appear 1.9 million years ago - and other cheetah species go back twice as far.
You have no evidence that cheetahs changed significantly. It is only an assumption. And to accuse us of moving the goalposts when our position has not changed at all is ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 743 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:54 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 744 of 830 (875081)
04-13-2020 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 743 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:54 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolu
quote:
I HAVE NO IDEA *HOW MUCH* CHEETAHS CHANGED
So you have no idea iif your assertion is true:
I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah
Message 724
Funny how you tried to pass it off as a fact when - as you now admit - it’s just something you made up.
And still stranger that when Tangle pointed out the conventional view, you responded with this:
After years of understanding that the cheetah was the result of a Founder event that rendendered them endangered I am simply not going to even consider your post. Evolutionists are always changing things around, moving the goal posts.
Message 729
How can disagreement with your speculation - a disagreement that has been voiced since you first introduced it here be considered to be moving the goalposts ?
quote:
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HOW MUCH THEY CHANGED. THEY HAD TO CHANGE *SOME* BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET GENETIC REDUCTION, BUT HOW MUCH WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MUCH CHANGE THEY UNDERWENT THROUGH THE BOTTLENECK AND THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE DEGREE OF GENETIC DIVERSITY THEY HAD BEFORE THE BOTTLENECK.
That might be true if you weren’t claiming otherwise. If the cheetah wasn’t the prime evidence for your idea that reduction in genetic diversity was the driver of morphological change. But we can’t even say that there was any change beyond a reduction in variation, and sine rare traits becoming common - and that is a long way from the bottleneck creating the cheetah or being responsible for it’s special features (which we know isn’t true).
quote:
I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH, WHY DO YOU?
In other words you don’t care if one of your major claims, your primary evidence for your idea is even true. You openly admit to not caring about the truth.
So thanks for the proof that your gratuitous attack in Message 697 was a hypocritical lie.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 745 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 1:20 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 746 of 830 (875090)
04-14-2020 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 745 by Faith
04-14-2020 1:20 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolu
quote:
Bottleneck HAS to change a creature but how much change depends as I said on how much genetic diversity was present before the bottleneck.
Which does not change the fact that you claimed that the bottleneck essentially created the cheetah and falsely accused evolutionists of moving the goalposts when Tangle disagreed.
Nor does it change the fact that this assertion was your main evidence for the idea that genetic depletion alone was the main cause of evolutionary change. A view which was obviously implausible in the first place.
And in fact a bottleneck - by definition - will not produce any phenotypic variations that weren’t at least possible before it occurred. And since a bottleneck will favour the more common alleles it isn’t even particularly likely to produce phenotypic variations that were unknown before the bottleneck.
Compounding your dishonesty by trying to sweep it under the carpet is the sort of behaviour that earned you your bad reputation here.
quote:
But it's irrelevant
It was relevant enough for you to try and pass it off as a fact and even try to use it as evidence. Funny how it suddenly became irrelevant.
quote:
The cheetah now is the cheetah and it's so genetically depleted because of the bottleneck it is endangered.
But this is not relevant to the discussion because it is entirely consistent with mainstream views. Let us also note that the dating of the bottleneck is based on the accumulation of variations in the DNA since it occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 745 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 1:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 749 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 2:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 752 of 830 (875099)
04-14-2020 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 749 by Faith
04-14-2020 2:51 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolu
quote:
Tangle changed the subject as it is usually discussed, that's why I said what I said.
No he didn’t. He just disagreed with an assertion you made. One that you now say is irrelevant. And I still don’t see why you had to invent that claim about moving the goalposts (more accurately I don’t see an honest reason).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 749 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 2:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 761 of 830 (887377)
08-01-2021 3:10 PM


Candle2 versus evolution
Replying to Message 479
quote:
Paul, you can say it over and over again, but it doesn't
make it true.The fossils do not support evolution.
You can say that over and over again, but it will still be false. The fossil do support evolution.
quote:
Fossils are piles of bones that were deposited in great
heaps by a global flood.
That is certainly not true.
quote:
Let me tell you a little secret: fossils do not come
With tags on them, stating how old they are.
I guess you’re easily impressed, since everyone knows that. They don’t have little tags saying that they were deposited by a flood either.
quote:
A worldwide flood would sort many of the fossils into
size and density before depositing them.
And since this is not at all the order we see, we can be sure that a worldwide flood did not do it. Dinosaurs for instance are a hugely diverse group ranging from huge herbivores to tiny insectivores. Yet (apart from birds) they are only found in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous systems, not earlier or later, no matter what size or shape they are.
quote:
In any event, the bottom layer would contain fish fossils.
Above these would be amphibians, then reptiles
(Including dinosaurs). Above these would be birds
and mammals, including humans.
But this is not at all the order that we see. Fish continue on to the present day. Early mammals are found with dinosaurs, as are early birds. The great marine reptiles are found in the same geological systems as dinosaurs while marine mammals like whales only turn up in later-deposited strata.
quote:
This last group would be on the highest ground;
Thereby, assuring that they would be last to die.
And, less likely to be covered by sediment, which
would leave minimal fossils.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t expect to find whales on high ground.
quote:
Fossils are open to interpretation. Observable
Science (kind of animal reproducing the same
Kind of animal for all of recorded history) is not.
Again I point out that mutations and natural selection are observed - and there is further evidence which strongly favours evolution.
quote:
We have now observed that many dinosaur
fossils have significant amounts of C-14 in
them. Being generous to a fault, C-14 should
be undetectable after 100,000 years.
To the best of my knowledge only trace amounts are detected which could be added in situ, or by contamination at any stage between being dug up and processed. If you have serious evidence to support this claim I’d like to see it.
quote:
Instead of changing their beliefs to fit the facts,
evolutionists insist that iron is responsible for
the C-14 amounts, even after 75,000,000 years.
I wonder why you assume that the other evidence of age should be thrown out. It would not be scientific to do so.
quote:
Evolution is faith-based, and a really weird one
at that.
Evolution is science. It doesn’t require faith to disagree with the ignorant teachings of your cult.

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2021 11:28 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 763 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2021 11:19 AM PaulK 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