|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best Evidence Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
jar writes: It seems to me that it really is that simple. I think it's even simpler. I think many that use the term think it means a cow turning into a whale or, more usually, monkeys into men. They simply can't accept that 'proper' animals - ie not bacteria - can change over time to the extent that the ToE claims that they do. To be fair, it IS a mind boggling concept and I still shake my head at it sometimes.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1060 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
RAZD writes: But preservation of homologies are not part of the mechanisms of change, and Mendel's work was focused on the preserved homologies in his experiments. That's fine but I often hear claims that grey moths turning into black moths is evolution in action. But surely this is just an existing homology which is being wiped out and therefore no evidence of evolution? It appears that you concur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, the example you posted is evidence that Natural Selection happens.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1060 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
jar writes: No, the example you posted is evidence that Natural Selection happens. I think we need to be clear here.... we have already cited several different avenues for change. 1) mutations resulting in new beneficial homology (good genes)2) mutations resulting in new detrimental homology (damaged genes) 3) mutations resulting in new neutral homology (new alleles) 4) mutations that don't result in new homology but are beneficial 5) mutations that don't result in new homology but are detrimental 6) mutations that don't result in new homology but are neutral 7) traits that suddenly appear according to laws of inheritance 8) traits that suddenly disappear according to laws of inheritance 9) natural selection acting upon traits governed by the laws of inheritance All of these are examples of micro-evolution not macro-evolution. Therefore Mendel's laws do fall into the category of micro-evolution even though you claim that's not the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Hi Big Al,
I'm not sure exactly where the confusion lies, but I am sure that Mendel and microevolution isn't the topic. Maybe you could propose something over in the Proposed New Topics forum. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1060 days) Posts: 389 Joined:
|
Percy writes: I'm not sure exactly where the confusion lies, but I am sure that Mendel and microevolution isn't the topic If you want to discuss macro-evolution solely then I am happy to bow out as I already stated. I just thought that you can't discuss macro without a deeper understanding of micro. My tuppence worth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm sorry but all you are posting is bullshit and word salad and has absolutely nothing to do with what Mendel discovered or anything else that I can tell.
Nothing in Medel's work has anything to do with evolution (change over time), whether micro-evolution or macro-evolution. Edited by jar, : add definition of evolutionAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Big_Al35
That's fine but I often hear claims that grey moths turning into black moths is evolution in action. But surely this is just an existing homology which is being wiped out and therefore no evidence of evolution? It appears that you concur. If this is what you hear then you are often being told falsehoods. If you want to discuss this further or just read what is actually shown by the peppered moths ... See the Peppered Moths and Natural Selection thread for the details. As it is off-topic here.
Message 139: I think we need to be clear here.... we have already cited several different avenues for change. 1) mutations resulting in new beneficial homology (good genes)2) mutations resulting in new detrimental homology (damaged genes) 3) mutations resulting in new neutral homology (new alleles) 4) mutations that don't result in new homology but are beneficial 5) mutations that don't result in new homology but are detrimental 6) mutations that don't result in new homology but are neutral 7) traits that suddenly appear according to laws of inheritance 8) traits that suddenly disappear according to laws of inheritance 9) natural selection acting upon traits governed by the laws of inheritance All of these are examples of micro-evolution not macro-evolution. Therefore Mendel's laws do fall into the category of micro-evolution even though you claim that's not the case. Perhaps this could be a good start for a new topic: Evidence for the mechanisms of Microevolution Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idscience Member (Idle past 4665 days) Posts: 40 Joined:
|
I am not surprised.
Lots of arguing about definitions, and species, and how that proves macro-evolution. convenient for evolutionary scientists to have defined macro-evolution so that it can be proved so easily. You have turned this thread into a battle of the definitions. It has been more important to satisfy the minimalist definition of macro-evolution than to offer the evidence for the overiding principal for it, large morphological changes occur. The only defence offered for that is, "enough time will do it". The rest is arguing about speciation, which many believe is just variation or micro-evolution. The only difference is evolutionary scientists decided it wasn't. I have read, speciation is defined as an isolated repoductive community. Although many separate species are able to reproduce with each other. I guess that doesn't matter. The over all consensus here is that because small changes within a species are observed, the big leap to, enough time can invent whole new body plans 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. No one seems interested that the best microbiology has been able to accomplish is 1+1=2. No one is interested in the boundries and limitations of mutational changes, or that just about all the changes involve loss of information. Information loss, cannot build anything new. Just faith that enough time can do the job. Anyone could look at old fossils and make relational assumptions. Especially if they are commonly designed. Oh, Ida pushes back divergence x of years, oh wait, Ida is just a lemur, never mind. Because evolution is a "fact", the relationships made between fossils are contrived. Trees, branches, divergence, is just an attempt to make sense of a premise that may very well be wrong. I see nothing here, no evidence outside variation to suggest evolution can invent new organs, limbs, or body plans. The cornerstone, and backbone of this belief, is TIME. Certainly over billions of years anything can happen, right! Thanks guys for the excersize in futility. I was hoping to read something new but its the same ol thing, variation has no limits time cannot overcome. My blog on this subject is called "evolution's shell game"http://evolutionnointelligenceallowed.wordpress.com/ I believe the science of mapping ancestrial descent is in the mess it is because the theory is flawed. Paleo's homologies are not matching molecular homologies (some are some are a mess), and even within molecular homologies branching is conflicting. IE: DNA and RNA. the once simple tree is now discribed by scientists as a "mosaic", or a "thicket" because there is no clear line of descent. The seemingly all over the place similarities are better explained by common design. What may look related, is only because of the similar design features. Dawkins once said that nature only has the appearance of design. Maybe, because it was. I know I have not changed anyones minds here and that wan't my goal anyhow. Most of you if not all think I am an IDiot, conspirator who just wants to kill science and force religion on school students. That I have not one cintilla of evidence to believe what I say I believe. It's all eithre a ploy, or I am just plain stupid. I have heard is all before, many times. Let me leave on this note:I can see the logic in believing in common ancestry. There are some complelling evidences. IE: progression of fossils in strata, variation in the species, common looking features in the fossil record, and similar genome homologies. I am not saying your all nuts. Many very smart people believe common ancestry to be logical, and I can see how they get there. I however, don't get all the way there when adding in common design. Design theory is more compelling to me given the barriers mutation and change have come up against over 150 years to trying to engineer changes in labs. The fact that scientists have not been able to produce anything even close to changes beyond "speciation", tells me many could be very wrong about entire body plan changes. Not just new species, used in the context that they are actually new animals. The definition of species doesn't even require a morphological change. So arguing that macro-evolution is proven by speciation doen't do much for me or many others. Especially when the definition is inconsistant anyways. IE: interspecies breeding does occur, so how can species be defined as an isolated reproductive community. I respect everyone here, I respect the conclusions made here and the logic used in getting there. I have an opposing position which makes me your opponent, not your enemy. Thanks everyone, I enjoyed the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3498 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
No one seems interested that the best microbiology has been able to accomplish is 1+1=2. Ok, 1 +1 =2. Then we're at 2, and 2 + 1 = 3, then we're at 3, and 3 + 1 = 4. Now we're at 4, and 4 + 1 = 5. 5 + 1 = 6. 6 + 1 = 7. 7 + 1 = 8. 8 + 1 = 9. 9 + 1 = 10. Lots of little changes add up to a big change. What you need to do, to allow micro but deny macro, is come up with some mechanism that stops little changes from accumulating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You still seem to be missing an opportunity here.
The Theory of Evolution explains the model and mechanism that allows small changes over time to become big changes. Now if you actually had anything, here is your chance to propose some other model and mechanism that does as good a job explaining what is seen as the Theory of Evolution does. For example, if you propose design, then present the model and mechanism the designer uses to make the changes. Until you do that Intelligent Design will remain the fantasy that it is.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I see nothing here, no evidence outside variation to suggest evolution can invent new organs, limbs, or body plans. See my first post on this thread.
The cornerstone, and backbone of this belief, is TIME. No, it's evidence. Such as I referred you to in the first post on this thread.
I believe the science of mapping ancestrial descent is in the mess it is because the theory is flawed. Actually the reason for the things you've made up in your head is that you are a fantasist unrestrained by such considerations as facts.
I however, don't get all the way there when adding in common design. Design theory is more compelling to me given the barriers mutation and change have come up against over 150 years to trying to engineer changes in labs. Perhaps you could tell us more about these imaginary barriers, I could do with a laugh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.3 |
No one seems interested that the best microbiology has been able to accomplish is 1+1=2. Because no one with a scientific mind would think it could do anything else. Anything else would disprove the TOE. The only people that think 1+1 should equal anything but 2 would be believes in magic or some magic sky daddy. You have a lot of word salad here and nothing countering all the evidence against your religious beliefs.
My blog on this subject is called "evolution's shell game"WordPress.com — Get a Free Blog Here
I highly doubt this little advertisement here is going to get you many hits. If you arguments there are as non-existent as they here then as they say; You got nothing.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13108 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Hi IDScience,
You seem to be going off in a huff, and I hope it's nothing that I did. Thinking back, I'm wondering if maybe you tried to post while the thread was closed, and that you then concluded you'd been suspended. If that's what happened then please rest assured that you were not suspended, and none of your posting privileges were removed. All that had really happened was that I'd closed the thread for an hour to give participants a chance to read my moderator Message 114. I want a productive discussion in this thread, and that can't happen if everyone has an attitude. That means everyone, not just you. Since I posted my moderator messages I have noticed a marked reduction in snark, but you seem not to have noticed. If you still feel you're receiving unfair treatment here then you should post to Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 and describe the specific problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idscience Member (Idle past 4665 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
No sir,
No huff. This is just going round and round. My intent was to get a few of the best reasons for common descent not explain a complete alternative theory. Appartently I need to do that before I can get an answer. I wasn't asking for proof of anything just some best reasons. The reasons I did get, time, micro=macro are not new or novel explanations. I was just seeing if there was anything new. I get all the explanations presented here as to why I don't get it. The thread was to answer a simple question. for example: if the same was said in regard to ID the next 35 replies wouldn't be what do you think it is. It would have been Information theoryspecified complexity irreducibly complex systems known instances of intelligent causation apparent common design No body has to agree with it, but that would be a few of the answers off the top, not the runnaround I received, my goodness. The course of this turned into disputing ID and ridiculing its supporters rather than simply giving a few best explanations. I have been around this block a few times and recognize the pattern. I did enjoy the discourse, although I was hoping to learn something new. One new thing I learned past couple days is a paper by Matzke that was updated 2009, regarding the evolutoin of the bacterial flagellum. He makes a possibly convincing case for a step by step evolution of it. Mike Gene has writen a very detailed report on the IC of the flagellum and Matzke's paper caused him to have to rethink a couple aspects. There is controversy over it but it was a solid good effort to show how evolution can get beyond one or two steps. These are the kinds of things I was hoping to learn from your members. Instead it was the same old dismantal and destroy. Arguing back and forth doesn't interest me like others. present facts, accept them agree with the arguement or not and move onto the next one. No one is going to convince anyone to change their world views here so bickering servs no purpose. I thank you Mr. Admin for keeping a hand on the thread. If I got out of line, my appologies to anyone who may have been offended. I will data mine the site for any new perspectives and information. I'll probably pop up again for another thrashing on another subject so your boys better keep up to date on current events, so I don't catch anybody with their "genes" down, sort o speak. I enjoy a challenge. Cheers,
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024