Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 8:19 PM
28 online now:
14174dm, AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, jar (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,137 Year: 15,173/19,786 Month: 1,896/3,058 Week: 270/404 Day: 84/73 Hour: 3/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Introduction to Genetics
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7011
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 79 of 236 (719460)
02-14-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
02-14-2014 6:06 AM


Re: Speciation
Faith writes:

It depends on where you start, how much genetic variability is left in the genome of the particular creature at that particular stage in its (micro) evolution along a particular line of variation, and how many individuals each new population starts with -- the fewer the faster you're going to get significant change both phenotypically and genetically.

I think speciation would be due at least in this scenario to a general increase in difference between the genomes, since I don't think mutation contributes anything whatever of benefit.

Just on a point of information, as your microevolution here leads, as you say, to speciation, you have accepted macroevolution.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 6:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 1:09 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7011
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 108 of 236 (719530)
02-14-2014 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
02-14-2014 1:09 PM


Re: Speciation
Faith writes:

No, I guess I need to say it every time it comes up, I do not regard speciation as macroevolution. it is an event that does occur though so I keep the name for it

That's convenient, so long as you can have a personal definition of a term you're safe.

It doesn't change anything about the facts though does it? If the creation of a new species is not a macroevolution event wtf is it?

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[1][4]

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 1:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 9:28 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7011
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 120 of 236 (719548)
02-15-2014 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
02-15-2014 2:41 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
So Faith, has this micro/macro evolution now stopped? Are all the critters that we call species now fixed?

And, as a corollary, when did the all the critters that we have now, become what they are? How soon after leaving the Ark?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 2:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:04 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7011
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 122 of 236 (719552)
02-15-2014 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
02-15-2014 4:04 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
Faith writes:

Of course not. Some species have a lot of genetic variability left.

So in a million years from now, will any of these genenetically varied species have evolved into completely new beasts? and are you expecting all life on earth to eventually run out of genetic variability?

I'm sure it varied a great deal depending on the species, the circumstances, the generation time, the number of daughter populations, the number of the founding individuals of the daughter populations and many other things.

Several branches of science and other 'ologies' like archaeology can show that the species we have today were around at the date of your flood. There are also written records, for example your bible, of many of today's animals being around several thousand years ago. How do you get around these difficulties in your little model?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:36 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7011
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 124 of 236 (719558)
02-15-2014 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
02-15-2014 4:36 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
So not only is the earth very young but it's also not going to get very old either. It does seem to be a bit of a waste to create an entire universe of billions of stars and planets for it to be only around for a few thousand years, but hey ho.

Well, if they say things that disagree with God's word, I can't accept them.

I can see the effort you put into trying to reconcile our increasing understanding of our world with what you imagine God's word to be. It can only get increasingly difficult for you. You're an interesting anachronism Faith.

.. but there's nothing hard and fast about it.

Yes we've all noticed that. It's generally referred to as ad hoc or simply making shit up


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:36 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:10 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7011
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 210 of 236 (720075)
02-20-2014 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
02-20-2014 4:28 AM


Re: Paradigm clash
These two statements do not carry equal weight.

The ToE says All life was descended from earlier life.

I have been presenting, albeit in bits and pieces, what should be considered to be at least a creationist model in the making.

The first has 150 years of research, testing and development and is corroborated by several scientific disciplines - including the non-biological sciences - and contradicted by none. It is accepted by all scientific establishments regardless of country or religious belief. It's also accepted by the vast majority of Christians globally.

The second is your own personal opinion based on the disparate views of a group of fundamental Christians who can't agree amongst themselves what their actual 'model' is.

Is there any point in continuing to state and restate these obvious opinions

Definitely; the claims of fanatics must always be met head on and dealt with wherever and whenever they arise.


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 208 by Faith, posted 02-20-2014 4:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019