|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
ksc Guest |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
This post has been deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Here's your problem Karl. You desperately want evolution to claim something it does not. Karl's definition of evolution requires that ALL organisms undergo major morphological (or other) changes during a sufficient time period. Evolution makes no such claim. You want people to argue your straw man and are finding no takers on this board. Perhaps, if you went elsewhere, you might find an audience unable to recognize the fundamental flaws in your argument. The simple fact is that your argument (like many before) is a bad argument. I suspect the origin of your argument stems from the super-hyper macro evolution required by the flood model.
Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Good, glad you accept normalising selection acting on non-neutral mutations affecting morphology. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that genetic drift overides NS. & your right, it is your bad. So, for the umpteenth time, can you show me that the coelacanth didn't evolve? And you have the gall to ask for an apology from Percy because you answered questions? I think not. Also, what particular change in tempo of evolution are we talking about? More mutations? Higher level of morphological adaption? Are you SURE the coelacanths experienced this? Are you SURE their environment changes in such a way as to REQUIRE change? Please answer these questions rather than just reasserting points made in your first post. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ksc:
[b] quote: No, repeating a false claim in a mantra like fashion does not make it any more real. Cheers Joe Meert ps: it's still Dr. or Sir to you! [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And we are still waiting for you to show us where the ToE requires a certain mutation rate and that evolution of a successful species is necessary.
quote: Heck, karl, your arguments sure haven't changed a bit in the last 2 years. Why not? Once again though: Why should a species evolve?
quote: Did you ever hear of punctuated equilibrium? Do you think that PE suggests a constant rate of mutation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ksc writes: I'm not sure which of your posts you're referring to, but in looking back through this thread there appears to be much that you haven't addressed regarding the pace of evolution: Quetzal in message 7 writes: Percy in message 8 writes: Quetzal in message 10 writes: Mister Pamboli in message 26 writes: If your answer is to claim you've already addressed these issues then I don't think this board is for you. People who feel they have the answers are usually eager to repeat them at every opportunity, and in my judgement (which is the one that counts around here), claiming you've already answered something and refusing to elaborate is a rhetorical device intended to stymie debate and discussion. Since this is a debate board, such behavior is anathema to our raison d'etre and will not be permitted. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: quote: Then answer the question. It’s a simple cut & paste job, after all. Silly ol' me can't see where you answered this precise question in context of genetic variation, (which, if you check, WAS the context). I’m very interested as to how you know such details as chromosome number & structure of cretaceous coelacanths, not to mention amino acid/nucleotide sequences of proteins/genes. Have you shown that coelacanths never evolved? I hope this isn’t going to turn into one of those kidnician postings (creationweb), where you continually maintain to have answered questions, but actually haven’t. Paste away.
quote: From Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, p344-5. In describing Dhobanskies experiments with Drosophila pseudoobscura . The critical implication of this experiment is that the chromosome frequencies approach STABLE EQUILIBRIUM, no matter what the initial frequencies are. This can only be due to natural selection, FOR GENETIC DRIFT WOULD NOT SHOW SUCH CONSISTENCY. Moreover, natural selection must be acting in such a way as to MAINTAIN VARIATION; it does not necessarily cause fixation of the single best genotype." Figures are provided showing the equilibrium being reached over TIME, regardless of initial variations introduced. Natural selection is acting to maintain variation, IN SPITE OF GENETIC DRIFT. Your question was to give a textbook quote as to why things don’t have to change. Answered. Can you give one that says they do?
quote: Nope, I'm sure time & mutation does produce change. This is the point of my question, above. Positive adaptations may well have taken place, just not on the morphology of the coelacanth. Probably many neutral mutations have been fixed/reached equilibrium, via drift. However, those mutations that affected the basic body plan would be deleterious, & acted on by ns. Stabilising selection, no less. Can you tell us why stabilising selection cannot act over 340 m.y.? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
I have been searching for a reference that should shut Karl up. Maybe someone here remembers seeing the article. Sometime last year, I read an article at a Creationist site — maybe AIG or ICR, about fruit flies and morphology. They claimed that in some cases two fruit flies only shared 25% of their DNA in common, but the basic morphology remained the same. They were trying to demonstrate that a fruit fly would never be anything other than a fruit fly. But, if the article was correct, it demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE for an organism to undergo tremendous amounts of evolution and still maintain the same basic form. It all depends upon which parts of the DNA got mutated, and how these changes affected the survivability of the organism.
In the case of the coelacanth, Karl is right about one thing. We can hardly expect that the DNA didn’t change over these millions of years. Sure it did. But as many others have pointed out, and as I have attempted to reiterate in the paragraph above, it is possible for a large amount of evolution to occur without affecting the basic morphology. It is not likely, but then again it apparently hasn’t occurred too many times. This is what you would expect, given an unlikely event but millions of chances (species) for it to occur. To take an old (and very worn) line from Karl, NEXT! FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
mark24 writes: This isn't a critical factor in this discussion, since the main point is Karl's assertion that evolution prohibits stasis, but in the name of accuracy, and as Mister Pamboli has already stated in message 26, the coelacanth *has* evolved quite a bit over the past 340 million years. A few facts:
These facts indicate that Karl's assertion that the coelacanth is an example of a species surviving unchanged for hundreds of millions of years is simply wrong. It is easy to see where one could pick up this misimpression, because most popular articles about the coelacanth describe it as virtually unchanged from its Devonian relatives. For example, the picture of Macropoma lewesiensis is part of an article that says, "The skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known from the upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs little from the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths." Use of the term "virtually identical" is misleading - just look at the pictures. By "virtually identical" the article only means "very similar", which is why they're classified in the same order. Had they actually been identical then they'd have been classified as the same species. --Percy [Edited to fix the link to the picture. --Percy] [This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
quote: Karl, you never once attempted to present any evidence that the DNA of the coelacanth has NOT changed substantially over millions of years. You have tried to equate genotype with phenotype, which is not always a good assumption. If you had even a small clue about biology, you would recognize your error. As it stands, you have just demonstrated your old, tired trick of present an assertion, repeatedly ignore the rebuttals, and then claim victory. Of course you hinted at the next step which I have also seen you do repeatedly: Regurgitate your argument unchanged at a later date and claim that it has never been refuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
NOTICE:
Until Karl defines "DNA strand" and "pinpointed mutation" discussing issues related to genetics is a waste of time. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 05-11-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024