Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,598 Year: 4,855/9,624 Month: 203/427 Week: 13/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 225 (757564)
05-10-2015 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2015 6:39 PM


Re: How evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity
I don't suppose that instead of giving disquisitions on what you imagine to be the faults of my argument you could favor us with some thoughts on the actual argument itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2015 6:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2015 9:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 225 (757565)
05-10-2015 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NoNukes
05-10-2015 10:20 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Just saw this post.
Perhaps the inherited disease angle has a work around since Faith is willing to allow diseases to come from mutations. It is only the beneficial kind changing mutations, like gills or wings, that are apparently impossible. Except for bacteria I suppose.
I hope I answered Dr. A sufficiently on this point, pointing out that genetic diseases would not have been present on the ark etc.
I think a big problem for Faith is that the sheer existence of all of those breeds is an in your face obvious demonstration that speciation does not end possibilities for diversity.
To say this shows you also don't understand my argument at all. If nothing else, it would be nice if you and Dr. A got at least that much out of this discussion. I deal with the existence of so many breeds in my argument all the time, it's basic. You are here falling into the usual problem of confusing phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity. There is enormous phenotypic diversity possible with dogs, but for EACH NEW BREED there is a necessary loss of genetic diversity. I try to be as clear as I can about this distinction but I know it is counterintuitive and easily confused in people's minds. All I can do is try to state it as clearly as possible and hope you will really read what I've written.
Of course "speciation does not end possibilities for diversity" IN THE SPECIES AS A WHOLE, only in the subspecies WHICH IS WHERE EVOLUTION IS HAPPENING. Evolution REQUIRES a reduction in genetic diversity, so that down any particular line of breeding or natural speciation or variation you are going to get new phenotypes at the cost of genetic diversity. That is how evolution comes to a dead end. WHERE it is occurring, not where it isn't occurring. There's plenty of diversity left elsewhere, but in all those dog breeds wherever they are purebred they too have reached the point where they can evolve no further, because that is the consequence of the processes of evolution.
Every single one of the dogs is of the same species by any and every reasonable definition. Many of those dogs have dominant variations that wolves have never had. Those things must be new traits.
All such traits are simply the result of new combinations of genes/alleles that come to phenotypic expression when a change of gene frequencies occurs. They are nothing but different combinations of body structural elements, fur color and length and quality, personalities and so on. An enormous number of such possibilities of variation are built into the genome of the original dog and any population of "mutts" may still contain a lot of those possibilities.
And yes, the argument applies equally well to cats and human beings for that matter.
Of course it does. People are leery of the idea of race applied to human beings, but the fact is that we come in an enormous variety of sizes and shapes and skin and hair types and colors and so on and so forth, and it should be readily appreciated that the establishment of large homogeneous populations came about by the initial migration and geographic isolation of some limited number of individuals. It was the mixing together by inbreeding over many generations of the new gene frequencies they shared as a group, in comparison to the population at large, that eventually resulted in their characteristic appearance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2015 10:20 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2015 8:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2015 9:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2015 9:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2015 9:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 12:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 146 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 2:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 123 of 225 (757566)
05-10-2015 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-10-2015 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Faith, we understand the argument you are making.
The problem (for you) is that we find it to be contrary to the real world evidence.
You can explain the fine details of your conjecture all you want, but it is still contrary to the real world evidence. Really, its total nonsense.
The posters here have been entirely too kind in trying to persuade you with real world evidence, which you totally ignore because it goes against your ancient tribal beliefs.
My question: why should we pay any attention to your arguments when they are totally contradicted by the evidence? What is the use in trying to convince someone, using real world evidence, who rejects totally that real world evidence?
I've been wondering, what you are really doing here? Are you witnessing? Preaching? Trying to convince us of the accuracy of your arguments? Trying to convince yourself of the accuracy of your arguments? Trying to influence any lurkers who don't know any better?
I do appreciate your being here for a several reasons. First, it gives us an opportunity to sharpen our arguments and evidence, and that's always good. Secondly, it gives us an opportunity to see first-hand how unyielding belief can kill any ability to learn from, or accept, real world evidence. That is a useful study in abnormal psychology. And third, for some reason I actually like you! I'd be willing to bet you'd be a lot more fun in a different setting with a skinful of your preferred adult beverage.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 9:04 PM Coyote has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 225 (757567)
05-10-2015 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Coyote
05-10-2015 8:56 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
In my opinion your entire post should be cause for moderator action.
As for its content, you are absolutely wrong. Both Dr. A and NoNukes have demonstrated that they do not understand my argument, and I would guess the same is true of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2015 8:56 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2015 10:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 125 of 225 (757568)
05-10-2015 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-10-2015 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I hope I answered Dr. A sufficiently on this point, pointing out that genetic diseases would not have been present on the ark etc.
So, mutations since the Flood have produced an increase in genetic diversity, yes? Then we're in agreement except for the part about the Flood.
To say this shows you also don't understand my argument at all. If nothing else, it would be nice if you and Dr. A got at least that much out of this discussion. I deal with the existence of so many breeds in my argument all the time, it's basic. You are here falling into the usual problem of confusing phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity. There is enormous phenotypic diversity possible with dogs, but for EACH NEW BREED there is a necessary loss of genetic diversity.
Unless mutations increase genetic diversity, which you have apparently just admitted is the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 126 of 225 (757569)
05-10-2015 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
05-10-2015 7:02 PM


Re: How evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity
Additive processes work against the development of a new subspecies.
Hey. You remember how when we look at breeds of domesticated animals, this turns out to be the exact opposite of the truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 7:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 225 (757570)
05-10-2015 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
05-10-2015 7:34 PM


Re: How evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity
I don't suppose that instead of giving disquisitions on what you imagine to be the faults of my argument you could favor us with some thoughts on the actual argument itself?
My thoughts on your argument are that it possesses the faults which it self-evidently possesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 7:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 128 of 225 (757571)
05-10-2015 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
05-10-2015 4:20 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
If these are normal traits, and not mutation-generated disease--producing alleles, they were most likely governed by quite a few different gene loci, that no longer exist in the wolf or dog genome, having joined the junk DNA cemetery since the ark.
So ... the E series alleles, for example, used to be distributed on more than one locus? But then one of the loci disappeared. But before it did so, the E series alleles, like rats deserting a sinking ship, moved to another locus. But it appears that mere survival was not their only goal. They also wished to hide their history from geneticists, and look like a perfectly ordinary case of genetic polymorphism. For this reason when they fled the doomed locus they left it for another locus which had E series alleles on it, where they'd be nicely camouflaged, rather than (for example) gatecrashing a locus for blood type, where they'd stick out like a sore thumb. Why they wished to deceive geneticists is an interesting question, but one must admire their ingenuity in doing so.
And, of course, you require that to have happened again and again and again, for every locus which now has more than four alleles.
Can you point me to a case where this has been observed happening even once?
You resally do need to try to understand my argument.
So do you. You appear to contradict yourself at every turn. One minute you're telling me that two wolves "contained enough genetic diversity to produce all the dogs we have today", the next minute you're telling me that "disease-producing alleles didn't exist then". Which? Either the ur-wolves had all the genetic diversity present today, or they didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 225 (757572)
05-10-2015 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-10-2015 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
duplicate
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 8:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 130 of 225 (757573)
05-10-2015 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-10-2015 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
NoNukes writes:
Every single one of the dogs is of the same species by any and every reasonable definition. Many of those dogs have dominant variations that wolves have never had. Those things must be new traits.
Faith writes:
All such traits are simply the result of new combinations of genes/alleles that come to phenotypic expression when a change of gene frequencies occurs.
There is no point in repeating this point without providing evidence. This is a key assertion on your part for which not only is there no evidence, but for which contrary evidence has been provided. It's mere assertion that turns out to be wrong.
In short, dominant genes do not work as you suggest here. When they are present, they are expressed. Further, in the examples given here already, and I'll throw in the example of the mutation that generates dachshund legs, we sometimes know that the gene does not exist in the rest of the population. We can identify exactly the chemistry responsible for the mutation and demonstrate that it is not present in the parents.
In essence what you are arguing is that you know genetics better than biologists but in turn you provide no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe you. And it is not as though you've actually looked at any chemistry or electron microscope pictures. You have no real defense for your argument. That's why you say things like 'mutations are not needed' when discussing dob breeding. I agree that we mostly don't need them to breed dogs. But somehow there end up being breeds that depend on mutations anyway. Why is the only defense we can get from you simple repetition?
Mutations are needed in order to support the theory of evolution. Even if you could prove that breeding worked without them, you really haven't established anything with regard to evolution. You admit that beneficial mutations show up only rarely. But you cannot show that rarely is insufficient for a process that takes thousands to millions of years. You never bother to quantify your argument.
Isn't a decade of pretending that such an argument with a Saint Bernard sized hole in constitutes proof ridiculously long? Your argument cannot work until you address those holes which are pointed out every time we have this discussion.
You are here falling into the usual problem of confusing phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity.
No I'm not. Dogs on the whole are more diverse sub species than wolves both genetically and phenotypically. That could not happen without some mechanism to add genetic diversity. What you are trying to do is invent some mechanism for encoding dominant gene diversity into a single animal. Well what mechanism is that?

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:20 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 131 of 225 (757574)
05-10-2015 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
05-10-2015 9:04 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
In my opinion your entire post should be cause for moderator action.
As for its content, you are absolutely wrong. Both Dr. A and NoNukes have demonstrated that they do not understand my argument, and I would guess the same is true of you.
If you have a problem, post on the proper thread and the moderators will deal with it.
For the rest of your post, nice try, but no cigar. Your arguments are total nonsense, as has been pointed out to you for literally years. But you can't accept that so you keep on spouting the same nonsense, year after year, in spite of all the evidence that has been presented.
You ignore the evidence we post because it shows you are absolutely wrong.
In doing so, you have become the poster-child for creationism on this website. And the quality of your arguments tells us all we need to know about creationists and faith-based science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 9:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:26 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 132 of 225 (757593)
05-11-2015 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by NoNukes
05-10-2015 9:39 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
...dominant genes do not work as you suggest here. When they are present, they are expressed.
From Exceptions to Simple Inheritance:
... Likewise, there are degrees of dominance and recessiveness with some traits.
It's really rather strange to claim there is no evidence for such obvious facts as that you can get all the enormous variety of traits from simple sexual recombination. Even if mutation provided the genetic stuff it would still be a fact that all the enormous variety of traits come from simple sexual recombination of the genetic stuff.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2015 9:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 8:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 225 (757594)
05-11-2015 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Coyote
05-10-2015 10:09 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
For the rest of your post, nice try, but no cigar. Your arguments are total nonsense, as has been pointed out to you for literally years. But you can't accept that so you keep on spouting the same nonsense, year after year, in spite of all the evidence that has been presented.
A lot of namecalling but you haven't produced a shred of evidence of what you are saying. You don't discuss the argument at all, just toss assertions.
I keep pursuing this argument because it is a very good argument, and nobody has shown it to be nonsense at all. They shoot down straw man versions of it all the time but that's it. Nobody yet really grasps it, and of course you don't either.
ABE: Just for the record I got into this argument this time because a new poster was saying things I wanted to answer. That's often how such topics get started, and then others come in to answer me and so on. In this case I didn't decide to resurrect this particular argument, it just happened. But it's a beautiful argument and it's good for me to have opportunities to keep it fresh in my mind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2015 10:09 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 225 (757595)
05-11-2015 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2015 9:05 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
So, mutations since the Flood have produced an increase in genetic diversity, yes? Then we're in agreement except for the part about the Flood.
The usual error, Dr. A. I haven't denied that there are ways genetic diversity increases. I'm talking about what happens when SELECTION from among the diverse options occurs in the formation of new subspecies, breeds etc. I don't think mutation contributes anything of value to the pool of diversity, but even if it did, all that diversity still can't develop a new subspecies or breed without eliminating all the genetic stuff that doesn't contribute to the new subspecies or breed, and that's the reduction of genetic diversity I'm talking about.
To say this shows you also don't understand my argument at all. If nothing else, it would be nice if you and Dr. A got at least that much out of this discussion. I deal with the existence of so many breeds in my argument all the time, it's basic. You are here falling into the usual problem of confusing phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity. There is enormous phenotypic diversity possible with dogs, but for EACH NEW BREED there is a necessary loss of genetic diversity.
Unless mutations increase genetic diversity, which you have apparently just admitted is the case.
See above. To get new breeds you have to cull the diversity. It doesn't matter for this process whether the source of the genetic stuff was built in or mutations it still has to be culled to get new phenotypes, and that's when you have evolution and that's when evolution can be seen to eliminate the very grounds for evolution over enough time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2015 9:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 10:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 225 (757596)
05-11-2015 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2015 9:21 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
I don't know how a gene gets many alleles, it's something I think about.
You appear to contradict yourself at every turn. One minute you're telling me that two wolves "contained enough genetic diversity to produce all the dogs we have today", the next minute you're telling me that "disease-producing alleles didn't exist then". Which? Either the ur-wolves had all the genetic diversity present today, or they didn't.
You assume mutations are the source of diversity, I believe they are instead a destructive process that destroys functioning genes and produces disease. This makes them a product of the Fall, which accumulates over time, which is why there's much more disease now than there could have been on the ark.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2015 9:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 8:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 10:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024