Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
281 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (8 members, 273 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,581 Year: 20,617/19,786 Month: 1,014/2,023 Week: 522/392 Day: 66/72 Hour: 7/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith
Member
Posts: 33689
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 151 of 2887 (769641)
09-23-2015 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
09-23-2015 12:08 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
Except that we have instances, evidence, where new species have occurred that are genetically incompatible with the parent population. This is not an assumption, it is a fact.

OK, at this point the discussion should probably be aborted because this is sheer fantasy, but Percy won't let me have this opinion, I have to accept that these ARE "new species." I absolutely do not. Genetic incompatibility, inability to breed, with the parent population, happen WITHIN the species, they are NOT a new species in the sense of macroevolution. They are most often the result of overbreeding which drastically reduces genetic diversity, and that drastic a reduction reduces or prevents further evolution, so to call it a "new species" is just the usual word magic. In reality these situations are genetically the end of the line for evolutionary purposes.

Am I leaving the thread? I don't know. Seems the point to do it. But at the moment I expect to be back to try to deal with the rest of your post later unless my stubborn refusal to accept an evolutionist definition is ruled out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2015 12:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 4:39 PM Faith has responded
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2015 6:32 PM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 152 of 2887 (769644)
09-23-2015 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
09-23-2015 4:20 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
But, once again, that's just what species means. If you want to deny the evolution of new families, which apparently is what you want to do, then try doing that, don't demand that the English language should be rewritten to accommodate your feelings. There are about eight hundred million English speakers, and we're not going to change what a word means just because it makes you sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 182 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2015 1:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33689
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 153 of 2887 (769646)
09-23-2015 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2015 4:39 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
But of course the point is that it DOESN'T mean what it's supposed to mean, that's why I object to it. Those instances are not new species, they are just new varieties or breeds that are genetically depleted. It happens a lot with overbreeding, it can also happen in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 4:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 09-23-2015 5:48 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 156 by herebedragons, posted 09-23-2015 5:52 PM Faith has responded
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 8:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 154 of 2887 (769650)
09-23-2015 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
09-23-2015 4:03 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
I'm objecting to the idea that the bones could evolve in that fashion, because genetics doesn't do that sort of thing.

That's because you don't really understand how genetics works.

In the '70s they came out with the first generation computer controlled machines. These machines read information from a tape that had holes punched in it that served as the data that the computer stored and used to control the servo drives. The tape fed through the reader from beginning to end and the computer processed the data from beginning to end. Misplace a hole punch and the results could be a disaster.

It seems as if this is like your view of how genetics works. A misplaced character would cause a major problem, and indeed that did happen with the old tape readers. In order to make major changes to the program - and thus the product that it produces - whole sections of the genome would need to be cut out and and a new "program" would need to be spliced in. In fact, this is exactly how a tape would be reprogrammed - cut and spliced with new information.

But this is hardly the case. Genetics are more like networks; all parts are intimately connected and highly reliant on each other. The analogy of DNA as book or a computer program is unfortunate. It may be a semi-adequate analogy for DNA itself, but not for how an organism is built from that "program."

Regulatory networks are where it's at for developmental biology, and that is exactly what is being discussed here - developmental changes. It is these regulatory networks that play the major role in generation of new body forms. These regulatory networks don't function like the old tape readers of the '70s. Not only does a major change NOT require cutting and splicing, but even minor changes can cascade into the entire network and result in significant changes in the finished product.

In the case of "bones evolving in that fashion," what would happen if there was a shift in ossification points (the points at which the bone begins ossifying) so that they were slightly further apart, or in a different location? What if an ossification point was added or the regulation of the existing points was changed so they expanded for a greater or lesser amount of time? What if an ossification point was deleted or down regulated?

While major structural changes may be impossible for "tape-reader genetics," they are not so for the intricate, mega-networks of real genetics.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:00 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31636
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 155 of 2887 (769651)
09-23-2015 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
09-23-2015 4:46 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
Faith writes:

Those instances are not new species, they are just new varieties or breeds that are genetically depleted.

And we can assume you will present the genetic evidence showing "genetic depletion"?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 156 of 2887 (769654)
09-23-2015 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
09-23-2015 4:46 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
they are just new varieties or breeds that are genetically depleted.

How would you identify "genetic depletion" in a specimen you have been given to characterize? What does "genetic depletion" look like from a molecular point of view? What kind of test would you propose to see if an organism is "genetically depleted?"

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:10 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20254
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 157 of 2887 (769656)
09-23-2015 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
09-23-2015 4:20 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
OK, at this point the discussion should probably be aborted because this is sheer fantasy, but Percy won't let me have this opinion, I have to accept that these ARE "new species." ...

According to the biological definition of species.

... I absolutely do not. ...

Doesn't matter. The scientific definition of biological species is what matters and not whatever you think. This is your problem to resolve with yourself: reality of Faithism.

... Genetic incompatibility, inability to breed, with the parent population, ...

Is the biological definition of speciation, and also the biological definition of macroevolution = the development of new species and the formation of a new clade level.

... happen WITHIN the species, they are NOT a new species in the sense of macroevolution. They are most often the result of overbreeding which drastically reduces genetic diversity, and that drastic a reduction reduces or prevents further evolution, so to call it a "new species" is just the usual word magic. In reality these situations are genetically the end of the line for evolutionary purposes.

They are new species by definition and you can't change that. It IS macroevolution as defined and used by biological scientist, and you cannot change that, no matter what you think.

Your presumption of depleted genetics has been refuted absolutely by the demonstration of new genetic variation due to mutations. You can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist but that doesn't change reality.

Am I leaving the thread? I don't know. Seems the point to do it. But at the moment I expect to be back to try to deal with the rest of your post later unless my stubborn refusal to accept an evolutionist definition is ruled out.

Your choice is to either accept reality as it is, or to run away from it and try to continue to pretend that reality does not exist. Your choice. Whatever you choose will not change reality.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 9:54 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 158 of 2887 (769661)
09-23-2015 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
09-23-2015 4:46 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
But of course the point is that it DOESN'T mean what it's supposed to mean ...

You what?

It means exactly what it means. If you mean something else, you need to use a different word. The word "species" is taken.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(3)
Message 159 of 2887 (769662)
09-23-2015 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
09-23-2015 4:03 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Whatever the taxonomic classification, I'm objecting to the idea that the bones could evolve in that fashion, because genetics doesn't do that sort of thing.

Once again I would point out that if your private personal unique theory of genetics is in conflict with the fossil record, then that's just one more reason to reject the Faith Theory Of Genetics in favor of the theory of genetics that has been developed by geneticists on the basis of studying genetics and knowing stuff about genes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 9:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33689
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 160 of 2887 (769667)
09-23-2015 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2015 8:54 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
You say a great deal that amounts to nothing, Dr. A. Sure, fine, but genetics DOESN'T make transitionals by rearranging bones increment by increment, that's all Evo Fantasy. Genetics makes dogs that are all structurally and behaviorally dogs even if they differ enormously in size and overall appearance. None of the breeds has structural differences from the others. The bones all fit together the same way. And you've said nothing to prove that rearranging bones as required by the theory of transitional fossils being talked about here is genetically possible. Nada.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 8:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 9:52 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 9:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 183 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2015 1:44 PM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 161 of 2887 (769668)
09-23-2015 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-23-2015 9:42 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
d.p.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 9:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 162 of 2887 (769669)
09-23-2015 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-23-2015 9:42 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
You say a great deal that amounts to nothing, Dr. A. Sure, fine, but genetics DOESN'T make transitionals by rearranging bones increment by increment, that's all Evo Fantasy. Genetics makes dogs that are all structurally and behaviorally dogs even if they differ enormously in size and overall appearance. None of the breeds has structural differences from the others. The bones all fit together the same way. And you've said nothing to prove that rearranging bones as required by the fossils being talked about here is genetically possible. Nada.

For that, see any textbook on genetics written by a geneticist who knows something about genetics 'cos of having studied genetics.

Or just consider the fact that you can get from any genome to any other by a sufficient number of mutations. This is trivially obvious. To find out whether this has actually happened in any given case ... well, finding intermediate forms in the fossil record would be a big clue. Oh look, we do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 9:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33689
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 163 of 2887 (769670)
09-23-2015 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
09-23-2015 6:32 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
... Genetic incompatibility, inability to breed, with the parent population, ...

Is the biological definition of speciation, and also the biological definition of macroevolution = the development of new species and the formation of a new clade level.

But the definition is wrong, misleading, a fraud, word magic. If in fact the new breed is genetically depleted the idea is absolutely ridiculous that it's a "new species" with the implied ability to evolve further.

... happen WITHIN the species, they are NOT a new species in the sense of macroevolution. They are most often the result of overbreeding which drastically reduces genetic diversity, and that drastic a reduction reduces or prevents further evolution, so to call it a "new species" is just the usual word magic. In reality these situations are genetically the end of the line for evolutionary purposes.

They are new species by definition and you can't change that. It IS macroevolution as defined and used by biological scientist, and you cannot change that, no matter what you think.

In other words if it's really a dog but you want to say it's not a dog I can't object because biological scientists named it according to what the theory tells them and not according to whether it makes any sense to call a breed a species that hasn't the genetic wherewithal to produce further variations.

Your presumption of depleted genetics has been refuted absolutely by the demonstration of new genetic variation due to mutations. You can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist but that doesn't change reality.

It has not been refuted, I've answered every claim. Mutations couldn't make the sort of changes required even if they did produce beneficial changes to any meaningful extent. Can't happen and I've shown it can't happen. The reality is that the whole idea of speciation and increased genetic diversity due to mutation is a mental construction without real evidence, a deception based on belief in the false ToE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2015 6:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2015 8:30 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33689
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 164 of 2887 (769671)
09-23-2015 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2015 9:53 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
This is a message board and it's your job to make your case, not refer your opponent to the literature instead. I admit I lose track of former arguments, so I have to ask your indulgence in repeating arguments you think I'm supposed to know. In any case it IS your job to make the case and not mutter hints and innuendoes.

The intermediate forms are an illusion. In reality what you have is fossils of different creatures that have their own unique genetic makeup, and it's sheer imaginative cobweb-spinning to invent the paths the changes would have to take to get from one to the other, all just mental juggling, no reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 9:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 10:23 PM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 165 of 2887 (769675)
09-23-2015 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
09-23-2015 10:01 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
This is a message board and it's your job to make your case, not refer your opponent to the literature instead. I admit I lose track of former arguments, so I have to ask your indulgence in repeating arguments you think I'm supposed to know. In any case it IS your job to make the case and not mutter hints and innuendoes.

That's why I also took the time to point out the bleedin' obvious.

The intermediate forms are an illusion. In reality what you have is fossils of different creatures that have their own unique genetic makeup, and it's sheer imaginative cobweb-spinning to invent the paths the changes would have to take to get from one to the other, all just mental juggling, no reality.

"No reality"?

We have the fossils, Faith. Genetics tells us that it can happen, and the fossil record looks exactly like it has happened. Hence the gloating and the pointing and laughing at creationists. We have the fossils. We win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 10:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 10:26 PM Dr Adequate has 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